The Illinois Supreme Court has also held void, as infringing the “life, liberty, or property” clause of the state constitution, the following acts: (_a_) An act penalizing employers in the importation of workmen from another state by reason of deceit touching the matter of the existence of a strike or the sanitary condition of the employment: _Josma_ v. _Western Steel Car Co._, 249 Ill. 508 (1911); compare, however, _Williams_ v. _Fears_, 179 U.S. 270; (_b_) An act providing that no public contractor shall employ alien labor on any public work: _City of Chicago_ v. _Hulbert_, 205 Ill. 346 (1903). But in _Atkin_ v. _Kansas_, 191 U.S. 207 (1903), the United States Supreme Court held valid an act of Kansas making it a criminal offense for a public contractor to permit or require an employee to perform labor upon public work in excess of eight hours each day; (_c_) The miners’ washroom act, requiring owners of mines to provide a washroom at the top of the mine for the use of the miners: _Starne_ v. _The People_, 222 Ill. 189 (1906); (_d_) An act prohibiting more than six persons sleeping in one room in a lodging-house: _Bailey_ v. _The People_, 190 Ill. 28 (1901); (_e_) An act prescribing an eight-hour day for women in certain occupations: _Ritchie_ v. _The People_, 155 Ill. 98 (1895). This case was approved in _Ritchie_ v. _Wayman_, 244 Ill. 509 (1911), which, however, held a ten-hour labor law for women in certain occupations valid, following the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court sustaining a similar act passed in Oregon: _Muller_ v. _Oregon_, 208 U.S. 412 (1908). It seems entirely probable from its opinion in the last-mentioned case that the United States Supreme Court would have held valid the act condemned by the Illinois Supreme Court in _Ritchie_ v. _The People_, _supra_. [26] “The proposal for a revived Second Chamber was, on the contrary, carried with an unexpected degree of unanimity. The Protector pressed it strongly upon the officers. ‘I tell you,’ he said, ‘that unless you have some such thing as a balance we cannot be safe. Either you will encroach upon our civil liberties by excluding such as are elected to serve in Parliament--next time for aught I know you may exclude four hundred--or they will encroach upon our religious liberty. By the proceedings of this Parliament you see they stand in need of a check or balancing power, for the case of James Naylor might happen to be your case. By the same law and reason they punished Naylor they might punish an Independent or an Anabaptist. By their judicial power they fall upon life and member, and doth the Instrument enable me to control it? This Instrument of Government will not do your work.’”--J. A. R. Marriott, _Second Chambers_, p. 38.