302 



flock may be crossed by a new buck every year, and none of 

 them be related by blood. 



As to the dogs, he desired to say that this was a matter of 

 serious consideration to him, when he thought of entering 

 into the sheep business. He had seen so many destroyed by 

 dogs, that he did not feel disposed to incur the expense of 

 getting a valuable flock to be destroyed by them. His reso- 

 lution had been taken, and that was to shoot every dog on 

 his premises, when not accompanied by his owner, let the- 

 consequences be what they might. He could see from the 

 tracks on the ground that his farm was traversed almost 

 every night by dogs, and he know it was useless to procure 

 sheep, whilst they prowled about. Here is my friend Mr. 

 Murray, who has just received a letter from home, informing 

 him of the destrnction of some of his flock by dogs, whilst 

 they were in his barn-yard, close to his dwelling house. Yet 

 when the General Assembly is invoked for protection against 

 these worthless dogs, the farmer (?) who lives by hunting at 

 night and sleeping through the day, is better remembered 

 than he who would improve the wealth, and comfort and in- 

 crease the taxable property of the country. Those who have 

 these matters under their especial care in our Legislature 

 often desire to do what is right, but their limited acquaintance 

 with the operation of laws, leads them to choose inadequate 

 remedies. This was the nature of the bill which has just 

 passed the House here. It allows the injured farmer to re- 

 cover the value of his sheep from the owner of the dog. It 

 presupposes two things— ^rst that the injured person knows 

 and can prove whose dogs destroyed his sheep, and second, 

 that the owner of the dogs is worth sufficient property to 

 collect a judgment against him. Now every farmer knows 

 that in nine cases out of ten, he never can see the dogs, as it 

 is in the night time that the destruction is committed; and 

 even if he knew them, he could not prove the oftence upon 

 them. And then, again, in nine cases out of ten, the owner 

 of these dogs is law proof. Our friend Dennis of Wayne, 



