The sun., 1897-05-02

pears that tho legal position or want Of
legal position Of the dog is about the same
as IL was In the days of the Year Books.
Dogs have improved. Men have improved,
although far less rapidly and satisfactorily
than dogs. Yet mans inhumanity to dogs
continues. "The very fact that they are
without protection Of the criminal laws"
says Mr.. Justice Brown, "shows that
property In dogs is Of an imperfect or quail.
fed nature, and that they stand, as it
were, between animals Jeroe naturGe, in
which, until subdued, there is no property,
and domestic animals, in which the right
Of property is complete" This is strictly
in accordance with the precedents, but it
shows that law is q laggard science. There
are dogs of wild nature, Just as there are
mon, but the great majority of dogs are
thoroughly reclaimed and civilized. There
is no reasonable defence Of the classified
tion of an Irish setter or a collie, for in.
stance, as imperfectly subdued and there.
fore only imperfectly capable of being the
subject Of property. while the crazy Texas
steer or man.hating, hooking COW is to be
regarded as thoroughly domesticated. AS
for the criminal laws, the fact that they are
imperfect argues no imperfection in the
dog. In the Solomon Islands white man
Is not regarded as thoroughly domesticated
until the natives have eaten him.
Still, 1t is lamentably true that, as Mr.
Justice Brown says, dogs faro not con.
sidered [by the courtsl as being upon tho
same plane with horses, cattle, sheep, and
other domesticated animals, but rather In
the category Of cats, monkeys, parrots, sing
ing birds, and similar animals kept for
pleasure, curiosity, or caprice. Unlike
other domestic animals, they are useful
neither as beasts OF burden for draught, nor
for food" Now, good many people in Eu.
rope would be surprised to hear that dogs
are not useful as beasts of burden for
draught. There are very considerable
regions in Europe where the dogs have
to work for their living and where they
take the place Of ponies and donkeys.
Americans think too much of their dogs
to make them engage in the transportation
business. Besides, the struggle for life has
not yet become so keen here, and our roads
are not 30 we'll suited to genuine dog carts
in the carrying trade. Probably the T. S.
Consul at Liege could furnish some useful
information as to canine labor in Belgium.
Dogs are eaten at pinch by Arctic ex-
plorers and other devotees of plain living;
but why should there be but MANNED
right of property in dog because you
don't care to eat him3 Nobody wants to
eat a rosewood piano.
As dogs are the largest corps OF private
watchmen in the world, their usefulness
cannot be denied except by avoidance of
facts Of the most common knowledge.
Suppose, however. that they were all kept
for pleasure, curiosity, or caprice" in short,
that they were a luxury. Then they would
be on par with pictures, statues, stately
houses, private parks, and other costly re-
flnements of civilization. Why, then, should
their legal status not be the samel Is Pop
ulist political economy to apply to dogsa
The only even partially valid reason for
refusing to dogs such proud equality as
might come from ranging them with
thoroughly domesticated animals, like
common pigs and setting" hens, has never
been urged by any lawyer or court. Dogs
are 30 humanity intelligent that to give
their owners full right Of property in re-
gard to them might seem too much like
revival Of slavery.