Song Birds and Water Fowl 



happens to be of service to us. We should 

 judge all his conduct according as it is normal 

 or abnormal to his nature. But precisely what 

 is normal to a mere animal is not always easy 

 to determine. To accuse any animal of crime 

 is contrary to reason ; and yet we virtually do 

 so in saying, for example, that a horse, or a 

 dog, or a cow is vicious. An ugly specimen of 

 a domesticated animal does not seem to be in 

 its normal state ; it appears to show depravity 

 of something very like a moral nature. Many 

 an animal is crafty, that is, deviUshly intelli- 

 gent ; and we often inflict punishment, osten- 

 sibly only to restrain it by fear from doing the 

 vicious or crafty deed again, but with a lurking 

 feeling that the animal is really guilty. 



No one criticises a bird for capturing insects; 

 but when it comes to its eating another bird's 

 eggs, we draw the line. Is it a reasonable line? 

 Somehow it seems more against nature for an 

 animal to violate the interest of creatures of its 

 own kind than to destroy lower forms of life. 

 Is such a distinction rational? If so, since 

 mammals stand higher in the scale of life than 

 birds, ought we to have indignant feelings 

 toward a cat that has captured a robin or 

 bluebird ? If it were only a butcher-bird, no 



104 



