The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-02-25
SHEEP AND DOCS IN TENNEs-
4BE.

SEE.
The New York Tribune says. speaking
Of the dog and sheep conditions In Ten
nessee:
OF course, II the good people Of Ten
nessee prefer a lot Of worthless dogs
to sheep, which would add SO largely to
the wealth Of the State, that Is their
own business; but 1t does seem pity,
all the same, that they should be so
foolish. The great majority OF these
dogs serve no useful purpose whatever,
while they destroy the industry Of sheep
raising. They are mostly owned by
poor men, and II is a common saying in
the South that the poorer a man Is the
more dogs he has. s-e
Commenting on this rather severe utter,
ance The Chattanooga Times complains
that the State press Of Tennessee ts
largely responsible for the fact that no
legislation can be had in Tennessee for
the suppression of dogs and the protec-
ton OF sheep. and argues in this way:
The political chap seeks the vote of the
dog owners who are many, whereas the
sheep owners are few. This chap
controls some crumbs of patronage that
straving newspaper publishers need. So
the political professor champions the dog
and the editor champions both the cur
and the statesman.
The argument Is that the owners Of
dogs are largely in excess Of the owners
Of sheep, and that the politician who is
looking only to his own advancement
pays court mainly to the dog-owners, and
that the newspapers are supporters of
the politicians for the patronage they
get out of such support. This, according
to our contemporaries reasoning. Ii the
reason why there are no westimated to
be 10000 dogs in the State OF Tennessee
and only 100000 sheep. or a proportion of
four to one.
Whether or not The Times Is correct
In the charges 1t makes against the
newspapers and politicians Of its State
we do not know. but the fact remains
that according to the statistics the pro-
portion Of dogs and sheep Is as given
above. and 1t is posibue that there are
enough scattering dogs not enumerated
to bring the total up to q round million.
Be that as It may. the proportion Of four
to one Is bad enough. and II H. not a con-
ditton of which the people Of that State
ought to be proud. or with which they
ought to be satisfied. The Times esti-
mates that the sheep would be worth at
least IS each. and that Tennessee ought to
have not less than two millions of them.
which would mean an addition of ten mill
Hon dollars to the agricultural wealth
of the State. Then, it asks:
What is to be thought of editors who
never miss an opportunity to do their
best for the perpetuation Of this condi-
ton. by taking the case for the dog and
against the sheep industry?
Possibly The Times Is too servere on
the newspapers or 1t gives them credit
for more influence than they really pos
sess. After all Is said 1t IL the people
themselves who are responsible for the
conditions existing there, for they are not
only directly interested. but they make
the lawmakers who in their turn make
or fail to make-the laws. II the people
prefer dogs to sheep there is little like
lihood OF any change for the better, but
If they would get their eyes open to the
profit to be derived from successful sheep
raising they will insist on such legisia-
ton as viii cause material decrease in
the canine population of Tennessee and
a corresponding increase In the sheep in
dustry. In the language Of the streets
1t is UP to the people and 1t is with them
to choose between sheep and dogs. There
ought not to be any hesitation about
making the choice, but 1t Is a fact that
men, both, black and white, are partial
to dogs. 1t Is a fad or a fault which
is not confined to any station or condition
In life. The man who cannot half feed
or clothe his wife and children is almost
sure to keep one or more dogs, and In
about half the cases the dogs are wholly
worthless. Men do really take to dogs.
and all women are not exempt from the
fault.