370 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



:, 1884. 



uewed in 1873 in the eastern provinces I speak by the card. 

 Breeding salmon and trout by artificial process "was first prac- 

 ticed in Canada by Richard Nettle, Esq., then Superintendent 

 of fisheries, in 1858, in a Government hatchery at Quebec. 

 The experiments were measurably successful. Mr. Nettle was 

 enabled to deposit vivified eggs in considerable numbers and 

 t© hatch out and distribute a large proportion of living healthy 

 fry. He also transported impregnated ova to Australia. This 

 enterprise was authorized by several ministers, the Hon. Mr. 

 Cauohon, Judge Sicotte and the Hon. Williarn Macdougall. 

 It was not continued by the latter because the limited means 

 provided by the Legislature were absorbed in controlling and 

 improving the salmon rivers proper, all available resources 

 being required to guard the streams against destructive prac- 

 tices which had brought the salmon fishery in the Province of 

 Quebec to the verge of ruin. Mr. Nettle, however, succeeded 

 single-handed and with a very meagre outfit in proving the 

 feasibility of breeding salmon and trout by artificial means, 

 and he deserves the credit of initiation and perseverance, in- 

 volving severe exposure and strong personal enthusiasm. 

 Another successful instance of artificial salmon hatching 

 occurred in 1867, under instructions from the Hon. P. Mitchell, 

 on the Mirarnichi River, N. B., conducted by Messrs. Stone 

 and Groodfellow, assisted by W. H. Venning, Esq., Inspector 

 of Fisheries for that Province. The system now on trial is 

 not, therefore, a novelty; it is merely a resumption of the 

 original operations; it was not discovered, invented nor intro- 

 duced by Mr. Samuel Wihnot, although he claims the pater- 

 nity and usurps the credit. The documents of the fisheries 

 department contain all the particulars requisite to do justice 

 in the premises. 



This, however, is a smaU matter compared to the assertion 

 that while natural hatching has failed to improve or even to 

 keep alive the salmon fishery, artificial hatching has rescued 

 aud restored it. It is well known that such an idea has been 

 familiarized by Mr. S. "Wiltnot to serve his own ambitious 

 aims. He has not contented himself with unduly crediting his 

 own share of work, but has unjustly ignored or decried the 

 labors of others. Iu his reports and pamphlets this is most 

 conspicuous, It was always to the fore in the International 

 Fisheries Exhibition, and the proceedings of conferences and 

 the columns of the London Canadian Gazette (see No. 19), at- 

 tributed all the prosperity of the salmon and whitefish fisher- 

 ies of the Dominion to "Sir, S. Wilmot's well-directed system 

 of fisueulture." of which he unscrupulously claimed to be the 

 author. A recent pamphlet reiterates pretensions which now 

 assume a semblance of authority from the conclusion above 

 announced in parliament. 



As a comparison to the table inserted above, I propose to 

 tabulate the yearly deposits of fry in rivers and districts in 

 juxtaposition to the annual catch in the same rivers and dis- 

 tricts, and to compare them with each season's catch in simi- 

 lar streams and divisions wherein no fiy from the hatcheries 

 have been distributed. Extracts from the reports of the fish- 

 ery officers in each section will also be arranged. These will 

 be compared in another form with the production in every 

 case before artificial hatching was applied. It should then ap - 

 pear intelligibly to which the salmon fishery of Canada owes 

 most— legislative and administrative protection or artificial 

 stocking. 



Sir Alexander Campbell may be said to have laid the foun- 

 dation of the system of organized protection for the inland 

 fisheries in 1865, although, of course, the work of his predeces- 

 sors was i#'ihzed away back to the time of the Hon. P. M. 

 Vankoughnet, and throughout the able officiate of the Hon. 

