Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-03-12

shall be regarded as personal property IN
all the courts of said District.
..T'his section further provides that any
person injur.ng or destroying such dog snail
he liable to an action wherein damages
may be awarded lin sam equal to the
value usually put upon such property py
persons buying and selling the same, sup
ject to such notifications as the particular
circumstances of the case may. make
proper
ait does not appear from the bill at what
time the complainant acquired title to or
how long he has kept the dog. Pet in this
District; but it does appear that the license
tax was paid February Is, 1900, the same
day the bill was filed, the tax PAID oelns
only 81 instead of 50, and that the license
is to expire on the list day of July next
This clearly indicates that the dog In ques-
ton was either not owned by the COM
plainant until after the said proclamation
was issued on December 10. 1899. or that II
owned the tax required to make the dog
property under the terms OF the act was
not paid until after the SAID GATE Wflcn
practically amounts to the same thing;
and the dog was not then exempt from De-
ing seized impounded and disposed OF. un-
der the provisions of section ) OF the SAID
act.
Sentiment About Dogs.
Further on in his opinion the justice said:
There Is always more or less sentiment
about the subject of dogs. They as house
hold pets constitute a part of the family
ing affection Some dogs have commercial
value and are bought and sold much as
other domestic animals There are many,
however of mixed breeds. which nave no
market value, but yet have some good
qualities and are much priced as COM
1anions So long as such dogs are kept by
heir owners upon their own premises they
are freely allowed in urban as well as sub
urban residences: but when people insist IN
crowding into cities they do at the pres
ent time individual rights and freedom
must be given up for the sake OF greater
advantages to be gained in other respects,
and if the dog is brought to town 1t should
be kept at home so as not to annoy or en-
danger the public. man may acquire
property in dangerous wild animals or
venomous reptiles. but II he does SO ne
must take such care of them as to guard
the public from danger. The dog as the
subject of property is on similar footing
with other live stock, domestic and Wild
Having the ability to injure or destroy by
roaming about. 1t Is the duty of the owners
of such property to keep it within bounds;
otherwise by almost universal law, the COM
munity neighbor trespassad upon may
| take it up and impound it,
Laws Governing Dogs.
THE character of the dog however, diff
| fers so much from that of other domestic
animals that it has been found necessary to
| MAKE stringest rules for his regulation or
| des. ruction. Although most other animals
| are not allowed to run at large at all in
| cities dogs have this privilege if they wear
| tax tags and muzzles when required. This
| limited property in dogs is fully recognized
| by the Supreme Court of the United States.
| In the case of Santell versus the New Or
| leans and Carrollton Railroad Company.
| The many authorities referred to by Justice
| Brown in his interesting opinion in that
| case show that acts to regulate the keeping
( of dogs and the taxing of them as property
| and enforcing the same by impoundng or
destroying the dogs running at large with
| out compliance with the law not re-
/ pugnant to the Constitution. They are hsld
| not to be tax laws in the ordinary sense,
| but police regulations which the legislatures
| can constitutionally establish. They are
based upon the idea that such kind of prop
| erty Is liable to work mischief, and. there
I fore. need restraint which shall operate as
\ a protection to the public. In one Of these
cases the constitutional question is consid-
cred at great length, and although the law
| in question provided for the destruction of
| the dog IL found al large in violation of its
provisions the same was held not to be re-
pugnant to the fifth amendment to the Con-
stitution.'
| Proclamation Valid.
In conclusion, after citing further from
Justice Browns opinion, Justice Barnard
ruled as follows:
II 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 proclamation of the Commits
| sioners, are valid and clsarly within the
| constitutional powers of Congress- The
| Commissioners only authorized to de-
| termine when the emergency exists, and
while do not now decide VIII sther that de-
| termination can or cannot be reviewed or
revised by any other tribunal. do hold
| tnat no question Is raised on that point by
the bill; and, therefore, as to this case, 1t