Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-12-28
ARE DOGS A NURsANCE,



This morning, in the Circuit Court, Judge
cartier, the case of the Corporation of Wash
tDgton egt. X. j. Meigs, on the appeal illsndsr,
was taken up, and Mr.. Meigs, on his own behalf,
moved that the proceedings be CRASHED. In this
Justice Lynch, charging Mr.. Meigs with keep
ing dog for which he had obtained no license.
On this he was arrested and judgment rendered
for piasntiff-S5. Thereby he became liable 10
writ of execution, which, according to the
practice, was a caPids ad tisfacindum, whereby,
in the event Of being without money, he was
liable to be imprisoned in Jail. He appealed
from this Judgment, and also prayed . writ of
cert'orari commanding him to certify the
original papers, &C., TO the court, and
MOVED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BE cUAsHED.
lst- Because In an action of debt on penal
statute the defendant cannot be arrested, though
Ii be for q sum certain, as IL II a ma H IN that
offence till he be found guilty. I'd. Because a
dog lie property; and the mayor, &C., of this city
had no power TO enact I" that IL shall not be law
ful tor any person residing within the same to
own or keep dog without obtaining from the
register OF the city a license so TO do and to i'm
pose penalty tor railing to obtain such license"
H. they have done in the ordinance OF Jan. IA,
IS. The corporation has full power and au-
tLOrity to lay and collect taxes upon the real
and personal property within said city; and il
and this Is the extent of its authority in gard
te property and caliiEgs. 1t can no more
same to license the keeping OF a dog than il
can 10 license the keeping OF a horse. Property
in this city Is not held upon any such tenure.
THE CHARTER MAKES NO DIsTINCrIoN
between domestic animals, nor did the cOBElon
law. The same rules OF that system that regu-
lates property in the horse apply to property in
the cog. The citizen may MAINTAIN the same
action for killing, wOunding, or otherwise in
Jaring him, and for enticing or taking him
away, as he can main ain for the same wrongs to
his property in the horse. You may Justify
assault and battery, committed to protect your
property in your dog. If you die he goss TO
your executor Just as your horse. You mast
answer for injuries done by your dog just as
Tor injuries done by your other domestic ami
mails. A buttiDg ram and biting Dig stand
upon the same common law platform.
By the act of February q, 1901, = 1t
is enacted that the laws OF the state of Mary
land, as they no1 erist, shall be and continue i'm
fo-ce in that part of the district ceded by that
state and accepted by the United States.
Among those laws is
THE MAINLAND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
by which il is declared that "every person ia the
state ought to contribute his proportion Of pub
lie taxes for the support of the government. ac-
cordiDg TO his actual worth in real and persona al
property within this state" By this article the
legislature can impose no tax upon any parcicu-
Lar property which II not equally borne By every
species OF property in the state in proportion to
its value Is Gill 1901 Till this article Of the
declaration OF rights is repealed by Congress NJ
ever that body has the power to repeal it, which
deny,) a tax which is directly contrary &C. the
rule Of proportion in value must be held a null
lily. legislative body not restricted by such
fundamental law may of course require the
owners OF dogs or any other species Of animal to
take license Cor holding them and impose q
penalty for refusal, as the English Parliament
has done by an act of 1861 go Vic e. 81 imposing
a license duty on dogs instead OF assessed taxes
But think it is safe to say that neither in Eng
land nor in any state OF this Union has a NUM-
cipal body been authorized TO collect revenue
from property in any other way than by as sess-
ment. And in fact il as plain tn At such a DC yer
cannot be given by legislative body subject TO
the above mentioned restriction. Mr.. Meigs
referred to large number of authorities in sup
port OF his position.
MR.. COOK, FOR THE CORPORATION,
briSHy replied, reading the law.
JUDGE CARTIER SAID
that in this case imporiaE questions were
raised. and as he believed the case would 90 to
the court in general term, he would decide the
case by the first impressions made on mis- mind.
he thought the corporation had the power to
regulate dogs; their keeping and the RESPONSE
bility OF tse owners. The power is given TO the
corporation to regulate the public health, and
under IL to hold owners of dogs responsible for
their good conduct He did not believe in the
IDEA that dogs are to he treated as sacred
property. They are nuisances. and Occas-
ions;iy, when in a rabid spasm, bite the owners.
When we'll behaved they are doubtless a great
source of comfort, but when abroad, they are
nuissnces. In fall and winter the agricultural
community form vigilance committees to exter-
inmate them Tor killing sheep, and when ''GOg
days" come the people in the city hunt them, aud
when cooler weather comes when the danger OF
oogs going mad is over families get attached to
them. On the whole his experience il that
dogs are nuisance. He had not much respect
for the sacred rights OF ''My MARYLAND" on the
subject, and believed that the legislative power
OF Congress was superior to that law. Although
he did rot like the process nor the manner in
which II was served on Mr., Meigs he would
tain The proceedings. 1t was q weak aud
vulgar display OF the authority OF brass buttons
10 escort a gentleman Of the standing of Mr.
NJ eigs to the station house.
MI. Mtigs entered an appeal to the Court in
General Term.