MUZZLING DOGS, AND RABIES. 305 
should be allowed to go in the streets unmuzzled under the 
penalty of fine, which was, in some instances of default, actually 
inflicted. With the order and fine Mr. Litt disclaims having 
any thing to do, beyond a permission to inquire, in his profes¬ 
sional capacity, whether it be calculated to effect its object, 
which is clearly that of the prevention of the dissemination of 
canine madness. 
Professional persons are now persuaded that rabies is a rare 
disease, and that the accounts of it, as being so frequent, and in 
the “ dog days” in particular, are for the most part groundless, 
and calculated rather to frighten the ignorant and unwary than 
to be productive of any good ; if, indeed, they do not work 
positive harm, by giving rise to such injudicious proclamations 
and orders as the one issued by the Mayor of Shrewsbury. 
“ The quietest dogs may be made savage by keeping them con¬ 
tinually tied up; and the use of the muzzle alone will, in most 
cases, make them snappish and ill-tempered an excited state, 
in which the animal is not unlikely, in the dog days, to be de¬ 
nounced as “ a mad dog.” For this cogent reason Mr. Litt 
repudiates the practice of muzzling dogs; shewing that it not 
only, on occasions, absolutely does serious mischief, but also 
that with the muzzles, constructed as they commonly are, were 
dogs disposed to bite, they retained, in their muzzled condition, 
still the power of doing so. Added to which, Mr. Litt contends 
that there exists no more necessity for taking precautionary 
measures against the production or propagation of rabies in the 
“ dog days” than in other seasons of the year. 
We believe we may award to Mr. Litt the credit of being 
first in the field to point out this mis-application of the dog- 
muzzle ; and the praise due to him for it is by no means small. 
As connected with rabies, the subject is one admitting of a good 
deal of exemplification, and probably some elucidation; and we 
would gladly have made an entry ourselves into so prolific a 
field, had not, in the early part of last March, the following letter 
been addressed to us by a much-valued friend, whose thorough 
acquaintance is a voucher to us for the correctness of every 
word of its most interesting narrative. 
Nottingham Barracks, January 8th, 1852. 
My dear Percivall,— In the December Number of The Ve¬ 
terinarian, a paper appeared from Mr. Litt “on the impro¬ 
priety of muzzling dogs in summer,” as a means of preventing 
attacks of hydrophobia. This is a question deserving our serious 
consideration. Mr. Litt, in his well-written paper, adduces 
many reasons in support of his opinion ; and I am well aware 
that there are many others who think as he does. The writer 
VOL. XXV. T t 
