The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1885-06-04
The Reviewer Reviewed-Mors
About the Fish-Law.


For the Citizen.
I notice in recent issue of the
CITIZEN an article entitled ''Self-In-
diligence Of the Laws" which is a
general review of my article on 'The /
Cuff and Collar Mans Law"
While 1 appreciate the article and |
the spirit in which it was written, l |
consider it justice to myself and |
the readers of the CITIZEN to reply |
That l may not incur too severe |
condemnation from the cuff and |
cellar men, permit me to state that
l am accustomed to wearing collars
and 1 own a few cuffs, but own no
real estate in Tennessee therefore,
my "Friend" cannot justly accuse
me of being very selfish in regards
to the fish law. 1 wrote my article
and addressed it mainly to the cuff
and collar men because l have yet
to fad a farmer who approves of
the law as it is, Notwithstanding
have been as far from home as Pu-
laski. If my able critic will inves-
tigate the matter, he will undoubt-
edly learn that nine-tenths OF the
country people are opposed to the
law, and the opinions of the patch
ed brooches, ragged coat and holey
hat class should be respected
as well as the opinions of any other
class Of people if the streams ore
common property as advocated by
my critic.
Since the law is bitterly opposed
by the majority of farmers, l con-
Guided that it was engineered
. through the legislature by, and for
the interest of, those who are at
. leisure during the fishing season
and delight in passing much time
= fishing with rod and tackle. Be
this as it may, if it were left to .
popular vote it would go where IF
ty-and- four went.
Ny critic states that the cuff and
collar men ego to those streams
that are fshed mostly and you will
see the very shabbiest men you can
start foolIng appropriate word)
with the rod and tackle and some
= times gobble up the big fish" Such
, does not establish the fact that
the shabbiest men approve of the
law because they may be seen thus
engaged. If they be of the enter
prising, manual labOring class, they
cannot afford TO lose much time
fishing. II, however, they can at
ford to pass much time thus, l
do not object to my critic voting
, them with his party. He further
l says, in speaking of my article,
"The burden of his letter was to
= show that if person is taxed for
his property he ought to
have a right to do as he pleases
, with it, but he failed to give sub
stantlaI evidence" My ''Friend"
was liberal enough to quote from
nv article hat he failed to make
any quotation to confirm 49,. "a ABOVE
statement, and 1 can't see from
what he drew his conclusion. The
word "tax" was used but once in
my article and then in connection
with the word "Owner" as follows:
"If l own and pay tax on it, is it
not my own individual property"
Ia an attempt TO show the inconsis-
tency Of my illustrations, he refers
to the buildings of Bethel and says,
THE owners of those buildings are
taxed and then comes along man
and buys one Of those buildings
and in making the trade he
agrees to settle the taxes annu-.
ally until he has paid fer the
property, but goes along and
| = ,f.Ys4-v-
also pays taxes, but finally fails
paying for his purchase. The orig
inaI owner says, well, my friend,
your time has expired and see you
can't pay for this property. Guess
l will have to take it back oh,
no sir, let me tell you, I've paid
tax on this property and when per-
son pays tax on a thing it is
lawfully his HIS argument falls
to the ground Of its own weight,
because he has not an analogous
statement or proposition II
stated clearly 'lf ] own and
pay tax On it, is it not my individ-
uai property" showing that l
own a clear right to the property, |
but in his illustration the man
to whom the property was bar
gained never owned a clear right |
and title to it because the purchase
money had not been paid when the !
time expired. After misquoting a !
part of my article, my critic says:
''In reply to this proposition let US
suppose a blacksmith has two sets !
of tools and he rents one set to an
other smith, but still has to pay for
both sets and he becomes obstrep- |
erous and claims because he has
taxes to pay on both sets that he
has as much right to use the rented
set as the other, justice forbds his
doing So" He makes here a kin
dred mistake to the one made rela-
tive to the sale of the house, for
when the owner let the tools he no
longer had a right to them be-
cause in the contract he sold his
right to the tools for the time they
were rented, but such was not the
case in the sentence used in nay ar
ticle relative to tax and property.
Moreover, the owner Of the tools
does not pay the tax for them, be
cause you know he charges rent
enough to cover the wear of the
tools and tax for the same, and
therefore the rent pays the tax in
directly. My critic uses the follow
ing language: Didn't you know
that when a person constructs
fish pond he does it with energy
and skillful management and the
sweat of his own brow, which gives
him a better privilege to do as he
pleases with it than a mere creek
running through his farm. He
erected the pond himself, but the
creek he had nothing to. do wiGb not
even its contents. That's the fruit
of an indefinite being"
His arnmnnant is Nirtn ally this. l.