Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1880-01-16
Animals In Religion and Law.


The doctrine OF trsnsmigration OF
souls, which is still held in one form
or another by millions of heather peo-
pie, has at least the practical merit of
shielding animals from cruel treatment,
for q man cannot be sure when he beats
his donkey that he is not maltreating
his grandmother. The religion OF Bud
dha also inculcates scrupulous protec-
! ton Of dumb creatures against every
form OF abuse or harm; even noxious
insects may not be killed. The Cars
hta CAioA lately gave q chapter OF very
curious incidents connected With this
phase Of sentiment, and certain equally,
remarkable legal aspects of the topic.
The first referred to is the suit-chron-
!cled few years ago by the London
papers-beiween tvo servants OF Cal
cut,a native merchant who quarreled
over the division Of their pay for feed
ing bugs" The magistrates inquiry
elected that the merchants were much
annoyed by certain pestiferous insects
at night. But religion forbade these
should be killed, hence servants We're
employed to sleep lie awake more like
ly) in the employers bed an hour or
two before his time for retiring, that
the vexing appetite might be somewhat
cloyed, and the master have a better
chance of rest. 1t was the wages for
, this service of respec. to the sacre lness
of insect life that the quarreling Hin
docs could not divide.
Four or five centuries ago, and upon
the continent of Europe, animals were
treated as responsible beings, amenable
! to legal proceedings and 10 punish
ments. They were arrested and
! brought before courts to answer for
crimes, and meantime were shut up in
prison. The public prosecutor pre-
pared a formal accusation, and coun-
selor was selected to plead for the de-
fendant. Witnesses were examined and
judgment gravely pronounced. If the
accused animal was found guilty, the
Judge pronounced sentence of death,
and this was executed with great for
mality, and in O variety of ways; the
offending beast being often dressed in
the clothing Of a man. Antique Eu.
ropean law-books contain reports of
trials of swine, bulls, horses, etc., in
public courts, for the offense of killing
persons, and they were gravely hanged
for their misdeeds.
The ecclesiastical courts of four and
five centuries ago had appropriate
forms of proceeding against creatures
whose prolific numbers forbade their
being arrested and punished indivld-
ually. Rats, in one case were cited be.
fore the tribunal for devouring the
barley of the region, and their counsel
fvYl ~
substance, that his clients desired to
retire from the territory, and would
have done so if allowed, but had been
prevented by the multiplicity OF cats ly-
ing in wait to destroy them! In another
case locusts were prosecuted for their
ravages, and sentence of anathema
pronounced against them. In Mayence,
Spanish flies, and in Savoy, weevils,
were proceeded against by a public
trial. Their counsel succeeded in OBJ
tanning q decree that q distant terri
tory might be assigned them to which
they might retire. In Valence,
plague OF caterpillars was prosecuted.
The points of law raised were SO nu-
merous and difficult, and the trial was
spun out so long, that the insects all
died before judgment was pronouncedi
Instances of this procedure are found
as late as the earliest settlements in
America. In Brazil there was q case
OF proceedings agains. swarms of ants.
And, in early Canada, turtle.doves were
excommunicated for mischief they had
done. But the most curious and anus
ing case of this character is credited by
Forest and Stream to the Rev. Mr.. Send
or, q missionary in India. Four men
bought a quantity of cotton in copart-
nership. That the rats might not in
jure it they purchased cat, and agreed
that each should own one of its legs.
Each leg was then adorned with beads
and other ornaments by its owner. The
cat accidentally injured one of its legs,
and the owner wound rag round it,
soaked in oil. The cat by chance set
the rag on fire, and, being in great pain,
rushed among the cotton bales, where
she had been accustomed to hunt rats.
The cotton was totally burned. The
three other partners brought suit
against the owner of the invalid leg to
recover the value Of their cotton, and
the Judge decided that, as the injured
leg could not be used, the Cat carried
the fire to the cotton with her three re-
naming legs. They only were culpa-
BILE; and their owners we're required to
compensate the owner Of the injured
leg for his share of loss.-N. Y. Tribune.