Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-10-06
DECEPTIVE DOG ACTS
The Law Taxing CANNES is a Queerly
Formed Piece of Machinery.
CLEAR AS MUD, Or METAPHYSICS.
Dogs Urban and Suburban Appear to be
Blended in Confusion.
ARE ALL PREVIOUS ACTS REPEALED

DR.. j. B. Grimes is lover Of dogs, and
has lot of money invested in them and
everything relating to them. He wasfound
the other day with corrugated brow trying
to reconcile the general dog law with special
enactments that dot the statute books as
stars do the sky on clear, frosty night.
As key to the solution he was coming an
article in Forest and Stream.
People uninterested in dogology may not
know that there has been as much legisla-
tion bearing on their regulation and manage
ment as on the subject Of the sale of intoxi-
eating drinks, and some ofitis fully as crude.
Purdon's Digest, after enumerating general
and special acts, repeals Of acts, etc., says,
Consult each years enactments. for there
have been special laws passed at almost
every session of the Legislature" There
are special acts for Allegheny, Lancaster,
Philadelphia, Northampton, Schuylkill,
Bucks, Chester, Delaware. York, Carbon,
Clinton, Franklin and Lycoming counties.
DEPENDS ON THE JUDGE.
Then, as DR.. Grimes remarks, Judges dis
agree. A judge who likes dog is apt to
construe him as personal property, and one
who doesn't makes nuisance of him when
ever he can strain the law in that direction,
and old English laws were averse to consid-
ering the animal as property. from the fact
that most of the makers of laws at one time
regarded the dog as a nuisance.
The act passed at last session making
dogs personal property, subject TO taxation
and the subject of larceny. provides in Sec
tion "that this act shall not repeal or affect
the provisions of any special law relating to
the same subject in any county, township or
borough in this Commonwealth"
Of he o1r~ &1a
Commonwealth are owned in cities, and in
most of these cities the subject is governed
BY special laws, and these by the act are
not repealed. Then, are these dogs to be
taxed for the benefit of sheep growers and
the school fund? Did the Legislature sup
pose that dogs in cities were too we'll bred
to kill sheep and therefore not the subject
Of the ban? As all dogs in this Common
wealth are spoken Of, the doctor is inclined
to think that Section is an Interpolation or
possibly an afterthought, and that the idea
may have been that the late law should
apply merely to the counties not provided
for. he regards the title of the bill as de-
fective, as it does not set forth the purpose
Of the enactment.
A QUESTION OF DOODLE.
It seems there are g, 600, 900 worth of dogs
in the State and perhaps $500, 900 worth in
Allegheny county, and as the tax is Doe on
a male and 81 on female, whether of high
or low degree, the matter possesses consider
able interest, aside from that of wool-grow-
ing and that of education. Heretofore if
you had "purp" you valued you took him
to the Clerk of Courts and paid him 81 so
for registry. As this law is unrepealed
must citizen of Allegheny county in order
to throw the mantle OF dignity and security
around his dog, still pay the 81 80 and the
tax also, or viii the payment of the tax pro-
tect him?
In some quarters doubts are expressed as
to whether the law can be carried into effect
on account of the obscurity surrounding it,
until after another Legislature meets.
Special laws for special purposes are not re-
pealed, and it is thought doubtful whether
the act will pass legal scrutiny, and sheep
and education may continue to languish
until 1891. Once registered dog always a
registered dog, but if this plebian enact
ment is to stand and operate along side of
the registry law, what becomes Of the dollar
and a halfs worth of aristocracy furnished
by the registry? The act is entirely too
fevel1ng. 1t puts the common stump
tailed cur or the pumpkin-and-miik
yagrant on level with the Italian grey
hound and the majestic mastiff.