 |
"A Canine Festival in Honor to the Abolishment of the City Pound," The Wasp, Volume 7, Number 262, August 5, 1881, page 88.
|
Early in the morning of October 24,
2017, in response to criticism from a Senator from his own party, President
Donald Trump tweeted that Senator Bob Corker “couldn’t get elected dog catcher
in Tennessee.”
Candidate Trump directed similar
language toward Governor Patacki of New York more than two years earlier.
Donald Trump was not the first
person to use the failure to achieve the office of “dog catcher” as a metaphor
for general unelectability. The office of “dog catcher” has served as the benchmark
for electoral futility since at least 1831.
A precursor to the familiar idiom
appeared in a report of the Antimasonry Party convention in Baltimore in
1831. When it was discovered that
Maryland had not sent any official delegates to the convention, a delegate
nominated J. S. Shriver for the position.
But who was this Shriver?
Who he is I cannot learn; but he is probably some obscure
citizen, or disappointed office seeker, who is willing
even to be known as a dog-catcher, rather than not figure in the public
prints.
Boston
Masonic Mirror, Volume 3, October 8, 1831, page
118.
A year later, again in Baltimore,
the office of “dog catcher” featured in a humorous sketch critical of
Englishmen who criticize the United States while enjoying its benefits.
You remember that Basum Hall, though he writes so fierce
against this place, he tried to get the office of Dog catcher![i]
Mississippi
Free Trader (Natchez, Mississippi), December
14, 1832, page 1 (From the Baltimore
Morning Visiter).
In 1851, the Whig Party adopted a
new party “Constitution.” Critics
believed that supporters of the new platform would become politically
irrelevant.
A travelling correspondent of the Cincinnati Gazette, writing from New York, thus gives utterance to
his views and feelings on the receipt of the news that this State had gone for
the New Constitution by twenty thousand majority:
“We see old whig doctrines trampled under foot, and new
fashioned democracy, of the most
ultra school substituted . . . . Upon my
word, Messrs. Editors, neither of them could get my
vote for the office of dog-catcher.”
The
Spirit of Democracy (Woodsfield, Ohio), July 30, 1851,
page 3.
The earliest examples of the idiom
in its familiar form appear a couple decades later.
In 1874, a description of past
political corruption under Boss
Tweed noted that otherwise unelectable
people could win, despite the will of the voters.
Handsome majorities were thus rolled up, and candidates who
could not be elected to the position of “dog catcher”
in any other country received an almost unanimous “count” at the hands
of pliant election inspectors.
The
New York Herald, October 29, 1874, page 3.
But the standard form of the idiom
was not new in 1874. The same idiom had
appeared in print decades earlier, but without the “dog-catcher,” at least not
by that name. Earlier examples of the
idiom used an alternate title for a dog-control officer, one more descriptive
of the brutal nature of the business as practiced at the time – “dog pelter.”
A certain gentleman was put in nomination by his friends for
a nominal office; after which, by arrangement, one of the little strikers, who could not be elected dog pelter for any village in the State,
arose and asked, if this gentleman who was nominated, did not once run for the
State Senate against a regular nominee – it was answered by another of the same
class in the affirmative, which by the way, was false.
Boon’s
Lick Times (Fayette, Missouri), April 27,
1844, page 2.
It is unclear whether the word,
“pelter” used here relates to the verb, “to pelt,” meaning “to
strip off the skin or pelt of (an animal)”,
or “to pelt,” meaning “to
assail vigorously or persistently”.
But since dog-control officers of the
period regularly clubbed and skinned their quarry, it may be a distinction
without meaning. Another title for
dog-control officers of the day makes the point more plainly, albeit more
colorfully.
One Pawnee [Oklahoma] editor said of another Pawnee editor
that “he couldn’t be elected commissary clerk to the
chief dog skinner of the Flat-head Indians.” That is probably what led to the
shooting.
Witchita
Daily Eagle (Kansas), December 26, 1899, page
4.
The title of “dog-killer” received
the same treatment, idiomatically.
We can never vote for a man who habitually gets drunk – no, not even for the office of dog-killer.
Daily
Gazette and Comet (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), August
12, 1858, page 2.
