Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-06-14
DUTY OF THE POLICE
Attorney AnnRs Opinion Affecting
a sdarR Occurrence.
METHOD Fl llLllNG MAD Dogs
Officers Not Confined to the Use
Of Theh RevoIvers.
MATTER OF CONTROVERSY

Mr.. A. B. Duvall, the attorney for the
District, today rendered an opinion to the
effect that policemen are not only justified
in using their reyoIyers to kill dogs dis
playing evidence of hydrophobia, but 1t is
their duty to destroy the animal when
the officers are reasonably satisfied that
the dog is mad or has been bitten by mad
animal. -
It will be recalled, as was stated in The
Star at the time, that several days ago
Judge Kimbasl In the Police Court fined a
policeman for having killed dog with his
baton. According to letter written to
the Commissioners by Major Sylvester,
chief of police, the officer, in order to avoid
the risk which might have ensued by fir
Ing ais revolver in proximity to a large
number of school children, used his club
instead. The fining of this officer, said
Major Sylvester, has tended to discourage
the members of the force at times when
they should take heroic action, and the
Chief requested that the police department
be informed, through an opinion from the
attorney for the District, when and under
what circumstances an otiicer Is Justlhed
in using his revolver to kill dogs supposed
to be affected with hydrophobia.
Attorney DuyaIPs Opinion.
The Commissioners referred the matter to
w
missioners in the matter. Referring to
section % of the health ordinances of the
District, Iegalized by Congress April a.
1880, which declares unmuzzled dogs going
upon any street, avenue or other public
place between May Is and October 10; mad
dogs, and dogs bitten by hydrophobic dogs
to be nuiSances, Attorney Duvau states
that that ordinance provides that any per-
son owning or keeping any such dog and
allowing it to go unInuZZled between the
dates mentioned, Or who refuses to Kill 1t or
cause 1t to be killed after 1t has gone mad
or given symptoms of hydrophobia, or omit
ting to confine any animal exposed to the
disease, or which has been bitten by hydro
phobic dogs or animals. shall be deemed
guilty OF keeping and maintaining nuis-
ance, and shall be subject to fine OF not
less than 81 nor more than SO.
The same act directs the poundmaster to
take up unmuzZled dogs running at large
between May Is and October Is, and to
Judging from the almost universal fall
ure to observe It'll the attorney Is of the
opinion that this important ordinance can
not be generally known to the public. The
dogs mentioned by the ordinance. he states
are nuisances, injurious to life and limb.
'The Regulations.
The attorney refers also to the police reg
ulations relative to dogs, and then goes on
to say thatat thss common law it Is said
that whereaa fefocious dog addicted to
biting mankind is suffered to run at large
unmuzzled IT Is a. common nuisance. and
any personsean ,kill It, Independently of
statute and independently OF the question
whether 1t was doing a threatening mis-
chief at theotme nf the killing or whether
the owner had notice of its vicious DISPOSE
ton. Da ngsrous, animals, says the attor-
ney MAJ &c removed and killed Ihey are
subject to the conhsoh-law right as well as
police reguIatiunszofr government for the
destruction OF, property in a case of imme-
date necessity or. of noxious public nui-
Sance.
In support 2of his position the attorney
Huotes Mr.. Justice Brown OF the United
States Supreme Court, as follows: Acting
upon the principle that there Is but
Qualified property in dogs, and that while
private interests require that the valuable
ones be protected, public interests demand
that the worthless shall be exterminated,
they have, from time immemorial. been con-
sidered as holding their lives at the will Of
the legislature. and properly falling within
the police powers Of the several states. Re
ed upon as an enemy of the human race
and as having no right to his life which
man is bound to respect"
Another Decisfon.
The attorney for the District quotes, with
approval. a decision of the New York court
of appeals, in which it was held that any
person is justified IN killing a dog that late
ly had been bitten by a mad dog. If found
running at large; that public safety so de-
mands. and that it is trifie better than
meckery to say that a person injured by
such animal might sue for damages or
for penalties. In the case of dog an
swerng the description of the local or
dinances. the Commissioners legal adviser
says, is presented a public nuisance, Great
ing an imminent danger and the necessity
for immediate action.
If the police were compelled to give notice
to the owner the delay, he thinks would
result in public calamity, and the right of
preservation being one of the first laws
of nature, it applies to organized societies
as well as to Individuals.
The rights of necessity, he continues, are
part Of the law. and in these cases the
common law adopts the principle of natural
law and finds the right and the justifica-
ton in the same imperative necessity
In my opinion" concludes the attorney,
"a policeman would not only be justified
but it would be his duty, to use his re-
volver to Kill a dog displaying evidences
of hydrophobia, where the officer was rea-
sonably satisfied that the dog was a mad
dog or had been bitten by a mad dog 1t
will also be observed that the health ordf-
nance above referred to contemplates that
the poundmaster shall dispose OF the AMI
mai when In his possession by shooting it.
but do not understand that the police
man is confined to this one mode Of de-