When a tax comes between someone and their dog, they’re bound to get upset. From the Cornwall Chronicle of Launceston, Tasmania:
The Dog Act.
If the irresponsible Legislature of this colony think proper to make
oppressive Laws, it is the duty of the people to resist them, which can be
done most effectually by passive resistance. The colonists
universally admit the necessity for a Legislative enactment to suppress the
useless increase of dogs, and the keeping of those animals by persons who
under the pretense of kangaroo hunting employed them in the destruction of
sheep, subjecting thereby the flockmasters to inconceivable loss; but the
interest of the flockmaster cannot be injured by permitting householders in
the town to have a watch dog on the chain exempt from duty: it is so in
England, and however much inclined people may be to submit to the necessary
infliction of taxes similar to those imposed on the subject in England, they
cannot sanction an excess of taxation here, not recognized there.
The wool kings expunged the clause in the draft of the Dog Act which
permitted every householder to keep a watch-dog on the chain free from tax,
on the grounds that they, the wool kings, were willing to pay for their
sheep-dogs, and that therefore the householders in the towns should
pay for their watch-dogs; if by any reasoning it could be made to appear that
dogs kept on the chain in the town of Launceston could injure flocks of sheep
in the country, we should say that householders were bound to submit quietly
to the tax, but, as it is impossible for such a thing to occur, we think
householders should not submit to the payment of a tax for their watch-dogs;
it is repugnant to the law of England, and an oppressive tax which
will fall harshly upon the industrious and needy portion of householders.
For dogs kept for pleasure no reasonable objection can be made against a tax
upon them — it is necessary for the public safety that the number of dogs
running at large should be lessened, or that they should be kept under a
proper controul; on the luxuries of the rich taxes should be raised, not on
the necessities of the poor; dogs kept for pleasure are fair game for
taxation — those kept to protect the homestead of householders of all classes
are exempt from taxation in England and should here be sacred from the
merciless hand of the tax gatherer.
We recommend every householder who keeps a dog for the purpose of
protecting his property, not to pay a tax for the animal; let this
passive resistance be general, and if the police choose to
lay informations against the owner, let them call in an auctioneer and sell
for the tax and police costs, and if a bidder can be found
for any property seized upon for such a purpose, we think we do not
know the people of Launceston. If this righteous resistance to an arbitrary
tax, be general, the law will become a dead letter — it is for the
inhabitants to oppose their solid phalanx to the executioners of an unjust,
tyrannical and most oppressive tax.
From the New York Herald:
Refuses to Pay Dog Tax Where There Are No Police
Yonkers Man Writes City Clerk to Come After His Animal, Which Is Kept for Protection Which He Is Taxed For but Doesn’t Get
Yonkers, N.Y., . — “The more I look at some policemen the better I like my dog,” is the sentiment expressed by Robert H. Miller, of № 43 Hillside avenue, Wakefield Park, in a letter anent the tax on dogs that was sent to the City Clerk, James W. Howorth. In the letter Mr. Miller states his refusal to pay the tax on the dog and instructs the clerk that he may call for Ami (the canine) any time he desires.
“I wish to state that I consider said tax a unjust burden for owners who have dogs for their home and families’ defence, not for luxuries, as the cost of living to raise five children is expensive enough without feeding a dog if he was not necessary in the wild section of this town, as we have no benefit from all the taxation with which we are burdened, no open streets, no police, no sewers, and many more necessities that I could mention,” he complains. After threatening to move from the suburb into the city proper, he goes on:—
“Coming back to the dogs, I consider a dog which is kept on the chain or on the premises in wild sections as a saving to the city. If it would not be for the dogs there would be more crimes, and that would mean more police and more taxes. But the time will come when the city will buy dogs and feed them to look after tramps who hang out in these sections, as they are more efficient than the police.”
From the Adelaide Mail:
Tax Resisted
As a protest against the £4 tax imposed on dogs in Breslau (Germany), 5,000 yelping canines of every Imaginable breed were paraded outside the town hall by their indignant owners, and much to the delight of the onlookers. The astonished city fathers agreed to investigate the complaint.
