National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-04
THE DOGS AND THE DOCTORS

Ordinary men differ in their ideas about
dogs. The extraordinary men who COM
pose our Board of Health do the same Our
non-professional member of the board. Mr..
Marbury, is especially afraid of butchers
dogs. while Prof -Langston treats them with
the indifference of man whose exalted
legal aspirations have carried him far above
the idea that they are dangerous, but man
who has brought his intellect to bear on the
question of their going abroad or remaining
at home, of their living and dying, and of
their being muzzled and unmuzzled, and
has failed to solve it. We gather these facts
from the proceedings of late meeting of
the board, and further, that the medical
members thereof disagree on this great
question, as doctors are wont to disagree
whenever compelled TO consult with each
other. We know that their patients in the
event of these customary disagreements
generally fare well on earth instead of bid
ding farewell to it. In this instance the
dogs escape the 'demnition bow-wows" to
which they should be consigned. and keep
up demnition bowwow at the expense of
the peace and quiet of the community and
the reputation of the board.
DR.. Verdi's diagnosis of the case required
him to suggest that the dogs should be
placed under the ban Of the law, but his
brains were bothered about definition of
the phrase "running at large" Dogs, he
said. may escape from confinement at the
homes Of their masters; may run squares
ahead of their masters, and yet they might
not be considered as running at large. At
large he no doubt would be compelled to
admit them to be in his suppositious case,
and running, too, so long as they had the
use of their legs, but when thus running at
large he doubted if they could be considered
as running at large. He might have car
ried the technical distinctions of his rea-
soning to the extent of an attempt to define
how q small dog could run at large, and
how o small dog running at large could be
considered as running at large; but unfor-
tunately for the science of logic, as demon
strated by homeopathic mind, he failed
to do so. 1t is possible that his thoughts
were diverted at thisjuncture by the PROPOSE
ton submitted by the erudite Bliss, declaring
does to be domestic animals. The boldness,
to say nothing about the originality of this
isiszi, was suUugn W sIartle a de1per thinker
than Verdi, and to upset the most profound
train of thought. eff they are not domestic
animals" argued Verdi, "whst are theyH"
The report does not credit him with an out
spoken enunciation of this conundrum, but
we infer from his subsequent proposition to
muzzle them the whole year round that he
must have argued himself into the belief
that they are wild animals. Whether DR..
Cox fully conceded with the logic of the
argument or not we ore uniformed, but he
finally agreed with its conclusion, and the
dog question was remanded to the commit
tee on dogs.
1t was unkind in Mr.. Marbury to intro
duce cats, as an clement to disturb the cru
dite consultations of the doctors about dogs;
but he did it most unfeelingly, and, although
they did not fight like cats and dogs
about it, they were evidently frightened
with the belief that the question was be-
coming complicated. His further allusion
to pigs and geese was entirely out of place ;
but his description of butchers dogs
generally of the bull-terrier breed and
fierce as lions"-was decidedly cruel. He
made amends for all this, however, by stat
ing, as the result, no doubt, Of careful study,
that "cats do not bark and bite, nor pro;
duce hydrophobia 1t is true that there
may be some difference of opinion on this
point, a cats may have been known to bite
and to 70 mad, but it is consoling to know
that they do not bark. Hereafter, when
Thomas and his cohorts sound their mid
night ehoruses, let US be thankful for the
assurance that he cannot start them to bark,
ing, although we know that the first strain
of feline music is certain to waken the
echoes of the voice Of some neighboring
Towser. If Verdi had handled this branch
of the subject, his logic would have con-
vincedIhim that the cats do start the bark
ing Of the dogs therefore, the cats are re.
sponsible for the barking, and being respon
sibse, they must be held accountable for thai
witch they do not do-srgo, being held &C
countable for the barking, they necessarily
bark.
We propose to watch this discussion as il
progresses in the board carefully, because
we are proud of it as the leading body o
sanitarians in the country. In the mean
time, let us hope that no one will be bitter
by q rabid dog If such misfortune
should occur, we fear 1t would become thu
duty of the coroner to report another In
stance of death pending the consultation o
tthe doctors.
Mr.. r. ]. HINTON has sent card to the
New York Tri5sne, portion Of which IL