The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1879-03-14
The Coz. Question Arnin

EDTToRs NEWS Your readers have
doubtless been more or less aroused of
late, at the different phases which the
COW question has assumed, as one after
another has ventilated his views in the
NEWS particularly those emanating from
the pen of "One Who Knows" Now it
is a fine thing to know the things where
of we affirm, and am willing TO admit
that he has vastly the advantage of the
common herd. Nevertheless some of
US think we know something, which
answers almost as well. Now concern
ing the question of animals running at
large in the public streets. 1t appears to
me although do not profess TO know,
that the right of animals are very limit
ed, irrespective of any special statute
which may or may not be enacted by
the common council. The guardians of
the town are just rs derelict IN duty, in
permitting cattle TO roam unrestrained
through the town, as they would be
in permitting band of thieves to com
nit daily depredations on the property
of our citizens unmolested, even though
they might be bipeds. In either case 1
think the town authorities are clearly
liable for all damages. The farmer GER
tainly has right to bring his produce
to market, and if cattle have a right TO
follow his wagon and filter from his
load, then certainly the owner has an
equal right to follow with his basket, so
that the poor unlucky, restrained pig at
home, may have little corn to console
him in his solitude. Why not give to
the poor equal rights and let him forage
among the farmers teams, taking little
here, and a good deal there, so that his
family may be well provided for? do
not believe in giving cattle superior
rights to man. No one pretends that a
man has right to break down a tree
that has been carefully, planted. He
would be liable to arrest and punish
ment, but COW, it is agreed can do so
with impunity.
They say, protect your trees. This
would, indeed, be hard on. the poor man
to make double fence, when he can i'll
afford to build one. Ifcattle have right
to break and destroy trees which are not
securely protected, then a man has a
right to take anything he can find not
strongly protected. 1t simply becomes a
question of might. A man has no right
to commit any sort of nuisance before
any mans door, but cattle can; and we
are told to fence up the sidewalks and
keep them off. Yes, and fence up the
streets, too, which would be the surest
course. For my part, think it far cas-
Ter for each man to restrain his own stock
than TO protect his premises from hun
dreds of his neighbors' that are watch
ing night and day for an open gate or
loose board in order that they may fill
themselves from his garden patch.
Now, go in for equal rights. Re
strain men and restrain cattle, and socie-
ty will be safe and every man be protect.
ed in his pursuit of happiness. fla man
thinks it for his advantage to keepa COW,
horse, pig, or dog even, let him do So
and provide for them as we'll as he please
but do not interfere with the rights of his
neighbors.
Now, would not call in question Zone
who Knows " temperance principles, be
cause he says that he is temperance
man and he knows. ! do not wonder
that he is ashamed to give his name to
his communication. He would rather
see free whisky, with all its terrible con.
sequences, especially to the poor man
than to have the sacred rights of the COW
taken from her. So, 1 suppose, that the
council, if they disregard his terrible
threat, must manage to dispense with his
knowing vote. ]. II. w.