The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1867-03-21
Taxes, Direct md Indirect Tax on


article, attempted to prove that the
agricultural interests Of our State
tacitly submitted to taxation which
would have been rejected as unjust
and onerous, had it been levied for
the purpose of revenue. In addition
to the fence and road tax, we are sub
jected to another imposition more
burthensome-though less apparent,
because more indirect. Heretofore
the possession of dog has been one
of the privileges claimed by the head
of each family of laborers on Il South
ern plantation, and mere glance at
the Necessary expense incurred by
this system of dog-raiSing will prove
it to be startlingly enormous. We
know that most owners Of dogs are
unwilling to admit that it is an ex-
pense at all, for, as was said about the
fences and roads, "they can be maulcd
and worked when You can do nothing
else on the plantation;'' 50 is said
about feeding dogs they eat only
scraps that nothing else viii eat. No
such thing; the food consumed by Il
dog i'll twelve months will grow hog,
and. aided by a little corn to harden
the fat, will place in the smoke-house
200 pounds of pork annually. True.
1T IS well for every farm yard or CITY
lot to have a watch dog; but is it ne
cessary for every family on the farm
to own one? True, it is manly sport
to hunt foxes, even though the hunt
er becomes Il nuisance to his neigh
bor's cotton and grain fields; hut to
ENJOY this sport, is it necessary t,
feed lnnumerible half ours, that ''cry'
more Justify after Il rabbit or flock OF
sheep than they do aftera fox? True
''nlgger" loves ''possum:' but is i;
right that he should keep a coon doa
to stand sentinel while ,'massa'
trees" his ncighbor's smole-house:
True, the tair maiden land some that
are unfalr) loves her poodle or lap
dog; but should these fondlings be
luxurious consumers without paving
for the privilege?
Let US attempt for a moment to-
calculate the cost of feeding doc for
i twelvemonth. Without enumerat-
ing particularly his bill of fare, we
venture to assert that his weekly
ratlons would be worth to the scaven-
ger or the plg-Suy at least twenty
cents, or ten dollars annually. Now.
the plS-sty, If we'll Uttered, will Weld
a return of manure equal in value to
tn" cost of ratlons; but the majority
OF dogs are III no wise remuncrative.
weekly or annually?
Ii the lnnumcrable dogs of the
country were only idle consumers. we
might consent to throw them the
refuse of the table or the kitchen.
But they become the heaviest expense
when they are the greatest producers
producers, however. of death in
the sheep-cute. The number Of sheep
killed annually in the United States
by dogs is almost incrediblc Three
years ago, the Agricultural Depart
meht made an effort, through the
various tax collectors, to procure
accurately the number of sheep killed
by dogs i'll 1864. Exclusive Of the
! ''rehel' and Pacific States, less than
one-fourth of the Counties of the
United States reported, every one Of
which was SAID to be greatly short OF
the accurate number, and yet this
feeble return foots up $4,000. Had
all the Counties of the Northern
States made faithful reports, the mum
her would doubtless have reached
$50 900. 1t is but reasonable to sup
pose that q similar report from the
Southern and Pacific States woald
have doubled this number; or 7OO
600 sheep would i'll single year have
been led to the slaughter pen bv the
canine species. These 80, 900 sheep
would have averaged in value So per
head; for, though they may be less
valuable IN South Carolina, they ave
ragged IN value, that very year,
throughout the North, 81 50 each.
Thus, beyond question, over s.,
ooo, 600 of taxes are annually paid by
the United States to satiato the pa
lates of bloodthirsty dogs.
10 tins indirect tax. no protest has
ever been preferred, in the shape OF
a law. Two years ago, when our lie
Slslature imposed u tax upon dogs,
there immediately arose 81 cry of di-
rect taxation, which sent up howl
| l.,I !