The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-03-12
= known by a proclamatlon Of DE PresI-

be known by a proclamation of the Presi-
dent
The bill does not undertake to state
that the facts which were to make IL the
duty OF the Commissioners to enforce the
law. have not been shown. but il is claim
cd that the order or proclamation is lie
gal because IL is the exercise Of legislative
power which Congress could not delegate.
"Tke only case cited against the valid
ity OF such ordinances is the case of thu
Mayor OF Washington against Meigs. bat
on examination OF that case IL will be
found that the provisions Of the statute
now under consideration would have been
upheld under the principles then decided,
for The court says, In speaking Of the pow
er 10 require the dog TO be muzzled This
power would exist to make some police
regulation in a proper way for the safety
OF the community. We may safely con-
clude that if Congress had the power to
make the regulation. the penalty provided
for its violation is reasonable and proper
ard as applied TO such property under
such circumstances in due process OF law.
other Gases cited.
In the case Of SauteH against New Or
leans and the CarrolliCn Railroad Com
pany, Justice Brown says: Even II il
were assumed that dogs are property in
the fullest sense OF the word, they
would still be subject 90 the police power
Of the State. and might be destroyed or
otherwise dealt with as in the judgment
I Of the Legislature it is necessary for the
/ protection Of its citizens. That a State.
/ in a bona fie exercise OF It's police power
may interfere with private property. ana
I even order its destruction is as well set
| tied as any legislative power can be
which has for It's objects the welfare and
comfort Of its citizens
THE learned justice cites many in
stances OF this in the destruction of de-
cayed meats fruits. and vegetables la
case Of epidemic: infected rags and cloth
ing dangerous 10 the health; dwelling
house to avert or stay general confagra-
lion. diseased cattle. obscene books or pIct-
ures; gambling instruments. and fishing
nets being used 50 as 10 threaten rNtiHc-
too of certain fisheries. He then says.
1t is true that under the Fourteenth
anoendment, no State can deprive a person
OF his lifc liberty or property without due
process Of law, but in determining what is
due process Of law We are bound 10 Cousid-
er the nature OF the property. the necessi-
~ for its sacrifice and the extent To- which
it has heretofore been regarded as within
the police power. So far as property is Of
fensive or harmless. it can only be de-
strOyed by legal proceedings with due no
( ice to the owner; but so far Us &c danger
/ Gus to safety or health Of the community.
/ due process Of law may authorize IFS sum
mary destruction. II is purely within lhy
discretion OF the Legislature 20 say how far
dogs shall be recognized as property and
/ under what restrictions they shall De per
! mitted to roam the streets"
II must hold from the authorities. end
I from the nature Of the case. that the pro-
I visions Of this act of Congress. called into
operation by the proclamation Of the Com
missioner, are valid. and clearly within
the constitutional power OF Congress. The
4 Commissioners are only authorized 20 te-
. termiue when the emergency exists. and
I while ! do not now decide whether that
determination can CT cannot be reviewed
. or revised by any other tribunal. ! do hold
that no question Is raised en- that point
by the bill. and, therefore. as to this case.
q. must be assumed to have been CORE lily
determined. The result Of this conclusion
| is that the injunction must be denied and
/ the demurrer sustained"
/ Attorney Ste"ver noted an appeal from
/ the decision of the court.