THE BAKER STREET "MAD-DOG" CASE.
[1.0 THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.") SIR,—Allow me to reply briefly to the two correspondents who wrote in your last issue about the Baker Street "mad-dog" case. In answer to the first letter, I should like to call the writer's attention to two facts which he appears to have over- looked. First, the spaniel was muzzled according to regulations. Secondly, the muzzle was the cause of his distress, and consequent untimely end. Therefore, your correspondent's suggestion with regard to the enforcement of the muzzle order is altogether beside the mark.
To your second correspondent I would remark, that though a revolver might have killed the dog more humanely, its use on this occasion would have been unjustifiable, because the animal was not mad, except in the policeman's fancy. And again I ask,— Are our licensed dogs to be at the mercy of ignorant policemen ? If so, let the Inland Revenue officers at least take the trouble to declare the same when they give us a receipt for our 7s. 6d.— I am, Sir, dz.,
Previous page
