nv me noovan. 51
In re Hoovsn. A
(District Court, S. D. Georgia, E. D March 1, 1887.)
1. Hlmsas Conroe-Cmcmr COUR'I‘—SHERlFF. ‘ .
Where the writ of habeas corpus from the United States court is sought
against the sheriff of a state court by one imprisoned for the violation of a
state law, the petitioner must clearly show an irreconcilable antagonism be-
tween the federal law and the state law under which he is in custody.
2. SAME—CASE Drsrmeursnnn.
The case of Hole Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 856, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064, cited,
and distinguished.
8. Consrrrurromu. Law-Pomcm Powmn—-Rnounurmo Occururrons.
’ Where the political power of a state for the safety of its people takes the
responsibility of saying that certain occupations are hurtful, an will not be
permitted in its boun aries, unless that declaration is so unreasonable as to
be outside the domain of law, the occupation so stigmatized is no longer a
right, privilege, or immunity, within the meaning of the constitution}
4. IIQTOXICATING L1q¤0ns—R1ou·r ro Sam. Nor Pmvrnnen or Crrrzan or Umrnn
warms..
The right to sell intoxicating liguors is not one of the privileges and im·
munities of citizens of the United 'tates which by the fourteenth amendment
- - the states were forbidden to abridge}
5. Sana-Bram Pnomnrmse on Rneunurme Sam.
The state may authorize, or refuse to authorize, the sale of liquor on such
terms as it thinks proper, and the courts of the United States have nothing to
do with the exercise of this police power.!
6. SAME*GEORGIA Law Vamp.
The law of the state complained of in this application is reasonable, neces-
sary. and benencial.1
(Syllabrlabytfw Ooart.)
On Application for Habeas Corpus. I
’ Charles N. West, for petitioner. A ,
Flenvirng G. Du Bigmm, for sheriff.
Soma, J. On the twelfth day of February, 1887, Lemuel L. Hoover,
pa resident of Chatham county, and a citizen of thestate of Georgia, was
before the superior court of said county, the honorable A. P. Anams, J.,
presiding, charged by indictment with retailing spirituous liquors with-
out ta license from the state. On arraignment, Hoover pleaded guilty,
and thereupon he was sentenced; and the court imposed a fine on him
of $250, and the costs, and ordered, in default of payment, the alterna—
tive penalty of six months’ imprisonment in the common jail. Hoover
refused to pay the ine and costs, and was taken into custody by John
T. Ronan, sheriil`; and that oflicial, with much kindness and liberality
of conduct, having been apprised by Hoover that he purposed to test in
this court the validity of his conviction, did not confine his prisoner,
but detained him constructively. A petition for habeas corpus was im-
fmediatély presented to me. Ordinarily, in cases of this character, to
grant the writ is a matter of course, and the legality of the detention is
determined on the return of the arresting officer. On this application,
¤See Ex   Kennedy, (Tex.) 3 S. W. Rep. 114, and note. . i ,