The office of “scavenger” was also
sometimes invoked. In the District of
Columbia in 1867, for example, during one of the first election seasons in
which black men had the right to vote, and most of them were expected to vote
Republican, a low-level Democratic politician, the candidate for Assessor of
the Second Ward, said of his Republican opponents:
. . . many of them could not be
elected scavengers by white men.
Evening
Star (District of Columbia), May 31,
1867, page 1.
“Scavengers” were responsible for
removing and burying dead animals and, in some instances, cleaning and emptying
privy vaults (outhouse pits). Their
duties intersected with, and were sometimes combined with, the duties of
dog-catcher.
Some dog-catchers were known by a
more genteel title, Pound-master. The
title was invoked, idiomatically, to criticize a corrupt warden in Oregon in
1874.
[T]he Penitentiary is nothing better than a convenient
appliance of an unpopular one-horse politician, who on a square vote before the
people of Oregon, could hardly get elected Pound-master.
Weekly
Oregon Statesman (Salem), October 17, 1874, page 2.
In some jurisdictions, the
“Pound-master” was a supervisory position over all of the dog-catchers,
pelters, skinners and killers. It is
also the latest of the titles to appear in print, which is not surprising because early dog-control
officers had no need for a pound; after all, “skinners,” “pelters” and
“killers” had little need for a pound to hold living dogs.
But don’t judge the past too harshly.
As brutal as the system may seem from a
modern perspective, the concerns were real, and the conditions of life, coupled
with their limited understanding of epidemiology and disease, made the practice
seem a necessary evil.
“Rabies,” or “hydrophobia” as it was
then known, commonly spread by rabid dogs or “mad dogs” as they were then known,
was lethal to humans in every case at the time – every case!!! And a rabies vaccine was not developed until
the 1880s. Romanticized notions of
cruelty to animals therefore had little sway with parents of children bitten,
or liable to be bitten, by packs of wild dogs roaming the streets of the
late-18th and early-19th centuries. And widespread, affordable spaying and
neutering services were not commonly available on a large scale until 1969,
more than a century later.[ii]
That’s not to say that there was no
resistance. There were always those who
were appalled by the brutality and the indiscriminate enforcement of dog laws,
and the owners of sporting dogs, lap dogs, and family pets lived in constant
fear that Rover, Rex or Fido would get caught up in a dragnet. But persistent worry about the very real
danger of letting the dogs out, where they might contract a deadly,
communicable disease, kept the regime in place in most jurisdictions.
But despite good intentions, the
standard dog-control systems were frequently beset by divided loyalties,
temptation, greed, and outright cruelty.
Dog-catchers and the like were
public officials, backed by the powers of the state, endowed with the power to
confiscate dogs and other loose animals, arrest members of the public
interfering with their duties, and to fine the owners of loose, unlicensed or un-muzzled
dogs, depending on the wording of the local ordinance.
As a general rule, local “dog laws”
provided for payment to the dog-control officer a statutory bounty for each dog
killed and buried. Later, as slightly
more humanitarian reforms took hold, dog law provided for statutory holding
periods of a few days, during which owners could redeem the dog for a set
fee. If unredeemed, the dogs would be
killed, and the dog-control officer would earn the bounty.
In some cases, the bounty for
killing a dog exceeded the fine paid to redeem a pet, which could motivate a dog-catcher
to kill more dogs than might otherwise be required. In other cases, the ability and tendency of
women of leisure and gentleman sportsmen to afford and pay the ransom made it
more economically efficient to nab (if not outright steal) lap-dogs, hunting
dogs and tame family pets of the local gentry, thereby lining one’s pockets
while avoiding the inherent danger, mess and bother of hunting down actually
dangerous rabid or wild dogs.
The archives are full of accounts of
frequent violence between dog-control officers and owners, good Samaritans and
animal lovers. It was a messy business,
but nonetheless desirable to someone with few real skills and political
aspirations.
As a general rule, dog laws generally required burial of unredeemed dogs, some jurisdictions permitted dog-control officers to profit off the carcasses. They reportedly made nice gloves. The fur and oils also had some value. And sausage makers were widely believed to make use of the meat when they could get away with it. "Oh where, oh where has my little dog gone?"
