St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1909-06-19
IIIE, PAY LICENSE,
or KEEP Dog IN.
\, araIssncs Adopted by the Board
!. w .'.s,mes j wednesday Evening.
ITgf is TWO DOLLARS.
... !. eeBs 10 Meeting to ReseInd
w ~, u, .l..,ure and BlefIIeH Abstaias
e v.,taq BoaFd's Action Popular.

,vd;ng 10 the ordinance passed
3 Il Poard Of Aldermen Of opelou-
], y & wednesday evening last, dog
,.,sr, \ have three alternatives 41 to
s,,tsct ss9 their dogs: muzzte them, pay
e..ss e.sses 4 So, or keep them en-
Sessd ..ala +bo br,,+al
...Is " ordnance, which compelled
sgsrg s dog to be mumled. That Is, it
sfs' w / g q the owner Of the dog,
l.s.bsr w ! Es chooses to punish his dog
W sag, w the chances Of making him
~ s,,a II muzling him, or paying
.as,daIlars for bis protection.
sos that il not worth two dol
M i Iiot worth having. A dog owner
IN IN chooses to muzzle his dog rather
iSss M pay tRo dollars is not worthy
1y avrinp I 3 dog; and it is hoped
(. ss,s tse neW ordinance will wipe away
II aractice Of muzzling poor, dumb
r,.ss particularly in the hot months,
ssns dog needs water and needs
SsBe his tongue ont, which is inn
uasibIe With the muzzle.
Tbs ordnance requiring the muz-
,i5g Il aoq has been unpopular from
issdsy Gifts adoption. It was at
se ssen to be impracticable, and
sFan dangerous, for the reason that
ss exists in all dogs, and is de-
sIOved III worry, III care, or the
from another dog affected with
es Ii was at once plain that q
nuaIed might easily worry him
Tito hydrophobia. Physicians
is told the Clarion that there was
isreer ii the muzzle, and the Clarion
hsendeavored to pursuade the council
Il Tie inpractibility and danger Of
sofdinsnce,
Die The council, wishing to protect
I'D community, for which it deserves
siss rather than censure) believed
Aat HE ordinance was effacacious,
ad desired to give It full and fair
hiaE
Bit several dogs of good blood
Fgre killed, weli-trained, valuable
gs, whose owners had purchased
hs required nuazle, but which dogs
8 paved Off and while without them
aAt their deaths. Then there was
ktgaaIion, and The great majority
y she people Of the city demanded a
nsrs humane law, and the council
Asrksaad 10 the popular oIamor.
there we're two meetings for the
purpose of acting On the dog law,
s Tuesday and the other Wednes-
Al the first meeting a COM
aila Eas provided for, to draft an
esaiHaase eliminating the muzle fes-
hfe This committee, as oppointed
the mayor, consisted of Messrs.
laRig Dahel and HeaIey, and it was
them Che difficult question was
il to solve. Mr. Ike Roos, the
hsha Of the dog muzzle ordinance,
lused sa come to either Of the
aaag ag she Wednesday meeting,
q \ vas stated Id the council room.
aaaellnan DietIien, Of the the third
E was tnea The only member who
euG foF The continuance Of the
ordinance, but he was out
Nsd " 18th The Tuesday and We'd
1ag meeting, Messrs. Healey,
apa Daniel were "set" against
auzzla business although anxious
= provide some humane method OF
Aalscting the citizens of the com.
huaitF
Y opposed 20 changing the muz.
lsE wac Nil. Dietlien that al
sisgs meeting, after the ordi.
asd been rescinded, he appeal.
lae Mayor to veto the ac.
q sae council. The Mayor in,
asa My Dietlien that he (the
s.. I believed Che majority Of the
. .aea aad ii mind the adoption Of
measure that would sufficiently
s sss eae people from the danger
And until satisfied that sucf
N the intention of the Board
n0ala not use his vetopower.
z