The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-06-19

HydrophODia and the Dog Question.
Another example is before the public of
those startling and semi-mysterious deaths
that provoke constantly recurring discussion
on hydrophobia. Mr.. Francis Butler, long
known to this community as fancier OF the
canine species, and an authority in canine
maladies, was bitten u few days since by q
dog sent to him for treatment, was taken i'll
soon after and in forty-eight hours from the
attack died of disease which is called hydro
phobia by an intelligent practitioner who was
substantially similar to the one that has been
described by this name in medical books
from time immemorial. Is this, as some the
orists, who reason cogently, would have us
believe, mere case of post hoe propter hoe.
or was there real relation physically of cause
and effect between the bite and the death?
They who disbelievs in rabies as a communi-
cable disease or .who at least, air their dia-
lectics in this particular scepticism, will argue
that though Mr.. Butler was bitten on Thurs
day and died on Tuesday, there is no other
connection in the facts than the relation of
dates or relation constructed by his imagi-
nation and q more stoid school Of think
ers, who hold by some of the ancient
notions, will argue that Butler died from the
bite of that dog in the same way that he
might have died from the bite of cobra di
capello or rattlesnake. Who is right? And
in the disagreement of the learned who shall
decide for the people? Have all our dogs in
their veins the possibility OF disease which
may any day make them more terrible in the
household than SO many Bengal tigers or is
it merely that generations of men without
number have agreed to give them bad name?
1t is fact somewhat curious in its relation
to this subject that Butler himself, though
believer in rabies as canine disease. was per-
suaded that the majority of human deaths
attributed to this cause were really caused by
fright. His letter to the editor of the HERALD,
printed by us in q former year when the SUBJ
ject was somewhat agitated. is now reprinted
in another column. Taken with the writer's
death as commentary it is very melan-
choly chapter of supposititious wisdom. But
Ter, it will be seen, treats hydrophobia very
lightly, and the readiest inference from
his letter is that he never saw gen.
uine rabies; that his so called rabies
was dstemper in an aggravated form.
Indeed, his declaration of his success
in curing the malady Is in great degree
against him. Any disease in dog that is
cured is in all probability not rabies. Butler
had seen men die of fright from the bites Of
hat In not 10
had seen those Of firmer nerve remain unaf-
fected by the virus of dogs that he supposed
were undoubtedly rabid.
All this is very instructive, and indeed most
especially so in view Of the tragic tact just ut
time when the public are urged to take up
the tancies of those who believe there is
poison in the bite of dog. But practically
one might say, What does it matter whether
there is poison or not? If the public mind and
even the mind of an expert can be in such
state with regard to the dog that the bite of
dog is fatal does it mend the matter to say
that it is only fright? If fright is fatal can
virus be worse, and is it not as necessary to
protect the public from the liability to such
fright as to protect them from any confessedly
physical evil2 But we are in the number
of those who do not believe it was fright. But
Ter in his years of experience had been bitten
too often to be frightened to death by bite
in his old age. We believe that the saliva of
the diseased dog entering at the puncture made
by the tooth and absorbed into the circula-
ton was the poison that destroyed his life,
and we see no more difficulty in believing
this than in believing that any animal or
vegetable poison may thus be introduced un-
der punctured skin, and thus produce its
peculiar physiological or pathological effect
It seems to us mere moonshine for people to
argue, as people have done quite recently, that
there is no hydrophobia in dogs, and, there
fore, none in man, and that the world has de-
luded itself on the subject for thousands of
years. 1t is a fact clear by all experience that
dogs are afflicted with malady which they
sometimes communicate by their bites to hui
man creatures and which is fatal to both. It
is no answer to say that Tom, Dick or Harry
were bitten by mad dog and were none the
worse for it, for the fact that they did not die
is itself an. evidence that that particular dog
had some other disease and not the graver one
discussed.
Against this malady which dogs commune
cato to man. and which is fatal, it is neces-
sary to protect the public and all sentiment
and philanthropy that opposes this necessity
is mock sentiment and false philanthropy
mere morbid drivel It is better to kill all the
dogs in the town than to have one man die
from hydrophobia, and every philanthropst
would admit this if he were to be the man.
Dogs should be muzzled or not permitted to
go at large and as resistance has been sue
cessfully made to the mnzzle the alternative
has been adopted Of not permitting them to
go at large-that is, of making them out