Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1874-10-23
ICU NJ u y IO a Z j
The Dog Law.

Mr.. EDITOR In your issue of October ID,
a correspondent writing over the signature OF
"a in reference to the Dog Law, finds
much at which to complain. He seems inclined
to find fault with the Commissioners and our
late Legislators for Charles county. If, sir,
this law acre really defective, and had been
the only defective law that had ever been en-
acted, he might then have had just cause for
complaint He doubtless contends that this
Dog Law is not only defective, but imperative;
and as matter of course, from his argument
(if we may be allowed to call it such), if it had
been neither defective nor imperative, to him
at least it would still have been objectionable.
Sir am sure you have not forgotten the clam
or for Dog Law that was continually being
made, previous to the meeting of the last Leg
islature, which came not from our own county
alone, but from nearly every part of the State.
These cries were made in behalf OF, and for
the protection of the sheep-raislng interests OF
the county and State, and not so much espe-
cially for the abatement of the nuisance OF so
many comparatively worthless dogs. Hence,
you perceive, the intent must have been good
one, even though the law itself should prove to
be defective or imperative. When we claim to
be f'law-abiding'' citizens, and through orr
shrewdness of comprehension, discover Il de-
feet or omission in the law, should we not be
charitable enough to consider the fact, that
were we to search creation over, we could not
find single individual that is intalible? If
mistake not, your worthy correspondent at
tempts to make reflections upon the Maryl land
Legislature; for he declares that I'VE have a
so-called law, remarkable for something to cost
brass, tin or copper, so exceedingly grand
all important to the conception OF their fer
tile brains'' | hope | do not understand the
gentleman in making that declaration, to at
tempt to underrate the intelligence of Mary
lands legislators by rendering such veYdict
and hope thereby to induce Maryiand's citi-
zens to accept it as final. This they will new
er consent to notwiths landing the DOG Law
and the Assessment plumbers" AZ also
appears to be little sen. live as to his being
permitted to aslen the tag about the neck of
his dog himself fearing lest it would have the
semblance of compulsion. He says, Il am not
aware of provision, or section, giving either
Commissioners or Constable the power TO eom-
pei persons to put collars on their dogs, F" &c.
'What is it then but compulsory-an attempt
to compel US to do that which is repugnant to
our wishes?'' Sir, if l had valuable dog !
would rather myself put collar on him than
to trust any one else to do it. CA certainly
must have horrid idea of compulsory laws,
but if he can cite single law that is not COM
pulsory, either directly or indirectly, | will at
once own up that know nothing about COM
pulsion. Allow me just here 10 say, that
very much doubt whether, had the people Of
Charles county sent our worthy friend "A.
to the Legislature he would have done any
better in the matter of making. 1t cannot
be reasonably presumed, or expected, that any
man or set of men, no matter what their quail
fcations are, could please everybody. Reason
and common sense teaches, or should teach,
that much then to hear men externally COM
plaing and growing about that which they
know less, ifpossible, than those against whom
they complain, is simply ridiculous. The Dog
Law is a certainty, and law in fact and can
not be avoided or evaded, although to some it
may be unpopular. The next Legislature can
and will repeal it if the people demand it.
Mr.. Editor, have already said much more
than at first intended. | hope you will par
don me for intruding so much upon your pa
tience And in conclusion allow me to thank
you for your indulgence. And may success
and prosperity ever attend you. R.