Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-02-01
To Prevent crhelty to Animals.

TO PrevSnt cgtslty to Animals.
An unexpected and very amusing debate
occurred When Chairman Babcock called up
House bill 10417, tSpfevent cruelty to GER
tain animals in the District of Columbia.
This bill was introduced by Mr.. Powers,
and provides that it small be unlawful for
any person to aeek the tail of any horse
within the District OF Columbia or to pro-
cure the same to- be locked or to import
or bring into the District any locked horse
The bin also makes It unlawful to drive.
work. use, race OF deal in any docked horse
or horses within the District not registered
within ninety days after the passage OF the
act.
When the bill had been read Mr.. Dalzell
of Pennsylvania asked Mr. Babcock IL the
committee was serious in reporting such a
measure. He declared he did not see any
way to keep a man from bringing his own
property into the District.
Mr. Babcock replied tina 1.-THE committee
considered the matter a very serious one.
He referred Mr.. Dalzefl to Mr.. Powers. the
author Of the bill. ="
The latter, replying to Mr.. Dalzell, said
that the case was the same as If he had
shot bird in Pennsylvania during the open
season in that state and brought 1t into
the District during the closed season. The
huntsman would be liable to a penalty.
Mr.. Dalzell said he did not see the anal
ogy
Mr.. Powers, continuing, stated that the
bill originated with the Humane Society.
In order to properly enforce its provisions
1t was necessary to include the paragraph
relating to the bringing or importing of
locked horses into the District. While
many of the states have already adopted
an1.docking legislation, the states border
Ing the District of Columbia Have not
Under these circumstances, Mr. Powers
said, 1t would be convenient to take a
horse into Maryland or across the river
into virginia, dock the tail there and then
no doubt as to the police power of Con-
gress In the premises.
Mr. Perkins sef New York asked Mr..
Powers If he really believed it was 50 cruel
to cut off a portion of horses tail. He
+ Mr. Powers replied that he had never
been able to own a horse and never ex-
pected to as long as. he remained In Con-
greSs.
q. Pro and Con.
Mr. Perkins characterized the bill as SILLY
legislation brought up by: a lot Of foolish
women who don't know horse from a
dog - 90 sat.-a Z -ejft' ~ -f"''.s' -
He said he had seen a horses tail locked
while the animal was eating oats and it
didn't even. stop.aating for, an instant.
A member declared that the horse must
have been mighty hungry. s., ''-'-s~ ~
/ MT. ttltt or 1lEHDlS spoke III IaVoT VI Tic
bill, saying the> operation was craek Mr..
Cooper of Wisconsin also spoke on the
same lines. He asked why horses tails
were ever deckeda Mr.. Perkins replied
that he Thought itiioeked better, and asked.
in return: "Why1do you cut your hair, in
stead of letting at grow down on your
shoulders?' svqa,- t.f ,.-'-s1-' .'..,f g
Mr.. Cooper saidsthere was no more sense
in the docking of horses tails than the
Chinese practice of binding the feet.
Mr.. PerkifB said the bill was not broad
enough II itswant&d to go into the cruelty
to animals questions. He thought 1t should
prohibit overhead geheck ..reins and the
clipping of the ears of bull terriers.
Mr.. Grosvenor said he had always been
raised to have thssgYeatest respect for the
work of the Almighty, but II he were to be-
lieve his friend from New York 1t was evil
dent that nGthe Almighty had had some
good advice;fhe would have made the tail
of horse d stubEsticking UP in the Air
For his part. ifep Endorsed the supreme wis
dom of the Aiming iaty. sa}:i-ss''l
When the bill came to a vote Mr.! Perkins
demanded iaedixisiohsT 4 + was passed by 81
ayes to 8 payesssiag 2tiA
The House, also passed the bill to further
regulate bath establishments.