of the Duchess of Bedford in killing 3,437 head of game in a season; and the Duke of Bedford can see the infamy of the dealer in “murderous millinery,” in hiring hunters to shoot birds for their beautiful feathers. Perhaps both might unite in condemning the trapper who takes beaver or red foxes for their pelts. What we need is that each one in reprobating the cruelty of a stranger should apply the principle on which the reprobation is based to his own course of conduct. In proportion as that habit increases, it is safe to say that the respect for all forms of life will increase and man's thirst for the blood of other creatures cease to be insatiate. In the meanwhile, it is best, so far as we may, to conceive of all sub-human life as akin to our own, never to fall into warfare against it, save as we must at times against our brother men, and deal with the animals, many of which are so lovely and so gentle, as tenderly as may be.-October 7, 1905. THE DOG ORDINANCE The dog ordinance, as approved on Saturday, is without the dangerous provision in the original draft for the shooting of dogs and cats by anybody that cared to make a game preserve of the streets of Rochester. But it creates various misdemeanors. In the first section the ordinance declares that any person, responsible for a dog, who "shall allow" the animal on a public street or place in Rochester without a basket muzzle, strong enough to prevent the creature from biting, "shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." There may be a nice question of law as to the meaning of the word "allow." If the dog steals out of the house, is the owner guilty of a misdemeanor, or is it the dog, and if the dog kicks off his muzzle, or if the muzzle is not so strong as the hardware merchant represented it to be, is it the owner that is guilty of a misdemeanor, or the man who cheated him? Under such circumstances, who is it that "allows" the dog on the street unmuzzled? In the second section the ordinance provides that the owner of a cat or a dog shall keep the animal, even on his own premises, securely housed, leashed or muzzled, and whoso permits cat or dog on his premises not securely housed, leashed, or muzzled, is declared guilty of a misdemeanor. The penalty fixed for violation of the ordinance is a fine which shall not exceed one hundred and fifty dollars in amount, or imprisonment not exceeding one hundred and fifty days, or both fine and imprisonment. And so the possible penalty of having a cat in your barn, not securely housed, leashed or muzzled, may be seen at a glance. It is some comfort to know that nothing more can happen than imprisonment for five months and a fine of $150. The ordinance does not say who shall judge the meaning of the words, "securely housed," nor who is to search the homes of the people, night and day, in pursuit of insecurely housed, unleashed or unmuzzled cats and dogs. The third section of the ordinance provides for a disinfecting circus over the body and all the goods and chattels of a dead dog, known or suspected of having rabies, or known or suspected of having been bitten by a dog known or suspected of having rabies, or known or suspected of having had an uncle or a cousin or an aunt known or suspected of having bayed the moon. The fourth section of the ordinance is one of the funniest bits of legislation outside of comic opera: “Any unmuzzled dog or any cat running at large in or upon any of the public streets, ways or other public places within the city of Rochester, shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and a menace to the public safety and public health; and it is hereby declared to be the duty of police officers of the city to forthwith shoot or otherwise kill such dog or cat found by them in any public place within the city. Any person finding any unmuzzled dog or cat at large upon any public street or way or in any public or private place within the city, may seize such dog or cat and detain such dog or cat for a sufficient length of time to enable such person by reasonable diligence, to notify the pound officers of the detention of such animal." For this inestimable privilege much thanks! It would be safer to catch and hold a leashed or muzzled dog or cat; but there is excitement in the chase and glory in the danger of pursuing and capturing the wild, untamable, unleashed and unmuzzled cat or dog, presumably full of rabies from snout to tip of tail! Let every public spirited citizen race for the casual and vagrom cur or kitten, catch the creature by the tail, the ear, the hind leg, and hang on regardless of tooth and claw. He will be clearly within his rights, as defined in the ordinance, if he exercises reasonable diligence in the meanwhile to notify the pound officers, that he is detaining a cat or dog. The Rochesterian has not very much money to spare but he would cheerfully give ten dollars to see Dr. Goler, Mayor Carnahan, or Alderman Kelly holding an unmuzzled St. Bernard dog or an alley cat up by the tail-and exercising reasonable diligence to call a pound officer, before the lapse of time sufficient to restore the canine or feline right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Rochesterian, for himself, here and now renounces all the noble privileges and immunities secured to the public spirited citizen by the terms of this ordinance. He prefers a life of indolent leisure to the anxieties of municipal patriotism. He will not be tempted by any consideration of public health, animosity to the bacteria of hydrophobia, or desire for the pleasures of the chase, to pursue any dog, "puppy, mongrel, whelp, or hound, or cur of low degree," or any cat, Tabby, Tom, Manx, Maltese, Angora, native or foreign; but he would like to have a gun fired from the tower of Powers block, as was done when the ice broke up in the river, as soon as any leading citizen engages in a cat or dog fight, and begins to exercise reasonable diligence to notify the pound officers.-April 1, 1901. Miscellaneous Notes THE STATUE OF HEINE The conspiracy of defamation against the emperor of Germany is reduced to desperate straits when the conspirators seek to make an international sensation out of the story that he intends to remove the statue of Heine from the garden of his villa on the island of Corfu. In a leading article on the subject the "Sun," which is rather unusual with it, seems uncertain what side to take. It says: "If William II has decided, as report says he has, to 'fire' Heine's statue from the garden of his villa in Corfu he has merely been adhering to his own expressed principles and also to what was once the attitude of the Prussian people as well as of the Prussian government. Heine would never have left his fatherland to live in France but for pressure from that government, and within living memory the poet's attacks on Germany still rankled so sorely in the popular breast that he was commonly spoken of as 'the renegade.' The German people has forgotten that side of his work now, and very justly, for it was the lowest and most fugitive side of it." Did the poet regard his fight against absolutism as the low and fugitive side of his work? Did he not claim that for his service in the cause of freedom a sword should be laid on his coffin? He is not open to censure from Americans because he was a literary soldier in a good cause; but assuredly the emperor of Germany and king of Prussia is under no obligation to keep the poet's statue on his lawn because he fought against what the Prussian dynasty stood for and what a Prussian king has accomplished. Moreover, in the matter of respect to his statue, the |