website watertownhistory.org
ebook History of
Watertown, Wisconsin
Dogs . . . 
And Early Days in Watertown
“Baked Puppy”
1858
Watertown Democrat, 07 08 1858
Dead Dogs. Somebody sends us the following item through
the Post Office, which we publish just as we received it, for the sake of the
hint it contains to those who are troubled with the presence of these defunct
animals "A nuisance in the shape of
dead dogs line the shore of Rock River below the city, to the great annoyance
of the inhabitants who have no objection to the un-dogging of the town but at
the same time would propose some other method of disposing of the carcasses
this hot weather, more agreeable to.
SMELLER
1859
Watertown
Democrat,
07 28 1859
Ald. Shroeder presented the following account which was allowed
and charged to the 2d Ward General
Fund: Account of Chas. Buntrock for burying dog. Referred to Committee on
Finance.
1860
Watertown
Democrat, 01 26 1860
Wanted, a Dog Law. We read in
our exchanges every few days of depredations committed in one place or another
by mad dogs and have wondered that something of a similar character has not
transpired here. We certainly have raw
materials enough for the manufacture of ever so many cases of hydrophobia
[rabies], provided, of course, the ball could only be set in motion by a single
rabid whiffit, no matter how diminutive his
dimensions. All that seems necessary is
that some worthless cur should lead off in the fearful work and the destruction
that would be sure to follow is dreadful to contemplate.
We have
been to some little trouble to arrive at the probable number of canine species
lying around loose in this city and, after making a careful mathematical
calculation, think we speak within bounds when we say that it is not less than
two thousand. Only think of it! Two thousand dogs, not ten of which are worth
the strychnine it would take to send them to kingdom come! And yet they are permitted to live on as
though they were of some little value, if not absolutely necessary
accompaniments to the happiness and welfare of their owners.
But the
most remarkable feature of the whole case is that this little army of nuisances
is growing stronger every day.
Notwithstanding sausages are quoted firm in the market reports at twelve
and a half cents per pound, the dog crop is increasing daily and hourly and
bids fair, if unchecked, to double within another twelve months. For our part we must confess that we do not
understand it. It is one of those
intricate financial puzzles that we cannot in our profound ignorance comprehend
and we hand it over to some one better posted in such
matters than we are, to explain it.
But
seriously we think the cause of humanity demands the immediate and wholesale
slaughter of every dog permitted to run at large unmuzzled
in the city. They have no business to
exist. They are an unmitigated
humbug. They are in all sorts of
mischief by day and disturb our slumbers with their howlings
by night. Why not, then, put them out of
the way before some of our citizens fall victims of their madness? That no one has been bitten here before now
is a miracle. It is one of those streaks
of good luck for which Watertown is proverbial, but because such has been our
fortune in the past we have no right to expect that it will always be thus in
the future. Away then
with the scalawags at once. A
dog-button, or a small piece of meat, seasoned nicely with strychnine, will do
the work up effectually and quietly. The
experiment was tried in Milwaukee a short time ago under the auspices of the
Common Council and found to work admirably.
Why can’t our city fathers follow in their footsteps and do as much for
the good of their country as their neighbors?
In no other
way can they so strongly commend themselves to the gratitude, favor and
distinguished consideration of their constituents, as in the one here pointed
out. We content ourselves with throwing
out the suggestion and trust that some humane member of the board will give it
shape and press it upon the attention of his fellow aldermen at their next
meeting.
We are
aware that objections will be raised mountain high to the demolition we propose
but we do not consider them by any means tenable. To be sure, all amusements in the way of dog
fights will be cut off and the occupation of many of our street loungers and
hangers on at corners will be gone.
Watertown
Democrat, 02 02 1860
A good work has been well begun in our
city and by all means let it go bravely on until every worthless howler or snarler that helps to make night hideous with his clamorous
noise shall disappear. Most every
morning the dead carcasses of defunct dogs are found lying about the streets,
waiting for the last rites to which even such useless creatures are entitled,
at least for the benefit of the living, if for nothing else. Valuable or favorite dogs should be so taken
care of that they will not become public nuisances, but no one should try to
prevent the speedy extermination of all others.
Watertown
Democrat, 02 16 1860
Kill
off the Dogs. The Common
Council, it seems, is not disposed to act upon our suggestion made two weeks
ago relative to ridding this city of its great multiplicity of dogs. We presume this is upon the principle that
large bodies always move slow. After some
of our citizens have been bitten or fallen victims to the hydrophobia [rabies],
we have no doubt a special meeting of the council will be called at once and
the necessary action taken in the matter.
