Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-07-16
CANNOT KILL DOGS.
IL lis Decided Unconstitutional to
Slaughter CANNES.
ALLEGHENY'S ORDINANCE VETOED.
nave No More Right to Remove Them Than
to burn Property.
THE CITY is LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

CANNES of Allegheny City and of tn
whole State, in fact, may henceforth bay a
the moon unmolested and laugh at the do,
catcher and his net They may make might
hldeous and have nothing more to fear thai
the gentle zephyrs or the soothing whir o
the passing bootjack. Alleghenv's City So
hcitor has decided it unconstitutional t,
kill dogs
On the strength of this opinion Mayo
Kennedy, of Allegheny, yesterday vetoed
the ordinance providing for the licensing oi
dogs and the establishment of pound. Th,
ordinance was passed by both branches o
Councils some time ago, and approved by
Chief Murphy, of the Department of Pub
lie Safety. When it was given to Mayor
Kennedy for his approval, he turned the
matter over to the City Solicitor for his
opinion.
Mr.. Elphinstone completed his opinion
yesterday and on the strength of it the or.
dlnance was vetoed. Mr.. Elphinstone was
of the opinion there was no legal right to
kill unlicensed dogs. He says dogs are
property and a city has no more right to
they would have to burn down a man s
house for the same neglect
Pitt>burg People Can Get Damages
He further held that people who have had
dogs killed in Pittsburg by the city authori-
ties can bring action for damages and re-
rOveE The opinion is as follows:
Hon William NJ Kennedy. Mayor of the City of
Allegheny.
DEAR Sm-I am in receipt of your request
for an opinion as to the legality of the
recent ordinance imposing 4 license fee or
tax upon the owners of dogs. and providing
for the destruction of such unclaimed ami
mails
Ihave given the subject the serious consid-
Grafton that its Importance deserves. From
the beginning of time the dog has been 4
friend, comforter and protector of the
human race In our beautiful city there are
thousands of such animals and it is emf
nently proper, therefore, that before law
is enacted providing Tor the wholesale and
cruel destruction OF CANNES, that the
authority to enact such legislation should
be most clearly established.
The ordinance cannot he sustained upon
any delegation OF police power given to
Councils in the charter of the city or in any
other act OF Assembly. As we shall pres
entity see, such legislation, even if it did ex-
LIST. would be unconstitutional.
The ordinance fixes a license fee and pro-
videS that any dog found running at large
without the license plate (such plate being
evidence that the fee has been paid shall be
impouuded, and if its owner does not appear
within As hours and pay the fee and cost of
the impoundin" o: the animal that it shall
forthwith be destroyed.
No Power to XIII Dogs
The charter of the city of Allegheny (Act
of April l, ls70,) chapter 8, section z, pro-
vides that the Councils shall have power ito
prevent the running at large of dogs, and in
juries or annoyances therefrom, and to au-
JhoriZe the destruction of the same when at
large" 1t cannot be contended that the or
dinance in question is sought to be enacted
in pursuance of this legislation, or that in
any sense or to any extent it is warranted
thereby.
A dog is as much at large with a metal
plate attached to his collar as a dog without
such ornament. Unless indeed the
license plate should be made heavy enough
to prevent locomotion, Councils cannot in
order to prevent dog from running at
large summarily kill him. While this would
e1fectually stop the .peripatetic canine
from gamboling along the high
st %aEi the s0me time be ef most haE9snt wonpd
violation OF constitutional rights. Under
section 3, article !. of the Constitution of
1874 no man can be deprived of his life, lib
erty or independence or property unless by
the Judgment of his peers or the law Of the
land. 1t has always been held that there
WAS sufficient property in a dog, registered
or unregistered, on which to found a civil
action. 1t is true that unless registered
they could not be the subject of larceny.
Liable for Every Canine Killed.
This is the law to-day and 1 believe the
city would be liable to the owner for the
value of every dog DESTROYED under the
ordinance in question. The Constitution
provides that man cannot be deprived of
his property without due process of law. 1t
cannot be contended that the dog catcher
with his net, ambulance and drowning aD-
paratus constitutes the due process OF law
We have no more right to kill an unli-
censed dog because his permit to live, or
than we would have to destroy merchants
goods because he had not paid his business
tax
The penalty for the violation of an ordi-
nance providing for the taxing of dogs must
be sued for and collected as other like pen
ulties are recovered. The act of June 10,
ISL. contains the same provisions as our
city charter, and is open to the same OBJ
jecJions
The ordinance does not fix uniform tax;
the male dog is charged 81, the female S. and
the ordinance provides illegal destruction
and confscatiOn of property.
i advise you 10 send it back to Councils
with your veto. GEoEGE ELPHINsToNE,
City Solicitor.
Mayor Kennedy said last evening: ''My
veto will be given simply because of the
Solicitors opinion that the killing of dog
is the destruction of personal property, for
which the owner may recover. The ordi-
nance may be fixed up in some satisfactory
manner The payment of a tax is good
thing, if some constitutional penalty can
be attached for non-pavment. 1t might be
collected like any other delinquent tax"
Police Superintendent Muth is desirous
of having some regulation adopted on the