The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1885-05-05
THE TAX LEGAL.
neciston Of Jusssee Mac tvthur on the
nou Tnw Test-rase.

Tho question Of the validity Of The ari
Of Congress Of July 10, 1873 imposing q
tax on dogs in tho District of Columbia,
came on for argument 10 the Criminal
Court this morning Mcssrs Wililsm A
Cook aud Andrew A. Llpsoomb represented
large number Of dog oWnor1, who had
appealed from tho Police Court The de.
PENDANTS dispensed with jury tfial, srfee-
ing to take the docision Of tho court on tho
question.
The decision Of this case is of consider.
able itpportauce 10 the District, AZ shout
1000 dog licenses, netting tho District iu
the neighborhood u $4,000, are sold an
nually. A large purse was collected some
years ago by dog fanoicrs aud Others 20 havo
the law tested, aud this Is the hrst opp0r.
tunity TO have q thorough hearing
This law has been fought ever since lta
passage and its enforcement was suspended
for period by tho presiding Judge ~ the
Police Court. II was afterwards decided
that the sixth section Of the law, having a
penalty clause, was separate aud distin it
from the remainder Of the law aud could be
enforced. The prosecutions have since born
brought under this section.
The counsel for tho defense claimed that
the first section levied tax Of g on every
dog in the District, to be collected a. othcr
taxes They said that other taxes are noe
collected by fine or imprisonment.
The Government claimed that the In
formations were filed under the sixth SOC
ton which imposes penalty for not hav'
ing the tax.tag furnished by the Collector,
together with collar bearing the name Of
the owner and the letters I'D. c.
The defendants counsel claimed that tho
two sections were nseparable. They
claimed that the sixth section purportod 10
impose fines for not having the license pro-
vided for in the first section, and which IL
admitted to be imperative. They also
claimed that a simple debt arises under the
law, and the information Is defective In
that it docs not set out that the District
performed its duty in listing the dogs as
other taxable property.
Colonel Cook stated that the United
States Attorney was not the proper person
10 prosecute this case. He said This Is
an attempt to drag all the dogs In the
District into the District Attorneys office"
ayes, and turning them loose on the Grim
inal Court" remarked Judge Macarthur.
Mr.. Cook claimed that the cases should
be prosecuted by the District and not by
the United Sa'es.
Judge Macarthur said
"This law appears to admit of diversity
of views as to its application. IL is pretty
well established, however, that dogs are
subject to taxation. l think that Con-
gress having exclusive legislative power in
the District can impose this tax and can
impose it In manner suitable to species
of property taxed. The prosecution was
not for the collection of u tax but to en-
force police regulation" He thought he
would have to override the points made for
the dog. Mr.. Cook said he had some other
cases that he would like to have regularly
tried. Judge Macarthur said that he
would like to have a decision of the Gen.
eial Term on the question. Judgment was
given against the defendants.