Colonel D. D. Harris, of Mendon, Michigan, refused more than once ten thousand dollars for his famous sable Scotch Collie. He was a dog of such note, with the refined people of the world, that he was privileged to walk through the Vatican, and was entertained by the President of France--the Czar of the Russias--the King of Norway and Sweden, and other nobility of the old world. President Cleveland stroked his glossy coat, and he received the most grateful attention among all the courts visited in this and in other countries. This Collie was never on public exhibition, but was the traveling companion of his owner. He could select any card called for in the deck--if not there, would say so by giving a whine--could distinguish colors as well as any human being; and could count money and make change with the rapidity and accuracy of an expert bank accountant. If told to make change of $31.31, or any other amounts from coins of various denominations, he could do so rapidly and without mistake. This intelligent dog lived out his allotted brief existence, dying at the age of fourteen years; but was better known than thousands of men who have lived much longer, thinking themselves quite eminent. If dogs are not valuable property why are they exchanged at high rates in dollars and cents? Why did Mr. E. R. Sears, of Melrose, Mass., part with his twelve thousand five hundred dollars in “greenbacks” for the dog Bedivere? It may be _said_ the one who purchased a dog at that price was “_green_”--if said, it would be a mistake, for _Green_ was the gentleman who sold him. The greater part of the early population of Ohio associated with dogs much of their time, and with good results. But the law-makers of the state, or a majority, had a penchant for self-elevation by legislating against those they feared as rivals--“dogs and niggers.” Consequently, “Black laws” and dog laws engrossed the time and talents of law-makers, who felt measurably unsafe unless the former were excluded as property and the latter deprived of citizenship. The sensitive, if not infallible, Supreme Court has recently given the property rights and protection of the dog a bad set-back in the decision that “dogs are not property,” and outside of property it would seem there can be no ownership. But as decisions of the learned court are not required to be accepted in silence by the canine species, _this one_ affecting their rights is enough to make every dog of high and low degree, from Maine to California, rise up with a prodigious howl of contempt.