The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1894-01-03
Death to Worthless Dogs.

To the Editor of the Netcs and Cou-
rier:: 1t is gratifying to see that there
is at least one man in the Legislature
who has enough courage to face the
cur dogs and the demagogues that are
| in position to benefit the State, but
who prefer their own elevation to the
good of their constituents. The bill
has met the usual fate Of such bills.
In the absence of arguments that can
| not be found to use against such a law
they resort to ridicule, and such nom
sense as comparing the valuation of
sheep and dogs, to show that it was to
the interest of the people to have dogs
instead of sheep. This is certainly
nonsense, and ought to cause the de-
feat of any man who uses it, as an
evidence of his incompetency to rep
resent people who are trying to
make living on farm. Whenever
member brings up the poor mans
dog you may look around and you will
see dcmagogue who has not the in
terest Of poor people at heart, or is
too ignorant to know what is best to
do.
A wholesome dog law would be one
Of the greatest boons that the poor
can have; to him more than the rich
would the benefit go. As it is, with
the dog above the law, at liberty to
range the country and kill sheep at
will, the poor man can't have his lit
flock Of sheep, that would clothe his
family and give them the luxury Of
lamb for the table, all at but little
cost, for fear of his neighbor's worth
less dog. A tax Of dollar head
would bring all such to the gallows,
and the sheep would Craze day and
night without being molested. A
flock Of sheep is often ruined by dogs
hunting in the pastures where the
sheep are; because Of their great fear
of the dog they become stampeded and
run for life as if the dogs were after
them, and this habit often causes the
young dogs tS chase them and kill
them. The sheep regards the dog as
his natural enemy, and the dog seems
to regard the sheep as lawful game for
him to kill at will.
If any man prefers dogs to sheep
let him have them by all means, as
this is, or ought to be, free country,
but he should pay per capita tax to
assist to pay for damages done by dogs.
I know this is unconstitutional but it
can be gotten over easily by calling it
license to own q dog.
Ihave never advocated the total ex-
termination Of dogs, only to cut of
the worthless ones, on which the own
ers refuse to pay the tax. This would
take at least 80 per cent Of them, and
those who own valuable dogs would
cheerfully pay the tax, and ought to
be protected in the ownership Of their
dogs, as is done with other animals,
and, like other animals. the owner
should be held responsible for dam
ages done by his dog.
hope to live to see sheep properly
protected against dogs. Then I would
expect to see a prosperous country.
We cannot make crops without ma
nure, and we cannot have manure
without animals to eat the products Of
the farm, and there is no other AMI
NAL equal in this respect to the sheep.
A we'll managed flock of sheep wall
give it's owner three crops; two, or per-
haps one Of these will pay all expenses
on the flock. Is there any other ami
NAL, except perhaps the Angora goat,
that will do this ? Give us the proper
protection and we will raise the sheep.
j. WASHINGTON WATTS.
Laurens, S. g., Dec. 16, 1893.