The Saint Paul globe., 1897-05-18
NO DULY AUTHENTICATED CASE
EVER KNOWN IN ST. PAUL
TILL 30.
NOR SINCE, so FAR AS KNOWN.
w. e. BRAMHALL POINTED RE
MARKS ABOUT DIR. STONE AND
DIR. PRICE,
AND THE PIONEER PRESS AS WE'LL
Friends of the Dog and Humanity
Protest Against Assemblyman
Ddx's Ordinance.

Inc dInenOeQ QOg OTQludLCe WuiCA
passed the board Of aldermen at the
last session Of that body came before
the committee on streets Of the as
sembly, yesterday afternoon. The prin-
cipal change in the ordinance from
the one in effect now Is that the muzzI-
ing period is not fixed, but Is left with
the council to order the dogs muzzled
whenever in the judgment Of that BODY
it is considered necessary. The ordi-
nance now in force. and which is the
production Of Assemblynan Dix, pro-
yides that all CANNES shall be muzzled
from May 1 to Sept 80, and the one to
be passed by the assembly Thursday
night as recommended by the commit
tee strikes out this clause.
Rev. w. R. Lord, speaking in favor
of the amended ordinance, said it was
inhuman to muzzle dogs. He made
light Of the rabies scare, which, he
stated, was worked up by g. certain
newspaper and the health department.
In his opinion the scare would subsfde
as soon as the discussion Of the ques-
ton stopped.
w. E. Bramhall said the health de-
partment had not furnished evidence
Of single case Of rabies. DR.. Price
was a veterinarian and DR.. Stone was
specialist. Neither Of the gentlemen
knew anything more about rabies than
any one else who could read books on
the subject. Mr.. Branlhall said it was
nothing less than criminal on the part
Of the health department, whether it
acted as agent for patent muzzle or
not, to keep up the constant talk about
rabies. It created a nervousness among
the people, especially the women and
children. and did more harm that all
the rabies could. It was time halt
was called, and st. Paul not advertised,
like Constantinople. as having 10000
dogs and all mad. The best writers
had stated that there was disease
produced by fear which was so near
akin to rabies that doctors were unable
to tell whether 1t was or not until
after death. The local health depart
ment authorities had acknowledged
that rabies was more likely to affect
dogs in winter than in summer, and
If this was true the animals should be
muzzled in winter rather than in sum-
1iuCI. "A 1IuZZlS OIl d oOS ulduc
savage and dangerous when it was
taken off. It created sickness among
the animals and afforded them no pro-
lection against the army Of ownerless
dogs, who roved the streets and neither
were licensed nor muzzled. Dogs and
valuable ones, he said, would be nuz-
zled and put to torture, while tramp
dogs would not be- The Pioneer Press,
he stated, had done more In the past
few months to break down the health
Of people than all the mad dogs that
ever existed. That paper had scare
headlines announcing that there was
another mad dog killed, and then down
at the end Of the article in small type,
would be line or so stating that 1t
was not known If the animal was rabid
or not. The editor Of the paper, MIR.
Bramhall said, disturbed in an after
mood nap by the barking of a dog, i'm
mediately rushed to his office and in
dited an editorial about mad dogs. This
particular part Of Mr.. Bramhalrs talk
was received with loud applause by
present at the meeting to urge the re-
peal Of the muzzling clause of the pres
ent ordinance
T. A. Abbott called attention to a
circular issued by Dr. Hewitt, secre-
tary Of the state board Of health, in
1895, in which that official stated that
there had not been an authentic case
Of rabies in st. Paul. This statement
Mr.. Abbott said, had been called forth
by the Pioneer Press's charge that two
persons employed in the Northern Pa
cific railroad offices had died from
rabies.
e. w. Peet thought it was a good
thing that the present ordinance pun
ished the owners for not providing
muZzles instead of the dogs. If there
was any one thing that tended to make
dogs mad and savage, it was, in his
opinion, to muzzle them. He hoped the
committee would recommend and the
assembly pass the amended ordinance.
which would not fix the period from
May l to Sept. 30 in which dogs should
be muzzled.
Mr.. Bramhall suggested to the COM
mfttee that the license on female dogs
should be reduced from 81 to a much
smaller amount He cited the case Of
a poor woman who was obliged yester-
day to give up valuable pet to
dog catcher because she could not afford
to pay the 81 fee. The dog catcher, he
said had no right to go to the woman's
house and demand the animal, but she
thought he had, and so the dog was
carried off, nieat
The ordinance was recommended to
pass by unanimous vote