The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-01-23
wEDNEsDAY, JANUARY 2s, 1907
ARnUT DOGS.


 Virginia has a law recently enacted, under which dogs are held to be per- spnaI property and the owners are held responsible for any damage done by their animals. In 8 late issue of The Portsmouth Star we are informed that nine victims of a mad dog have been sent to Richmond for treatment, seven of them being children. Read ing these two statements leads us to wonder what will be the result if one or more of these victims should die of rabies and the owners of the dog or dogs are held to strict account un- der the Virginia stature. Would only money damages be assessed, or would the owner be held as an accessory to murder? If the former, how would the jury go about fixing the amount? If the latter, what would be the penalty?
 The Star holds that the dogs are not responsible and it is doubtless correct. The responsible party is the owner who allows his dog to run at large. We know there is a pretty general idea prevailing that dogs only go mad at certain seasons of the year, but that opinion is only partially correct A competent authoritYhas declared that any dog is liable to go mad at any season. It may be that there Is more danger of rabies during the hot, dry periods. but there is always d-nger.
 There is another point of interest in connection with this Virginia law. We suppose any man would feel at liberty to kill mad dog at sight, but he might Joe mistaken as to the animals condi- ton; then he would be liable to dam ages for destroying personal property. Even if 1t were proven that the animal was really mad a suit for damages might lie against the slayer, even though the owner might be held lia- b1e for. allowing the animal 70 go at large. A man can hardly have a truer friend than a faithful dog, and no good-hearted man can pc cruel to them, but there is prejudice against them in the cities because they are suffered to go about the streets without control or hindranee. This prejudice is not fair or just to the dogs, for they are not expected to know that such liberty is wrong. If one rapid canine goes loose and does harm that fact will cause suspicion and enmiry against the entire family. The public streets are not proper place for homeless or mas terless dogs. at all events. whether mad or sane The safety or the public is of more importance than a dogs liberty is. as all will agree
 But the question os human safety, important as 1t is. is not the only i'll effect caused by dogs running at large For example, a cattle inspector in a Massachusetts county says: If there wasn't dog in Berkshire county there < bn the hill farms" No doubt the speak CT largely over-rated the possibilities sof sheep raising in that one county but it is well known here in Alabama that one of the greatest obstacles in the way of successful sheep farming -a is the destruction caused b. the dogs which run loose and Kill sheep. It is no charge or indictment against the entire canine family to speak of the evil they do when there is no restraint on them. Dogs are not only friends of man but they arc highly useful in their place. but dogs rowing .indiscrih inately. either in city or country. arc both menace and nuisance. Keep ing them under control is not cruelty to them, but loose ones may be seri ous pest.
 thTlIIeaa- In, re of