The evening times., 1900-03-12
be known by proclamation of the Presl-

be known by a proclamation OF the Presi-
dent.
The bill does not undertake to state
that the facts which were TO make IL tne
duty of the Commissioners to enforce the
law. have not been shown, but il is claim
ed that the order or proclamation is ille-
gal because ii 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 it 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 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
and as applied TO such property under
such circumstances in due process OF law.
other Gases Cited.
In the case of Sautell against New Or
leans and the CarrolIton Railroad Com
pany. Justice Brown says: Even if il
were assumed that dogs are property in
the fullest sense Of the word, they
would still be subject 10 the police power
of the State. and might be destroyed or
otherwise dealt with as in the Judgment
Of the Legislature il is necessary for the
protection Of its citizens That state,
in a bona fde 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 III
case of epidemic; infected rags and cloth
ing. dangerous to the health; dwelling
house to avert or stay general contiagra-
ti0n; diseased cattle; obscene books or pict-
ures: gambling instruments. and fishing
nets being used so as 10 threaten eNtine-
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
il has heretofore been regarded as within
the police power. So far property Is Of
fensiye or harmless. il can only be de
stroyed by legal proceedings with due no
tice 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 10 Ge
termine when the emergency exists; aud
while l do not now decide whether that
determination cen CT cannot be reviewed
or revised by any other tribunal, | do hold
that no cues lion is raised en- that point
by the bill; and. therefore. as to this case.
il must be assumed to have been correctly
determined The result of this conclusion
is that the Injunction must be denied and
the demurrer sustained"
Attorney Steover noted an appeal from
the decision of the court.