THE STANDARD AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1874.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 218, 31 October 1874, Page 2

THE STANDARD AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1874.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: VI e shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

Among the subjects about which the dull conscience of mankind needs to be awakened to” a sense of duty, is the treatment of brute creatures ; and we thank our correspondent “ Equestrian,” for having, in a late issue, brought public attention to the barbarous cruelty generally displayed towards dumb animals, by men who “ call themselves Christians.” Some fifty years ago when Mr. Richard Mastin, advocated in the British House of Commons, a legal protection against wanton cruelty to the brute creation, he was met by derision ; and even since his death, a popular writer has, strange to say, not scrupled to ridicule Mr. Mastin’s philanthropy. From the earliest stages, right-minded men have both practised and recommended kindness to animals. The wisest of the Ancients recorded the proverb that “ a righteous man regardeth the life of his beastand the Pentateuch, as well as other judicial codes of' antiquity, contain protective enactments in favor of the lower, animals. Wherever the precepts of Christianity, and the laws of civilization are respected, beasts have been saved from many sufferings; and, speaking generally, a proper observation of these precepts and laws, is an evidence of the existence of humanity, and moral obligation, on the part of the people. Having had our attention drawn to this matter, in several painful ways, we are induced to offer such remarks thereon as are consistent with legitimate criticism. Not long since, a settler—Mr. E. Camebon—offered a reward of £l5 for the conviction of the person (we cannot call him a “man”) whose fiendish cruelty, exhibited itself by shooting one of Mr. Cameron’s bullocks. That the perpetration of this dastardly act was prompted by malicious motives, there can be little doubt, for had it been done with a desire to convert the animal into beef, or other article f of profit, it would have been dispatched at once, and not left to take its chance of a lingering death. Recently, too, we had to record two instances of cruelty to animals, on the East Coast, which appeared to be purely the outcome of malice. To make a dumb animal the victim of revenge is both cowardly and spiteful. In England, and in some of the Colonies, societies exist for the prevention of cruelty to animals generally; and we think a kindred organization in this Colony, would be attended with beneficial results. Whilst we must admit that there is a sufficiency of statutory power available for inflicting punishment for cruelty to animals, we cannot ignore the fact that a society specially formed for the prevention of that cruelty would materially, and more effectively than at present, aid in the proper enforcement of the law, and, consequently, promote the efficiency of the means for the suppression of the evil.

In a Colony like New Zealand, where a large number of the settlers are engaged in the management of dumb animals, and where a considerable portion of the wealth of the Colony consists of live stock, there are special reasons why this matter should be pressed on public attention. Scores of cases of wanton cruelty escape detection, and punitive consequences, because they are perpetrated unseen. Hence the necessity for greater vigilance being exercised by the subsidiary help of associated effort. In Australia

there are societies for the prevention of cattle and horse stealing, as wel as for the prevention of cruelty ; am from their annual reports we find that they have been instrumental in accom plishing what, at one time, it wa> thought could not be effected, nameh —a marked change in a certain clast of persons' whose predatory, and ruffianly propensities were notorious: these societies arc now regarded at public safeguards. Happily, New Zealand is not a country very remarkable for cattle stealing ; but as regards what may be termed “ ordinary ” cruelty to animals, we fear she offers no exception to the rule in other Colonies; certainly Poverty Bay and the East Coast are responsible for not a few atrocities of that kind. Like any other branch of Ethics, the principle which regulates men’s treatment of dumb animals, has a debateable ground of its own, notwithstanding what has been said by some men of "pernicious minds, and more pernicious habits. There is, doubtless, room for careful examination of some of these questions that are not yet settled, even in the consciences of otherwise good and merciful men. If, however, they, who are alive to the duty of shewing mercy to brute creatures, will exert their influence on the side of mercy,—on the road, on the run, in the wool-shed, in the stable, and in the market places, if the prevailing systematic cruelty to animals be reprobated alike from the Pulpit, and by the Press—much may be done towards saving those creatures —over which dominion has been given us—much unnecessary pain.