The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-08-10

to its sales and builds up its in
fuence.
THE JERSEY CITY NEWS now has
as large a circulation as the Journal
within the limits of Jersey City.
The Outrageous Dog Ordinance.
We have no doubt whatever but
the dog ordinance in this city is IL
legal. 1t contemplates a penalty for
the infringement of a police regula-
tion of confscation of property. This
conf1seation is not to be the result of
a judgment by a competent court but
is to be inflicted at the within OF any
citizen.
Is 1t competent for the Board of
Aldermen to authorize citizens to take
the law into their own hands? Would
it be competent for that Board or for
the Legislature to pass a law author
izfng citizens to smash up the bicy-
cies of any boys found riding on the
sidewalkss Would it be competent to
pass a law authorizing any citizen to
confiscate hand carts rolled ON the
sidewalks? Would it be competent
to pass a law authorizing any citizen
to collect a fine from any woman
whom he detected sweeping refuse
into the street. or to summarily spank
every boy whom he caught in the act
OF pitching ball or playing craps?
Plainly it would be regarded as a
monstrous outrage if any legislative
body attempted to enforce police reg
ulations by conf erring such penal
powers on every chance citizen. But
these cases are legally on exactly the
same basis as a law which authorizes
Smith to punish Jones for letting his
dog run loose by killing the dog. As
an assault ON the feelings and affec-
lions the killing of a dog is a brutal
and cowardly outrage, which no law
can justify. As a fine, it is liable to
be an extravagant and monstrous
punishment. Dogs which represent a
cash value of from $50 to So 900 are
by no means uncommon. Dogs of Or
binary value, say from $50 to 800 are
owned by the dozen in this city.
They are liable TO stray away for a
ramble just as much as a cur that no.
body would give 80 cents for. The
owner may be wholly blameless.. Dogs
will wander, in spite of the utmost
vigilance. At worst the guilt is SIM
ply a trifing carelessness. The dog
may be as gentle as a lamb, he may
be a pug or a toy terrier that would
run from a kitten and could not hurt
a baby. But all the same, apart from
the injury to the feelings, any ill-tem-
pered crank may destroy the dog. thus
inf1ictihg a penalty of from $50 to 500
on the owner. 1t is plain that such a
penalty is wildly out of ratio with the
scale of punishments inflicted for
other offenses. A drunken man who
riots in the street is fined from So to
$40; a wife beaten gets off with $25
fine; a malignant wretch, who tor
lures a dumb animal, will hardly be
fined more than $40. Then why
should a man, whose dog strays a
block from home. be subjected to a
loss OF $50, inflicted at the will of a
personal enemy, a wanton brute, or q
preposterous crank.
We are in favor Of a dog pound and
a dog catcher. Let the wandering
dog be picked up and held for re-
demption at some reasonable figure
say a dollar or two. Let him be
humanely killed after a day or two if
he is not claimed, or let him be sold,
if he is a valuable dog. to cover the
expenses of his capture and detention.
But certainly the present go-as-you-
please law should be wiped out. 1t is
an outrage on justice and
sense. If the dog owners and dog
losers Of the community would take a
little active interest in fighting it, it
would not last long.