The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1917-07-20
ALICE DOG LAW IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
0NNUkBER GROUNDS
ARGUMENT OF VALIDITY OF
STATUTE MADE BEFORE
JUDGE MCKNIGHT.
MUST Be TAXED As PROPERTY
Cannot Be Treated as Privileges Il Is
lnsisted-ls a Revenue Act and Not
One to Regulate the Keeping of
CANNES, is Claim.


law Of 1907 by Attorneys Webster and
Webster for the indicted dog owners
and William s. Fleming, for the
prosecution this morning The argu-
ments will be concluded this after.
noon.
The first case heard was that OF
State against William Porter Err
win. This will be test case for all
the others. The defendant moved to
quash the indictment on a number of
grounds. The following is the mo.
ton:
"That it appears from the present.
ment that 1t was not signed by the
attorney general, so therefore not Off.
cially presented by him to the Court
as required by law. And the present.
ment is therefore a nullity.
ut appears on the back of the pre-.
sentiment that 1t was not signed by
all of the grand jury, as the hand.
writing of each name is the same
and therefore the law was not com.
piled with in this respect, and the
presentment Is a nullity.
Because the presentment in this
case Is founded on Chapter 80, Sen
ate Bill No 81 of the Acts of the State
of Tennessee, Of 1907, approved Feb
9Th, 1907. entitled an Act to regulate
the keeping of female dogs by requir
ing them to be registered, and to de
clare the running at large of unregis
tered female dogs a public nuisance
in this state and to provide the pen
atty for violators of this Act. Which
act Is unconstitutional and void fol
many reasons, among which are the
following: .
at has been held that a dog is
property and that the legislature have
no authority to tax as privilege the
ownership of any species of dogs Of
keeping of any species of dogs, and
that dogs cannot be taxed as priv
lege by the head but must be taxed
as any other property, ad valorem.
2.
"While the act is styled to regulate
the keeping of female dogs, it is plain
ly a revenue act because it fixes the
registration without regard to the
breed of dogs on all females ovel
three months old at SO each and pro
yides for SO cents to the clerk as s
payment for collar and the book tt
register, and the balance to go to thu
common school fund.
8.
"The act does not make it nuts
ance for any female dog to run a
large, but only such female dogs al
the owner has not paid the privilege
of So for, and when this privilege il
so paid, the female dog may be per
Emitted to run at large, and would b'
as much a nuisance registered as sh
was unregistered, and it is Therefore
a revenue act.
"Ths is not an act under the polio,
regulation of the state as it does no
provide for bull dogs to be muzzlet
when running at large, and it does
not provide that female dog II
season is nuisance to be allowed tt
run at large or any other safeguard
against female dogs running at large
and permits them to run at large /
they have paid their So and been reg
istered and have a collar, and it i!
therefore an attempt to abridge thu
right of a citizen, which is guaranteed
to him under the constitution to owl
any species of property or keep any
species of property that he desires
without paying a privilege herefor.
s.
at is an attempt to abridge the
right of citizen to own female dogs
or if he does own them requiring hin
to pay a registration fee, therefore he
must pay this for the privilege o.
owning this species of dogs or he vic
lates the statute.
"The act does not provide that al
unregistered dogs are a nuisance, bu
only female dogs that are not reg
istred, and is therefore a Legislation
against a class of owners of female
dogs, and for this reason. being class
legislation. the act is unconstitutional
and void
"The law on which the indictment
Is founded, the act of 1907 above
referred to. is unconstitutional and
void and no indictment can be predi