The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-02-14
HOUSE Of REPRESENTATIVES,.
TgIDAY, Feb. 10, iS85-l0 q. M.
mo raw

DOG TAX
Mr.. Rob. SON bill { q. r. 1851 to amend
the dog Law, coming up on the second read
ing with q committee report recommending
its indefinite postponement-
Mr.. ROBINSON said: The committee
may not see the importance OF this bill.
think it is one of Importance 70 the people
of the State. II is not an acs or the protec-
ton Of dogs, but it is, as I understand it.
an act for tbs protection Of the peo-
pie of the State engaged in
the industry of sheep husbandry. The
bill simply provides an amendment 10 the
law, whereas under the present law, il you
refer to the section of the statute, you will
see there is a penalty for killing any dog
which has been listed for taxation. There
are many dogs through the State listed for
taxation. upon which the tax has never
been paid, and many worthless ours that go
untaxed. They are listed, but the tax is
never paid upon them. The amendment
suggested simply provides penalty for kill
ing any dog upon which the TAX mas been
paid. 1t simply removes the protec ion
given under the law to dogs upon which
the tax has not been paid. 1t has
been said that ii you remove the protection
from the dog simply because the tax has not
been paid you might SIS we'll remove it from
the COW and horse. / think there is much
difference. | insist that the report OF the
committee ought not to De cOncurred in.
The House refused to concur in the re-
port al the committee.
The bill WAS ordered engrossed.
FISH POND PROTECTION.
Mr.. Linville's bill 81. r. 212l coming up
Oh a second reading, with the COMMITTEES
recommendation that it be indefinitely post
poned-
Mr.. LINVILLE: l hope the report of the
committee will not be concurred in. There
are two provisions in this bill. The first
limiting the manner of catching fish,
and the second prescribing penalties
for the violation OF it. / understand under
fish on other mems property,
Mr.. KELLlS0N: | would like 70 have
the gentleman explain where the differen cs
is from the present law.
Mr. LINVILLE: The onlv change that it
makes from the present law is that persons
who own ponds may catch fish out OF the
river for the purpose OF stocking their ponds.
1t also provides for the protection Of fish in
these private ponds As understand the
present law it does not protect fish in these
private ponds.
Mr.. MOCK: The objection is that {
makes criminal offense OF what, under the
law, would be trespass, and perhaps there
q
have so many criminal laws that the com
mittee thought this was unnecessary.
Mr.. PATTEN: / have heard no good req
son given why this should not become IA
law. / think the bill is good one. 1t doe
not interfere with the rights OF the citizen.
OF the State. Therefore ! am IN favor of tb
bill.
Mr.. BEST: It seems to me that the Oh
ections that have been made TO this bill u,
this time would be more proper TO he mao
by amendment to the bill The bill contain
two propositions. IL provides for the stock
ing OF private ponds. 1t allows persons who
own private ponds to stock them with ish
by going to the lakes and liyers and SEEMING
for fish. 1 think it is of come importance to
encourage the breeding OF fish IN ponds
whereby the farmers can raise other things
beside wheat and corn and hogs. This bill
has some merit and il ought to De allowed to
90 to the second reading and passed for the
farmers protection
The House refused to concur in the report
Of the committee.
The bill was ordered engrossed.