The times., 1899-05-13
SUNDAY LIQUOR IN
TEE hotels AGAIN
The Case Against Fritz Reuter-
Ordered Dismissed.
A Liberal Interpretation of the New
Law by Judge Kimball.
The Jury Instructed to Return n
Verdict of Not GuiIty-No
Appeal Is Expected.

The case of Fritz Reuter-, the restaurant
keeper at Four r-and-a-half Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue northwest, who was
charged with violating the new Sunday
liquor law, enacted by Congress March 8
last, was concluded in the Police Court be-
fore Judge Kimball yesterday. The ver-
dict rendered by the jury, in accordance
with instructions from Judge Kimball, was
that the accused had not been guilty of any
violation of law. The case was opened
Thursday, when the testimony of the po-
licemen who caused the arrest of Mr..
Reuter-. and two witnesses who had been
accommodated at his place of business.
were examined. A conclusion could not be
reached Thursday. and the case was con-
tinued until yesterday for argument.
The arrest and trial OF Mr.. Reuter- was
understood to be for the purpose of test
ing the law, which, when literally inter-
preted. made it an offence for hotel keep
ers TO dispense liquors to their guests on
Sunday. The case has excited unusual in
terest generally, and the result of the pro-
ceedings against Mr.. Reuter- have been
anxiously awaited. The verdict meant
either the absolute prohibition of the sale
of liquor in the District on Sunday or a
resumption of the practice SO long in
vogue. Those most interested in the mat
ter have contended all along that there was
no intention on the part of Congress to
restrict the sale of liquor in hotels and
they have confidently expected that the
law would be SO construed.
Judge Kimball, in his instructions TO the
jury, stated that his personal sympathies in
the matter were well known, but that he
could not lose sight of the fact that the
law it was proposed TO enforce would be
repugnant He held that the act of Con-
gress was for the purpose of prohibiting
the promiscuous sale of beer in kegs. That
parctice, he said, had long been a nuisance
in the District 1t was an evil at which the
act of Congress was aimed. When the bill
in its original shape was brought to the at
tention OF Congress. there was no intention
that 1t should affect hotels. subsequent
amendment was interpreted as class legis-
lation, and an effort was then made to do
away with such condition of affairs. In
advertently the law was made to read SO
that IL could be construed into an absolute
prohibition OF any sale Of intoxicants by
any dealer or agent thereof. Judge Kim
ball further stated that in his opinion there
was no intent on the part of the legis-
lators to make hotel keepers amenable to
the law as enacted. The jury returned a
verdict of not guilty without retiring from
the court room.
TiltL ntultr NES arrested Dy fOilceknen
Curry and Owens, of the Sixth precinct.
Attorney A. A. Birney. who appeared for
the defendant. admitted that the charge
as far as the sale of liquor was concerned.
was correct. He contended. however. that
the liquor was sold with a meal and that
this was in conformity with the privileges
allowed by all previous laws The witnesses
admitted that they had ordered something
10 eat and had partaken of it. Mr.. Birney
made the opening argument in the case
and asked that his client be acquitted.
holding that the law was not meant to ap-
ply 10 hotel keepers. He cited numerous
instances of similar laws where prohibi-
tory provisions equally as stringent had
been passed on by the United States Su-
preme Court, which body had held that
measures intended to prevent certain evils
should not be enforced in cases that came
only technically within its provision.
District Attorney Pugh, arguing for the
Government, stated that he could see no
question regarding the application of the
law. He claimed that the law was not an
affirmative but negative measure. A
negative law, he stated, was direct pio-
hibition reading there shall be no such
thing; you cannot do such thing.' Mr..
Pugh claimed that the act of 1899 was an
affirmative law. which allowed certain
things under restrictions According to
his opinion that law could not exist with
the law enacted March 3, 1899. Congress.
he claimed. understood fully the conditions
existing when the law was enacted. Mr..
Pugh admitted that he agreed with Mr..
Birney in all the decisions quoted by the
defendant counsel. but said that not a
single decision could be made to apply to
the law under argument. and that the
court must interpret the law as enactd.
Judge Kimball then made his ruling and
instructed the jury to return verdict for
the defendant. Attorney Pugh noted an
exception. Under the ruling of the court
the hotels will be permitted to sell liquor
to their guests on Sunday as heretofore.
It is not known whether Attorney Thomas
will make an effort to get the case to the
Court of Appeals. The general impression
prevails that he will not.