The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-13

gal because il is the exercise OF legislative
! power which Congress could not delegate.
The only case cited against the valid
| ity Of such ordinances is the case Of the
| Mayor Of Washington against Meigs. but
I 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 10 be muzzled, This
power would exist TO make some police
/ regulation ia a proper way for the safety
Of the community. We mag safely con-
Clude that II Congress had The power TO
make the regulation. the penalty provided
for its violation is reasonable and proper
and as applied 20 such property under
such circumstances in due process Of law.
other Gases cited.
In the case OF SanteI against New Or
leans ard the Carrollton Railroad Com
pauy, Justice Brown says: Even if it
were assumed that dogs are property in
the fullest sense Of the word. they
would still be subject to the police power
Of The S.ate. and might be destroyed or
otherwise dealt with as in the Judgment
OF the Legislature it is necessary for the
protection Of its citizens. That a state
IN bona tde exercise Of its police power
may interfere with private property, and
even order its destruction, is as well set
tied as any Legislative power can be
which has for its 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 in
case Of epidemic; infected rags and cloth
ing dangerous to the health: dwelling
house TO avert or stay general conlagra-
ton, diseased cattle, obscene books or pict-
ures. gambling Instruments and fishing
nets being used so as to threaten extinc-
ton Of certain fisheries He then says:
It is true that under the Fourteenth
amendment, no State can deprive a person
Of his life, liberty, or property without due
process OF law. but in determining what is
due process Of law we are bound to consid-
er the nature OF the property the necessi-
ty for its sacrifice and the extent TO which
IL has heretofore been regarded as within
The police power. So far as property is Of
fensiYe or harmless. il can only be de-
stroyed by legal proceedings with due no.
uce TO the owner: but so far as it danger
Gus 70 safety or health of the community
due process Of law may authorize its sum
mary destruction. Il is purely within the |
discretion OF the Legislature to say how far I
dogs shall be recognized as property and /
under what restrictions they shall be per |
mitted 10 roam the streets"
u must hold from the authorities, and /
from the nature Of the case. that the pro- (
visions Of this act Of Congress. called into /
operation by the proclamation of the Com I
missioners. are valid and clearly within |
The constitutional power OF Congress. The (
Commissioners are only authorized to de- !
-ermine when the emergency exists; and 1
while do not now decide whether that /
determination can or cannot be reviewed =
" revised by any other tribunal. do hold
hat no question IS raised on that point
ly the bill; and. therefore. as to this case, /
{ must be assumed to have been correctly /
determined. The result of this conclusion
s that the injunction must be denied and
he demurrer sustained"
Attorney Steever noted an appeal from
he decision OF the court