The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-03

xnnced for the stand Taken by the
Several Members of the Board.
The question of resembling the dog muz-
zling order promulgated by the Board OF
Commissioners of the District on Decem-
Der 49, 1899, was brought TO an issue in
the meeting of the board yesterday after
noon. motion to suspend the operation
of the order was offered by Commissioner
Macfarland and after some discussion was
voted down. Messrs. Ross and Beach hold
ing views on the subject contrary to those
of Mr. Macfarland. The result of this vote
is that the order will remain in force I'M
til June 10, 1900 six months from the
date of its PRONUNCIATION.
Commissioner Macfarland introduced the
subject to the board by motion as follows:
Il move that the proclamation issued by
the Commissioners December IL, 1899, re-
specting the muzzling of dogs be rescind-
ed.
In stating his reasons for offering the
motion Commissioner Mcfarland said:
From the. day ] took Office l have been
urged daily by representative citizens to
make this recommendation. / have taken
time to consider the matter carefully.
have procured all the information OBJ
tainable in addition TO that voluntarily
furnished me by the advocates and the
opponents of the muzzling of dogs. l
have consulted official reports published
In Great Britain and other foreign coun-
tries, as well as those published in the
United States. | have correspondent with
IN, Inv nd in of cities
and nave talked with number of them.
The mass of data thus acquired is so great
that it is impracticable to give even an
abstract of it. / therefore present my
conclusions in summary fashion as fol-
lows: fiAx
ExagEerations of Specialists.
although the experts, including both
physicians, especially neurologists. and
veterinarians, differ. 1t seems to me to be
clear that there is such a disease as n.y.
drophobia in man. although it very rare,
and that there is such disease as rabies
in animals, especially in dogs, although it
is only less rare at least in the form
which makes the animal affected bite 9TH
er animals or human beings. 1t is evil
dent that. in their zeal to maintain
theory those who want the dogs nluzzled
have grossly exaggerated the danger from
hydrophobia and rabies. and that they are
responsible for much unnecessary alarm
and apprehension in the community, which
has been more detrimental than the eff
fects of the rare diseases whose terrors
have been used to disturb the people. All
attempts to excite the city in this way
should be frowned upon. They are to be
especially condemned when, as in the
present instance they are caused in part
by pride in theory and by supporters of
institutions established ostensibly for the
cure of hydrophobia in the name of hu
mainly, but which will not treat case
unless a payment of from 500 to S150 is
Forthcoming.
Even If hydrophoba and rabies were
as common as they are rare. the require
ment of muzzles for dogs would not pre-
vent the spread of those diseases. FIX
perleace has shown that the dangerous
dogs arc those which have no owner, So
called tramp dogs, which come into the
District from Maryland and Virginia, or
dogs belonging to persons who are unable
or unwilling to care for them when they
are sick and to provide them with license
tags. The licensed dogs are. as a rule.
cared for by their owners. and upon the
appearance of the first symptoms of sick
ness are turned over TO the veterinarians
They are also the dogs which are pro-
vided with muzzles, when muzzles are re-
CURED, to their annoyance and occasional
Injury, although. as a rule, they do not
need them. while the really dangerous
dogs are almost never muzzled Over and
over again the unmuzzled tramp dog has
bitten the muzzled house pet. The cheaper
muzzles excite the dog, and may make 1t
dangerous. 1t is practically impossible to
muZzle all the dogs. 1t Is equally impos-
sble. apparently, to impound and destroy
all the unmuzzled dogs. AS a matter OF
o. NJ .1,1 l.,,o esa lae n~l,.
wagons and seven or eight men, can cover
comparatively little of the seventy-two
square miles of the District of Columbia
in day, and it is notorious that in the
late afternoon, after these men have done
ell that is practicable as days work, in
many instances, the muZzles are taken off
the dogs that wear them.
The Practice in London.
The proper method Of dealing with
this matter seems TO me to be that now
employed by the city of London, England.
which requires all dogs to be registered,
and furnished with collars bearing the
names Of owners, and also to be under
control and imposes fine of $50 tsl0O)
upon any person keeping dog without
complying with this regulation. Our exist
ing law, the act of June 10, 1878, provides
for substantially the same thing by requir
ing that dogs shall be licensed, shall wear
collars and license tags, and that owners
shall be fined for not complying with the
law although the fine is only from s. to
$40. This act also contains the authority
for the Commissioners to issue a muzziins
order in their discretion. which never has
been exercised in the twelve years since
the act was passed, except in last Decem-
Der. The law providing for filming the
owner and impounding and destroying the
dog when license and tag and collar have
not been provided. if thoroughly enforced,
would result in the dimlnution, il not the
disappearance of the class of the uncarei
for. and, therefore, dangerous dogs with
out interfering with the dogs that are
cared for, and. therefore, not dangerous.
THE technical ground for the issuance
of the muzzling proclamation of December
last under the language of the act of 1878.
was that the Commissioners had good rea-
sons for believing that there was a mad
dog or dogs in the District OF Columbia.
lnasmuch as there is no more reason for
believing that there is "a mad dog or dogs
in the District of Columbia now than at
any time between June 10. 1873. the date
Of the approval of the act, and December
~, 1899 the date of the proclamation.
there is ample justification for resembling
that proclamation. II a new proclamation
OF similar tenor ought not to be issued
now. and of this / am confident, the old
proclamation ought not to be continued In
force even to June 10, 1900, the end OF the
period of six months for which ii was IS
sued
Commissioner Ross Views.
Commissioner Ross stated TO the board
that he was opposed to the motion and
asked IN have entered on the minutes as