Asheville daily citizen. [volume] (Asheville, N.C.) 1890-1900, 1893-07-12

senate. ana The House Con-
Cured Theresn. Wet The Amend
maens Does %Ot Appear in The
Laws Oa 1893.
Is Buncombe county's dog law. which
was printed in THE CITIZEN ON June 81,
really law. or is il not law?
That is a question that is doubtless
dcbatable. and likewise one that every
owner of dog, from the finest blooded
animal to the mangiest cur. Is deeply
interested in-or should be, for it affects
a man's pride, which is the dog afore-
said.
The dog law, as it appears in the laws
Of 1893. provides that dogs shall be
listed for taxation just as arc other do
mestic animals; that owners must keep
their dogs at home unless they are Sc
curcly muzzled, and that the owner who
fails to comply with the provisions of the
lay shall be fined 81 for each offence and
shall be compelled to pay all damages
done by the dog while running at large.
Furthe than this, the bill provides that
if a man is convicted of violating the
dog law and does not paw his fine he
may be compelled to work it out on the
roads of the county at rs cents day.
HS as printed was Irameu Dy
Hon. Mark l.. Reed and DIR. Dur
ham. and was adopted by the
Buncombe county Farmers alliance. 1t
went to Gen. II. Il. Vance, one of Bun
combe's representatives in the last
House. who introduced it in that branch
of the Legislature. 1t passed that body
Just as it was. and then went to the
Senate. On February 2S, according to
the Senate journal. the bill was reported
without prejudice from the committee
on agriculture. At the evening session
the same day the bill was placed on it's
second reading, when Senator Jorn M .
Campbell OF Ashcville moved to amend
as follows
provided, that the provisions of tl.is
act shall not apply to any township Of
said county, unless and until a majority
of the qualified voters thereof have voted
to have this same apply thereto, as
hereinafter provided:
upon n petition in writing of one
third OF the qualified voters of any town
ship of said county, presented to the
JOINT board of the county commissioners
and justices of the peace of said county,
at their annual meeting in any year,
such joint board shall order an election
to be hcld in such township at time to
be appointed by said joint board, not
more than 60 days nor less than 20 davs
after the meeting of such joint board, to
determine whether or not said law shall
apply to such township. at which cleo
tion in such to ownship all electors favor
ing the applica ation Of said law to such
to wnship shall vote ticket on which
are printed the words For the dog law,
and all electors OF the same opposing
the application of said law to such to wn-
ship shall vote ticket on which arc
printed the words Against the dog law, '
and said election shall be held in the
same manner and under the same pro-
visions relating to registration. SO far as
a IN w NJ VII
for the election of members of the Cen
cral Assembly"
From a copy of the Senate journal
shown THE CITIZEN by Senator Campbell
it is learned that this amendment was
adopted, the bill passed second and third
reading, and the amendment was ordered
enCrossed and sent to the House for
concurrence.
The House journal. page s66. contains
this information: "H. B. 1924, S. B.
S55. bill to be entitled, IAN act to pro-
tcct sheep in Buncombe county from the
ravages of dogs The amendments are
concurred in and the bill is ordered en-
rolled"
Here is evidence plain and indisputa-
bic that the amendment passed the
Senate and was concurred in by the
House and was ordered enrolled.
Yet. not the slightest trace of the
| amendment appears in the book of laws
| as recently published.
The amendment, it will be understood,
made all the difference in the law; in
fact, made it almost certain that the la w
| would not go in force in Buncombe, as
| 1t IS believed that not township in
Buncombe would vote against the dog.
Senator Campbell says, as the only
Explanation he has of the omission OF
| the amendment, that it was either an
| error of the enrolling clerk or someone
stole the amendment before il reached
| the clerks hands. The Senator also says
| that similar state of things was found
| regarding bill which had been amend
ed by ]. Frank Ray. representative from
Macon. Whose is the fault ? and what
became of these amendments?