BEWARE OF THE DOGS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 128, 1 June 1936, Page 6

BEWARE OF THE DOGS.

Some people like doss and some do rot, and there an end. But not in Hnddersfield. where the canine issue lias broken into politics (says the "Manchester Guardian"). Hnddersfield Corporation hns built and owns a number of houses, and the ordf.r went out that the corporation's tenants should keep 110 dogs. About a third of the council's dog-owning tenants obeyed the order and destroyed their dogs; about two-thirds defied it and preserved them. The Town Council met then to decide —among other things—what to do with the rebels. It decided, to all intents and purposes, not to do anything, the decision was that, council tenants must'apply for permission to keep dogs; but if the council has already sliruuk from evicting tenants who keep dogs in contravention of an order eleven vears old, can it possibly evict tenants whose offence is not in keeping dogs but only in failing to ask permission? Politically, it is impossible. Who could face an election on the cry, "Vote for Robinson and no dogs"? There may be people who dislike dogs, but few who dislike them so much that they would rather see a neighbour evicted than 'allowed to keep one. It may be logical to argue that a dog is, in a town, an obsolete survival of the days when there was no adequate police force. But who will believe it in his heart? It may be true that dogs damage their neighbours'* gardens; but there are plenty of people who would rather have a dog than a garden. If dogs j offend some, the nightly wails of cats offend others; but what council has laid down that its tenants may not keep cats? In short. Hnddersfield seems to have overstepped the bounds 'of the Englishman's castle in issuing the j original decree against dogs, and it is not easy now to execute a dignified retreat without I being barked at by every cur 011 the road.