The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1882-05-20
THE COURTS.
The Supreme Court.

One OF the decisions filed in the Supreme
Court was OF more Importance than its unassum.
ing title would imply. The case involved the
validity the so-called dog tax, the decision
sustaining the law. Following is the full text
of the opinion, as written by Justice Scott:
Philip Cole ct al, plaintiff in error, " John Hall,
collector detendant in error. The bill In this case
was brought by the owners of dogs resident in
the town Of Serena against the collector of taxes
for the town, and is to enjoin the collection Of
license fee Of one dollar on each dog owned by
complainants respectively, and which was i'm
posed by the proper authorities under the act of
May 80 1879, entitled can act to indemnify the
owners of sheep in case Of damage committed
by dogs" 1t is not questioned the statutes have
been complied with by the proper authorities In
charging the license fee" upon compliments
for dogs owned by them; but the questions ar
gued have exclusive reference to the constitu.
tionality Of the act under which it is imposed.
The ''license fee" imposed under the provis-
ion of the statute is in no sense tax, and is not
therefore within the operations of section 1, ar.
tice 0, of the constitution, which provides all
needful revenue shall be raised by levying tax
by valuation, so that every person or corporation
shall pay tax in proportion, and hence all sues-
tons as to the value of property to be taxed are
of no consequence in this case. 1t is simply
what 1t purports to be, 'lcense fee," and is
imposed under the police power Of the state. In
doubtedly dogs are regarded as species OF prop
erto for some purposes; but owing to their hab.
its, which are known TO be hurtful sometimes to
persons and some kinds of domestic animals, the
keeping of them may be subject to regula-
tions provided by law. Everything hurtful to the
public interest is subject to the police power Of
the state and may be brought within its restrict
ing or prohibitory influence. Otherwise public
evil might exist with no power to abate it, This
ought not to be. II is known that dogs impart
most fearful disease to persons injured by them
and that they are often destructive to domestic
animals, such as sheep, and the state may well
provide such regulations for the keeping Of
them as will insure safety, and may, with
view to etFectuate that purpose impose upon the
owners or keepers either a license or penalty.
There is nothing in the constitution that forbids
! it.
| As to the objection the matter of imposing q
| 'license fee" upon the owners or keepers Of dogs
as not expressed in the title Of this act majority
of the Court are of the opinion 1t is sufficiently
germane to the subject expressed to be fairly
embraced in it land that under the decision OF this
Court in johnson v. The People, So Ill 431, an
-vr.- -re '..stt.. i''.J. 'l.'tre.,sn la this
regard.
| It would seem 1t can make difference what
disposition is made Of the ''hcense fee'' when
collected. By the provisions of this act It is ap-
propriated as indemnity to persons that have sus.
tanned damage done by dogs other than their
own TO sheep, and that would appear to be in the
interest of justice and right No better DISPOSE
i ton could be made of it.
! The demurrer was properly sustained, and the
decree Of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.
i Decree affirmed.
| L. w. Brewer, states attorney, for the law
and j. B. Rice and G. W. W. Blake for Cole ct al
The question for petition for rehearing has not
| yet been decided upon.