 Wm. Macdougall. Sir Alexander well knows through what 

 difficulties he upheld a policy founded in moderation instead 

 of radical change, and the legislature's debates of that day 

 testify to the masterly way in which he treated the whole sub- 

 ject, and the peculiar interest taken in it by many other legis- 

 lators. There could be no better proof of the thoroughness of 

 the Fisheries Act than the knowledge that it has never needed 

 amendment. While there have been passed in England since 

 then some twenty different salmon acts, and twelve royal 

 commissions have investigated the British salmon fisheries, the 

 Canadian system has been worked under the same law, and 

 all the information has been procured and the improvements 

 have been made through the regular official staff, without im- 

 posing burdensome restrictions on fishermen or devolving ex- 

 tra burdens on the public. Recollecting "with what virulence 

 I was assailed for seconding (some said advising) this careful 

 course, Sir Alexander at least can understand the spirit in 

 which at this distant day I defend it bravely from the impli- 

 cation of failure. The same system was adopted by such earn- 

 est and able men as Mr. Mitchell, Sir Albert Smith and Mr. 

 Pope. It has been successfully carried out by as zealous aud 

 useful a staff of officers as ever served under any government. 

 Is it conceivable that all of these experienced public men and 

 all of those energetic and intelligent subordinates who have 

 served under them inside and outside of the fisheries depart- 

 ment were wrong, and that only Mr. Samuel Wilmot is right? 

 Let the f acts and figures answer. 



W. F. Whitcher. 

 BroEAU Bank, Ottawa. April 22, 188-1. 



BLACK BASS FOR HOLLAND.— On the 4th inst. the 

 steamer Schiedam sailed with twenty-four black bass sent by 

 Prof. Baird to the Zoological Society of Amsterdam. The 

 fish were obtained by Mr, Blackford. Special tanks for the 

 fish were fitted up in the steamer. 



3te Mmml 



^lmwtr£ to ^orreH^andent^ 



%W No Notice Taken of Anonymous Correspondents. 



Catboat.— Old paint can be removed by first burning with a 

 painter's "torch" and then scraping with a steel scraper. Use the 

 commonest grade of vaseline for the mast. There are a number of 

 compositions for ships bottoms to prevent fouling. They can be 

 obtained of shipchandiers in the large cities. 



Nimrod.— 1. What fish are in season at Lake George from July 15 to 

 Aug. 15. 2. What method is used in capturing, first, lake trout, 

 second bass* 1 S. What bait, artificial or live, is used at above 

 named locality? Ans. 1. Black bass, lake trout, pike and perch. 2. 

 Lake trout are fished for by trolling in deep water, and by baiting a 

 buoy and fishing it a day or two after. Black bass are taken with 

 both the fly and" with bait. 3. Minnows, frogs, crickets, etc. 



T\ r H. C, Worcester. Mass.— What kind of ammunition did Mr. 

 Farrow use when he made the score in Milwaukee, mentioned in your 

 paper? Bid he use patched or naked bullet? And did he clean after 

 each shot, or shoot the score without cleaning? Ans. Mr. Farrow 

 used the 40-eal. Billiard cannelurcd bullet, 300 grains. Laflm & Rand's 

 1 FG. powder. He did not clean In 1 ho score, but. used a rubber tube 

 to breathe in the barrel . 



M New York,— I am told that an occasional mascalonge is taken 

 in Saratoga Lake. Please describe the tackle, bait, etc., used in fish- 

 ing for them. Ans. We think it doubtful if the mascalonge is found 

 there. The' great lakepike, Esor tucins.i* caught in Saratoga Lake,and 

 this fish when large is often confounded with the mascalonge. Use an 

 eight or nine-foot trolling rod. a reel holding at least 300 feet of bass 

 line and either a gang of hooks with a minnow- for bait, or a spoon. 

 Bow and troll. The fish are sometimes taken by keeping close to the 

 Weeds and at others in the middle of the stream. 

 INFORMATION WANTED. 



Can you tell me of some good place where I can spend the last 

 part- of August . ruid first pai'f of September and find good partridge 

 shooting and bass fishing? ff cannot have both shooting and fishing, 

 should prefer to give up fishing. Would like to go somewhere in the 

 northern part of Pennsylvania or in the southern part of New Tork. 

 Do not care to go as far as the Adirondacks. — \V. 0. M 



FIXTURES, 



BFNOH SHOWS. 



June 10. 11,12 and 18.— The Second Annual International Bench 

 Show Chicago, III. Mr. Charles Lincoln, Superintendent. 



Sept. —.Bench Show of the Philadelphia Kennel Club. Mr. P. C. 

 De Saque. Secretary. 



Oct. », 9, 10 and 11.— Third Annual Bench Show of the Danbury 

 Agricultural Society, Danbury, Conn. E. S. Davis, Superintendent, 

 Danbury, Conn. 



