The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1875-09-23


that the general press should take the
matter in. hand and inform their read
ers upon the subject. And we would
like to have you lay the following,
which is to the point, before your
many readers, We hope to see the
matter discussed.
Yours to command "a S'qJz
i.il f;ssse bad oYOUNG FARMER.
/ sRavenna, Sept IA, 1885, = ,ttr
to@q i.inos eTTi '--7T- U1i lsdl i;rs.i
la .ii,s Taxing, AKIN DOGS DOGS yra .-s-.-
/ 4 The, subject, Of, taxing n the dogs OF
Ohio is deservedly attracting consid-
erabie attention, and, strangely enough h
+ fiScafling out considerable opposition.
But why should they not be taxed !
Ii they are useful, as is,claimed by the
opponents of the measure, why not
tax them as any ether live stock Of the
ffarms Horses; cattle. sl1eepy swine,
poultry, etc., are taxed, and their own
,ers intsrpose NO objeetious TO such a
measure. Why should not the rule
apply TO all classes of farm animals
| to dogs as wen as sheeplto'' pups as
we'll as pigs? III a,sheep is worth five
dollars and a dog is s;wOrth.twenty " dol :
lars. why should not one dog be taxed
as much as four sheep?, But j on the
other hand dogs are TO be exempt
from Taxation becausethey are worth
less, aad if-they~are. expensive Or in
iurious- as is. easily shownvawhy
should they not be taxed so that soci-
ETY. may receive some compensation
for the existence IN Tie country Of a
useless aud injurious race lofsanimals Z
Indeed, s,why should such . race OF
animals not, be ,exterminaied as any
other nuisance. These questions are
" orshy Of an answer, and may we not
saw, demaud anf answer from those
Who oppose the taxation of dogs.2 The
assessors returns tor 1873 show that
Ohio had 1S0,906 dogs. This is doubt
less far below the actual number. In
teIiigent members OF the Wool Grow
ers, Association shayc estimated IL at
100000. But rsunppse we put IT at
100000, Now v hat does it cost 10
keep these dogs each year7 Those
who hire board fer dogs pay from
fifty cents toitwo dollars per week !;
but allo wing for profit Oh this, lei
US count it twenty-five cents each
week, a simple cents worth per meal.
This would make the cost of keeping
dogs thirteen dollars perehead per an
mum. This, for the 100000 dogs, OF
the State, would amount to S2,6OO,OOO.
The loss to the State in the discOur-
agement of sheep raising is, probably.
twice that amount The annual aver
age loss to th< State by the killing and
in curing sheep by dogs amounts to
$3.50, 900, making total loss TO he
State Of about 9,0O0,0 600 annually-en
actual loss Of 81 100000 with con-
structive loss of E$5.0OO,O0O. But sup
pose this last item is left entirely out
Of account, we still have a loss to the
State of oyer five dollars to every
family Of the State Can tho opposers
of the dog tax show amy just cause
why, "a, class; of. property that costs
community as much as this, should
not bear a share in the public burdens
of the State The number of dogs in
the United States is not less than 3D.
OOO,O0O. " hiCh at the rate above al
lowed for keeping and damages would
foot up as follows:
Keeping 100000 dogs $3S, 900 600
Sheep killed ...!. -. - L. ,l45, ,5lO
Sheep injured. ..!-......i.--.. 429,657
Total $4O,575,l67
Over forty million dollar direct loss
to the country, resulting from the
keeping OF nonsproductive class of
Besides this, the loss result
ing form the Encouragement to sheep
raising that results from the presence
of these dogs is enormous, although
II cannot be directly estimated in dol
lars and cents. In some States, and
in some parts OF, nearly all the States,
the ravag.s 8 of these, generally worth.
less, dogs, amount 10 virtual prohi- !
bition of sheep raising.
= Fhese facts Indicate very clearly
hat the interest of both producer and !
consumer would be snbserved by cur
failing the number Of the canine race. 4
Ii the State had law taxing every |
dog from two to five dollars each year,
and making the owners responsible in |
their persons and property for all |
damages done by them, it would re- |
suit in the destruction of considera- |
Bile per cent. of the dogs of the State, |
and that, too, of the most. " orthless |
ones. The uumber OF good dogs
it there be any such-would not be |
while the number of the |
more worthless ones would. The re- |
suit Wonld be to increase the average |
value and usefulness OF this race Of
snimals. If dog is not worth paying |
reasonable tax ON. he is not worth |
he keeping, and should fer his own.
er's sake, he put to death. No reason
lble man will object to paying rea-
,Onable tax on 4 good dog ]; therefore, /
here seems 10 be no good reason why |
he dogs Of Ohio should not be taxed,
while there are many good reasons
why they should be SO taxed. 1t
'eens to me that when this subject. is
honestly investigated, every unpreju-
iiccd mind-even those who have OPP
posed the tax law-wiH see the Justice
IF ftheymeasure, and give his influence
. its fayor.-L. H., zemplin, in Ohio
Farmer.
IT is a little amusing TO see the Rad
cal stumpers and politicians denounc-
ng imitation in the most bitter terms
n one breath, and in the next assert
ng that there is a greater amount of
uirency now in the country than at
ny former time in its history, They
now full well that their platform on
his subject is iiidefensible, and they
re playing fast'and loose on it.
GA Republican victory in Ohio this
all should be followed by a constitu-
ional amendment, ;efIectually putting r
n end to that dangerous tamperiu0