New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-04-18
JUDGES DECISION
HITS VIVISECTI0N
Person Who InfIicts Wanton
Cruelty on Animals Guilty OF
Crime, Despite Science.

Philadelphia. April 17.--An Important
Interpretation Of Pennsylvania Inv on
vtvisecton was made to-day In the trial
OF Or. Joshua T. Sweet. charged with
wanton cruelty 20 dogs after operations,
when Judge Il. Ainedce Breezy. in ad-
dressing the Jury In the Criminal Court, do
clared that person that is guilty OF
wanton cruel torture OF an animal shall
he guilty OF crime. even though the
cruel treatment be done for scientific pur-
poses.
Or Sweet In assistant professor "
surgical research In the medical depart
ment OF the University OF Pennsylvania,
and has been on trial three days. Five
other members OF tho medical faculty OF
tho university are also under indictment.
for alleged cruel treatment OF dogs after
operations and the trial OF their cases de-
ponds upon the outcome OF the proceedings
against Or. sweet. The jury retired late In
the afternoon. and court adjourned until
Monday morning. II verdict Is reached
in the mean time II will be sealed and re-
turned when court reconvenes.
Judge Bregy's Interpretation OF the laws
OF Pennsylvania on the matter OF cruelty
10 animals I'm connection with vivisection
ia said 20 be the first ever made IN tho
state In his charge TO the jury. he said
ITO indicate n view on the part OF ply
sicians that these operations upon the
dogs were made for scientific purposes TO
obtain information for the alienation OF
human suffering. charge you that the
law Of Pennsylvania does not allow pam
and suffering. torment or torture 10 DC
inflicted upon dogs for any purpose except
the relief OF the suffering Of the dog IL
self. They have no right 20 torture dog
or violate the law as | have read Il 10 you
for the purpose OF obtaining scientific in
formation The law says that any person
that does thing as have read II TO YOU
that is. II a person is guilty Of wanton
and cruel torture Of an animal, shall pc
guilty OF a crime. The law does not say
they shall not be guilty II they do II Tor
a scientific purpose. Scientific purpose
does not excuse cruelty
The courts reference 20 vivisecuon
came as a surprise 10 both sides In the
case. because the indictment against Dr
Sweet meant only alleged cruel treatment
after operations and because testimony as
TO why these operations had been per-
formed. and other subjects pertaining 10
vivisection. had been ruled out or the EVIL
dence on the trial of the case.
John r. X Scott. counsel for the
Women's Pennsylvania Society for the
Prevention Of Cruelty 20 Animals. an
nounced when the import of tho court
declaration was realized that arrests prob
ably would soon be made OF scientific in
vesugators on the charge OF cruel treat
ment OF animals in specific cases OF yivi-
sectional operations.
After the case went 10 the jury the
University OF Pennsylvania authorities
made public a report OF the special com
rl,ittee OF the board of trustees and reso-
luton adopted by the full board relative
TO the teaching work involving animal eX-
perimentation. The committee reported
that the charges against the members OF
the medical faculty were. as far al could
be ascertained, absolutely without tounda-
ton" The trustees adopted resolutions
approving the report and also approving
the continuance of the methods OF inves-
tigation in the medical department or the
institution.