Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for The Evening Telegraph
Editorial April 6, 1869

The Evening Telegraph

Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania

What is this article about?

In the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives, Mr. Rogers attempted to introduce a bill authorizing the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to erect drinking fountains in Philadelphia, but Mr. Strang objected. The editorial mocks Strang's opposition, praises the bill's benefits for humans and animals, and suggests Strang may protect cattle interests.

Clipping

OCR Quality

95% Excellent

Full Text

A Strange Objection.

Yesterday, in the State House of Representatives, Mr. Rogers asked leave to introduce a bill authorizing the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to erect fountains. Mr. Strang objected, and therefore the advocates of the bill will have to wait a more propitious moment before they can introduce it to the Legislature. Wherefore did Strang object? Was it because there was "nothing in the bill"? or was it because he was afraid it might interfere with the perquisites of the great Cattle Yard Association, who hope, with Strang's aid, to control all the beef, mutton and pork brought to the Philadelphia markets? There may be some very objectionable features in the bill offered by Mr. Rogers which we are not aware of, but if it really emanated from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-and we have no doubt that it did-there is every reason to believe that is a perfectly proper and beneficial measure. The necessity for a liberal supply of drinking fountains for man and beast in all quarters of this great city needs no argument. If such fountains were abundant, the consumption of ardent spirits during the summer months by the bipeds would be much diminished. and the poor overtasked brutes for whose protection the society asking for the fountains was organized would have every cause to be grateful to the large-hearted charity that provided for their wants.

It would. perhaps, be strange if Strang did not object to such a measure as this, and he might ask, Why should a "legislature" waste the few remaining valuable moments of the session in discussing bills of this kind, for the benefit of animals that have no influence whatever at primary elections or at the polls? Why, indeed, Strang? The objection of Strang is a tolerably sure sign that there "is nothing in this bill," and that it is a perfectly legitimate measure that ought to pass the Legislature. We hope that Mr. Rogers will not allow himself to be put down by Strang, but that he will persist in his efforts to get the bill before the House, and, if possible, get it passed.

What sub-type of article is it?

Social Reform Partisan Politics

What keywords are associated?

Animal Welfare Drinking Fountains Legislative Objection Philadelphia Markets Spca Bill Strang Opposition

What entities or persons were involved?

Mr. Rogers Mr. Strang Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals State House Of Representatives Cattle Yard Association

Editorial Details

Primary Topic

Objection To Spca Bill For Drinking Fountains

Stance / Tone

Supportive Of Animal Welfare Bill, Critical Of Legislative Obstruction

Key Figures

Mr. Rogers Mr. Strang Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals State House Of Representatives Cattle Yard Association

Key Arguments

Strang's Objection Is Suspicious And Likely Protects Cattle Interests The Bill From Spca Is Proper And Beneficial Drinking Fountains Are Necessary For Humans And Animals In Philadelphia Fountains Would Reduce Alcohol Consumption In Summer Animals Deserve Protection And Gratitude For Such Provisions Strang's Opposition Indicates The Bill's Legitimacy Legislature Should Not Waste Time On Animal Bills Is A Weak Argument

Are you sure?