The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1929-02-21
SENATE'SDOG TAX
BILL BEATEN 55-52
BY Other CHAMBER
Critics Say Provisions Were So
Poorly Drawn as to Need
so to rs Amendments
FEAR LEAD TO GRATING
Owner Of 1000 WooIies No: in
Favor Of Plan: Substitute
Has More Chance

Dogs will not be taxed in North
Dakota to reimburse owners of sheep
or other livestock killed by dogs.
Though the senate of the state
legislature debated for days over
the Fredrickson bill to create such a
tax and finally passed it in amend
ed form, the lower house summarily
dispatched it upon its initial appear
ance Wednesday.
It was briefly discussed in the
committee of the whole, recommend
cd for indefinite postponcment and
the committee report adopted by a
vote Of $3.50.
The bill was numerically flayed
on the house floor not only for its
subject matter, but also for the man.
ner in which it was drawn.
1T is not even in shape to be
killed." L. l.. Twichell, Case county,
declared. "There are SO or rs amend
ments which should 90 into it to
make it fit for USE"
Aside from the dog tax measure,
the house had quiet busy day.
It took action on IA bills in the COM
mittec of the whole and passed six
on the regular calendar. An effort to
resurrect bill for bridge across
the Missouri river at Washburn was
smothered.
Now that the senate dog tax bill is
out Of the way, the house is expected
to take action on y similar bill Of
its own which has been held in COM
mittee, pending action on the senate
measure. The house bill is expected
to find larger favor.
Fears Neighborly Teuds
There Is no necessity of such
legislation" M. H. Lynch, Richland
county, said of the dog tax bill. "The
bill is designed for only about five
per cent Of the dogs Of the state.
House dogs are not vicious. l do not
care to 60 back to my constituents
and tell them that they must tax
their dogs"
my neighbor and I have been
getting along finely for 20 years,
but il this bill goes into effect we
will be fighting" Albert Van Berk-
ON. Burke county, asserted. He at
tackled several sections of the bill
in particular.
This is 4 new field Of legisla-
tion," r. E. Swendseid, Mountrail
county, maintained. "The grain
grower pays the premium for hail
insurance. owners Of buildings pay
the premium for fire insurance, but
sheep owners would have dog own
ers OF the state pay for insurance
against their animals being killed."
If this measure becomes law, it
will be like the bank guaranty fund
law, and have more claims on it for
money than it will have funds to
meet" c. Vernon Freeman. Grand
Forks. contended. asleep owners un-
doubleday are justified in asking
legislation, but haven't much faith
in this arrangement of taxing dogs"
Twichell pointed out that the bill
provided for taking ST, 900 out Of the
dog tax fund for certain expenses
while it provided no general fund,
but So funds, one for each county.
This glazing error certainly needs
correction" he said.
One Sheep Owner Dissents
~ 0S0S1 WpPAOpA l0SCS IuOuSdtluS
Of dollars for wolf bounty, yet dogs
do more harm to sheep than wolves"
r. p. Hamilton, Nelson county, told
the house.
"lf this bill is passed, sheep killed
by wolves will be laid onto dogs in
order to collect indemnity" George
Aliets, Wells county, said.
w. J. Bell, Cass county, cited an
instance from his neighborhood in
which two cur dogs had killed "a
sheep in one day and hurt 12 more
SO that they died the following day.
The owner Of the dogs had no money
and the sheep owner had to bear
the entire loss, he said.
y G. A. Miller, Logan county, said
that though he owned about 1000
sheep, he did not believe in asking
claims for sheep killed by dogs.
Owners can see that their sheep are
protected, he maintained.
A bill to prohibit sale Of dairy
products by state institutions to pri-
vate consumers and to prohibit serv-
in4 oleonargarine in state institu-
tions caused discussion in the COM
mittee d the whole. Opponents Of
the bill held that inmates Of state
institutions could use oleomargarine
. well = other people Of the state.