The National tribune., 1902-07-24
TEE RIGHTS OF AN1mALs.

TIE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS.
What seems to be almost n question of
the application of the Declaration of In
dependence to animals has been agitating
Western Judges of high rank.
A Missouri Judge has soiemnly decided,
and his decision will be everywhere APP
proved. that dog has an inalienabie
right. and is fully justified in biting.
manning and generally tearing any boy.
man or other person who attempts to tie
Il tin can. or similar unnecessary noisy.
| inappropriate and other disconccrting. dis
turbing and frightening article to his tail.
This seems simple justice. There is no
juStificat ton or excuse for attaching any
thing to Il dogs tail. That appendage is
complete in itself. and simple and una
dorned. serves all the purposes for which a
tail is given a dog. Any addition, there
fore. must be for purposes forcign-if not
hostile-to the dogs comfort and peace
of mind. with presumed intention Of
making him appear excited and ridiculous
in the eyes of his associates whose good
opinion he values, and to lower his stand
ing in the community, net to sny any
thing about exposing HIM to personal con-
tumely and danger. Therefore he is jus
titled in resisting in any way that he can
make effective. On this point all the
Judges entirely agreed.
The other case was not so clear, and
has brought the lower and higher courts
into conflict, with an appeal to the SD
preme Court to decide between them.
The case came up at indianapolis,
where lady has kept a billy goat which
was the JOY of her life, and those of her
children, bIIt a disturbance to some other
people, owing to jolly little habit he had
of slipping mp behind any pedestrian and
suddenly delivering a blow of several hun
dred fcOt-pounds initial pressure little
below and III rear of where folks usually
carry their breakfast. OF course this was
great fun for the spcctators--possibly for
some of the younger victims of the goats
propcnsities. Welldrcssed ladies on their
way to church. however, and dignified gen
tlemen engaged in the practice of law or
medicine or preaching the Gospel, or man-
aging banks, could not be expected to en-
JOY it, no matter how much amusement
it gave to others, nor the ivelincss it in
troduced into an otherwise dull neighbor-
hood.
Therefore, young man. whose sweet
and well-dressed sister had been butted off
the sidewalk caught the goat and in fit
of anger cut his throat The ncighbor-
hood was much displeased at this rash
diminution of their gaiety, and the JUS
tice of the Peace, rejecting the sentiment
Of the community, fined the young man,
whose name happened to be Smith. The
Justice explained that it is the nature Of
goats to butt and when the Legislature
enacted the law under which Smith was
being tried it made no exception in re-
spect to the billy goat, and must, there
fore, be assumed to have thrown the pro-
tecting arm Of the law around the goat as
well as any other dumb brute. He admit
ted that, considering all the circumstances,
Smith had right to protect his sister
from assault, bnt the subsequent act was
not justified, and it was that act that
ended the goats life.
Finally the Justice declared that n goat
could not be said to have a bad reputation
when all of the acts complained of were
the result of following a natural and in
herent propensity, and one might as well
claim the right to kill dog for barking.
a cat for mewing or horse for neighing
as to try to defend the killing of a goat
for butting.
Smith appealed the case to the court
above. which proceeded to sit down on
the Justice of the Peace, and acquit the
defendant, who was held to have not ap-
piled more violence than the case called
for
As to the law of the case the learned
Judge held that a goat is a goat and is
given TO butting by instinct, but even this
propensity, natural and proper to be exer-
cised in defense, becomes prejudicial to
the rights of the citizen when carried to
the extent shown in this case Passing
to the contention of counsel that goat
cannot establish a bad reputation by but
ting because it is its nature to butt the
court held that the reputation of an ami
NAL is made by its acts alone, and it may
be good or bad as its acts are good or
bad. Therefore, if it were the nature of
Mrs. Janes's billy to attack people on the
highway and in their yards and to keep
children in state Of alarm, it was her
duty to protect the public against such
assaults. And failing to do this. it was
the right of the public to protect itself.
The bereaved neighborhood has an
pealed to the Supreme Court