HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Friday, Feb. 13, 1885 - 10 a.m.DOG TAX.
Mr. Robinson's bill [S. R 169] to amend the dog law, coming up on the second reading with a committee report recommending its indefinite postponement -
Mr. ROBINSON said: The committee may not see the importance of this bill. I think it is one of importance to the people of the State. It is not an act for the protection of dogs, but it is, as I understand it, an act for the protection of the people of the State engaged in the industry of sheep husbandry. The bill simply provides an amendment to the law, whereas under the present law, if you to refer to the section of the statute, you will see there is a penalty for killing any dog which has been listed for taxation. There are many dogs through the State listed for taxation, upon which the tax has never been paid, and many worthless curs that go untaxed. They are listed, but the tax is never paid upon them. The amendment suggested simply provides a penalty for killing any dog upon which the tax has been paid. It simply removes the protection given under the law to dogs upon which the tax has not been paid. It has been said that if you remove the protection from the dog simply because the tax has not been paid you might as well remove it from the cow and horse. I think there is much difference. I insist that the report of the committee ought not to be concurred in.
The House refused to concur in the report of the committee.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
FISH POND PROTECTION.
Mr. Linville's bill [H. R. 212] coming up on a second reading, with the committee recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed -
Mr. LINVILLE: I hope the report of the committee will not be concurred in. There are two provisions in this bill. The first limiting the manner of catching fish, and the second prescribing penalties for the violation of it. I understand under the present law there is no protection to fish on other men's property.
Mr. KELLISON: I would like to the gentleman explain where the difference is from the present law.
Mr. LINVILLE: The only change that it makes from the present law is that persons who own ponds may catch fish out of the river for the purpose of stocking their ponds. It also provides for the protection of fish in these private ponds. As I understand present law it does not protect fish in these private ponds.
Mr. MOCK: The objection is that it makes a criminal offense of what, under the law, would be a trespass, and perhaps there is already a law covering this offense. We have so many criminal laws that committee thought this was unnecessary.
Mr. PATTEN: I have heard no good reason given why this should not become a law. I think the bill is a good one. It does not interfere with the rights of the citizens of the State. Therefore I am in favor bill.
Mr. BEST: It seems to me the objections that have been made to this bill at this time would be more proper to be made by amendment to the bill. The bill contains two propositions. It provides for the stocking of private ponds. It allows persons who own private ponds to stock them with fish by going to the lakes and rivers seining for fish. I think it is of some importance to encourage the breeding of fish in ponds whereby the farmers, can raise other things beside wheat and corn and hogs. This bill has some merit and it ought to be allowed go to the second reading and passed for the farmers' protection.
The House refused to concur in the report of the committees.
The bill was ordered engrossed.
page: 193[View Page 193]AFTERNOON SESSION.
ROAD TAX RECEIPTS.
Mr. McGovney's bill [H. R. 101] coming up on the second reading -
Mr. GORDON moved to strike out the word "ten" in line 3, page 3
Mr. McGOVNEY said: This bill was reported back by the committee with the recommendation that it pass the House. The bill 101 proposes to amend Section 20 of the highway law of 1883. You will find it on page 68 of the acts of 1883
The old system was when a man worked out his road tax on the highway he was given a receipt by the Supervisor, and he presented that receipt at the Treasurer's office when he went there to pay his taxes. The receipt was to go in payment of so much taxes, and he received credit for it in the the settlement. Now if a person works out so much tax on the highway he receives a printed blank, and the amount is written in generally with a led pencil, and there is nothing to prevent a man from making a change in the receipt. For instance, if man has worked to the amount of $2 50 he might change it to $7 50. I have been informed that that was the useage and it sometimes prevailed further than any one knew of. The highway law of 1883 provides that the supervisor should make out a list of all the persons that worked in the whole road district, swear to it and present it to the Township Trustee. The Township Trustee would have a list of all the persons that worked the road in the township, and from these several lists he must make out a list in alphabetical order, and the Township Trustee is sworn to that and presents it to the County Auditor. I think the amendment would avoid a great many errors. It does not propose to amend any section but Section 20.
Mr. MOCK, of Wells: There are two objects in the bill: The first is a saving of expense of about $40 000 a year or over to this State. The expense of the Trustees making out this list the object is to cut off. The other object is to have the receipts taken by the Treasurer as cash. Now this bill requires the supervisors to make a complete report under oath, stating all the facts fully, the same as the Trustee of the township; and there is nothing wrong about that.
Mr. McMULLEN demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the amendment was adopted.
On motion of Mr. Bailey, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Rights and Privileges, with instructions to report it back next Monday.
DRUGGISTS PRESCRIPTIONS.
Mr. Pleasants' bill [H. R 248] coming up on a second reading, with a committee recommendation that it be indefinitely postposed -
Mr. PLEASANTS said: I hope the report of the committee will not be adopted. The bill provides that druggists shall keep an account of every prescription sold and of all liquor, and the name of the party purchasing it and the object for which it was purchased, and file a sworn statement of this account in the office of the Clerk, making the failure to do so a misdemeanor, for which a fine may be assessed, not to exceed the sum of $20
Mr. WILLIAMS: I think the bill ought to be indefinitely postponed. I think it would make men commit perjury in addition to violating the law.
Mr. ELEY: It would be a dead-letter; a man would not criminate himself.
Mr. DALE: The saloon men, while they traffic in liquor, are put under heavy license. I hope this bill will pass and the report of the committee will not be concurred in.
Mr. MOCK: The Committee on Rights and Privileges gave this bill a very great deal of consideration, and they were of the unanimous opinion, I believe, that the law could not be enforced. A law that is not upheld by public sentiment is worse than no law at all. It is unreasonable. The law we have now, is sufficient if enforced.
Mr. DEEM: I desire to say I, am opposed to this bill. I would be in favor of it if all the druggists in the State would comply with it. But the honest druggists of the State would comply with it, while the dishonest druggists would fail to do so; and again, if all the druggists would do it they would criminate themselves. It seems to me improper to ask a man to criminate himself.
Mr. MOODY demanded the previous question.
The demand was seconded by the House, and under its operations the House refused to concur in the report of the committee.
On motion of Mr. GORDON the bill was ordered engrossed.
And then the House adjourned.