After the horse has been stolen the alderman will be eager to lock the
barn door.
We think the time for them to act is
before any harm is done. Mad dogs are
all about us. Every
one knows that. One was killed in
Ixonia on Friday last, but not until he had bitten a
little boy. That child’s life is of far more
consequence to the world than the existence of all the dogs in the
universe. Then why should we be
compelled to peril our own safety and that of our wives and children, merely to
gratify the owners of a couple thousand such whiffets
as are allowed to run at large here in our midst. It is an imposition upon the public and we
advise every man who values his life to carry the implements of destruction
with him and deal them out with an unsparing hand. This is our only salvation.
Watertown
Democrat, 02 23 1860
One
thousand nine hundred and seventy-three is the exact number of dogs now running
at large in this city, thirty-two having come to an untimely end since our last
report. The crop, instead of increasing
as it has been for the last year, is at last growing “small by degrees and
beautifully less.” Strychnine is doing
its work slowly but surely. Hydrophobia
will soon be at a discount and the places that now know such a vast army of
curs of high as well as low degree will soon know them no more forever. By all means, we say, let the reprobates be
dispatched without any unnecessary delay.
We can spare them just as well as not; in fact, we think we rather
prefer their room to their company.
We confess to a strong antipathy against
dogs. We hate them on general
principles. They are an eye sore to us
at all times and under all circumstances.
At such a time as this, particularly, when it is an every
day occurrence to be told that a mad dog has just been killed here, or
that a child has been bitten by one of them there, or that a half dozen head of
cattle have died with the hydrophobia in another place, we say at such a time
we do not care to encounter any dogs. We
prefer to give them a wide berth. If
they will agree to take one side of the street, we will take the other.
Persons owning valuable dogs or those
whose existence they would not have cut off in the prime of life suddenly and unexpectedly, would do well to muzzle them or keep them
chained up at home. It is evident from
the slaughter that has already taken place that the canine species cannot
travel our streets safely. Who the
parties are engaged in the work of destruction, of course, we do not know, but
we presume they are actuated by good motives based on the principle laid down
in that sound and venerable maxim which says that “self preservation is the
first law of nature.”
Watertown
Democrat, 03 01 1860
Pedro,
Tiger, Growler, together with many other dogs that are nameless, have suddenly and
mysteriously departed this life during the past week. Their dead carcasses now enrich the soil it
was a nuisance to have their living bodies roam over. They are out of the way—something like a
hundred of as worthless creatures as ever infested a respectable town, and by
their presence made day dangerous and night hideous.
But Tray, Blanche, Sweatheart—as
the world-minded Shakespeare prettily calls as pestering and useless a tribe of
canine vagrants as ever escaped the salutary effects of strychnine or
lead—still exist to vex the world.
They should not long go
"unwhipt of justice," for they are not
better than their fellows who have already been sent to their long home. Then let the rest follow the same road, till
there shall not be one to chase another in spring time.
The country will not be a bit too good
for civilized and well-behaved people to live in, if there is not a single
insolent puppy left to make a noise or get up a row, nor will there be a great
deal of mourning if their present owners are compelled to go masterless about the streets, unattended by such
evil-disposed companions. There will be
enough barking, fighting, scratching, snarling and biting when the whole race
is extinct.
We wish to add a word of caution to the public-spirited
members of the Dog-Exterminating Society recently formed in this city. They have already accomplished a great reform
and are entitled to the thanks of all for the grateful feeling of relief now
experienced. It is a fact that pigs run
loose in our street—as well as dogs—and the former may be as likely to swallow
a finely prepared dose designed for the latter as anything else. Hence, care should be taken how loose bits of
meal, in which is carefully embalmed just the right quantity of the breath-stopping article, are
thrown about and left to be picked up by any animal that first comes
along. We have recently heard of one or
two cases in which hogs have been destroyed.
As we have reason to believe that those who entered
upon this enterprise for the public good have none but the best of intentions,
this hint will be sufficient to put them on their guard. Spare the grunters—give it to the
yelpers. Shut up the one—silence the
others.
If the Common Council don't do anything
else about this matter, they ought to vote a medal to every
one who has helped to save them the trouble of ever discussing the
proposition of taking some steps to protect men, women and children against the
possible horror of being bit by some stray and rabid cur who has missed his
fair proportion of medicated meat.
