The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-13
DOGS MUST Be MUZZLED
Justice Barnard on the Commits
siouers' Regulation.
He Holds That They Acted Within
the Scope of Their Authority in
Issuing 1.-THE Opinion the Result
of "a Suit Recently Brought Against
Poundmustcr samuel Einstcin.

day by Justice Bernard, held that the
Commissioners acted within the scope Of
their authority in issuing a 'proclama
ton requiring that all dogs should be
muzzled while at large in the District. The
matter was argued some time ago. the
question at issue being the right of the
Commissioners TO promulgate a police
regulation necessitating greater expense to
the owners of dogs in the purchase of &
mnzzle, when the liberty of the animal had
already been guaranteed by tax tag is
sued by the Commissioners and paid for by
The owner of the dog.
At the hearing the complainant was rep
resented by Attorney West Steever, and
the District by Attorneys A B. Duvall,
Clarence A. Brandenburg, and A. Leftwich
Sinclair, counsel for the Commissioners
Justice Bernard. in passing upon the
questions involved, said:
Justice Barnard's Opinion
THE complainant seeks by his bill in
this cause TO have the defendant, who is
the Poundmaster of the District, restrain
ed and enjoined from taking, impounding,
killing, or selling his certain black and
tan dog named Pet, on which he has paid
the usual license tax, but on which he has
not put muzzle as required by the order
of the Commissioners of December 10,
1899 The bill AYERS that the defendant is
about to seize said dog, to impound him,
and to proceed 10 kill or sell him, and
that he is about to do so under the color
of recent order or proclamation of the
Commissioners, which complainant char
acterizes as an enactment of Law; and
contends that inasmuch as Congress has,
under the Constitution the exclusive leg
islative power over this District, it cannot
delegate such power 10 the Commissioners,
and that, therefore, said proclamation is
void and cannot deprive him of his prop
erty.
On filing the bill a rule was issued re-
quiring the defendant TO appear and show |
cause, if any he had. why an Injunction |
should not issue as prayed, and on the re- |
turn day of this rule, the defendant ap- |
peared and filed demurrer to the bill on /
the ground that II does not state such a |
case as entitled the complainant 10 any
relief.
THE bill AYERS that the dog in question
is valuable property although the value is
not stated It also AYERS, substantially,
that the dog is personal property entitled
to protection as SUCH the same being tax
able, and the tax in this case having been
paid.
by act of Congress approved June 10,
1873, tax was levied on all dogs in this
District and its payment is enforced by
Selling dogs found at large without wear
ing the tax tag. BY section of this act,
it is made the duty of the Commissioners
whenever good reasons appear for believ-
ing that any dog or dogs in the District
are mad, to issue a proclamation requiring
that all dogs shall wear muzzles for a pc
Rod TO be therein defined. The said sec
ton then provides that any dog going at
large during the period defined by the
Commissioners without such muzzle shall
be taken by the Poundmaster and impound-
ed subject 10 the provisions of section g.
which provides that if dogs impounded are
not redeemed within forty-eight hours by
payment of 81, they shall be sold OF de-
stroyed."
The court then cites that copies OF the
proclamation were made part of the bill
and quotes the requirements made by the
order which in brief Is that all dogs within
the District shall be made to wear good
and substantial muzzle for a period of six
months.
The CompIainant's Position.
THE compliments counsel contends that
It was beyond the power of Congress TO
pass the law in question; and that If it had
the power, the Commissioners could not
ton; and certainly the attempted legisla-
ton by proclamation is void for want of a
great seal which is required to be attached
to such document. He further argues
that dog is property within the meaning
OF the Constitution and that such cannot
be seized and sold or destroyed as threat
ened in this case for the alleged benefit of
the public, without just compensation and
due process of law; and that as the de-
PENDANT threatens to do an unlawful act |
by virtue of his office, bill for injunction
Will lie TO restrain such official act.
Counsel for the defendant contend that
the law in question was formerly in force |
rs an ordinance of the city Of Washington;
and was passed by Congress with some
slight change in phraseology as a police |
regulation; and that it was made the duty ;
If the Commissioners to execute it when {
ever the emergency contemplated arose. s
hat the emergency has arisen and the Law G
IS now operative, not by virtue of any G
legislative power exercised by the Commits q
sioners, but by virtue of the act of Con- L
sTess Itself, and the happening of the event d
which was to make 1t operative. And fur ]
thermore, dog is not property ex- 1
cept by virtue OF said act, al anyone buy q
ing or owning dog subsequent to the pas
sage OF the said act. must be presumed to | c
10 SO with full knowledge that he could 4
only have QHalihed property in the same. |
while Congress Is charged with the !
duty Of exercising exclusive legislative I
powers in the District, it has been held S
by the courts that such provision of the d
means exclusive Of the leg 1
slative power OF any State. Whatever leg
slation, II any, can be intrusted by Con- ]
gress to its subordinate officers of agents /
with respect to purely municipal matters | I
will continue 10 be the exercise OF exclusive /
legislative power so far as regards the I
states and is not prohibited By the Consti- v
ution. In other words Congress may ere 4
ate a municipal corporation such the
District of Columbia now is and assign 10
is executive officers certain of the duties
ha; are imposed upon the central legisla- A
i've body. II can undoubtedly authorize
The Commissioners to make such orders
hat may be necessary for police regula-
lions. Z
The Act of Congress. G.
THE particular regulation now com F
,lained OF and which is attacked in the y
argument of counsel for complainant is the -
lct OF Congress and not the act of the :,
Commissioners. Ii is true that the Com a
Ms sioners have given notice to the COM b
nunity that the contingency has occurred c.
which Congress deemed necessary 10 put s,
Is act in force; but what was to be re-
luired of the citizen in the event of that i,
happening is definitely pro- il
'ided in the statute itself The Supreme h
'ourt has held that it is competent for
congress to pass law which shall not be
perative in the event that future con-
urgency shall occur. such contingency to
'e known by proclamation OF the Presi-
lent. Z
No. -. sato 4