In a legal argument, an analogy may be used
when there is no
PRECEDENT (prior CASE LAW close in
facts and legal principles) in point. Reasoning by
analogy involves referring to a case that concerns
unrelated subject matter but is governed by the
same general principles and applying those
principles to the case at hand.
ANARCHISM
The theory espousing a societal state in which
there is no structured government or law or in
which there is resistance to all current forms of
government.
Anarchists promote the absence of rules,
which le ads to the absence of any identifiable
social structure beyond that of personal autonomy.
When anarchy becomes defined by one anarchist,
other anarchists may feel bound to change it.
Anarchism thus means different things to
different believers. Anarchists do not hold
common views on subjects such as desirable
levels of community cooperation and the role of
large industry in society. Another matter of
continuing debate is whether anarch y is an end
unto itself or simply the best means to a better
government. To all anarchists, though, anarchy
is the best refuge f rom political dogma and
authority. Moreover, many anarchists agree that
anarchism begins with the notion that people
are inherently good, or even perfect, and that
external authority—laws, governments, institu-

BANK
, and the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.
Anarchists became the f ocus of national attention
in the late 1990s and early 2000s when they staged
massive protests against World Trade Organization
meetings in such U.S. cities as Seattle, Washington,
and Eugene, Oregon. Although anarchists
claim these protests were peaceful until law
enforcement officers disrupted them, o thers con-
sider these anarchists to be violent a nd unruly
revolutionaries.
William Godwin (1756–1836) is widely
regarded as the f irst to give anar chy a comprehen-
sive intellectual foundation. Godwin, the son of a
Calvinist minister, argued that the state and its laws
were enslaving people instead of freeing them.
According to Godwin, government was necessary
only to prevent injustice and external invasion.
With every person educated in sincerity, indepen-
dence, self-restr aint, a nd seriousness, any more
governmental activity would be unnecessary.
Godwin opposed the rise of liberal democ-
racy in the late 1700s. In the wake of the
American and French Revolutions, he observed,
“electioneering is a trade so despicably degrad-
ing, so eternally incompatible with moral and
mental dignity that I can scarcely believe a truly
On July 9, 1917,
Emma Goldman and
Alexander Berkman

the
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD (IWW), an
organization dedicated to anarcho-syndicalism,
which seeks to use the
INDUSTRIAL UNION as the
basis for a reorganization of society. Goldman’s
cross-country lecture tours, in which she
addressedabroad range of social topics in German
and English, earned her a reputation as a witty
speaker and provocative thinker. A voracious
reader and a magazine publisher, Goldman gave
voice toideas onsexuality,freelove,
BIRTH CONTROL,
and family structures that shocked members ofher
generation, including fellow anarchists.
Like many devout anarchists, Goldman had
trouble with the law. She was imprisoned for a
year for allegedly inciting a
RIOT during a NewYork
City hunger demonstration in 1893. Goldman
also served a two-week sentence for distributing
illegal birth control information. She was jailed on
suspicion of complicity in the
ASSASSINATION of
President
WILLIAM MCKINLEY, in 1901. In 1917 she
was arrested with Berkman for participating in
antiwar protests, and both were charged with
violating the Selective Service Act of 1917 (40 Stat.
76) by inducing young men to resist the draft.

the Kansas Criminal Syndicalism Act (Laws Sp.
Sess. 1920, c. 37). Fiske had been arrested for
promoting the Workers’ Industrial Union
(WIU), an organization devoted in part to
establishing worker control of industry and the
abolition of the wage system.
Under the syndicalism statute in Kansas, any
person advocating “the duty, necessity, propriety
or expediency of crime, criminal syndicalism, or
SABOTAGE is guilty of a felony” (1920 Kan.
Sess. Laws ch. 37, § 3). Criminal syndicalism was
defined as the advocation of crime, physical
violence, or destruction of property “as a means
of effecting industrial or political revolution, or
for profit” (§ 1). Kansas authorities charged Fiske
with crimina l syndicalism, citing only the
PREAM-
BLE
to the constitution of the IWW, the parent
organization of Fiske’s WIU. This preamble
stated, in part, that “a struggle must go on until
the workers of the World organize as a class, take
possession of the earth, and the machinery of
production and abolish the wage system” (Fiske).
The U.S. Supreme Court found insufficient
evidence against Fiske to
WARRANT CONVICTION of
criminal syndicalism. According to the Court,
there was no suggestion that “getting possession
of the machinery of production and abolishing