Oct. 14.— Non-sporting Bench Show of the Westminster Kennel 

 Club, Madison Square Garden, New Tork. Mr. Charles Lineohi, 

 Superintendent, 



A. K. R. 



npHE AMERICAN KENNEL REGISTER, for the registration of 

 •*- pedigrees, etc. (with prize lists of all shows and trials), is pub 

 fished every month. Entries close on the 1st. Should be in early. 

 Entry blanks sent on receipt of stamped and addressed envelope. 

 Registration fee (25 cents) must accompany each entry. No entries 

 inserted unless paid in advance. Yearly subscription $1, Address 

 "American Kennel Register," P. O. Box 2832, New York. Number 

 of entries already printed 12 18. Yolume I., bound in cloth, sent 

 postpaid, $1.50. 



THE PHILADELPHIA SHOW. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



In the section of Pennsylvania round about Lancaster there 

 are at least one hundred foxhounds, belonging to several 

 hunting farmers, who keep them for the purpose of chasing 

 reynard, and pride themselves on the trueness of their dogs. 

 These gentlemen, I understand, own some splendid specimens, 

 not valued especially for th e good looks they possess but for 

 hunting quahties, and have never exhibited them at shows, 

 nor, indeed, have the owners ever attended an exhibition, 

 when they really have a very good chance of winning with 

 their animals. An effort has been made by the writer to have 

 at least six couple of the best of these hounds brought to the 

 bench show of the Philadelphia Kennel Club, to be held, in 

 connection with the fair of the Pennsylvania State Agricul- 

 tural Society, in September next. These hounds and repre- 

 sentatives form the Rose Tree Himt's pack as well as animals 

 about West Chester and Chester, Pa., and it is hoped the 

 Essex and Queens Counties Hunt, of New York, would make 

 a grand f eature of the show. 



The beagle men, we are assured, will be out in force. New 

 importations will have reached the United States by Septem- 

 ber, and this class will be very large. Mr. L. D. Sloan, of the 

 American English Beagle Club, a few days since received by 

 the steamship Indiana, from England, two additions to his 

 kennel of little hounds— Bannerman and Myrtle — of which 

 you will receive a descriptive account. 



Why is it that the English harrier is so poorly represented 

 at the shows in this country? Doubtless for the reason they 

 are scarce in the United States. I know of but two genuine 

 harriers ever having been exhibited in the States. It strikes 

 me that good working dogs of this breed would be valuable in 

 some sections. I will venture to prophesy that the breed will 

 not long be neglected by Americans. Should importations be 

 made a proper standard for judging should at once be adopted 

 so that a well-defined difference would be established between 

 them and the numerous cross-bred rabbit dogs, small fox- 

 hounds and so-called beagles, of which we have no many in 

 the United States. • Homo. 



ARE DOGS DOMESTIC ANIMALS? 



ri^HE Supreme Judicial Court of Maine says no. A dissent- 

 X ing opinion is given by ex-Chief Justice Appleton. "We 

 are indebted to a correspondent for sending us the report in 

 full as published in the Gardiner Home Journal: 



STATE OK MAINE V8, CLIFFORD J. HARRIMAX. 



Lincoln. Opinion Feb. 9, 1884. 



Dogs. Domestic animals. R. S., c. 127, § 1. 



Dogs are not recognized iu the law as belonging to the class 



denominated "domestic animals." 

 One cannot be convicted under R. S., c. 127, § 1, (which relates 



to the killing or wounding of domestic animals) for killing a 



dog. 

 Appleton, C. J., dissenting. 



On exceptions by the respondent to the ruling of the court 

 in overruling a demurrer to the indictment. 

 (Indictment.) 



"State of Blaine, Lincoln, ss.— At the Supreme Judicial Court, be- 

 gun and holden at Wiscasset, within and for the county of Lincoln, 

 on the fourth Tuesday of October, in the year of our Lord one thou- 

 sand eight hundred and eightv-two. 



"The jurors for said State, upon their oath present, that Clifford J. 

