Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1856-03-20
Senate adjourned.

House of Representatives.. afternoon Session
House bill No. 1903, for the protection Of
sheep was considered motion to strike out all
after the enacting clause.
Mr.. LaWton hoped the motion 20 strike out
would not prevail. and stated some reason in
support Of tie bill.
Mr.. Sawyer though that the old law all that
is necessary, He had not very high opinion
of sheep, but the dog was his favorite. He kept
very respectable pack of hounds at home. and
did not favor law that restrained their run
ming at large when foxes invited hunt.
Mr.. Mills advocated the bill. and pointed out
the defects in their present law. He was at.
tached to bis shepherd dogs, valued them more
Highly than any sheep he had, but was willing
To run The risk of their being killed for the com.
mon good. ...r...
Mr.. LaWton advocated the bill. He had fire.
quenIly lost sheep by dogs. Pass this Law and
dogs would be restrained, especially in the
night. The hardSbips would be triaing compa-
red with the benefit to community.
Mr.. Potts read the present law and consider.
ed its provisions sufficient.
Mr.. Green should vote for striking out. He
was satisfied with the present law. 1t was
found sufficient, the courts having decided that
a dog found worrying or killing sheep wa
an OUTLAW, and any person had right 70 kill
him. In his section OF the State dogs are in
dispensible to the farmer, and their services in
protecting corn fields are mainly necessary il
the nigh: season. The law proposed was cal
culated to produce strife and contention, and
should !, be passed. -
Mr.. Miller was in favor of the bill. The peo
pie 10 his section Of the State were deeply inter
rested in the protection of sheep, and the wool
growers had some claims 10 consideration -.
They needed protection. The old law a(forde,
but little, as 1t requires that notice ofthe evan
dering habits" of the dogs committing depreda
tions should be given to the own er before kill
ing them, .....
Mr.. Kicker said the The question at issue i,
which, is OF the most value to the State, The
dogs or the sheep. In Southern Ohio, sheer
required the closest care to protect them from
dogs He had known many Rne Aocks destroy.
ed without ascertaining what particular dogs
did the mischief. The people wanted the priv.
ilege to kill all the dogs running at large with.
out their owners, and they would soOu stop
their depredations. The number of sheep iu
the State is over four millions, Of the estimated
value of at least eight millions Of dollars. This
property is taxed and should be protected.
Mr.. Green contended that the law proposed
would work great injustice to the owners OI
dogs. By this law, no matter how valuable a
dog may be, malicious person may kill him
without any cause, save that he is found al
large without his owner
Mr.. Lawton said that dogs most likely to kill
sheep, are owned by men who are unable tc
pay damages--dogs that lead predatory lives
that stray off and do mischief in the night, and
are at home in the morning, Such dogs ought
to be killed or kept restrained
Mr.. underhill was in favor Of amending the
bill and passing II. He knew the people of hi
county desired better protection for their sheep
The losses sustained by the farmers were larg,
and the present law did not answer the pur
pose. sta-.a gt h.gss ..... .g.....
Mr., Gifil said Licking county had lOo,OO(
more sheep than any other in the State, ant
not petition he believed had been sent to tht
House from owners ofsheep in that county. HI
thought they would ask for protection to thei
shepherd dogs rather than Of sheep, l..
Mr.. Burnes said the dog question is exciting
considerable interest, and it must be obvious tc
any one who has paid any attention to shee
and wool growing that some further protection
is necessary, He illustrated by cases of sheep
killing in his own neighborhood, and had him
self lost 80 head, worth from two to Eve dol
lara each, in single night by dogs. =