DOG LAW.
Also the bill (S. 16) requiring township Assessors to report the number of sheep killed by dogs, recommending its passage; which bills were ordered to be engrossed.
He also returned the petition of A. D. Price and others, concerning the protection of sheep its object having been acted on.
Mr. THOMPSON also returned Mr. Anderson's bill (176) To license dogs, and providing for the payment of damages for the maiming or killing of sheep by dogs, with amendments striking out the 4th section, and adding appropriately:
"Every dog not licensed under the provisions of this act shall be a nuisance; and it shall be lawful to kill any dog found off the premises or out of the presence of the owner."
Also insert:-
"Any person who shall kill any dog licensed under the provisions of this act, unless the said dog be found chasing sheep, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, fined in any sum not less than $5, nor more than $15.
The bill provides further, that no female dog shall be licensed for less than one dollar; that the fund arising from these licenses, &c., shall be set apart for the payment of damages by dogs upon sheep ; and the overplus for common schools.
Mr. PROSSER. This bill was a dodge. It was a specific, unequal tax-not a license. You might as well license my horse. The bill makes the dog a nuisance upon your own premises ; and he alleged that it was unconstitutional ; the tax was not uniform.
Mr. POLK proposed to amend the bill, by a clause requiring but ten cents for the license of the first dog.
Mr. FRASIER. Adopt that, and the bill amounts to nothing. One of the objects of the bill was to provide a fund to pay for sheep de page: 318[View Page 318]stroyed by dogs. He indicated an amendment.
Mr. VEATCH supported the bill, giving a description of it. It leaves it discretionary with the owner to license his dog or not, but makes the security of his dog contingent upon it.
Mr. PROSSER. Does the gentleman consider this a license or a tax.
Mr. VEATCH considered it a license, as much as when we license a man to sell whisky. It was admitted on all sides, that society has a right to regulate ; to license whatever it may be necessary to protect itself against. It was simply a question of expediency.
Mr. BUNDY demanded the previous question, and under its force Mr. Polk's amendment was rejected, the amendments of the committee were concurred in, and the bill was ordered to engrossed.
On motion by Mr. FERGUSON, the bill was considered as engrossed.
Mr. STOTSENBERG. There was no provision in it to enforce the payment of the license. He desired to offer an amendment to the first section, so that the license shall not issue before the money is paid for it.
Mr. CAMERON. If a dog is not licensed, he is declared a nuisance.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN (Mr. McLean in the chair). There was an excess of modesty in the report of the committee. The female dog in the bill should be called by the name given in our statutes, slut or bitch. This amendment was adopted by unanimous consent.
Mr. SMITH of Bartholomew was opposed to the bill, because it would admit of the outrage of shooting of a dog in the presence of the owner.
Mr. STOTSENBERG proposed the following:
"Nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prohibit Common Councils of cities and towns from levying a special tax on dogs, as was provided by law."
It was adopted by unanimous consent.
Under the previous question, demanded by Mr. GRESHAM, the bill was passed the third reading: yeas 58, nays 29with an amendment of title, by Mr. BUNDY : 'declaring unlicensed dogs a nuisance, and prescribing the manner in which they may be killed, prescribing punishment for killing a licensed dog;" and by Mr. Stotsenberg: "and to provide penalties for the violation of this act by officers and others."
Mr. HOLCOMB proposed to add: "and to provide for legislation;" which was rejected.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN proposed to add: "and for the protection of sheep, at the expense of the canine race."
On motion of Mr. BRANHAM, it was laid on the table.
