Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1879-07-03
The Dogs and the Legislature.

The law has this redeeming feature
that all moneys received for this
tax in each town shall be paid over
by the town treasurer to each school
district in the town, each district be-
ing entitled to the money received
from its own residents. No town
will therefore raise more money than
it would, without the dog law, for
for every school district in it will be
relieved of school tax to the identical
amount it receives from its dog tax.
II would suit our notion much bet.
ter if every owner or keeper OF dog,
one dog we mean, outside of any IN.
corporated village or city, should be
exempt from license money, but il
more than one dog is harbored by
such resident, let him pay dollar OF
two for the luxury. Or still better,
let the present tax ON single dog be
reduced one-half.
This money is called in the law,
"license money" for keeping dog OF
dogs for one year. The lawyers diff
ter as to the constitutionality of the
law. 1t is argued that taxes can on.
ly be levied OF property according to
its value. We have been referred to
a decision Of the Supreme Court
Jenney vs.. LEM, l6 Wis. Reports, D
500, in which that Court squarely
decided the dog tax imposed BY
Chapter us, session laws Of 1860
was constitutional, the Court stating
that the tax or license for keeping
dogs was an exercise of the police
power, like that of licensing the sale
of liquor, or peddlers, or shows, and
was clearly constitutional. We there.
fore advise our friends not to pay toe
much to lawyers, to test the constitu.
tlonality of this law, but to use al
proper efforts to effect its modification
or repeal.
So much for the dogs. The las,
Legislature commenced its session
with almost total ignorance of wha,
the Revised Statutes contained. In
1875 a Board consisting of three gen,
tlemen learned in the law were ap
pointed to revise the Statutes. AZ
ter three years OF labor they reported
to the Legislature in 1873. They re-
ported code, many of it's provisions
being entirely new. The Legisla,
ture OF 1878 appointed seven of it.
own members to revise and correct
the work of the original revisers
this caused an extra session, and thai
extra session adopted the Revised
Code as revised the second time BY
the revisers, few, or none, of the 9th
er members knowing what was in it
The Legislature of 1879 in sort O
caucus agreed not 10 disturb the new
Revised Statutes, which went into
operation in November, 1878. TIL,
member from this District argued
that it was the duty of the last Legis
lature to revise the double revision o.
all the preceding revisers, and early
made an attempt TO correct a grost
wrong that had found its way into
the revision of 1873. The Supreme
Court had decided from the peculiar
language of the exemption law thai
two horses constituting team were
exempt, but two colts were not ex.
empt. We extract the following
from the Assembly Journal of 1879.
Mr.. Mills, of the Judiciary committee, sub.
mitted minority report on
No. 40, A.,
A bill to amend subdivision 6,section 1882
of the revised statutes Of 1878.
A majority Of this committee oppose the
proposed amendment at present, but as the
undersigned understands them, they would
approve the amendment as original pro
| position. They seem to think that even ar
obvious and glaring imperfection. if it once
enters the pages of this sacred book, should
not be removed or even exposed to view
The undersigned has as much respect for thi.
justly admired specimen of legal architecture
! as any member Of this legislature. He re-
grets as much as any one that three sages Of
the law, first appointed in 1875, after three
years. labor and celebrating 5000 sections
should have so signally failed in satisfying the
seven learned men appointed by the legisla
ture of 1878 to revise the work of the revi,
sers. The latter committee amended the
former committee with an unsparing hand
tabooed their work In one hundred and fifty.
five places, altering on an average one sec.
tion out of every thirty>three, thus robbins
their predecessors of the prestige of perfec-
ton, and leaving the present legislature in
doubt as the impecability of both these com.
mittees. The writer of this report, by nc
means, would favor a change in any law moi
demanded by justice or expediency, but he
does not believe that this legislature should
treat the well bound volume of 1878 as q
piece of fancy work, deposited in glass cage
to be gazed at and admired, but not handled
opened and examined. IL two committees Of
gentlemen, learned in the law, can enact q
code better adapted to our condition as
state and people than a legislature in which
all agreeing and opposing interests and theo.
ries and experiences are represented, we
ought at once to adjourn. If all the present
and future are provided for in the code oil
1878, why should we keep up the farce Of
legislation any longer?
The undersigned is of opinion that if the
revision ought 10 be amended in any particu-
lar, nov is the best time, and the legislature
the proper body TO enact these amendments
before wrong and injustice should become
rooted and grounded in our laws, Certainly
no committee in this legislature, can justify
itself in admitting serious and mischievous
imperfection has crept into our revision, and
then refuse TO expurgate il because il has got
there. No idolatry or reverence for this long
labored, long expected and costly revision
should prevent this legislature from treating
any proposed amendment as its merits de-
serve.
This appears to us to haye been
sound doctrine. We shall know with.
in year or two under what laws we
live. We learn the revisers repealed
the law granting bounty to the
towns assisting in buildiug narrow
gauge railroads. We do not know
what other acts Of Injustice may be