the
OWNER of the adjoining land cannot obscure
them, such as by erecting a building. If the
neighbor does so, he or she can be sued under a
theory ofnuisance,and
DAMAGES could beawarded.
The doctrine of ancient lights has not been
adopted in the United States because it would
greatly hinder commercial and residential
growth and the expansion of towns and cities.
ANCIENT WRITING
An original document affecting the transfer of real
property, which can be admitted as evidence in a
lawsuit because its ag ed condition and its location
upon discovery sufficiently establish its authenticity.
Under
COMMON LAW, an ancient writing,
sometimes called an ancient document, could
be offered as evidenc e only if certain conditions
were met. The document had to be at least
thirty years old, the equivalent of a generation.
It had to appear genuine and free from
suspicion. For example, if the date of the
document or the signatures of the parties to it
appeared to have been altered, it was not
considered genuine. When found, the docu-
ment must have been in a likely location or in
the possession of a person who would logically
have had access to it, such as a deed found in
the office of the county clerk or in the custody

writing must be considered if the case is to be
determined on its merits. The probability that
such a document is trustworthy is determined by
its condition and location upon discovery. These
factors permit a court and a jury to presume the
authenticity of an ancient writing.
ANCILLARY
Subordinate; aiding. A legal proceeding that is not
the primary dispute but which aids the judgment
rendered in or the outcome of the main action. A
descriptive term that denotes a legal claim, the
existence of which is dependent upon or reason-
ably linked to a main claim.
For example, a
PLAINTIFF wins a judgment for a
specified sum of money against a
DEFENDANT in a
NEGLIGENCE action. The defendant refuses to pay
the judgment. The plaintiff begins another
proceeding for a
WRIT of attachment so that
the judgment will be satisfied by the sale of the
defendant’s property seized under the writ. The
attachment proceeding is ancillary, or subordi-
nate, to the negligence suit. An ancillary proceed-
ing is sometimes called an ancillary suit or bill.
A claim for
ALIMONY is an ancillary claim
dependent upon the primary claim that there
are sufficient legal grounds for a court to grant a

research and in the transportation, handling of,
and slaughter of animals in the meat and poultry
industries and for human consumption.
By the end of the twentieth century,
membership in animal advocacy organizations
had reached more than 10 million people in the
United States and opposition to the use of
animals in laboratory experiments was rapidly
growing. Some 76 medical schools claimed that
demonstrations and break-ins by animal rights
advocates had cost them more than $4.5 million,
according to a report from the Association of
American Medical Colleges.
As the conflict between animal rights
activists and medical and scientific researchers
has grown, federal and state regulation of
activities involving animal research has also
expanded. At the federal level, the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.A. § 2131 et seq. [1994])
regulates the treatment of animals used in
federally funded research. Under amendments
added to the act in 1985, the secretary of
agriculture was required to
PROMULGATE stan-
dards to govern the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of animals by
dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors. Thes e
standards were to include minimum require-
ments for housing, feeding, watering, sanitation,
ventilation, shelter from extremes of weather

requirements regarding exercise for dogs and
the psychological well-being of primates; the
amount of delay permitted under the regula-
tions in complying with new cage requirements;
and the loophole in the regulations’ provision for
Members of People for
the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PETA)
protest seal hunting.
The group has had a
significant impact on
the use of animals in
medical and scientific
research.
JENNY/WIREIMAGE/
GETTY IMAGES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
ANIMAL RIGHTS 291
special cage designs, which permitted facilities to
evade the existing minimum requirements for
cage sizes.
In February 1993 a federal district court
found that the USDA treatment of laboratory
animals waiting to be used in biomedical
experiments violated federal statutes providing
for the humane treatment of such animals. In
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Secretary of
Agriculture (813 F. Supp. 882 [1993]), the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia

