Since 1892 the Illinois Supreme Court has held void state acts regulating the keeping of truck stores by owners of coal mines and factories, because they deprived such owners of liberty and property without due process of law, contrary to the state constitution: _Frorer_ v. _The People_, 141 Ill. 171 (1892); _Kellyville Coal Co._ v. _Harrier_, 207 Ill. 624 (1904). In 1886 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held void an act which prohibited the payment of wages to miners in anything but money: _Godcharles_ v. _Wigeman_, 113 Pa. 431 (1886). Yet the United States Supreme Court holds that such acts are not in violation of the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the fourteenth amendment: _Knoxville Coal Co._ v. _Harrison_, 183 U.S. 13 (1901). In 1896 the Illinois Supreme Court held void the barbers’ Sunday law, which forbade the employment of barbers on Sunday, because the act violated the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the state constitution: _Eden_ v. _The People_, 161 Ill. 296 (1896). But the United States Supreme Court sustained a like act from Minnesota, declaring that it did not violate the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the federal constitution: _Petit_ v. _Minnesota_, 177 U.S. 164 (1898). In 1900 the Illinois Supreme Court held void the state flag law which prohibited the use of the American flag for advertising purposes, because it deprived advertisers of liberty and property without due process of law, contrary to the provision of the state constitution: _Ruhstrat_ v. _The People_, 185 Ill. 133 (1900). The United States Supreme Court, however, sustained a similar act from Nebraska holding that it was not in violation of the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the fourteenth amendment: _Halter_ v. _Nebraska_, 205 U.S. 34 (1907). In 1908 the Illinois Supreme Court held void the bulk sales acts regulating sales of stocks of goods in bulk otherwise than in the usual course of trade, because it violated the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the state constitution: _Off &. Co._ v. _Morehead_, 235 Ill. 40 (1908). But the United States Supreme Court has held similar statutes from Connecticut and Michigan valid and not in violation of the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the fourteenth amendment: _Lemieux_ v. _Young_, 211 U.S. 489 (1908); _Kidd, Dater & Price Co_. v. _Musselman Grocer Co._, 217 U.S. 461 (1910). In 1909 the Illinois Supreme Court held void the loan-shark act regulating the assignment of future wages as security for money borrowed and requiring the assignment to be recorded and signed by the wife. Again the reason was that the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the state constitution was violated: _Massie_ v. _Cessna_, 239 Ill. 352 (1909). But the United States Supreme Court has sustained a similar act passed in Massachusetts on the ground that it did not infringe the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the fourteenth amendment: _Mutual Loan Company_ v. _Martell_, 222 U.S. 225 (1911).