—  Where  there  are  general  laws  of  the  State  respecting  the  sale  of
intoxicating  liquors,  a  public  corporation,  by  virtue  of  a  general
power  "to  make  all  by-laws  that  may  be  necessary  ti>  preserve  the
peace,  good  order,  ami  internal  police"  therein,  is  nol  authorized  to
pass  an  ordinance  requiring  a  corporate  license,  and  punishing  per-
who  sell  such  liquors  without  being  thus  licensed.1


than  five  gallons,  is  valid  and  may  lie  en-
i.  Where  the  power  is  conferred  on
tlir  municipalities  by  the  Legi  la1  are  it  is
wholly  discretionary  with  the  municipality
to  license  and  regulati ,  "!■  partially  or  en-
tirely to  prohibit  the  traffic.  Gunnarssohn
v.  Sterling,  '.'2  111.  569  :  Goddard  v.  Jack-
sonville, 1.")  111.  588;  Kettering  V.Jack-
sonville, 50  111.  3!)  ;  Tekin  c.  Smelzel,  21
111.  464  ;  Barbaugh  r.  Monmouth,  74  111.
371  ;  Schwnchow  W.Chicago,  68  111.  444;
Baldwin  v.  Murphy,  82  111.  485  ;  Byers  v.
I  I  y,  16  111.  :;;,  ;  Martin  v.  People,  88
190.  Where  the  power  is  to  "  license,
regilate  ami  prohibit,"  the  prohibition
need  mil  hi  total,  hut  applies  to  any  sales
nol  Licensed  bylaw.  Dennehy ».  Chicago,
120  111.  627.  A  power  to  regulate  places
where  liquors  an-  sold  held  sufficient  to  val-
idate an  ordinance  preventing  the  employ-
nu  nt  ../'  women  en  Hi-  m.  Bergman  v.  <  Ileve-
land,  40  Ohio  St.  651.  A  power  "  to  license
saloons,  taverns,  and  eating  houses"  held,
under  the  legislal  ion  applicable  to  the  ques-
tion, nol  to  authorize  licensing  the  sale  of
liquors.  Mount  Pleasant  v.  Vansice,  43
Mich.  361.  Prohibiting  by  ordinance  the
uor  on  Sunday  is  not  a  violation
of  the  constitutional  provision  forbidding
the  establishment  of  any  religion  by  Law.
Minden  r.  Silverstein,  36  La,  An.  912.
