Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1908-11-05

the New York Assembly passed an
bill in 1905 by a vote OF
90 to II. but the Senate voted 81 for
and 20 against IT. and the measure
failed OF enactment.
The special statute Of Illinois on
docking was passed in 1891: that Of
tho District OF Columbia IN 1892. those
OF Colorado and Minnesota in 1899;
those OF Michigan, California. Utah
and Washington in 1901 that Of Iowa
in 1904; Ohio too. and Nebraska have
similar law. South Dakota has NO
uso for such prohibition. as no one
there ever thinks Of trimming . horse
in this barbarous fashion.
II may be claimed that section 6sos
OF the Public Statutes Of Vermont Is
plain enough. A person who mutt
lates," or "infiicts unnecessary cruelty
upon an animal shall be Imprisoned
not moro than one year. or fined not
moro than 5000, or both" That
sounds we'll. and seems to be severe.
But did anyone ever know Of q con-
viction for docking being obtained in
Vermont court? And does not
everybody know that the usual fine
In a Vermont Justice court for beat
Ing or tormenting horse is 800
and COSTS" II there were no costs.
1t is doubtful IL any fine would be laid
in the majority of cases.
Tho extreme secrecy with which all
docking operations are conducted
makes 1t exceedingly difficult to get
such testimony as the courts require.
One is not likely to find a witness who
will say that he saw the docking.
Tho actual ownership at the moment
the tail WAS severed will be all-but
Impossible to ascertain. At ten q. m.
on a certain day a span Of handsome
long-tailed horses is driven through
the streets by X, the owner OF the
same for full year; at IL m. they
are traded to y, and by / y. m. be-
come, 30 far as papers CO. the property
of u, an irresponsible stable boy. per
haps. On the morning following they
are paraded on the main streets OF
the city. tailless, with fresh and un
mistakable evidences of tho recent
injury, but once more ostensibly the
property of the Same man who owned
them two days before. Try to find
out who was legally responsible for
the manning Of the beasts, and you
como at once upon the Juggling by
which they were passed from hand to
hand: and there Is opened a prospect
OF perplexing and probably result
less lawsuit; for tho owner Of these
hoses has money and the truth OF the
case Will be hard to find. even when
all the parties concerned ara put I'M
der oath. And the veterinary who
did tho butchery" will actually boast
OF his feat-after he has ceased to
reside in the State!
Tho reasons should be plain. why
any statute against docking, to be
effective. should be couched in some
such terms as are found in section ~
OF chapter 212 OF the Massachusetts,
laws. III horse is found with its
tail so cut and with the wound re-
suiting from such cutting unhealed,
upon tho premises OF any person or
in the charge and custody OF any per-
son, such fact shall be prima facio
evidence OF the violation OF the pro-
visions OF this section by tho owner
or user Of such premises or tho per-
son having such charge or custody, re-
spectively." This Massachusetts, law
Is copied almost verbatim by Connect
lieut. and Minnesota, Possession or
control Of freshly locked horse is
made prima facie evidence that the
person In possession or control dock
ed the horse.
Tho Colorado statute requires a
careful registration Of oil locked
horses In the State. Ninety days arc
allowed in which to obtain from the
county clerk proper certificate with
description OF color. age. size. etc.
and after the ninety days have ex-
pired. "the driving. working. keeping,
racing or using OF any unregistered
locked horse shall be deemed prima
facie evidence OF tho fact that the
party driving such unregistered dock
ed horse. locked the tail OF such
horse"
We greatly desire t. see both these
provisions incorporated in Vermont
statute. Every locked horse In the
State should be registered, as also
every locked horse brought into the
state; ana every man found with a
freshly locked animal IN his posses
sion should be compelled to show
cause why he should not suffer the
penalty for this atrocious infringe
ment Of the animals rights. this out
rage upon the humane sentiments OF
mankind-those only excepted. who
arc conceited enough to attempt I'm
provements on tho hand!work OF the
Maker Of horses and men.
Tho Now Hampshire law, of which
we understand the bill introduced at