Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1872-02-08
TCoMMuSrcArEp.

1
COMMUNICATES.
kessrs. Editors.-In looking over you,
late papers. found two articles, on the
Asoposed dog law. favoring the exemp.
ton from taxation. of some species of dogs
AS | am unwilling, that our Representa-
tives at Annapolis. should believe tina, we
all agree on this point. I have concluded
after waiting for some better man 10 speak
to throw aside my natural aversion t.
writing anything. for publication, and if
cannot convince my friends. of their err.
ror, | can at least show, that we are no,
4 unit on this score. One Of the writer.
favors the exemption. from taxation, Of
one cur and all the hounds, in each fami.
iy. Such measure, in my opinion would
be worse than useless; all measures 60,
taxing necessarily require some expense
in preparing to collect the taxes raised by
them. This measure would have no cor
| responding revenue TO balance those ex-
penses, for it is easily seen. how all those.
who love to be surrounded by dogs. could
evade the tax and still keep their dogs.
They would soon get rid Of their cur dogs
and supply their places with hounds
Then. woe to the lucklcss farmer, who
spends his money in sheep. for of all tame
animals. the half-fed hound is the most
rnvenous, and spares nothing that promi-
SEES to CRAFTY his Unsuitable appetite for
food. Both writer's claim that bounds
should be exempted. at any rate. because
they protect the pigs and poultry from the
ravagcs of foxes We might, with more
reason, say We cannot enjoy our land with
ont the horse and OK: yet we hear Of no
clamor being raised to exempt them from
taxation. If VIC take their utility as ba-
sis. we can only decide, in favor of the
horse and OK. and should have to leave
them free and tax the dog. But all pro-
pcriy is liable to taxation in our country.
and dogs are property. if we are guided
Nv al the legal decisions, ard therefore
should help to bear the burdens of the
day. five exempt all that is useful.
whence would come our revenue? All pro.
pcrty has its uses. IF we tax them as
property is taxed. as recommended bv one
Of those writer's, how can we find basis
BY which We can assess them? IF they
are taxed, as property. the worthless dogs
will have to bear comparatively small
tax. and sometimes nothing, while the
caluablc ones, would have to bear almost
the whole tax. However fair this may be
as to other property. it would have con-
trary effect applied to dogs; for We wish
TO get rid Of the worthless dogs entirely.
and have none but the best among US
Perhaps nay opinion may not be taken as
evidence of right in this case, but shall
advance one. let the critics say what they
please. We should first, ask our law
makers at Annapolis to put a reasonable
tax on dogs. one that will rid our country
of the worthless sheep-killing dogs, and
still allow the farmers. to keep one good
dog apiece, to protect their poroperty ard
manage their refractory stock. Secondly.
put premium on every fox killed. They
need not fear the fox-hunters getting rich.
for .hey viii stand no chance with the
farmer boys. Thirdly, cut off and ditch
your swnmps and branches. and put them
in grass. also clear of all your spare timber
lands. only reserving enough for the use
of the farm. Ifyour lands arc too billy
to cultivate, they will serve as pasture for
sheep and other cattle You will soon
find your lands greatly enhanced in value
and YOU would soon be more prosperous
people. And a consequence of your pro-
perty increasing in value would be les
sening Of your taxes. You may have to
pay more in amount, than you pay now,
but you will certainly not feel it so sensi-
bly,. Some of the changes proposed. will
likely interfere. with the sport of the fox
hunters, who are likely the ones most
clamorous for the one sided Law those wri-
tiers are urging. Blu, do not think. our
Legislators viii be Influenced. by such ideas.
bu. will seek to legislate for the benef. Of
the many, rather than the pleasure of the
few.
Yours truly.
REFORMER.