Evening star., 1899-06-13
DECISION AFFIRMED
Police Courts Action in Hotel Case
Sustained
Sunday Sales Of Liquor Involved
Court of Appeals Hands Down
Opinion Today.

The Court of Appeals today handed down
an opinion affirming the decision Of the
Police Court in the case against Fritz
Reuter- for an alleged violation Of the act
Of March g. 1899, In selling intoxicating
liquors ON Sunday. In the lower court Mr.
Reuter- was acquitted on the ground that
the neweact does not apply to keepers of
regularlysi licensed hotels with bar rooms
attached
The Court OF Appeals had ordered an ad-
journment from day to day last week for
the remainder of the term but met today
that the opinion in this Important case
might bepromulgated.
The opinion was written by Mr. Justice
Morris. who Says the contention In the bill
of exceptions Is that the words "other per-
not in the original draft of the act but
were introduced by way of amendment.
while it, was pending before one of the
houses Of Congress, have the effect of max
ing the act operate as general prohibition
against the sale of Intoxicating liquors on
Sunday tp the District Of Columbia by any
person who4soeNeri and that to that ex-
tent this Later uactment operates as a re-
peal of the act of March 3, 1S93
But, continues the opinion. I'VE cannot
admit that this contention is well founded,
by authority. If 1t was the purpose of Con-
gress In the act of March 3, 1899, to pro-
h1btt the sale Of Intoxicating liquors by any
person wi whomsoexer on Sunday it would
comprehension why limited class of per
sons, such as the makers brewers and Cis-
tillers of Intoxicating liquors, should first
be enumerated as the persons upon whom
the prohibition should operate. If the tnten-
ton OF Congress was to make the prohibi-
ton universal against all persons in the
District Of Columbia
Aa a General Prohibition.
"To interpret the act as general prohi-
bition upon ali persons would be virtually
to attribute to Congress a purpose to en-
act the most vicious kind of legisiation-a
class Of legislation devoid Of honesty and
designed to entrap the unwary. We can
not think that there was any such purpose
on the part OF the legislative body; and we
do not think that any such purpose is evi-
denced by the act itself or by the circum-
stances which seem to have called 1t into
existence
Continuing, the opinion is as follows:
I'VE are entirely satisfied that, in the
act of March 8. 1899. the Congress had no
purpose to repeal in any manner any of
the provisions of the act of March 3, 1893,
except in so far as that act exempted
makers, brewers and distillers of intoxicat-
ing liquors from its own operation: and
that the sole purpose OF the act of 1899 was
to prohibit sale or delivery of Intoxicating
liquors on Sunday by makers, brewers and
distilIers. and all other persons who might
be similarly situated with them with regard
to such liquor. And We think that 1t was
not intended by the act Of 1899 In any man
ner to affect the rights or privileges en-
joyed by hotel keepers under the proyi-
sions of the act Of 1893.
1--WE are of opinion that there was no
error in the ruling of the justice holding
the Police Court in this case; and that he
was entirely right in his instruction to the
Jury, that the act OF Congress of March 8.
1899, under which the informa ton against
Reuter- was filed, does not apply to duly
licensed hotels having a bar room license
and that the act of March 3, 1880, does not
repeal the act of March 3, 1893, allowing
hotels to sell liquors to their bona fide
guests. at their meals or In their rooms"