The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-07-18
WOULD CHANGE IT
EX-MAY0R COX THINKS DOG ORDI-
NANCE GOULD BE IMPROVED.

Thinks That IL the Dog Tax was
Turned to Helping the City Library and
ChiIdren's Home it Would Benefit q
Good Cause.
THE dog catcher. the dog ordinance
and the dog question gave me more
trouble when 1 was mayor of Wichita"
said ex-Mayor Cox yesterday, than any
other one thing connected with the city
government. Hardly day went by but
come committee from the Humane So
c,ety called and asked that the dogs be
protected from the extreme cruelty they
suffered al the hands of the dog catcher.
Nearly every day women and cnlldren
and men would come n and complain
that their dogs were gone. The men
were usually hot and swearing and the
women and children cried. In great
many cases the tax had been paid and
the tag becoming lost by some means
the dog was taken up and put in the
pound. In a great many instances the
tax was paid a second and a third time
and If not the dog was either sold or
killed. If the animal was salable IL was
generally turned into cash and the dog
man got his so cents per head from the
City and whatever he can realize from
the sale extra
why, sir. the official whose duty 1t
was to look after the canine population
often had four or five boys in his en-
ploy TO whom he paid about TO cents
apiece for every dog that was brought
in. These boys got what dogs they
could that were without tags, stole the
tags when the tax had been paid, and
ran the dogs in. And ii was the good
dogs they got, always.
And then there was the filthy pound.
There was a constant howl and
stencil and fight till people couldn't
sleep for a half mile around. That
brought howl from the citizens. A
number Of families moved out and they
ali kept up complaint. The whole
thing is a snide''
Would You repeal the orinance?"
Il would, in its present form. I would
have a tax on dogs but instead of hav-
ing an official dog catcher. a city tau
OF 81 and a fee of so cents a head l
would have an ordinance authorizing
the collection OF a dollar a head for all
dogs and the money turned INTO the city
library or the Children's home. Then
instead of a committee of ladies going
out and soliciting bona fide subscriptions
for the libraries and the homes they
could go to every man who owns a dog
and say: Here, give us a dollar for the
library Every man with a dog would
do this and in donating TO the worthy
institutions he would also get rid of the
dog question.
THE way 1t Is now, maybe a man will
pay his dog tax and maybe he won't
and if he does maybe he will have to
pay 1t again and again or lose his dog.
Under this other arrangement 1 would
have the committees receipt for all
money received and ali the list of tax
paid in published in the newspapers
Ana then there's that other nuisance the
occupation tax. A man comes here with
$50 or $50 and goes into business for
himself and the city turns in and taxes
him. Probably he's only got horse and
wagon TO make a living and we compel
HIM to pay what is really an illegal
license. We couldn't sustain our position
in the courts but a man would rather
pay the sum generally than to fight the
proposition.
"Wnen the ordinance was passed the
express companies instead Of fighting
the question or paying il outright and
going on took off an outside wagon n
the delivery service and thus saved the
amount Of the tax and even more
Then there isn't an entire absence of
impartiality in the collection Of the
license any way. Political capital is al
ways made out of the place. When the
campaign comes the fellows get around
and say 10 the boys: How are you go
ing 10 vote?'
Don't know
Have you paid your occupation
tax
mo
We'll, you vote right and We'll fix
that
And that's the way It goes; some pay
* and some don't"
Would you do away with that tax
entirely?"
mo; l would tax all medicine fakirs
and all transient take-ins but the fellows
who live here and work hard ought not
n he taxes ar all or taxed a like