The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-11-29
rAx rHr nocsI

The Advertiser Is in receipt of e postal card from a subscriber. who vans the paper to use it's influence towards getting the Legislature to put tax on dogs. the money to 90 to the schools, and adds: eff we of the mountain counties were rid of the worthless dogs we could sup ply the State with fine mutton at low price. Please help: it will run the schools one month in each year"
 We presume our correspondent means that the addition from this source to the taxes would add enough to the school funds to pay the expenses for one month In each year. This of itself would be A strong argument in favor of such a tax, but the further fact that such a tax would largely reduce the worthless ca- hines of the State, and thus enable the farmers to raise sheep is a stiil stronger reason for advocating the measure.
 The Advertiser Is warmly in favor of such a law and has more than once taken occasion to advocate it unequivocally and earnestly. Whether the tax should be in the form of c license to be paid by own CTS of dogs, or whether it should be in the shape of a head-tax to be imposed on all canines in the State, is a matter to be considered and settled by the lawmakers at the proper time, but. that a tax of some kind should be imposed does not admit of a shadow of doubt in our opin- ion. The addition to the States reve- nue and the impetus which would be given to sheep-raisinE by reducing the number of worse than useless animals, should supply all the argument needed.
 It is a somewhat singular phase of hu- man nature that objects to a dog tax, but 1t Is an undoubted fact that any legis- lation of this kind is always unpopular, and generally settles any legislator who advocates it. The average man will sub init to almost any form of taxation rather than one aimed at his canine friends and far be it from us to cast any reflections on this feeling, for no more faithful friend ever lived than a good dog. and the man who starves or mistreats one lacks something in his makeup The fact that we resent and deplore any ill., treatment of them. however, does not al- ter the other fact that there are too many of them in Alabama and that a reason able tax on all useful ones should be cheerfully contributed to the school fund. and material reduction in the census of worthless ones would be an advantage in more ways than one.
 And. speaking of taxing dogs, reminds us that we clipped good article from one of our State exchanges. intending to publish 1t. but unfortunately failed to mark it and have forgotten what paper 1t was in. We are going to copy 1t any how and give credit when we learn where 1t is due. Here 1t Is:
 We endorse the plan. It's 'dog-sone" good thing. Aiding the good road move ment, or thinning out the dogs-no mat ter which--the result will be good. We would suggest. however, that the tax be regulated according to the worthlessness mot exactly that, either. The sorrier the dog. the heavier the tax, is the point which we are trying to arrive at We are there now, but the point since we've made it, does not look as well as 1t did when we started; It IS evident that that some some
  were of no value and. being mo prop erty," should not be taxed. Their neigh bors would swear. as to the value of the dogs, the same thing, and the tax would be of no use. On the other hand, under the "sorrier the dog the heavier the tax" plan-which Is the same as a "bet- ter the dog the lighter the tax plan--the value of dogs might reach such a high figure that the owner of a pack of hounds. from a dog standpoint, would be a mill honaire. This plan would. perhaps. bring on considerable confusion, but since we have suggested it, we are somewhat loath to give 1t up. It is plain, however, that to make a "sorrier the dog. the heavier the tax plan-which, as already stated, Is the same as a better the dog. the means must be devised whereby the dog owner can be driven to a point some where between the two extremes.
 We have in mind the means that will effectually protect the lower extremities of this proposition.
 It is this: Let it be made a felony for any person, firm or corporation to own, keep, have in his, her or it's possession any dog or any animal of the dog kind, that he, she or 1t is unwilling to swear has property" value Regulating the tax in accordance with our suggestion. its lower extremities can be amply pro- tected by this method. It completely shuts off the dog owners chance of es- cape at this end. Now if some of our brethren will mediate a little and devise means to prevent the dog owner from getting too near the other extremity, discussion of some other question.