Watertown
Democrat, 03 15 1860
A
Tempest in a Tea Pot. Lager
Beer is in a high state of effervescence.
Brother Lindeman of the Volks Zeitung is greatly enraged.
He is exceedingly chagrined at our article of last week, wherein we
plead the cause of injured innocence and Bernard Grady at one and the same
time. He froths at the mouth terribly,
thus betokening symptoms of the hydrophobia.
We trust the poor man has not been exposed to any attack from furious
dogs.
Rather let us hope, in the goodness of
our hearts, that his excitement is due to other causes. We trust that it arises solely from the great
sympathy he bears to the subject he is discussing, and is not in any manner to
be taken as indicative of the fact that he and some straggling rabid member of
the canine species have come in too close a contact for the food of our
fraternal friend. We shall watch his
case with deep solicitude and scan the columns of future numbers of the Zeitung closely to observe, if possible, signs of returning
reason, or perchance confirmed lunacy.
But we will not at present indulge the thought that is so dire a
calamity as the latter is likely to be visited upon our afflicted typographical
brother.
He thinks that his countryman, Grady,
should have been punished. What base
ingratitude have we here! He mourns that he was not longer confined in
prison for distributing infected meat.
How perverse Brother Lindeman is.
He objects to the miscellaneous distribution of poison for the purpose
of killing off the dogs. How infatuated
our neighbor seems! He says that Grady
not only should have been continued in the lock-up, but that the editor of the
Democrat should have been compelled to keep him company. Here we have the very quintessence of
cruelty!
He submits that we have been the cause
of the wholesale slaughter of the innocent dogs. Here we fear the editor magnifies our
importance! And finally he gives it as
his opinion that a dog’s tail for a queue [pigtail] would much improve our
personal looks. Here he gives us a
striking evidence of his taste! We think
it is perfectly characteristic of the man, for one who is so great an admirer
of dogs as our friend shows himself to be, would naturally be pleased with such
an appendage as he speaks of, to the head gearing
which nature gave him. By all means,
Brother, reduce your professions to practice, and make your debut at once in
your dog’s tail queue.
. . . It may, perhaps, be true enough in
the abstract, but as a matter of public economy we think dogs may be used to a
better advantage than poisoning.
It is said that baked
puppy is the greatest delicacy of the Sandwich Islands . . . why not, then,
export instead of kill off the remainder of our dogs? Let them be sent to the Sandwich Islands at
once!
The Common Council can pass an ordinance
confiscating them, and the revenue, which will be quite an important item, can
be applied to the payment of our city bonds amounting to only five or six
hundred thousand dollars at the present time, and have a nice little balance on
hand in the city treasury. What better
stroke of financial policy can our city adopt?
It is killing two birds with one stone!
We are heartily in favor of the plan but shall insist as a sine qua non
that our friend Grady be appointed an agent to superintend the shipment and
marketing of the dogs at a very respectable salary per diem, and their tails be
reserved to adorn the apparel of our German friend, which, taken in connection
with the present dimensions of his ears, will give him a fine appearance. We offer this as an amendment to our original
motion to vote him a medal as a reward of merit. He certainly is entitled to some “pecuniary
compliment” of this kind. What say you,
Brother Lindeman, to the proposition?
Watertown
Democrat, 03 22 1860
Common
Council Proceedings
The following accounts were presented .
. . John Haines for burying dead dogs, $15.00 . . .
Watertown
Democrat, 04 12 1860
The
Dog Law
An Act to
regulate and license the keeping of dogs.
The People of the State of Wisconsin, represented
in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Every owner or keeper of a dog shall on or
before the first Tuesday of April in each year, cause it to be registered,
numbered, described and licensed for one year, from that date, in the clerk’s
office in the city, incorporated village or town where he resides and shall pay
for such license one dollar for every male dog, six months old and upwards, and
three dollars for every female dog six months and upwards. The license shall be issued and the money
received by said clerk, who shall pay the same into the treasury of said city,
incorporated village or town, to be used and appropriated with the other funds
therein; and the clerk shall receive for each license so issued and collar
stamped the sum of ten cents out of said funds.
The treasurer shall keep an accurate and separate account of all sums
received and paid out under the various provisions of this act, which account
shall always be open to the inspection of any voter of the place.
