It was competent for the legislature of Mississippi to recognise the difficulties besetting the administration of laws aimed at the prevention of traffic in intoxicants. It prohibited, among other things, the sale of "Malt liquors." In thus dealing with a class of beverages which in general are regarded as intoxicating, it was not bound to resort to a discrimination with respect to ingredients and processes of manufacture which, in the endeavour to eliminate innocuous beverages from the condemnation, would facilitate subterfuges and frauds and fetter the enforcement of the law. A contrary conclusion logically pressed would save the nominal power while preventing its effective exercise. The statute establishes its own category. The question in this court is whether the legislature had power to establish it. The existence of this power, as the authorities we have cited abundantly demonstrate, is not to be denied simply because some innocent articles of transactions may be found within the prescribed class. The inquiry must be whether, considering the end in view, the statute passes the bounds of reason and assumes the character of a merely arbitrary fiat. That the opinion is extensively held that a general prohibition of the sale of malt liquors, whether intoxicating or not, is a necessary means to the suppression of trade in intoxicants, sufficiently appears from the legislation of other States and the decision of the courts in its construction. . .. . . We cannot say that there is no basis for this widespread conviction. The State, within the limits we have stated, must decide upon the measures that are needful for the protection of its people, and, having regard to the artifices which are used to promote the sale of intoxicants under the guise of innocent beverages, it would constitute an unwarrantable departure from accepted principle to hold that the prohibition of the sale of all malt liquors, including the beverage in question, was beyond its reserved power. CHAPTER V THE EIGHT-HOUR WORK-DAY AND COMPENSATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL DISABILITIES THROUGH "THE length of hours of service has direct relation to the efficiency of the human agencies upon which protection to life and property necessarily depends," was an expression of the economic and legal doctrine held by Justice Hughes in Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company against the Interstate Commerce Commission.1 He added that "in imposing restrictions having reasonable relation to this end there is no interference with liberty of contract as guaranteed by the Constitution." In the so-called "Oregon hours of labour" case, decided before Justice Hughes became a member of the Supreme Court, that tribunal had upheld an Oregon statute, which reduced the maximum hours of labour for women in industrial establishments to ten hours per day. In the so-called "Ohio hours of labour" case, he joined with his colleagues in unanimously sustaining the Ohio statute which limited the hours of labour of 1221 U. S. Reports, page 612. 'Muller vs. Oregon (208 U. S. Reports, page 412). women in certain industrial establishments to fifty-four hours in any one week. In Miller against Wilson,1 Justice Hughes wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court, in which he held that while a limitation of the hours of women "might be pushed to a wholly indefensible extreme," there was no reason for the conclusion "that the limit of the reasonable exertion of protective authority has been overstepped" in a California statute which prescribed for employed women a maximum work-day of eight hours and a maximum work-week of forty-eight hours. In the Baltimore & Ohio case above referred to, where a limitation of the hours of labour of railroad employés was under attack, Justice Hughes said, for a unanimous Court: The fundamental question here is whether a restriction upon the hours of labour of employés who are connected with the movement of trains in interstate transportation is comprehended within this sphere of authorised legislation. This question admits of but one answer. The length of hours of service has direct relation to the efficiency of the human agencies upon which protection to life and property necessarily depends. This has been repeatedly emphasised in official reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and is a matter so plain as to require no elaboration. In its power suitably to provide for the safety of employés 1236 U. S. Reports, page 373. and travellers, Congress was not limited to the enactment of laws relating to mechanical appliances, but it was also competent to consider, and to endeavour to reduce, the dangers incident to the strain of excessive hours of duty on the part of engineers, conductors, train despatchers, telegraphers, and other persons embraced within the class defined by the act. And in imposing restrictions having reasonable relation to this end there is no interference with liberty of contract as guaranteed by the Constitution. If then it be assumed, as it must be, that in the furtherance of its purpose Congress can limit the hours of labour of employés engaged in interstate transportation, it follows that this power cannot be defeated either by prolonging the period of service through other requirements of the carriers or by the commingling of duties relating to interstate and intrastate operations. Finding that the objections to the validity of the statute are not well taken, we are brought to the question whether the Interstate Commerce Commission has authority to require the reports called for by its order. Section 4 of the act provides: "SEC. 4. It shall be the duty of the Interstate Commerce Commission to execute and enforce the provisions of this act, and all powers granted to the Interstate Commerce Commission are hereby extended to it in the execution of this act." The Commission then may call to its aid in the enforcement of the act "all powers granted" to it. And, although there might have been doubt as to the adequacy of the authority |