The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1903-08-19

What Some of the Statutes of
Different States Have TO Say
Upon This Subject.

To those accustomed to bestow
much favor upon domestic animals,
it will hardly seem possible that a
century ago there was practically
no law anywhere in the world that
took cognizance of acts of cruelty
towards them. however wanton and
malicious Prior to the enactments
of modern Legislatures, men could
beat their horses. or cattle, or other
animals to death with impunity,,
or subject them to any fortunes
their ingenuity might devise. with
out fear of molestation or punish
ment, so long as their cruelty was
not inflicted publicly, SO as to
constitute nuisance, or upon the
animals of others SO as to eonsti-.
tute trespass OF malicious mis-
chief. When the property rights
of others were infringed. however,
the law was quick to come to the
rescue of the animals. but only on
the principle that it would inter-
fereito prevent the destruction of
his implements of agriculture or
other property. and never through
a recognition of the abstract rights
of the animals. The question has
often been raised whether animals
have any rights which man is
bound to respect, and whether it is
not an unwarranted interference
with mans liberty for the law to
hedge him about with certain re-
strictions in the treatment of
animals, when they are his own
property. It is oontended on the
one side that they are in the nature
of things subject to mans domin-
ion; that they are here for his bene-
fit; that they were intended for his
profit and pleasure, and that they
have no place in the economy of
nature, except as the creature of
his wants, and as. the slave of his
caprice and fancy. There is by no
means a unanimity of opinion on
this point, even in those countries
where cruelty to animals is punish
able by law, for in many jurisdic-
tions such punishment is still bias.
ed on the low ground that it is an
infringement of the rights of 9TH
ers, and not upon the ground that
the animals are entitled to some
protection upon their own account.
But this sentiment has been
rapidly losing ground, especially
during the last few decades, and
in the more civilized communities,
so that we have today. in probably
every State of the American Union,
in Canada, and in England, Stat
utes in force furnishing cruelty to-
animals. especially domestic ami
mails, and such punishment,is based.
in the main upon the higher
ground, that the animals them
selves are entitled to some protec-
ton. as creatures capable of feel
ing and suffering, and hence with
out reference to their being prop
erty, or to the damage that might
thereby be occasioned to their
owners.
1t is curious to note what the
decisions of some of our Courts
have been as to the necessary in
gradients of cruelty. In no in
stance has the shooting or killing
of animals in their wild estate
been 80 construed. In Missouri
it has been held that tying an
article to an animals tail is not
cruelty unless it causes the animal
actual pain and suffering. This
Of course would depend somewhat
upon the nature of the animal. A
fiery high-mertled steed might
kill himself to escape the frightfuI
appendage, while a tame. gentle
one. would pay no heed to it |
Whether it is cruelty to shoot oap-
tive pigeons set free to act as targets
has been much mooted question.
La Missouri and Pennsylvania,
such shooting as test of ones
craftsmanship has been held to bel
not a violation of such statutes,
where those that are wounded are
Immediately captured and killed,
In Colorado and North Caroliue,
loweyer. the opposite view has
been taken, and such shooting has
oeen held to be a violation of the
avs against cruelty. Likewise it
vas held to be cruelty in New
FORK. but to avoid the effect of
his act q Iow Uau ouhoa1narkIr