In time, what Lincoln (in different
circumstances) called the “better angels of our nature” won out, assisted by improved
living standards and advancements in science, technology, hygiene and
medicine. Perhaps that is why the more common name of the position slowly
changed from dog-killer to –skinner, to –pelter,
to –catcher. Or perhaps the expression
stuck because “nothing
had the satisfying bite of ‘dogcatcher,’” as Ben Zimmer
suggested in his “Word on the Street” column on the same topic, in the Wall Street Journal.
 |
"I've ketched a daisy one this time, Mulvey! Will I put him in der cage?" Time, Volume 8, Numbe 203, July 7, 1888, page 4.
|
Dog-Control “Elections”
Of the various titles for
dog-control officers, “Pound-master” seems to be the one most commonly “elected,”
as we understand the word, in the sense that the candidates appeared on a
ballot at the polls during an election.
That does not mean, however, that
the other positions were not “elected,” at least as the term was used during
the period. Although some dog-catchers and
the like were subject to direct election by the people, most of them seem to
have been chosen by a vote of commissioners, city councilmen, aldermen, or
neighborhood, precinct or ward officers – so “elected,” in a way, even if not
by a direct vote of the electorate.
It is important to keep in mind that
the “dog-catcher” system developed at a time when the patronage system was in
full swing, long before the civil service reforms of the late-19th
century. And given the local power and sometimes
relatively decent earning potential, dog-catcher remained a prized political
office in some jurisdictions, at least for certain kinds of people with limited
skills at the bottom of the local political rung.
The office of dog-catcher, and the
like, was frequently used idiomatically to refer to the lowest rung of the
political ladder.
The republicans will see every mother’s son of them in the
place that Bob Ingersoll does not believe in before they will let them elect an
officer, from United States Senator down to a village
dog-catcher, if a republican wants the place.
Clarksville
Weekly Chronicle (Tennessee), November 26, 1881,
page 1.
There are enough citizens of this country identified with
labor who, if they would vote as a unit, could elect a man to every office in
the gift of the people from the president down to
dog-catcher. . . . Knights of Labor.
The
Irish Standard (Minneapolis, Minnesota), September
11, 1886, page 2.
Then, as now, residents of
Washington DC complained that they were denied the right to vote for their
representatives – even the lowliest ones.
The triumvirate of a Caeser, Crassus, and Pompey, the
gradual absorption of power by a few men, and the general dislike of an
unrepublican form of government. We have
more voters here than in at least three states of the union, and yet we are not allowed to elect even a dog catcher [(although,
as we saw earlier, that was not literally true)].
National
Republican, April 10, 1883, page 4.
Dog-catchers, themselves, might be
of any political stripe.
There are twenty official
dog-catchers in this city. Nine
are for Cleveland, nine are for Harrison and two are on the fence, and will
probably not decide how they will vote until 3.45 o’clock on election day.
The
New York Evening World, August
17, 1888, Extra, page 2.
The now familiar idiom, with
“dog-catcher,” started appearing in print in the mid-1880s.
St. John has made his appearance in the Ohio campaign in
opposition to the Republican ticket. St.
John’s influence in politics is in the direct ration of his distance from
home. In Kansas
he could not be elected dog catcher.
He is of course paid for his services; or perhaps he is working out the
old contract of last year under which three Ohio Democrats put up a sum of
money to keep him on the track.
The
Osage City Free Press (Kansas), July 9, 1885, page 1.
There is about as much prospect of Congress being guilty of
enacting the Woodburn bill as there is of Nevada ever again producing a
statesman who could be elected to the office of
dog-catcher in a civilized community where the offices were not openly
sold to the highest bidder.
Salt
Lake Herald, March 2, 1886, page 4.
And in 1888, another President was
associated with the expression, although this time on the receiving end of the
jibe. As President Grover Cleveland
approached the end of his first term, members of his own party longed for James
G. Blaine, whom Cleveland had defeated for the nomination in 1884; they though
he would be more electable.
The difference: Jas. G. Blaine is the idol of the people in
his own state – Maine. Grover Cleveland could not be elected for dog-catcher in his
own ward or in his city, where he is best known. This latter we get from Col. Sylvester, a
resident and former neighbor of Cleveland in Buffalo. Mr. Sylvester was one of the old settlers of
Emporia, but has resided in Buffalo for years back. He is well and favorably known both here and
in New York.