a report summarizing the implications of includ-
ing the above-excluded species in the definition, as
of 2008, the
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE had
not indicated that any existed.
Whereas the Animal Welfare Act governs
the general treatment of research animals, other
federal statutes govern the testing procedures
that may be used on animals in the course of
scientific and commercial research and in
product testing. The Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 2601 et seq. [1994])
authorizes the use of two procedures that have
been particularly controversial: the Draize test
and the lethal dose 50 (LD50) test.
The Draize test measures the irritancy of a
substance such as a cosmetic or pesticide by
applying it to the eyes of live rabbits for
24 hours. The LD50 test is used to calculate
the median lethal dose of a substance by feeding
it to a defined population of animals until 50
percent of them die. Some product manufac-
turers, such as Avon Products, Revlon, Faberge,
Amway Corporation, Mary Kay Cosmetics, and
Noxell Corporation, have discontinued some or
all animal testing as a result of continued
protests over the use of these tests.
The
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported
numerous incidents of

Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon , South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Several states also regulate the use of animals
kept in pounds for use in research. Maine
prohibits the use of pound animals for any
research (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 1025 [West
1994]). California requires that any pound or
animal regulation department where animals are
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
292 ANIMAL RIGHTS
turned over to a research facility post a sign
stating “Animals Turned in to This Shelter May
Be Used for Research Purposes,” in a clearly
visible place (Cal. Civ. Code § 1834.7 [West
1994]). In Oklahoma, pounds are required to
supply unclaimed animals to research institu-
tions, unless the
OWNER of an animal bringing it to
the pound specifies it is not to be used in research
(Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 4, § 394 [West 1994]).
At least three states regulate the sale of
animals to research facilities. Minnesota law
prohibits the transfer of a dog or cat by a person
other than the owner to a research animal dealer,
the possession of a dog or cat by a dealer without
the owner’s permission, or the transfer of a dog or
cat by a dealer to an institution without the

despite new enforcement guidelines and inten-
sified in spections, the USDA could not assure
that stolen or lost pets would not enter research
laboratories via the Clas s B dealer system. (Class
A dealers sell dogs and cats specifically bred for
the purpose of research. Class B dealers possess
an operating license from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) that allows them to
obtain dogs and cats from public animal
shelters, auctions, private individuals, and other
“random sources.”)
The report further advised that undercover
investigators had documented Class B dealers
buying pets from unlicensed persons who had
stolen animals from farms, backyards, and/or had
represented themselves as prospective adoptive
parents to animal shelters or “free to good home”
advertisers. As of 2009, 11 Class B dea lers were
registered with the USDA, two of whom were
under investigation. The published report was in
response to a request by Congress, through the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), for an
assessment of the need to use random source
dogs and cats from Class B dealers in NIH-funded
research. (The Office of Laboratory Animal
Welfare [OLAW] is maintained under an NIH
grant.) Both House and Senate had approved
amendments banning Class B dealers in a
previous congressional session, but these provi-
sions had been stripped from the final version of

animal cruelty.
Although PETA has had a significant impact
on the use of animals in medical and scientific
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
ANIMAL RIGHTS 293
Welcome to the Monkey Lab: The
Battle over Animal Research
I
n May 1981 Alex Pacheco, cofounder
of an animal rights organization called
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF
ANIMALS
(PETA), went to work as a
volunteer at the Institute for Behavioral
Research, a private research center in
Silver Spring, Maryland. Pacheco told the
institute’s chief research scientist,
Edward Taub, that he was fascinated by
animal research. Taub’s research in-
volved the surgical crippling of monkeys
using a procedure called deafferentation,
in which the spinal cord is opened and
various nerves leading to arms and legs
are sliced away, causing numbness.
At the time Pacheco joined his lab,
Taub had performed the procedure on
17 macaques, attempting to show that
function could be restored to limbs by
forcing new nerve growth. He had
destroyed the nerves to only one arm

