'66 DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 



'person — not merely by the police officers and constables on 

 •whom the duty is specifically imposed by statute."* 



In a case where a dog was held not to be "property" so as 

 to be liable to be taxed ad valorem as other property, it was 

 held also that an act making dogs subject to a "tax" of one 

 dollar per annum, to be paid by their owners or harborers 

 under penalty of five dollars and costs, was not technically a 

 tax but a legitimate police regulation, and the court said, quot- 

 ing Cooley on Taxation, 6oi : " 'Though a tax is sometimes 

 levied for revenue upon the keepers of dogs, it is more usual 

 to require the keeping to be licensed, the principal object 

 being to have some person responsible for every animal of the 

 kind that is protected by the law.' ... It is to be noted that 

 the act we are considering is in harmony with this view, and is 

 'An act to levy a tax on the privilege of keeping or harboring 

 dogs.' " ^^* On the other hand it was said in a case in the 

 District of Columbia: "The law recognizes property in and to 

 dogs, and the owner thereof is entitled to his remedies for an 

 invasion of his rights of property. This is too well settled in 

 England and in the States of this Union to be now questioned. 

 The right of property in animals cannot be declared unlaw- 

 ful unless a license is first obtained. We do not undertake 

 to say that a given or particular mode of using any kind of 

 property might not be prohibited, but for the general posses- 

 sion of that in which the right of property exists, which is not 

 a mere franchise, how can it be declared unlawful and a license 

 demanded before the person is authorized to own or keep? 

 If dogs are property they may be taxed and the tax assessed 

 to the owner. But would it be claimed that for the non-pay- 

 ment of the tax the owner could be arrested, fined and im- 

 prisoned? . . . We do not say that the owner may not be 



"' State V. Howard (N. H.), 43 Atl. Rep. 592. 



"* Ex parte Cooper, 3 Tex. App. 489. And see Kidd v. Reynolds 

 (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. Rep. 600; Mowery v. Salisbury, 82 N. C. 

 17s; Carthage v. Rhodes, loi Mo. 175; Griggs v. Macon, 103 Ga. 602; 

 Com. V. Markham, 7 Bush (Ky.) 486; Hendrie v. Kalthoff, 48 Mich. 306. 