SEC. 2. The owner of every dog so licensed shall keep
a collar around its neck distinctly marked with the name of the owner,
registered, numbered, and the year for which such dog is licensed, which date
shall be stamped on said collar by the officer issuing said license, and for
the purpose of enabling such officer to so stamp the collar with the year for
which he shall issue a license as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the proper
authorities of cities, incorporated villages and towns to furnish such officers
with a proper stamp for such purposes.
SEC 3. Any person may, and every police officer,
constable or marshal, shall kill or cause to be destroyed, all dogs going at
large and not licensed and collared according to the provisions of this act;
officers shall receive from the city or town treasurer twenty-five cents for
each dog so destroyed and buried by them.
SEC. 4. Whoever shall remove the collar from the neck
of a dog so licensed and collared, without the knowledge and consent of the
owner, or steal a dog so licensed and collared, or shall alter the stamp on
such collar, shall be punished by fine not exceeding fifty dollars.
SEC 5. The owner of any sheep or lambs suffering
loss by reason of worrying, maiming or killing thereof by dogs, may present
within thirty days after such loss shall come to his knowledge, to the Mayor or
Alderman of the city, the President or Trustees of any incorporated villages or
Supervisors of the town wherein the damage is done, proof thereof, and
thereupon the said officers shall draw an order in favor of the owner of said
sheep or lambs upon the treasurer of said city, incorporated village or town,
for the amount of such loss. The
treasurer shall register all such orders in full at the time of their
presentation, and shall annually on the first Tuesday in April, pay all such
orders in full if the gross amount received by said city, incorporated village
or town, under the provisions of this act, up to such date, after deducting all
sums previously paid out under such provisions if sufficient therefor; otherwise the treasurer shall divide said amount,
after deducting as aforesaid pro rata among said orders and in full discharge
thereof.
SEC. 6. Upon drawing an order as is provided in the
foregoing section, the city, incorporated village or town may recover against
the keeper or owner of any dog or dogs concerned in doing the damages, the full
amount of the damages done.
SEC. 7. Whoever keeps a dog not registered, numbered,
described and licensed according to the provisions of this act, shall forfeit
the sum of five dollars to the use of the town, city or village wherein the dog
is kept.
SEC. 8. Owners of dogs may at any time have them
licensed until the first Tuesday in April succeeding upon payment to the clerk
of the sums provided in the first section of this act, but such payment and
license shall not exempt them from the penalties of the preceding section on
any complaint already made.
SEC. 9. No new license for the then current year
shall be required upon the removal of any licensed dog into any other town or
city or incorporated village, unless the same be required by some law or
ordinance passed under the provisions of the twelfth section of this act.
SEC. 10. The Mayor and Alderman of any city, President
and Trustees of any incorporated village and the Supervisors of each town shall
require all dogs not licensed and collared according to the provisions of this
act, to be destroyed by poison or otherwise as they may ordain and shall
enforce all the penalties herein provided.
SEC. 11. Any officer of any city, town or incorporated
village, who shall refuse or neglect to perform the duties imposed upon him by
this act, shall be punished by fine not exceeding twenty dollars for every
twenty-four hours which he shall so neglect or refuse, which shall be paid into
the treasury of such town, city or incorporated village . . .
Watertown
Democrat, 04 12 1860
The
Dog Law
We do not know but we were a little extravagant
last week in the intimation we made that the Legislature of 1860 had done one
good thing, and that was to adjourn. We
think the next best thing it can be credited with is the passage of an act
regulating and licensing the keeping of dogs, which we print in full, for the
information of our readers, in another part of this paper.
We trust it will be generally read and
its provisions faithfully observed by those whose duty it is to see them
carried out. The third section, it will
be seen, provides that “any person may” and that every police officer,
constable or marshal shall, kill or cause to be destroyed all dogs going at
large and not licensed and collared according to the provisions of this
act. Section tenth makes it the duty of
the mayor and aldermen to any city to see that the law is enforced, and the
next section fixes the penalty imposed upon any officer refusing or neglecting
to perform the duties devolving upon him.
Although there has been a large number of dogs
killed here recently, there is yet at least a thousand which should be served
in the same manner. Let their owners
either comply with the law, or let the dogs be slaughtered with as little delay
as possible. Will the proper authorities
see to it that one or the other of these things is done?
Watertown
Democrat, 04 19 1860
The
Dog Law is working admirably. A whole array of worthless curs of all sizes, varieties and
conditions have rapidly disappeared from our midst and no longer infest
every avenue and hang by the dozens around every corner. Now that provisions are made by law for
taking care or destroying dogs, indiscriminate poisoning or killing them should
stop. Those who comply with the law should
have the full benefit of its protection.
