Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1906-11-10
BE THE
DOG DAYS
Dog Tails Wag In Dogyille
Gossip, Rejoicing In New
Found Freedom

Run along, now, little doggie;
you may roam the streets; bark and
howl to your hearts content all
night, without fear of annihilatiou
at the hands of the boyle mantle
naughty dog-catcher.
Salem, as expressed In the vernac-
ular of the Bowery," has no more
dog license than a rabbit" according
TO the ruling Of Judge William Cal
loway In the case OF A. Smith vs.
the City OF Salem, where he has over
ruled the city's demurrer to the sec
ond complaint. This has the effect
OF sustaining the allegations of the
complaint, since the defendants
time for filing an answer thereto ex-
pired at o'clock last evening.
Further than this all dog licenses
paid under protest prior to the in
stitution of this action are subject
to recovery. Walter w. Johnson
has lost his job as "oficial dog
catcher" in consequence.
This was an action brought 10 en-
join the city of Salem and Pound
master w. w. Johnson from collect
ing or attempting to collect the
license on pup belonging TO the
plaintiff, A. smith, on the ground
that the effect OF the ordinance Is
tax, and not a license; that Il is IN.
equal taxation, because the dogs are
of different sizes and values, and
that the ordinance Is void because &c
provides for a fine and imprisonment
for any violations OF It's provisions.
The holding of the court practically
invalldates the ordinance aud wipes
II on the city statutes, for the rea-
son that II provides for the impris-
onment OF a person for debt, which
is prohibited under the state stat
utes.
Two complaints were filed, but
the demurrer to the original was
sustained and the second, which was
upheld by the court. was filed soon
afterwards one OF the principal au-
thorities cited by Counsel Holmes.
for the plaintiff in presenting his
case TO the court. was the case OF
Washington VS., Meigs. lst Near !
thurs reports, p. 50, in which the |
court held that dog is property; !
entitled to the same protection at the |
hands Of the law as other property. |
might be taxed and even muzzled at
certain seasons OF the year: but "A I
man cannot be fined as culprit for |
owning dog any more than for own
Ing a horse"
In passing upon the demurrer |
Judge Galloway stated that the city |
has the right 20 seize the dog and |
conhscate Il for non-payment OF !
lleonse on the part OF the owner. |
but that the owner could not be fined .
or imprisoned for refusing 10 pay
the license as q operated as a debt |
The fatal defect In the ordinance. b
es conteaded by defendants counsel.
and sustained by the court. lies In .
the penalllins clause, which pro- |
vldes, after the ordinance stlpulatos
the amount fixed as an annual H.
cense upon CANNES. that any viola p
ton of the provision OF the ordi-
nance, upon conviction. Is punish
able by stated fine and Tor i'm /
prisonment, In case OF default in
payment OF the fine. az the rate OF
~ per day, Any attempt to en-
force this provision. the court rules, /.
would be tantamount to imprison- |
ment for debt, and illegal
The city attorney. A. o. Condit
says that he will appeal the case To
the supreme court.
Webster Holmes very generously /
offered to waive the ten days limita- I
tion, and told Mr.. Condit to go ahead
and file the answer. but Mr.. CondIt b
seems TO prefer taking chances with
the supreme court.
A decree will be asked for today
IN the circuit court making the tenn
pOrary Injunction perpetual