The
Emporia Weekly News (Kansas), May 10, 1888, page 2.
Perhaps it was the frequent reporting
about President Cleveland that pushed the expression into greater awareness and
popularity. Whereas the idiom and its
predecessors appeared only infrequently before 1888, it appeared with
regularity in association with Grover Cleveland, and continuously
thereafter.
Cleveland’s supporters ignored the
criticism – they sent their man to Washington to clean up the swamp, and that
was why he had so many haters.
Unpopular
with Rascals.
(Chicago
Herald.)
An insolent Republican newspaper asserts that Mr. Cleveland
is so unpopular in Washington that he could not be
elected dog catcher for the district.
This may be true, yet Mr. Cleveland has caught a great many dogs in his
day – stealing. His success in that line
would naturally make him unpopular with the claim agents and other parasites
that throng the capital.
The
Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky), February 18,
1889, page 4.
Some things never change.
 |
Grover
Cleveland in Happier Days,
New York Tribune (Twinkles weekly comic supplement), March 27, 1897. |
Other Offices
Dog-catcher and the like was not the
only position sometimes considered the bottom of the ticket. In 1841, for example, the third-party
Abolitionist Party placed the office of “path-master” in that position.
It is hereby declared to be the duty of every abolitionist
who possesses the right of suffrage to vote for every officer elected, from President of the United States to path-master of a road
district, unless prevented by the providence of God.
The
Liberator (Boston,
Massachusetts), January 29, 1841, page 1.
And like dog-catcher, path-master
was similarly (if less frequently) considered metaphorically unattainable by
the allegedly unelectable.
They are politically dead forever. Neither of them could
be elected pathmaster in their own school districts. Theirs is the ultimate fate of all
Demagogues.
The
Representative (Fox Lake, Wisconsin), November 16,
1866, page 2.
After losing an election, and before
President Benjamin Harrison's inauguration, pro-statehood advocates in the
Dakotas thought that President Cleveland would become even more unelectable if
he vetoed their admission to the Union.
It is rumored at Washington that Cleveland will veto the
[Dakota] admission bill. . . . Should he
veto it that act would forever settle the fate of the democratic party in the
north. While in the northwest a man who
would admit that he ever voted for “His Wrecked and Wretched Greatness,” would find it impossible to be elected pathmaster.
The
Daily Plainsman (Huron, South Dakota), February
1889, page 1.
He did not veto the bill, leaving it
for President Harrison to sign after assuming office. But Cleveland
fooled them all four years later by winning a second term as President; the
only person to serve two non-consecutive terms in office.
And in the 1890s, ex-Senator Thomas
Ferry of Michigan, a man who had once been a heart-beat away from the
Presidency while serving as President Pro-Tem of the Senate following the death
of Vice President Henry Wilson in 1875, led an anonymous, unelectable existence
in Washington DC.
When the Philadelphia Exposition was opened, Vice-President
Thomas W. Ferry officiated. You may see him any day in Washington.
Few know him even by sight. He could hardly be
elected pathmaster in Michigan, to whose fame he for years added special
luster.
The
Courier-News (Bridgewater, New Jersey), August
19, 1892, page 4.
On occasion, dog-control officers
were mentioned together with other low-level offices, as was the case with one
of the most colorful versions of the dog-catcher insult I have run across:
An obscurity-spawned, slum-hatched, curmudgeonish nonentity,
who couldn't honestly or legally, have got 500 votes out of all our 1,250,000
population, for constable, bung-smeller or municipal dog-pelter.
The
Weekly Caucasian (Lexington, Missouri), May 10,
1873, page 1.
Trump Cleveland "elected dog
catcher" dogcatcher etymology origin history idiom expression phrase
Trump Cleveland "elected dog
catcher" dogcatcher etymology origin history idiom expression phrase
Trump Cleveland "elected dog
catcher" dogcatcher etymology origin history idiom expression phrase
Trump Cleveland "elected dog
catcher" dogcatcher etymology origin history idiom expression phrase
[i]
Translated from the black-face minstrel-style “dialect,” so popular at the
time, in which the original sketch was written.
NOTE: Post updated May 4, 2021, to add images from The Wasp and Time Magazine.
