Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1855-06-01
DOGS w. SHEEP.

pleasure OF the dogs, nor do We care
much whether we do or not. We in
tend TO speak our mind, and let them
growl il they chose.
Aside from the needless expense Of
keeping dogs--an expense that many
bear who can poorly afford it-whose
children can not have books or clothes
good enough to go to school. and who
can not take a paper, there is another
objection. Dogs not only
spsrxht 70 bark and bite"
but they win kin sheep. II Is useless
to talk about keeping them from Il.
dogs ssiH XII shsspi II there is any
exception TO this. il Is only among the
dogs that can not. they are either too
small. or they live where there are
none. We would call the attention Of
our farmers to this question. and not
farmers only but every body. But for
the destruction OF lambs and sheep by
dogs. mutton would be plenty and
cheap. II Is FAR more healthful than
pork. and can be raised at much less
expense--or could be but for dogs
The influence Of dogs on the price Of
mutton Is greater than double the pop
ulation would be, for they not only
destroy large per cent Of the stock.
but they pay nothing for il, except oc-
casionally. when good jury, like the
Everton jury. jump at verdict. in ia
vor Of sheep. The right Of the state
to reduce the number Of dogs. and re-
strict their liberty. is unquestionable,
and we think the necessity will soon
become so pressing as TO compel them
to do something.
Last winter move was made in ref.
srence to this matter but all in vain.-
We can not tell why so important and
necessary a bill failed. unless on the
same principle that some legislator
voted against the law prohibiting the
sale Of intoxicating drinks-thcir in
tercsts or pleasure was at stake. Let
our citizens look TO this matter. The
complaint is q general one. Mrs
Swishelm, in accounting for greater
number Of hogs than sheep, says tha
this fact may be accounted for b.
counting the dogs. Until some plal
is devised for protecting sheep from
dogs, this never can be a woolgrowinl
country. The loss Of sheep from dog
Is incalculable, inaamuch az the valu
Of those that would be raised but 70
his impeachment could not be estimat
ed. II is settled point that muttol
is much more healthful food than pork
The cost Of raising il is not Tor woul'
not be il the loss was not 10 be coun.
cd, one-third that Of pork, and ye
the latter is the staple animal diet G
this country. while people are compel
ed do without wool that others ma
keep set Of thieving dogs.
We see no reason why wool coul
not be grown almost IL not altogethe
as cheaply as cotton. II il were not fc
the uncertainty and actual loss occs
stoned by dogs; and its superiority
for winter clothing. is well known.
is pitiful TO see the poor. and eve
those in medium circumstances, clotl
ed, women and children at least,
thin cotton fabrics when the wind shii
ties shrilly or tho pitilcss frost bite
keenly. to see them deprived Of III
healthy and nutritious joint of lam
and feeding on swine's flesh insteas
that worthless people may have wortl
less dogs.
Some strenuous means should be at
opted to correct this evil, rs 1t is
very serious drawback to our nation,
prosperity, and the individual comfo
Of more than half the people. who al
thus restricted in their use Of soft far
mel garments. and the most wholesom
meat, and compelled to use an artic
instead which is positively injuriou