The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-03
soc fancy Japanese silks, 3QC

Industry dated May % and May 20, re-
| spectiyely. both endorsed by the Health
Officer These reports in brief are as fol-
lows:
THE body of a black and tan dog. the
property of William Bell, 2026 Thirty
second Street, was brought to this office on
MAY 10 for investigation. The animal had
been bitten by G. w. 0ffut's dog on April
q and developed such peculiar actions that
it was sent to the pound and killed. In
oculation experiments were made upon rab-
bits, and two of the animals showed char
acteristic symptoms of paralytic rabies
The second report refers to fox terrier
owned by Mr. Ashton, 1850 Massachusetts
| Avenue northwest. brought to the labora-
tory by DR.. French on May s. The ami
NAL showed characteristic symptoms" the
report states. "of paralytic rabies, and was
held for post-mortem examination and in
| oculation experiments. 1t died May IL,
and two of the rabbits inoculated with an
oblongata emulsion died of paralytic rab-
| ies.''
The Health Officer. in his report upon
| the former letter, says the dog was not
bitten by the animal belonging to Mr.
| Ofut, but by dog which ran through
Georgetown and out the Tenleytown Road
| on April 4, biting two people before he
was killed The body of the dog. DIR.
Woodward states. was examined at the
Pasteur Institute in Baltimore and gave
the usual evidences of rabies.
| Mr. Ross added that lin view of these
| reports, 1 do not regard it safe or ex-
| pedient to annul the proclamation of De-
cember -, 1899. at this time
Commissioner Bench's Position.
Capt. Lansing H Beach, the Engineer
ucir agn fIa. viz a
not changed since the PRONUNCIATION of the
| order last December. and that he saw no
| reason for changing his vote as then re-
corded. He stated that the reports from
| the Health Office seemed to him cunvinc-
| ing that the disease had prevailed to some
! extent in the District ever since the ac-
/ ton taken by the Commissioners in De-
| cember. He cast his vote with Mr. Ross
against Mr.. Macfarlands motion.
| Before the vote was taken Mr.. Macfar-
| land said: These reports do not convince
me that there is a mad dog or dogs in
| the District of Columbia at this time"
Just after the vote was taken a letter
was received, protesting against the re-
| scinding of the proclamation. signed by
Senators Cockrell, Carter. Hale, T. c..
Plat. Rawlins, and Bacon. The letter is
as follows:
l we YOU are DelUS iii
portuned to rescind the order heretofore
made by your honorable board requiring
\ that dogs running at large in the District
shall be muzzled. Assuming that the ex-
| istence OF hydrophobia is questionable We
| still insist that the order referred to
| should not be revoked. With an army of
small children going through the streets
each day attending school it seems emf
nently proper that dogs permitted to in
| fest the streets these children are COM
/, PEELED to travel over should be so muz-
zled as to preclude the possibility of any
| child being bitten by a dog.
I'm the city of London, and in every
| well-regulated city of Europe, as far as
We know, the law requires that dogs, when
allowed to run at large be muzzled. The
capital of the United States certainly
| should not fall behind the commercial cites
| OF Europe in a matter of such reasonable
| and proper regulation
I'VE earnestly protest against the revoea-