84 
THE DOG NUISANCE. 
There is a flavor of outlawry in current arguments against taxing or restrain- 
ing dogs. Their friends have an Ishmaelitish way of dealing with the question. 
If the mongrel tribes are declared nuisances, to be abated pro bono publico, they 
are claimed as property and placed upon an equality with a three thousand dol- 
lar merino ram. Propose a tax upon such a valuation, or any other, and their 
assumed value becomes instantly intangible. 
The question is a very plain one, requiring no profundity of jurisprudence in 
its solution. A dog is property just as a tame bear or a wolf is property. 
A lapdog or a parrot may be perfectly useless in the appreciation of most 
people, and yet be bought and sold and held as property. If tame bears or 
wolves or any animal whatsoever shall become numerous and troublesome and 
injurious to man, without known or responsible owners, unchained and roaming 
at will, there is no more question as to restraining and outlawing stich animals 
than with reference to the most pronounced nuisance ever proscribed by law. 
A man may claim “I have as good aright to raise dogs as any man has to raise 
sheep.” So he has; but he has no right to allow them to leave his premises 
and certainly no right to suffer them to prey upon his neighbor's sheep, 
and the law-making public has an undoubted right to tax, restrict, or prohibit 
such production if the public good requires it. 
The principle of the right of taxation is unquestioned. The State legislatures 
have nearly all recognized it, and congressmen acknowledge it, yet there is a 
strange hesitation and timidity in national and State councils for which it is 
difficult to find a sound reason. The only one assigned is not a creditable one, 
and hence it is usually suppressed, viz: universal suffrage gives to the dog 
owner, though he may be as unreasoning as the barking brute in question, @ 
vote. It is to be hoped, whatever petty local legislators may do, that honorable 
members of national councils may act with greater wisdom and independence. 
In European countries the taxation of dogs, not for revenue merely, but as a 
police measure for the regulation and repression of a nuisance, and for the ne- 
eessary protection of an industry otherwise at the mercy of a selfish and reck- 
less class, is a practical fact. In Great Britain a tax of twelve shillings (three 
dollars) each has long been imposed, and a substantial income is derived from 
this source. In Bavaria a notable reduction in number of dogs is the result of 
taxation. ‘In Baden a revenue of 100,000 thalers per annum is derived from 
the tax on dogs. France has a dog tax, as also Prussia. In Portugal there 
is no tax but a restriction upon the increase of the species. In Lisbon all having 
no masters are destroyed without mercy. 
At the international congress of veterinary surgeons in Vienna in 1865 the 
subject was discussed, interesting statistics of hydrophobia were presented, and 
a resolution was adopted favoring taxation, and recommending that the tax be 
as high as possible. ; z. 
Few are aware of the immense losses inflicted upon the productive industry 
of the country by these pests.. Every local attempt to ascertain these damages 
reveals astounding facts. Returns have been received in this division of the depart- 
ment of agriculture within a few weeks from 539 counties, in every State in the 
Union except the Pacific States, showing an aggregated estimate of 130,000 
sheep killed by dogs in about one-fourth of the whole number of counties. On 
this basis the total number killed would be more than half a million yearly. 
Then the number injured, assuming as a basis the proportion reported from 
actual count in a series of years in Ohio, would be more than three hundred 
thousand more; more than eight hundred thousand sheep killed or mutilated 
yearly, and a two per cent. tax levied upon the total investment in sheep, a loss 
equal to one-third of the gross income from six per cent. stocks. 
