TAXATION AND LICENSK. 67 



required at certain seasons to muzzle his dog, and for suffer- 

 ing him to run at large without it he may be subjected to a 

 fine. This power would exist, to make some police regula- 

 tion in a proper way for the safety of a community. But here 

 was an ordinance declaring the owner a criminal and subject- 

 ing him to arrest, imprisonment and fine for keeping his prop- 

 erty at home, unless he first obtained a license." The act in 

 question was therefore held unconstitutional.^^" 



But this case was criticised adversely in a late case in the 

 Supreme Court of the United States, where it was held that 

 a State statute providing that no dogs should be entitled to 

 the protection of the law unless placed upon the assessment 

 rolls, and that no recovery for its value could be had for more 

 than the amount fixed by the owner in the last assessment, 

 was a constitutional exercise of the police power. Mr. Jus- 

 tice Brown said : "As it is practically impossible by statute 

 to distinguish between the different breeds or between the 

 valuable and the worthless, such legislation as has been en- 

 acted upon the subject, though nominally including the whole 

 canine race, is' really directed against the latter class, and is 

 based upon the theory that the owner of a really valuable dog 

 will feel sufficient interest in him to comply with any reason- 

 able regulation designed to distinguish him from the com- 

 mon herd. Acting upon the principle that there is but a qual- 

 ified property in them, and that while private interests require 

 that the valuable ones shall be protected, public interests de- 

 mand that the worthless shall be exterminated, they have, 

 from time immemorial, been considered as holding their lives 

 at the will of the legislature and properly falling within the 

 police powers of the several States." ^^* 



Although good logical and philosophical reasons might be 

 given for regarding the common law as a present, as well as a 

 past growth, and therefore holding that it recognizes a change 



"" Mayor v. Meigs, i McArth. (D. C.) 53. 



See the panegyric on the dog in this opinion. 



™ Sentell v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 166 U. S. 698. 