 Harriman, of Waldoboro. in said county of Lincoln, on the twenty- 

 fourth day of July, in the vear of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 

 dred and 'eighty-two. with force and arms, one Newfoundland dog, 

 called 'Rich,' of the value of one hundred dollars, of the goods and 

 chattels of John D. Miller, then and there in the inclosure and imme- 

 diate care of his master being, did then and there wilfully and mali- 

 ciously kill and destroy, against the peace of said State, and contrary 

 to the" form of the statute iu such case made and provided." 



jR. S. Partridge, county attorney, for the State. J. E. Moore, for 

 the defendant. 



Danforth, J. Demurrer to an indictment found under R. S,, c. 127, 

 ^ 1. which provides for killing or wounding "domestic animals." The 

 indictment alleges the killing a dog. Therefore the question involved 

 is. not whether any particular dog or any number of dogs have be- 

 come so domesticated as to be called domestic animals, but whether 

 as a class they may properly be so called in distinction from that 

 class known in law as feres naturce. If the dog belongs to the la.tter 

 class the indictment must fail, for the statute does not cover that 

 class, A distinction has been recognized in the law between the two 

 classes from the origin of the common law, from the earliest date of 

 authentic historv, when the wealth of individuals was reckoned by 

 the number of their flocks and herds. 



That by the common law the dog belongs to the wild class of 

 animals i's recognized by all the authorities, and in that state he was 

 and is utterly worthless, his flesh even being unfit for food, so that 

 legally he was said to have no intrinsic value, and "though a man 

 may have a bare property therein, and maintain a civil action for the 

 loss of them, yet they are not of such estimation as that the stealing 

 them amounts to larceny." 4 Bl. Com. 236; 2 Bishop's Critn. Law, 

 § 773. It is true that dogs have extensively become domesticated, so 

 that it is usual and perhaps not an improper use of language to call 

 them "domesticated animate," but as they still retain in a great 

 measure their natural propensities, they may more properly be called 

 domesticated animals with vicious habits. They still keep their wild 

 characteristics, which ally them to the class of feme uatvrce, so 

 much so that in their domestic state they furnish no support to the 

 family, add nothing in a legal sense to the wealth of the community, 

 are not inventoried as property of a debtor or dead man's estate, or 

 as liable to taxation unless under a special provision of the statute' 

 but when kept it is for pleasure, or if any usefulness is obtained 

 from them it is founded upon this very ferocity natural to them by 

 which thev are made to serve as a watch or for hunting. 



From his greater attachment to his master in the domestic state, 

 from which arises a well-founded expectation of his return when 

 lost, the law gives the owner the right of reclamation, but in all 

 other respects the owner has only that qualified property in him 

 which he may have in wild animals generally. 



These continuing instincts, from which arises the danger that he 

 mav at any time relapse into his savage state, have made it necessary 

 in all states to have a code of laws peculiarly applicable to the 

 dog and not applicable to domestic animals; not for the protection of 

 his life, but rather for the protection of the community from his te- 

 rocitv. Smith v. rorehand, 100 Mass. 140; 20 Albany Law Journal, (I. 

 Under these laws the dog is recognized as property so far as to afford 

 a civil remedy for an injury, but seldom, n ever, any other. In many 



In DATS of Health prepare for sickness, in youth prepare for old 

 ge; which means insure in the Traveler*, of Hartford, while you are 

 ealthy and can get insurance and while yon are young and can get 

 t oheap.— Adv. 



class of MiiraaAs ferae, natune, and that up to the present time the 

 law has treated him as continuing in that class and has never recog- 

 nized him as belonging to the domestic class. The two statutes, c. 30, 

 R. S., and c. 127, the first relating to dogs and the latter to domestic 

 animals are so different that thev cannot be reconciled. If a person 

 is liable to be convicted for killing a dog under c. 117, he may be pun- 

 ished for what he has a legal right to do under c. 30, 



But as dogs have never been recognized in the law as belonging to 

 the class denominated "domestic animals," and as domestic animals 

 alone are mentioned, it would be contrary to all rules of construction 

 to extend the meaning of a statute so highly penal beyond Its exacl 

 terms. 



&&appUQHs and demurrer snstainrd. 



Barrows, Virgin, Peters, Libbcy and Synionds, JJ. , concurred! 



