The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-02-19

benefit to The public to have done. VI
course. IL is out OF the question TO com
pei nonresident owner OF lana 10 Per
sonally go to work to eNtermina'e lho
dogs. ~ nor
punishable by fine in criminal proceed
inp ..who shall permit prairie dogs 10 re
main or be on land owned by hiin Nndi
n great piece of injustice this would pc
IN the first place. these dogs never 'ahV
time TO got a permit" They never come
mr. remain with the permit Oh the
owner rho owner. being a non resident,
the dogs haven't the time, If so nlspos'',
TO SECURE a permit" There arc no ing"uS
of communication. The re5pasSaf is mere
without the knowledge OF consent OF ths
owner Under well known p'nclple3 Oh
law. would 1t not be q aulhcleht uslon
to show that such owner had no Nlo" =
edge of such trcspass on me uehl'uSs w
Tho dogs was committed without ms con
sent aud WAS against his wlll ,,,t
section 3 provides, iii any person shail
permit prairie dogs 10 remain on Nc on
his land" etc. TINT the owner on auJuS'ns
land is authorized to 20 upon lne 'anr 81 %
onotbor and enjoy the run OF
D,,t o,n,traticn and tho expense of this
proceedig TO be made charge assihsl
the land. In other words. u the doSA re-
main without permit the owners ppe'u-
ises NAV be invaded without his cohseuS ~
order TO extermlnate the dogs me pFaiile
dog exlerlnluator is then authorl2e1 w
sue To recover and have eslspishsu ~
lien tpon the land, and the lien ioreclosch
- Ina soId 10 nav the REASONABLE COSTS
-, their extermlnation.' This Is to9 lnuch
power TO glve the self CONSTITUTES -
,erninator. IL would entail endless litlsa-
ticn and costs, and IN many cases Ics ~
In the total loss OF land, Tor IN many c",ea
Tho land nf the non-resi1ent WoAiu NC w ~.
tached and sold without MS hayIhs az
uotito at all. Besides. what ehshce Wou VIM
no,.resident have in contest OF ms
Mind whom the record Of the death OF me
Gnse and The e3pcnge thereof. Is KEPT py
4,e extermiuator. He is his own poph
l[cener and accountant. No such y 'wer wa
ncer given before This section provides
also he shall be entitled to !uushiehi
for the expense therein Incurred o..
Section authorizes the COM w.
oo,,rt to anpoint any "numbe ROT persons
10 destroy the prairie deg ana 90 Iepo.'
m the commissioners court the 'ekpeus
Incurred f" What expense would be nee
sn1v 10 accomplish this purpose Woniu
the travelling board OF dog eAlefllh h..Vi
he authorized to purchase guns, aintiun',
lion. poison. bnggies, wagons: horses ups
camp outfit at the cost oil me own 80
the land? What would DC Observation-Disclosures
Tho term "expense?' The com lhlsslout ~
court would bring a suit TO recover W., w
, amount frr the benefit Of these ifseSiih
w Again, the homestead is exempt iron y
Inc provisions Of the law inc owns q
) Inc homestead would neither De sup'sess
, 10 criminal prosecution nor ms iau" M, III
I resnonsihle Tor the expense Of Slim
! them. while his neighbor not OWING
: homestead, would como under me p,om n,
) iong az the law The public schooi nna,
as matter OF coruse. %ouia De
. The law. thus exemptipg one class OF ~
J dIyisuals and imposing penalty npo
another is SO discriminatory as 10 re ., ~.
4 the same void. The dogs from the ,, slaI
. school land and the homestead ianu NM ~,
I invest lie individual land At VIII ana INV
Ne indsvldial holder Of land would
Q oun,shed both crirolnally and ciyiiiy, ,,s az
!, Vel The owner OF the Homestead ana pun
= school land would go scot free. =,
= The effect OF all Of this wou'n pe'