No. 4.] REPORT OF CATTLE BUREAU. 207 



sioners, except in the county of Suffolk, shall appoint a suitable person 

 residing in the county who shall, at the request of said commissioners, 

 or of the chairman of the selectmen of a town or officer of the police 

 designated as provided in section one hundred and fifty-one, investi- 

 gate any case of damages done by a dog of which such commissioners, 

 chairman or officer shall have been informed as provided in said sec- 

 tion, and if he believes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain an 

 action against the owner or keeper of a dog as provided in section one 

 hundred and sixty-two and believes that such owner or keeper is able 

 to satisfy any judgment which may be recovered in such action, he 

 shall, unless such owner or keeper before action brought pays him such 

 amount in settlement of such damages as he deems reasonable, bring 

 such action. It may be brought in his own name and in the county in 

 which he resides, and he shall prosecute it. Said officer shall have con- 

 current jurisdiction with the officer or officers appointed under authority 

 of section one hundred and forty-three. All awards received or recov- 

 ered by him in such actions shall be paid over to the county treasurer 

 and placed to the credit of the dog fund. The county treasurer shall 

 pay out of the dog fund such reasonable compensation as the county 

 commissioners shall allow to such person for his services and necessary 

 expenses and the reasonable expense of prosecuting such actions. The 

 person appointed may be removed at any time by the county commis- 

 sioners, and in counties in which he is appointed, the county treasurer 

 shall not be authorized to bring such actions. [Approved March 25, 

 1907. 



You see by the above act that the county commissioners, except 

 in the county of Suffolk, are to appoint a person residing in the 

 county to assist in a stricter enforcement of the dog law. 



It may seem to you that it is superfluous for me to call your at- 

 tention to this act. I should consider it so myself if it were not for 

 the prevalence of rabies in the Commonwealth during the past two 

 years. As I believe that a better and stricter enforcement of the 

 dog laws will assist materially in the eradication of this disease, it 

 appears to me that I am not exceeding my duty as Chief of the 

 Cattle Bureau in calling your attention to this act, as it seems only 

 proper for me to take all steps that can be taken towards the sup- 

 pression of such a dangerous contagious disease among dogs. 



I remain, yours respectfully, 



Austin Peters, 

 Chief of Cattle Bureau. 



