To the Editor of the -"Norra-Cutxa Darty News."
Six,—In view of the somewhat heated correspondence which has been published in various newspapers about the shooting of straying dogs, it would be of real public interest if the Health Office would issue some public notice with regard to the efficacy of dog inoculation against rabies.
About two years ago I received a notice from my Japanese veterinary surgeon whose previous treatment of my dogs, whenever sick, had been perfectly satisfactory. He guaranteed to inoculate the dogs, for a small fee, $2. I think, and to render them rabies-proof under all circumstances for two years.
If this serum is efficacious, then, it is to be presumed that the; Health Office could prepare ithas well as Tokio. It certainly did not do my dogs any harm. If the! Health Office could arrange that dogs could be inoculated there and issue a certificate to any owner that the "dog covered by Licence No. X& had been rendered immune from rabies for such a period," it would relieve anxiety in the case of many persons who now have to await veterinary diagnosis of each dog which has inflicted a bite, even under the most admissible conditions, such as obstructing the entrance of a stray coolie to see a friend."
I am, ete., Doo-Lover. Shanghai, Aug. 19.
To the Editor of the "Norra-Curya Dairy News."
Sir,—Apparently Mr. Speelman must have missed the point entirely or else not read the article referred to in my letter of the 18th instant. In this article it was stated in support of the justification of the shooting of Mr. Moller's dog that a good deal of feeling had been aroused through the untimely death of Mr. Gayot from the effects of a bite from his "own" dog. This statement is nothing but ridiculous camouflage. The way Mr. Gayot met his death is a risk which is daily taken by anybody who keeps dogs and even if our streets were kept entirely free from unmuzzled dogs of any description this danger will never cease to exist. If a death had occurred from the effects of a bite from an unmuzzled stray dog on a public road, then there certainly would have been a good deal of justification in dealing with the utmost severity with unmuzzled dogs specially if the dog had been a foreign one.
Where the sad incident has been referred to in support of a certain action, it cannot possibly be said that it is bad taste to refer to it when criticizing that very same action.
It is only because an intelligent gentleman like Mr. Speelman should have misconstrued my letter that I am answering that part of his letter relating to shooting: of dogs in the interest of owners and their pets: his other remarks which have no bearing on the case will therefore be left unanswered. I am, ete., iFrencx Town Doe.
Shanghai, Aug. 22.
To the Editor of the "Norra-Cursa Dairy News.'
Sir,—I think that French Town Dog's letter in your issue of to-day misses the point.
In the case of Mr. Moller's dog here was an animal which apparently was allowed to roam free and unmuzzled by night, and which had access to the road and, therefore, to infection.
F. T. D. makes a point of the fact that M. Gayot was bitten by his own dog, I infer that in this instance he considers the risk as Mr. Moller's and none other. This is hardly so for a dog when rabies first develops often travels long distances aimlessly, a very danger-rous focus of infection and as Punch (was that the name?) was free to come and go as he liked, as witness his being on the road, the risk can hardly be said to be confined to one family.
I might add too that there are various inducements to a dog to travel. Probably he fights, and the harm is done.
I am, etc., Doo Owner.
Shanghai, Aug. 23.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.