The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-05-01
Bangor Whig.l
The Act for the Prevention of Cru
city.
Some F1ippant Criticism of the Law Of
1888 Disposed OF.
FoxcRoFr, April Is, 1883.

coule VEGAS SINCE the lQea was suggested
in some newspaper that chapter 1888 of the
Public Laws of 1888, authorized the destruc-
ton of sick or disabled human beings.
Another paper called the act unique
Other journals, in and out of the State, have
rung various changes. Some three weeks
since received letter from respectable
gentleman, making inquiries. / called his
attention to chapter SO of the Public Laws
of 1875. showing that the obstruction sec
ton and the definition section were both
embraced therein. These sections In this
par ocular were but transcript of the legis-
lation of 1875.
could not believe that any editor serious
ly raised this point The absurdty of this
attack upon this legislation, however, seems
not 10 have been seen by other editors, who
assumed that something new had been
discovered. The statute of 1888 contains
some new provisions against pigeon
shooting, and some salutary changes in 9th
er respects, but it in no way introduced anv
new principle in relation to the destruction
of sany animal found abandoned and not
properly cared for, appearing in the judg-
ment OF two reputable persons called to
view the same ito be diseased or injured
past recovery for any useful purpose Nor
was there any change in 1888 from the legis-
lation of 1875, in the defaition of the word
ANIMAL
That this statute might not be regarded as
travesty upon all decent legislation, might
primd .fdcie be inferred from the fact that
the Legislature of 1875 was, at least, an aver
age in ability with other Maine Legislatures.
In that year Hon. Edmund f. Webb was
President of the Senate, in which at the
same time. as Senators, were the eminent
lawyers, Lucilius A. Emery, John P. Dom
worth, John P. Swasey, Enoch Foster, Jr.,
and others, as well as scholars and legisla-
tors like Hons. w. j. Corthell, S. A. Hoi-
brook, and many Others. Hon. w. w.
Thomas, Jr., was Speaker of the House
were ex-Judge r. P. Tapfey and LAWYERS
Nathan Cleaves, f. A. Wilson, S. ID. Leav-
lit, Llewellyn Powers, and other legislators
OF great experience, and the act was APP
proved by Gov. Nelson Dingley, Jr
These sections stood eight years on our
statute books, unchalien-ed by all snbse-
quent legislatures, by courts, Judge God
dard reporting the revision, members of the
oar and an intelligent community. These
statements are not given as the sole evil
dence that the bill is free from the imputa-
ton OF containing the obnoxious feature
(which authorizes the slaughter of disabled.
enfeebled or aged people," Aside from ali
these, there Is no possible way in which,
when the tchole act is rietced in the light Of
legal construction, conclusion so absurd
and ridiculous could be drawn, as that the
act of 1888, or its prototype, in this respect.
chapter 80, Public Laws of 1875, sections 3
and 3, would authorize the taking OF human
life.
do not know by whom the act of 1888
was compiled and drawn, but was informed
that the person by whom it was done had
submitted it to able legal counsel before II
was presented to the Legislature II the
present Legislature was In fault, it was in
not correcting an error of the Legislature of
1875. But neither Legislature committed
an error in this respect. No court that
should ever consider The schoEe act, would
for moment, listen to the proposition that
such senseless construction could be
put upon it. Such proposition does not call
for argument or citation of authorities. The
general and special purposes Of the act are
manifest in every section, and throughout,
in language which cannot be misunderstood.
The bill when before the committee was Wig
orously opposed by counsel as able as any In
the State, on the sole ground Of the "pieeon
shooting provision, it being admitted that
the bill, in other respects, was not only prop
er but desirable.
Now an up-river correspondent of one Of
the papers in your city has discovered an
NeASA AH2AC S-HCSL III blt dEt lOT the pre-
vention of cruelty" He apparently thinks
that this act which was approved March o.
1883, repeats section of chapter 142 of Pub
lie Laws OF 1888 which permits the killing
OF dogs In pursuit of moose, deer or caribou
because the last-named act was approved be
fore the act for the prevention of cruelty, to
wit, on February "a, 1853. But on reflection
he will see that both acts took effect on
April Is, 1888. See chapter PSI, Public
1900 IT, 81.
full time has expired for it 70 take effect.
Both acts became law at the same moment.
The words Of an act are considered as spok,
en- at the time when the act takes effect.
Jackman VS.. Garland, Ga Maine Reports 1873.
But there is no conflict between the two
statutes.
By reference to Statutes of 1921, chapter
ia, section 2; Revised Statutes Of 1910.
chapter 40, section 2; Revised Statutes Of
1851, chapter 30, section 2; Revised Statutes
of 1871, chapter 30, section 2, 1t will be seen
that the law, for sixty two years, has per-
mltted any one TO kill dog found wounding
worrying or killing any domestic animals
out OF the enclosure or immediate care of
the owner OF the dog. Since 1921, Public
Laws, chapter q. the cruelty killing of any
horse or other animal has been punishable
yet during all these sixty two
years nobody has ever suggested that there
was conflict between these two sets Of pro-
visions, or that one repealed the other. The
statute does not punish person for doing
what he Is thereby permitted to do. II Is |
only 'unjustifable" acts that are prohibited.
so the law for the protection Of moose, deer
and caribou, is In full force in all ITS parts. |
Since 1869. Maine has taken high ground |
on this humane subject, to the great credit |
of the State.
l have written as though these attacks In |
to definitions" had been seriously |
made; but there is no doubt the "kno.ing |
ones" understand their illusions as consti- |
tuting rare joke to take root in the minds |
Of the credulous, who have had no special |
opportunity to examine the laws. That the |
authors themselves were ignorant in assum- |
ng that these provisions originated with the |
present Legislature is quite apparent.