of that true gentility which is the only saving grace of 

 men and women in all ranks of life. And I am as 

 certain as that I stand here, that the word " others " can- 

 not any longer be limited to the human creature. 

 Whether or no animals have what are called ** rights " 

 is an academic question of no value whatever in the con- 

 sideration of this matter. But, lest there be anyone who 

 wishes to take up this point of abstruse philosophy, I 

 will admit at once that animals have no more rights than 

 have babies under the age when they may be said to have 

 duties (on which rights, as we are told, depend), that 

 animals have no more rights than imbeciles, or those 

 who are deaf, dumb, and blind. Rights or no rights, I 

 care not ; the fact remains that by so much as we inflict 

 on sentient creatures unnecessary suffering, by so much 

 have we outraged our own consciences, by so much have 

 we fallen short of that secret standard of gentleness and 

 generosity that, believe me, is the one firm guard of our 

 social existence, the one bulwark we have against relapse 

 into savagery. Once admit that we have the right to 

 inflict unnecessary suffering, even on a fly, and you have 

 destroyed the very basis of human society, as we know it 

 in this age. You have committed blasphemy— the only 

 blasphemy that really matters — blasphemy against your 

 conscience. For the true conscience of this country has 

 ranged itself definitely against the infliction oi winecessary 

 suffering on any sentient thing. And the concrete proof 

 of this lies in the wording of the law against cruelty to 

 animals, with its definition of " cruelty " as the infliction 

 of unnecessary suffering; for, mark you, in a country 

 like this, the law does not precede, but follows, the true 

 conscience of the age. 