DI8SBNT1NO OPINION BY 



Appleton, 0. J. This is an indictment against the defendant for 

 malicious mischief, under the provisions of R. S.,e. 127. §1, which 

 provides that "whoever wilfully or maliciously kills, wound's, maims, 

 disfigures or poisons any domestic animal . . shall be punished by 

 imprisonment not more than four years. Or by fine not exceeding 

 five hundred dollars." It will be perceived that the largest discre- 

 tion is allowed in regard to the punishment to be inflicted "or the fine 

 to be impased. 



The indictment alleges that the defendant on July 24, 1882, at Wal- 

 doboro, hi the county of Lincoln, "with fotee and arms bne New 

 foundland dog, called 'Rich,' of the value of one hundred dollars of 

 the goods aiuLchattels of John D. Miller, then and there, in the inclos- 

 ure and immediate care of master being, did then and there wilfully 

 and maliciously kill and destroy, against the peace of said state and 

 contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided." 



To this the defendant has demurred, thereby admitting the. truth 

 of the allegations contained in the indictment. 



The main question is whether a dog is a "domestic animal," for if 

 he be, the defendant is guilty by his own admission and should be 

 held criminally liable. 



A dog is the "subject of ownership, Trespass will lie for an injury 

 to him. Trover is' maintainable for his conversion. Replevin will 

 restore him to the possession of his master. He may be bought and 

 sold. An action may be had for his price. The owner has all the 

 remedies for the vindication of Ins rights of property in this animal 

 as in any other species of personal property he may possess. 



He is a domestic animal. From the time of the pyramids to the 



E resent day. from the frigid pole to the torrid zone, wherever man 

 as been there has been his dog. Cuvier has asserted that the dog 

 was perhaps necessary for the establishment of civil society, and 

 that a little reflection will convince us that barbarous nations owe 

 much of their civilization above tbe brute to the possession of the 

 dog. He is the friend and companion of his maBter— accompanying 

 him in his walks, his servant, aiding him in his hunting, the playmate 

 of his children— an inmate of his house, protecting it against all 

 assailants. 



It may be said that he was "ferai natural." but all animals, natu- 

 ralists say, were originally »fer<B fcafttree," but have been reclaimed 

 by man, as horses, sheep or cattle: but. however tamed, they have 

 never, like the dog, become domesticated in the home under the roof 

 and by the fireside of their master. 



The dog was a part of the agricultural establishment of the Romans 

 and is treated of as such. There were the canes vdlatiei to guard 



the villa of the Roman senator, canes venatici accompanying him 

 in his hunting expeditious, and the cones pastorules by whom his 

 flocks were guarded. Virgil, in his Gteorglcs, has given direct ionr, as 

 to their management and education. To-day, in many countries they 

 are used for draught, as in France aud Holland, and everywhere re- 

 garded as possessing value and as the subject matter of traffic. 



The language of " the statute is most general, -'any domestic ani- 

 mal." The words are not technical or words of art. They are the 

 words of the common people and should be construed as such. Noth- 

 ing would more astonish the people for whom the laws are made 

 than to learn that a bull or a hog was a domestic animal and that a 



dog was not. 



The lexicographers define a dog as a "domestic animal.' "A well 

 known domestic animal of the genus eotti's." Worcester's Dictionary. 

 In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, he is defined as "a well known domestic 

 animal." Otway the poet, says of them: 



"They are honest creatures 

 And ne'er betray their masters, never lawn 

 Ob any they love not." 



So, in the encyclopedias he is cunh- /am iJiuris. and Called a domes- 

 tic animal; so that m the ordinary use of language, he Is within the 

 clear provisions of the statute under which this Indictment was f oirhd . 

 "The domestic dog has occasioned many legal disputes and the pre- 

 sumption of the common Jaw of England is that he is tame." Camp- 

 bell on Negligence. § 27. ..... 



By R. S., c. 6, $ 5, a tax is imposed on dogs. This is a distinct and 

 statutory recognition of their being property and having value, and 

 that the owner has the same rights to their protection that he has for 

 anything else he may own. In New York, dogs were taxed 

 was held to be a statutory recognition of them as property and that 

 they were the subjects of larceny. In The. People v. Moloney, 1 Park 

 (N.'y.), Cr. 598, the court say that if there was no statute on tue sub- 

 ject, they should feel bound by the rules of the common law, "but the 

 revised statutes are inconsistent with the common law rule. By them 

 dogs are so far regarded as property as to be in certain cases the sub- 

 ject of taxation. The owner is made liable for the acts of his dog, 

 thus recognizing that tbe dog has an owner and consequently that. 



c. 30. 



Thus it will be perceived that originally the dog beloged to the 



J., "as to their generous and base natures, which we find in the Eng- 

 lish books, will not hold good in this country 



We take the true criterion to be the value of the animal, whether for 

 the food of man, for its fur or otherwise." 



In the present case tbe Newfoundlad dog, "Rich, ' ot fchevalue.nl 

 one hundred dollars, was "in the inclosure and immediate care of his 

 master." He was domesticated. 



Whether the property of the master was originally ot a qualified 

 nature or not is immaterial. Tbe dog was under his dominion and 

 control. "While tliis qualified property continues, it is as much un- 

 der the protection of the law as any other property, and every inva- 

 sion of ft is redressed in the same manner." 2 Kent's Com. 341). 



A dog being a "domestic animal" and property an indictment is 

 maintainable under R. S.. c. 127, § 1, for his malicious destruction. 

 When the statute made malicious mischief indictable, it was held that 

 a dog was the subject of absolute property aud the Jailing of one un- 

 der the act prohibiting malicious mischief was an indictable offense. 

 State v. Sunnier, 2 Porter (Ind.), 377. There is such property in doss 

 as to sustain an indictment for malicious mischief. State v. hatha m 

 13 Iredell, 33. In State v. McVuffee, -ii X. II. 523, which was like this, 

 for maliciously shooting a dog, Fowler, J., says, "We can sec no 

 reason why the property of its owner in a valuable dog is not quite 

 as deserving of protection against the wilful and malicious injury of 

 the reckless and malignant, as property in fruit, shade or ornamental 

 trees, whether standing in the garden or yard of their owner or m a 

 public street, or any other species of pei sonal property. 1 Dogs have 

 been included urn er "property" and their malicious destruction has 

 been held indictable. 2 Wharton's Or. Law, 1083. A fortiori is ll so 

 when the owner is subject to taxation for his dog, 



It is objected that the indictment does not describe the do 

 domestic 'animal." But that is not required, if he 1 le 

 than it would be to say that a buU, a ram or a son is a domestic ani- 

 mal. When the statute made it indictable "maliciously to wound. 

 kill, etc., anv horse, cattle or other -'domestic beast, an indictment 

 for wounding a hog, without, averting that it was a '-domestic beast, 

 was held on the English authorities to he good. 2 he State vs. Enslpto, 

 10 Iowa IIS If the court will take cognizance that a beg or a bull is 

 a domestic animal or beast without its averment m an indictment, 

 much more will they that the dog is such annual. . 



Reliance is placed on R. S„ c. 30. § § 2, 3 and 1, which impose cer- 

 tain liabilities on the owners of dogs, nut these provisions, instead 

 of sustaining, negative the defense. They imply ownership and lia- 

 bility on the part of the owner. They assume the relationship of the 

 househGid. They recognize the domesticity of the dog-as having an 

 owner or keepeK and of minors and servants as owners and teepers 

 and make the parent guardian, master or mistress of such minor or 

 servant responsible for the damages done by the dog so owned. The 

 dog appertains to the household of which the master or mistress is 

 made liable for his misdoings. The owner or keeper thus made re 

 sponsible for the misdoings of his taxable dog or mat of his children 

 should not be left without legal protection when this property is wil- 

 fully and maliciously destroyed 



It is true that by § 2, any one mav kill a dog under certain condi- 

 tions therein set forth. But the very section impliedly negatives the 

 right to kiU except only when those conditions exist. By its provi- 

 sions "any person mav lawfully kill a dog that assaults him or any 

 other person when peaceably walking or riding, etc. But it gives no 

 General right to kill dogs. The killing is only lawfuUy done when the 

 person killing is peaceably walking or riding, etc*', and not other. 



It is said that "if a person is liable to be convicted for killing of a dog 

 under c. 127, he may be punished for what he has a legal right to. 

 under c. 30," Not so. lie cannot be punished under c. 127, if the 

 killing was justified under the provisions of c. 30. The sta I 



P But it is argued that the indictment should negati- 



