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

CAV ny INstInt Lta IiatIt 4- IAflA NAHN |Ai.
Commissioners acted within the scope Of
their authority in issuing "proeiamd-
tiun" requiring that an dogs should be
muzzled while at large in the District. The
matter was argued some time ago. Tho
question az issue being The right Of the
Commissioners to promulgate a police
regulation necessitating greater expense to
the owners OF dogs in the purchase Of G.
muzzle when The liberty of the animal had
already been guaranteed by a tax tag is
sued by the Commissioners and paid for by
he owner Of the dog.
At the hearing the complainant was rep
resented by Attorney West Steever. and
the District by Attorneys A. b. DuvaI
Clarence A. Brandenburg, and A. Leftwich
Sinclair. counsel for the Commissioners.
Justice Bernard, in passing upon The
questions involved. said:
Justice BarBard's Opinion.
The complainant seeks by his bill IN
this cause to have the defendant. who is I
the Poundmaster OF the District, restrain /
ed and enioined from taking impounding. /
killing. or selling his certain black and .
tan dog named Pet, on which be has paid
the usual license tax, but on which he has
not put muzzle as required by the order
Of the Commissioners of December -,
1899 The bill AYERS that the defendant is
about TO seize said dog, to impound him.
and to proceed 10 kill or sell him, and
that he IS about to do so under the color
Of a recent order or proclamation Of the
Commissioners. which complainant char
acterizes as an enactment OF law, aud
contends that inssmuch as Congress has,
under the Constitution the exclusive leg
islative power over this District. il cannot Z
delegate such power 10 the Commissioners.
and that, therefore. said proclamation IS
void and cannot deprive him OF his prop
erty.
on fling the bill a rule was issued re-
quiring the defendant to appear and show
cause, if any be had why an injunction
should not issue as prayed and on the re-
turn day Of this rule, the defendant ap-
peared and filed a demurrer to the bill on 4 {
the ground that 1t does not state such a . ]
case as entitled the complainant 10 any
relief.
The bill AYERS that the dog in question I
is valuable property, although the value is
not stated. II also AYERS. substantially.
that the dog Is personal property entitled
TO protection as such, the same being tax
able. and the tax in this case having been
paid.
1875. tax was levied on all dogs IN this
District ana its payment is enforced by
selling dogs found at large without wear v
ing the tax tag. By section OF this act I
il is made the duty of the Commissioners {
whenever good reasons appear for believ- +,
ing that any dog or dogs in the District i
are mad, to issue a proclamation requiring a.
that all dogs shall wear muzzles for a pc
Rod 10 be therein defined. The said sec
tion then provides that any dog going at =
large during the period defined by the
Commissioners without such muzzle shall
be taken by the Poundmaster and imp0und-
ed subject 10 the provisions Of section 3. +
which provides that if dogs impounded are :
not redeemed within forty-eight hours by =
payment Of s., they shall be sold o. de- :
stroyed."
The court then cites that copies OF the
were made part Of the bin =
and quotes the requirements made by the :,
order which in brief Is that all dogs within :
The District shall be made to wear a good .
and substa0t isl muzzle for period OF six \
months h
The Compiainant's Position. 4
The compliments counsel contends that n
L was beyond the power Of Congress 20
pass the law in question. and that IL in hal =
he power. the Commissioner could not I,
make such law imperative by proclama- 4,
ion. and certainly the attempted legisla- a
ion by proclamation Is void for want Of a M
,reat seal which is required 20 be attached
o such document He further argues J.
hat a dog is property within the meaning y
4 the Constitution and that such cannot y
,e seized and sold or destroyed as threat "
ned in shis case for the alleged benefit Of e
be public. without just compensation and ~,
Iue process Of law; and that as the de- y,
10 40 Ia INF 81 4.f I "a
" virtue Of his office. bill FOR injunction / r.
VIII lie 10 restrain such official act -
Counsel for the defendant contend that
he Law in question was formerly in force .,
s an ordinance Of the city Of Washington; "
nd was passed by Congress with some n
light change IN phraseology as a police Ia
equation; and that it was made the duty a,
Z the Commissioners to execute IL when G.,
yer tho emergency contemplated arose 81
bat the emergency has arisen and the Law eN
3 now operative not by virtue OF any or
legislative power exercised by the Commits al
toner's. but by virtue Of the act Of Con- lin
ress Itself. and the happening Of The event de
'hlch was 10 make u operative. And fur 10
hermore, dog IS not property ex- M
ept by virtue Of said act and anyone buy al
ng or owning a dog subsequent 10 the pas.
age OF the said act. must be presumed to oil
Q so with full knowledge that he could ~
My have qualified property in the same. IN
while Congress is charged with the ha
uty Of exercising exclusive legislative Ia
overs In the District. il has been held 81
9 the courts that such provision OF the ds
constitution means exclusive OF the leg n
slative power o. any State. Whatever leg
Station II any. can be intrusted by Con- j.
ress TO its subordinate officers Of agents BIZ
'ith respect to purely municipal matters, 10
in continue TO be the exercise OF exclusive 1 X
agislaiive power SO far as regards the ~
tstes and is not prohibited by the Consti- vi
ition. In other words. Congress may ere ms
te a municipal corporation such as the
district Of Columbia now IS and assign 10
Is executive officers certain of the duties
bat are imposed upon the central leglsla- A.
I've body Il can undoubtedly authorize
he Commissioners to make such orders
hat may be necessary Tor police rCeula-
Ions. Ba
The Act of Congress. COZ
The particular regulation now com Pc
lained Of and which Is attacked in the ye'
rgument OF counsel Tor complainant is the ma
ct OF Congress and not the act OF the ia
commissioners. Il is true that the Com an,
lissioners have given notice 10 the COM bv
unity that the contingency has occurred car
hich Congress deemed necessary 10 put sec
s act in force: but What was TO be- re-
lired Of the citizen in the event Of that iur
happening is definitely pro- sur
ded in she statute itself The supreme / his
curt has held that Il is competent for
ongress 10 pass a law which shall not be
lerative in the event that q future con- )
ngenCv shall occur euch contingency 10