The Republican journal., 1896-01-30
Names Dog Tax.
AMOUNTS PAID FOR LICENSES DURING
THE PAST YEAR.

AMOUNTS PAID FOR LICENSES DURING
| THE PAST YEAR.
There has been received by the State
for dog licenses for the year 1895, $40
O31 SO, and of this has been returned to
the cities, towns and plantations for sheep
claims, 50, Oil. &c. or about 10 per cent.
of the amount received. This percentage
is about the same as last year, indicating
that the dogs have committed about the
same amount of depredations.
| There is, however, a slackness in the
collection of license fees which would
seem to reflect rather more on some men
of the State than upon the dogs, and will
bear out the statement of one DR.. John
son and others, that "the more he saw of
men, the better he liked dogs For, in
many places, particularly where many
sheep are killed, there are few collections.
The law provides that all dogs shall be tax
ed and the taxes accruing are sent to the
State treasury. The claims for sheep de-
stroyed by the dogs are also sent to the
State treasurer, and paid by him to the diff
ferent towns in which the depredations oc-
CURED. But town to make claim must
have contributed at least something to-
wards the treasury or in other words, enter
ed something into the ''pot'' to entitle it to
return. Several towns take advantage of
this, and put in just enough to let them
in. The town doesn t care. 1t is perfectly
willing that other towns dogs should pay
for its dogs doings.
In small places especially it is difficult
for the tax collectors to make the owners
pay up. The owner gives the collector to
distinctly understand, ''you let me and my
dog alone" Where the chance to let it
Slin iS en- aaSv tho col1aot or 6nocp,t l:l,a +f,
make trouble for himself and the dog or
dogs, and SO the matter slides.
To remedy this trouble it has been sug-
gested that each town pay its own damage
claims, which would make the collectors
stir around little in some of the sections
where the dogs do damage. The towns,
on the other hand, claim that it is not right
to base it on that system, as stranger dogs
often encrOach into their town boundaries,
and say they don't propose to pay for
what these dogs do. If they could catch
the dogs, it would be different matter
for they could then identity them and per
haps locate the owner, but dogs are not to
be caught. These good professors against
such system as each town paying its own
claims on these grounds, however, forget
that their dogs are just as likely to 60
over to the next town as the next towns
dogs are into their own. And as far as
the regular tramp dog is concerned all
are equally liable.
The following table gives few of the
returns from dog licenses, and amounts
paid out. Throughout the State, the
largest amount paid out was to the town
of Wells, S1s9.5O The smallest was to
Strong, 81. Portland paid in the largest
sum, amounting to LOIS, claiming of it
yonl $50.
1t will be borne in mind, in review
ing this table, that whatever may be the
specific relation of the amount received
from, to the amount paid out to each
town, it has no direct effect in determin-
ing the amount finally returned, at the
end of the year, by the State, amount
being determined by the aggregate.
1t will also be noted that one town, that
of Kingman, paid in none in 1895, but was
returned 50; this claim was one probably
carried over from the year previous, and
the fact of its not having paid in any in
1895, did not disqualify it.