The times., 1899-06-15
POLICEMEN and THE
KILLING OF RABID DOGS
.z
An Opinion by the Attorney
for the District.
The Controversy Between Judge
kimbaIl and Major Sylvester.
The Position Taken by the Chief of
Police Sustnined-The Mode
of Destruction.

Late yesterday afternoon Andrew B.
Duvall, Attorney for the District, rendered
an opinion to the District Commissioners
regarding the rights of policemen to kill
dogs supposed to be suffering with hydro
phobia. The opinion is the outcome of
the controversy which engaged attention
several days ago between Judge Ivory G.
KimbalI, of the Police Court, and Major
Richard Sylvester. the Chief of Police in
which the former maintained that police
men had no right to kill such CANNES.
In the opinion rendered by Attorney
Duvall the ground is taken that policemen
are net only justified in shooting dogs which
display evidences of hydrophobia, but that
they may also use other methods of de-
struction. Attorney Duvall refers in his
opinion to the legislation on the subject,
which be says is to be found only in the
''dog-tax'' act of Congress, approved June
10, 1873, and section 25 OF the District
health ordinances, which were approved
and legalized by Congress April II, 1880.
The latter ordinances declare that all un
muzzled dogs, mad dogs, and dogs bitten
by hydrophobic dogs, which may go upon
any street between May 10 and October
10, in any year, are nuisances injurious to
health. and further imposes a fine Of not
ltsS lIldu Sl tudil go upon dUy
person, who owning any such dogs. per-
mits them to go on the streets, or who
refuses to kill or cause to be killed any
mad dog which he may own.
Commenting upon this section of the
ordinance, Attorney Duvall says in part,
Judging from the almost universal failure
to observe it. this important ordinance cam
not be generally known to the public"
After quoting the act of Congress and
health ordinances on the subject, Attorney
Duyall continues, in part, as follows:
AT the common law, it is said that where
a feroclous dog addicted to biting man
kind is suffered to run at large unmuzzled,
it is common nuisance, and any person
can kill it, independently Of statute and
independently of the question whether it
was doing a threatening mischief at the
time of the killing, or whether the owner
had notice of its vicious disposition"
In conclusion Attorney Duvall says:
"In the case of dog answering the de-
scription mentioned in the health ordi-
nance in my opinion, We have presented
a public nuisance, creating an imminent
danger, and the necessity for imminent
action arises. II the police were COM
PEELED to give notice TO the owner, the de-
lay would result in a public calamity. The
right of preservation is one of the first
laws of nature, and it applies to organ
lied societies as well as to individuals.
In my opinion, policeman would not
only be justified, but it would be his duty,
TO use his revolver TO kill a dog displaying
evidences of hydrophobia, where the Off
Ger was reasonably satisfied that the dog
was mad or had been bitten by mad dog.
1t will also be observed that the health
ordinance above referred TO contemplates
that the poundmaster shall dispose of the
animal, when in his possession, by shoot
ing it, but l do not understand that the
policeman is confined to this one mode OF
destruction"