86 
The official statement for Ohio, in 1866, was as follows: Killed, 31,118, valued 
at $112,367; injured, 21,681, valued at $41,729. 
In view of the official and unofficial exhibits of different States and localities, 
and the direct returns to this department, from all sections of the country, for 
two consecutive years, the direct losses of 1866 may be stated as follows: 
SO ime piicap Skilled ss. te ae ee ae = =. eta == a $2, 000, 000 
See eheey TnpREed = @ oer oie lem neo - eee sie ein 600, 000 
PGi «cde we reee ies Se ne on oe eee Sake. ae 2, 600, 000 
The cost of keeping dogs, most of them utterly worthless, when calculated 
for the whole country, assumes startling proportions. ‘The estimate made in the 
report of 1863, of $10 per annum, or less than one cent per meal, cannot be con- 
sidered extravagant, “in view of price paid for boarding dogs, the cost of keep- 
ing large numbers of them in cities, and their exclusive consumption of meat.” 
As to their numbers, it is believed by many that they will average one to each 
family, or seven millions in the United States. In cities and towns that aver- 
age would not be reached, while many a pack of hounds and assemblage of curs 
of low degree might be found in the ownership of single families. Possibly 
seven millions may be too large. Ohio, with half a million families, is supposed 
by many to have half a million dogs, although little more than one-third of that 
number are found on the assessors’ books. It may be assumed, in view of all 
the data obtained, as a low estimate, that there are five millions of dogs in the 
United States, and that their subsistence involves an expenditure of fifty mil- 
lions of dollars. : 
The following extracts from correspondence will further illustrate these views 
of a subject which has become of national importance, and should secure the. 
prompt action of Congress in favor of a uniform tax, in all the States and Ter- 
ritories, say of two or three dollars on each dog without regard to breed, sex, 
or use: 
A correspondent in Sullivan, Illinois, writes: “ Your suggestion as to taxing 
dogs I hope will be carried out by Congress. ‘I'wo years ago I lost a valuable 
ram, that I obtained from Vermont at considerable cost and trouble, by a thiey- 
ing sheep-killing dog. It is a poor solace to have the privilege of killing a dog 
after he has destroyed your property. 1 have written to Senator Trumbull on 
this matter, and suggested a tax as follows: Dogs unaltered, $5; dogs altered, 
$2; sluts, $5. A general tax of this kind will greatly lessen the number of 
worthless dogs in the country.” 
Somerville, Tenn—Sheep have decreased fully one-half since last February, 
having been sold off for market, and killed by dogs and irresponsible parties 
for foud. Every negro, now that he is free, must own two or three dogs. I van 
safely assert that fully one-half are killed by dogs and the other half eaten up. 
Wayne county, N. C—The United States forces, while in occupation of this 
county, very nearly exterminated the stock of dogs, and as a consequence sheep 
. have suffered but little from their depredations. This State did have a tax 
upon dogs, but it appears to have become a dead letter. 
Baltimore county, Md.—It is difficult to answer with accuracy the question 
as to the number of sheep killed by dogs. The county is large, and I know the 
loss is considerable. Admitting a loss of only twenty in each election district, 
would amount to 260 for the county; we often hear of one or two farmers losing 
this number (twenty) in one night, and I am quite sure my estimate is not 
too high. 
Beaufort, N. C—I am truly glad to see that the subject of dogs has at last 
been taken up, as they are undoubtedly the greatest nuisance in our land. 
Sheep-raising here would be profitable were it not for the ravages of the dogs. But 