Those who do not, should be left to the
consequences of their neglect and their dogs take the chances of escaping the
vigilance of the public officers whose duty and interest it is to exterminate
every unlicensed canine specimen that is running loose.
Watertown Democrat, 05 24 1860
The dogs still flourish in our community.
To be sure, most of them are provided with a collar, name and number,
but they run about nearly as numerous as ever.
No less than two hundred and four have been registered in this city
during the present Spring. Who would believe that over two hundred and
twenty-five dollars would be paid to secure the existence of nearly as many
useless creatures as ever drew breath, for we take it for granted that not one
in ten is worth the food he eats for any purpose whatever. We have alluded to this subject to call
attention to the fact that every one who keeps a dog
unregistered is liable to a fine of five dollars for so doing. As there has been
one or two cases in this city of parties being arrested for this offence, a
hint may be sufficient to prevent any more such unpleasant incidents.
Watertown Democrat, 12 06 1860
Ordinance
An Ordinance in Relation to Dogs
The Common
Council of the City of Watertown do ordain as follows:
Section 1. No dog shall be allowed to run at large in
any part of this city without being safely muzzled with a secure muzzle.
Sec. 2. Every citizen shall have the right, and it is
hereby made the duty of the Marshal, Deputy Marshal and Constables of this
city, to kill all dogs that may be found running at large in this city, for the
space of sixty days from the passage of this ordinance, unless the same shall
be safely muzzled, as above provided.
Sec. 3. The provisions of an ordinance of this city
against discharging firearms within the city limits shall not apply to persons
engaged in carrying into effect the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 4. The Mayor of the city is hereby authorized,
at any time after the expiration of sixty days from the passage of this
ordinance, if he shall deem it necessary, to again enforce its provisions, to
revive the same proclamation served upon the city marshal and posted up in at
least one public place in each of the wards of this city.
Sec. 5. This ordinance shall take effect from and
after its passage.
Passed, Nov. 17, 1860.
M. B. Williams,
Mayor
A. D. Harger, City Clerk
1861
Watertown Republican, 02 01 1861
The Board of Trustees in Horicon has passed an ordinance that all doges found running at large without a proper muzzle will be killed and their owners fined $5 for each offence.
Watertown
Republican, 02 22 1861
A
Pup and a Pig
The San Francisco Herald says that a gentleman in that city possesses a pup and a pig
between whom warm friendship has arisen. Puppy is very assiduous in his attention to
piggy, shares his food with him, gathers materials to form a bed for him, even
stealing articles of clothing for the purpose, and shares his couch by day and
night. By some strange instinct the dog
seems to have discovered that piggy’s tastes in the article of food are
different from his own, and he takes every opportunity to gratify the porcine
palate with raw vegetables, apples and other articles not found in a canine
bill of fare.
Watertown Democrat, 05 09 1861
T. H. Vesty
The claim of T. H. Vesty for damages sustained by dogs killing his lambs was referred to the Judiciary committee. Common Council Proceedings
Watertown Democrat, 05 23 1861
Dog Law is put in force
Notice is hereby given to the inhabitants of the town of Watertown and the owners of dogs therein that the Dog Law is put in force and that any person or persons not having their dogs registered according to law, on or before the first day of June next, will be prosecuted according to law with an additional fine of five dollars. By order of the Board of Supervisors. Watertown.
Watertown Democrat, 06 20 1861
Dog Law
The authorities of the town of Watertown have determined to enforce the dog law within their limits. Notice has been given to all owners to get their dogs registered or the penalties for neglecting this duty will be inflicted on all delinquents. This is right, only make the thing even.
2001
10 13 An ordinance to repeal and recreate a section of the city’s animal ordinance, regarding keeping animals and fowl within the city, was approved at its first reading. Limitations include making it unlawful to keep more than 10 rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, snakes, etc., or a combination of any 10 animals within the city. Permits are required for animals not listed in the ordinance, with approval of the city health officer who may also require an annual inspection of the premises where the animals are kept. Anyone in violation of the ordinance provisions is subject to a fine of at least $50 for each offense. “I hope the council will not pass this bill that make criminals out of law-abiding citizens,” said RoyAnn Webb, who has an indoor aviary. “Please remember the end of the pledge of allegiance words you just spoke, ‘and justice for all,’ and that includes people with animals.”
Cross Reference:
