52 FEDERAL REPORTER.
for reasons to me sufiicient, I have proceeded with more hesitancy. So
great is the reluctance with which the judges of the national courts in-
terfere at any time with convictions before courts of general jurisdiction
of the states, that opportunity was afforded the `sheriff to show cause why
the writ should not be issued. The sheriff appeared by counsel, and
l on this informal rule to show cause the parties were heard.
The petition alleges that Hoover is illegally restrained of ‘ his liberty
because he made application to the board of county commissioners for
license to sell liquor in quantities less than one gallon, at Montgomery,
a suburban resort of Savannah, and the license was refused. A This was
done in the exercise of the power granted to the commissioners by the
act of the general assembly of the state of Georgia approvedOctober 16,
1885, entitled " An act to change the manner of granting license for the
sale of spirituous liquors, as contained in section 1419 of the Code of
this state, as amended by the act approved `December 22, 1884, and
for other purposes;" whereby it was provided that ‘fpersons before ob-
taining license to retail spirituous liquors, or sell the same in any quan-
' tity less than one gallon,must apply to the ordinary`of_the county, or
to the county commissioners of the county, wheresuch courts exist, in
which they desire to retail or sell in any quantity less than one gallon,
who have power togrant or refuse such application.- Before any license
shall be granted, the applicant shall present to the ordinary thewritten
consent often of the nearest bona fide residents, Eve of whom shall be
freeholders, owning land, irrespective of county lines, nearest to the
place of business where such spirituous liquors are to be sold: provided,
that this act shall not apply to incorporated towns or cities." The peti-
tioner, having been refused a license, proceeded to sell without   _, ,
The petitioner insists that this statute is violative. of the fourteenth
amendment to the constitution of the United States, and is therefore
void, in that it gives an arbitrary discretion to thencounty commission-
ers to prevent him from engaging in an occupation legalized by the state,
and without any sort of regard to his personal fitness for thebusiness, or
the propriety and merit of his application; that it discriminates in favor
of persons residing in incorporated towns, as they need not to obtain
the consent of their neighbors, and the county commissioners-have no
power todeny to them the license. ° U i
p The powers accorded to the board of county commissioners, or to the
ordinary, where there are no commissioners, are certainly unlimited.
The words of the act "who have power to grant or refuse such applica-
tion,"are as broadly declaratory of absolute and final control as the anti-
bar—room tendencies of the general assembly of Georgia could devise.
The unreviewable character of this power is well settled. Under the old
law it was held that the justices of the inferior court had no discretion to
withhold the license when the terms of the law had been complied with.
State v. .htstrices, 15 Ga. 413. But in that case the very affluent command
of language for which the court at that early period was widely known
utterly failed to express its regret that the interior court did not have
power to refuse the license altogether. Since the adoption of the Code,