There is an axiom in law, if we remember rightly, which recognizes the legality of "a dog's first bite." The|® principle involved appears to be parallel to that of one man one vote," except that the bite is not supposed to become 'a recurring quantity. From this point of view the police court case which was argued between two rival dog-owners on Friday and Saturday last, as reported on another page, ought to have been settled without difficulty, Ench dog had had several bites at the other dog, which fare quite beyond the legal allowance. But: now the problem came in of deciding which dog had had the first bite; and which dog was, consequently, the aggressor. Once again we are brought face to face with the well-approved fact that a dog is never ferocious in its Of the two dogs concerned in this particular case one is described as being "of a quiet How comes it that each dog-owner, on their respective showing, went in terror of the other's dog?' Several witnesses were called to bear witness to the character of defendant's dog; but it is worth remarking that we hear nothing from the postman who had once been gone for" by this "most friendly animal." Postmen, however. in common with milkman and errand boys, tare sach common objects of antipathy ta all dogs at large about their owners' premises, that, perhaps, this witness would not have been considered trustworthy. Incidentally we-have the curious defini tion from complainant's mother that dog is effectively muzzled so long #9 the, more to raise the status of their profession than could be effected by all the diplomas of Birmingham. For whereas instances of Parliaments trampling upon the Press are frequent, it is but seldom that we find the Press retaliate ing upon the Parliaments. On the Continent, it is true, the Reporters' Gallery allows "tel considerable licence during debate, not hesitating to call out upon deputies to speak slower, or louder, or even to stop speaking altogether. Very different customs in the House of Commons, where ts are not even allowed to be present while the daily prayers are said—regulation which has been explained by the brutal assumption that their state is past praying for. In certain municipal elections that we recall two or three years ago, a garralous demagogue was so ill-advised us to speak slightingly of the Press, whereupon he was promptly boycotted. "No matter, how much, how often nor how violently he declaimed, not a line appeared in any paper. He brazened it out fora time; but at last the enforced obscurity was too much for him. He apologized, publicly and profoundly. And that we suspect will be the fate of Herr Grocber, who ix by this much worse off than the aspirant to municipal honours in that he has involved not only himself but the whole of the Reichstag in his quarrel. Will his brother deputies easily endure the torture of not seeing themselves in print March 24.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.