tinued animal research.
Many participants in the debate over
animal rights view the 1981
SEIZURE of
the Silver Spring monkeys as a turning
point for the animal rights movement
in the United States, heading it in a
more combative and less compromising
direction.
Animal welfare has long been an issue
in the United States. As early as the mid-
1600s the Puritans prohibited cruelty
toward animals, and by the nineteenth
century groups such as the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals and the American Anti-Vivisection
Society had been organized. Animal
experimentation has been controversial
not only between the animal rights
movement and the scientific and medical
research communities but also between
the activist groups themselves.
Supporters of the use of animals in
research are as adamant in their advocacy
of the use of animals in research as
animal rights activists are in their
opposition to such use. Supporters of
the use of animals in research point out
that virtually every major advancement
in medicine during the past century has

Association for Biomedical Research, has
argued that animal testing is necessary to
sustain the human race.
Supporters of animal research fre-
quently direct attack towards animal
rights activists, often labeling animal
rights groups as “extremists.” Joseph
Murray, who in 1990 won the Nobel Prize
for medicine in recognition of his work on
organ transplants, said, “None of this
could have been done without animal
experimentation. It’s a tragedy and a waste
of resources that scientists have to combat
the anti-vivisectionists,” referring to ani-
mal rights groups. Animal research sup-
porters often argue that the tactics
employed by animal rights groups impede
the progress being made in the medical
community through the use of animals in
research.
The supporters of animal research
and the animal rights activists have
clashed in both the courts and in the
legislatures. Concerned that animal rights
activists would cause the dismantling of all
animal research, the biomedical research
community lobbied successfully for years
against the passage of all legislation
restricting such research. But in the early
1950s Christine Stevens founded the

tection movement continued to expand.
By the early 1990s PETA had grown to
more than 400,000 members and had an
annual budget of nearly $10 million. More
than 400 animal rights groups had been
organized in the United States, claiming a
total membership of 10 million. Although
each of these groups can be said to support
the humane treatment of animals, their
philosophies vary dramatically.
The most radical group is the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF), an underground
organization formed in 1982 with an
estimated worldwide membership of
several hundred as of the mid-1990s.
ALF opposes the use of all animals in
medical and scientific research, including
psychological and surgical experimenta-
tion on living animals; ALF also opposes
using animals for testing new drugs and
cosmetics, for instructional purposes in
biology and medical school classes, and
for food, clothing, sports, circuses, and
pets. ALF claimed responsibility for more
than 75 attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1995, including steal-
ing animals from labs in Arizona,
California, Florida, Maryland, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.;
burning and vandalizing the University

damaging property including animals or
records.
Many scientists believe that ALF is a
thinly disguised division of PETA. PETA
denies any connection between the two
groups but has expressed its admiration
for ALF’s activities and often publicizes
the group’s raids. Both ALF and PETA
share a common goal of ending all
animal research, a philosophy that repre-
sents a fundamental split from other
animal rights organizations such as
Stevens’s Animal Welfare Institute and
the Humane Society of the United States,
which accept animal experimentation
but work for the humane treatment of
animals in that and other contexts.
Supporters of animal research de-
bunk many of the claims of animal rights
activities as pure myths. For instance,
animal rights activists often direct their
attention towards the use of such animals
as dogs, cats, and non-human primates
in medical research, but scientists point
out that the use of such animals accounts
for less than 1 percent of the total
number of animals used in research.
The vast majority of animals used in
research, according to these scientists, are
rodents, including mice and rats bred

54 percent opposed hunting for sport
and 50 percent opposed the wearing of
fur. Forty-six percent said the laws
protecting animals from inhumane treat-
ment were satisfactory, whereas 30 per-
cent said the laws did not go far enough,
and 17 percent said the laws went too far.
Animal rights leaders expressed surprise
that so many Americans agreed with
some of the principle tenets of the animal
protection movement.
A new wrinkle in the Animal Rights
movement has been the attempt to gain
the recognition of legal rights for ani-
mals. Animal rights advocates in both
PETA and ALF had spoken for years
about the need for animals to have legal
rights under U.S. law. But this theory
remained abstract until the end of the
twentieth century.
Then in 2000 Stephen Wise pub-
lished an influential animal rights book.
Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for
Animals took a legalistic approach in
arguing that at least two human-like
species, chimpanzees and bonobos, and
perhaps other species that were similarly
developed, should be considered
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
ANIMAL RIGHTS 295

Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
summary judgment (People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals v. Giuliani, 18 Fed. App.
35 [2d Cir. 2001]).
In 2004 and 2005 PETA engaged in an illegal
undercover investigation of a Virginia research
“persons”. The book was reviewed in
such noted publications as the Yale Law
Journal and the Harvard Law Review.
Among those legal scholars discussing
the book were
RICHARD POSNER, eminent
professor at the University of Chicago
law school and judge for the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and
Lawrence Tribe, professor of
CONSTITU-
TIONAL LAW
at Harvard University.
Tribe seemed especially taken with the
book’s arguments. “Broadening the circle
of rights-holders, or even broadening the
definition of persons, I submit, is largely a
matter of acculturation,” said Tribe in a
speech in Boston in support of the book.
“It is not a matter of breaking through
something, like a conceptual sound barri-
er. With the aid of statutes like those
creating corporate persons, our legal
system could surely recognize the person-

the legal system elsewhere. Even where
laws provide heightened protection for
animals against abuse, the animals are
still treated as a special form of property.
If the law were to extend recognition of
animals as holders of certain legal rights,
their status as something greater than
property raises difficult questions. For
instance, when would these rights con-
flict with recognized
HUMAN RIGHTS, and
could the right of an animal in a certain
case be greater than a right enjoyed by a
human? Likewise, how can society merge
the recognition of animal rights with the
traditional, and in some cases, funda-
mental uses of animals, including their
functions as sources of food and as goods
and services that may be bartered?
Scholarship and debate by legal experts
continues to grow regarding these
questions.
FURTHER READINGS
Carbone, Larry. 2004. What Animals Want:
Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory
Animal Welfare Policy. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Monamay, Vaughn. 2000. Animal Experimen-
tation: A Guide to the Issues. New York:
Cambridge Univ. Press.

Blum, Deborah. 1995. The Monkey Wars. Don Mills, ON,
Canada: Oxford Univ. Press.
Congressional Record. 1990. 136 (July).
Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2008. Brief Summa-
ries of Federal Animal Protection Statutes. 94-731.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Humane Society of the United States. 2009. “Class B. Dealer
System Unnecessary and Unenforceable, According to
National Academies Report.” May 29. Text available
online at h ttp://www .hsus.org/ /class_b_dealer_ system_
unnecessary_052909.html; website home page: http://www.
hsus.org/ (accessed August 5, 2009)
Kistler, John M. 2000. Animal Rights: A Subject Guide,
Bibliography, and Internet Comparison. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood.
National Research Council. 2009. Scientific and Humane
Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in
Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Sherry, Clifford J. 1994. Animal Rights:A Reference Handbook.
Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our
Treatment of Animals. New York: Avon.
CROSS REFERENCES
Agriculture Department; Criminal Action; Cruelty; People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
ANIMUS
[Latin, Mind, soul, or intention.] A tendency or
an inclination toward a definite, sometimes
unavoidable, goal; an aim, objective, or purpose.
When animus is used in conjunction with

of a book or a statute that is intended to explain or
illustrate its meaning.
An annotation serves as a brief summ ary of
the law and the facts of a case and demonstrates
how a particular law enacted by Congress or a
state legislature is interpreted and applied.
Annotations usually follow the text of the
statute they interpret in annotated statutes.
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE
The actual cost of borrowing money, expressed in
the form of a yearly measure to allow consumers
to compare the cost of borrowing money among
several lenders.
The Federal Truth-in-Lending Act (15 U.S.
C.A. § 1601 et seq. [1968]) mandates the
complete disclosure of this rate in addition to
other credit terms.
CROSS REFERENCE
Truth in Lending Act.
ANNUAL REPORT
A document published by public corporations on a
yearly basis to provide stockholders, the public,
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
ANNUAL REPORT 297