i88o.] 
Modern Cynolatry. 
759 
Dr. Lindsay pronounces the destruction of dogs for “ mere 
biting” an “ injudicious butchery,” and laments the con- 
demnation of the stray dogs of Glasgow after the occurrence 
of three cases of hydrophobia in that city. 
I cannot agree with him. It is only in case of man that we 
can truly say, “ better ten ruffians should escape than that one 
unoffending citizen should be imprisoned.” With the lower 
animals, as with inanimate matter, we must invert this 
principle. Better a thousand bales of suspected, though 
harmless, merchandise should be burnt than that one bale 
should pass free and introduce the plague into our midst. 
Better, were it possible, that all the serpents in India, many 
of whom are perfectly harmless, should be extirpated than 
that one cobra should survive. No one questioned the wis- 
dom or the perfect justice of stamping out the cattle-plague 
by destroying every herd among whom the scourge appeared, 
though many among them were not attacked, and might 
possibly have remained unaffected. Yet this was a case 
where property only, and not human life was at stake. 
Surely, then, we are a fortiori justified in destroying the 
dogs of a district if we have reason to suspeCt that rabies 
exists among them. The fewer curs remain, the less oppor- 
tunity is there for the spread of the disease. A man attacked 
by any animal has, I submit, a natural and indefeasible right 
to destroy it, and if the law interferes with this right in the 
case of tame animals it should merely undertake the task of 
destruction on his behalf. 
But the annoyance inflicted upon the public by dogs, or, 
more accurately speaking, by dog-owners, is not confined to 
biting. I objeCt — and I submit with full right — to be barked 
at when going peaceably about my business. I objeCt to be 
deafened by one of these “ noble animals ” which runs yelp- 
ing after a public conveyance in which I am travelling. 
When taking my walks abroad I objeCt to find a dog smell- 
ing at me and wiping his snout upon my clothing. 
As we hear so much of the docility and intelligence of 
these animals, surely their owners might teach them not to 
interfere with passengers in public thoroughfares. I do not 
learn that any attempt is ever made in this direction, or that 
the dog-owner ever conceives that he is, by permitting and 
occasioning such conduCt, infringing upon the rights of his 
neighbours. 
Nor must the injury to property occasioned by dogs be lost 
sight of. Perhaps, indeed, I ought to have given it the pre- 
cedence, since in England it is protected far more carefully 
