The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-10
TWO rxrnrMEs IN KILLING.

President Roosevelt. in writing an introduction to a certain book, used this language: "The older I grow the less care to shoot anything except .varmints.'" Of course the word war mint here quoted is the usual slang term for vermin, and applies to almost any troublesome or mischievous ami nal, but we hardly think such sports man as the President is known to be could hold himself in, If a fair oppor- tunIty offered to shoot a deer, Rocky Mountain sheep or any other of the many animals belonging to the list Of game animals, and which would hardly be classed as troublesome, mischiev- ous or dangerous. In short, give him a loaded gun and game animal with in reach, and we should dislike very much to bet he wouldn't shoot at it. He would hardly stop to ask or think if it was a varmint.
 The truth is that there are two ex- tremes in this killing business. Here, for example. is a correspondent of The New York Times asking the editor of that paper: If you can tell me where two such professed religionists as Mir. Roosevelt and MT. Cleveland get their Justification for the wanton killing and wounding of unoffending animals? For of course they must be justified or they could not remain in the respect of Christian people nor of their respect i've churches. Men of all ages have killed to eat, and some, through ignor- ance and natural barbarity, have killed for the mere love of killing. but in an age of enlightenment. when man should come into possession of his human na- ture, what excuse is there for these things which so offend the ears and eyes of refined and merciful human typ
 Here Is a strong indictment against two very prominent Americans and "professed religionists," as the writer calls them. They both stand high in our civilization. and are looked on as Christian gentlemen, yet this writer alleges that they cannot be Christians. Mir Cleveland shoots ducks and catches fishes, and MT. Roosevelt shoots bears, wolves and bobcats, and, as we have intimated, would doubtless take shot at deer or other game animal, If op- portunity offered. Do they violate tine tenets of humanity or Christianity by so doing?
 As we have said, there are two ex- tremes to be considered. The writer in The Times is one and he-or she evidently considers 1t wrong, If not a crime, to kill any unoffending animol for any purpose. The writer claims to have examined all the religions given to the world by the great leaders oi religious thought, Christian or pagan ton for killing any animal that is not really hurtful. A strict adherence tc this rule would cut out the killing oi l any animal for sport or food, unless il | belongs to the predatory class. 1r | fact, 1t would practically close the dooi to the huntsman entirely, and he raish consign his gun and his fishing tackle I to the closet.
 l At the other extreme we have mer who seem to have a perfect lust fol killing. They would slay everything
 animal or fowl, that comes within
 reach. and never stop to inquire wheth
 CT 1t Is useful or hurtful. BetweeI
 these two extremes we suppose ther,
 is what we might call a happy me \ dunn, which would embrace those wht kill such game only as is required fol food. and no more of 1t than is needed Nevertheless, 1t is difficult for a maI frain from pulling the trigger wher
 there is a good mark.