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

gal because it 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
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 to require the dog 10 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
and as applied to such property under
such circumstances in due process of law
Other Cases Cited.
In the case Of Santell against New Or
leans and the Carrollton Railroad Com
pany, 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 State, 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 fide 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
hpr tn ~ a,aI f,er
tion; 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:
1t is true that under the Fourteenth
amendment, no State can deprive 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
it has heretofore been regarded as within
The police power. So far as property is Of
fensfve or harmless, it can only be de-
stroyed by legal proceedings with due no.
tlce TO the owner; but so far as it danger
Gus TO safety or health of the community
due process of law may authorize its sum-
mary destruction. Ii is purely within the
discretion Of the Legislature to say how far
dogs shall be recognized as property and
under what restrictions they shall be per-
mitted to roam the streets"
Il 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
missioners. are valid, and clearly within
the constitutional power of Congress The
Commissioners are only authorized TO de-
termlDe when the emergency exists; and
while ! do not now decide whether that
determination can or cannot be reviewed
1T revised by any other tribunal. do hold |
that no question is raised on that POINT |
by the bill; and, therefore. as to this case, |
t 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.