The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

e ' F r 7 7'?'. £, TX h : ?'iif. t > Mb T :'-"'f',~; fe: m'mmm J I '"1 '{'i;r:';:_;,'ialm RroTEO ,'{ EEP. ° C} & C M ".;',_f*iy.'-f:- fors !:r . 'v%r:?? ,._.-, K g _ tentnisuntsemaas : «Proposal for an Increase in the Dog . |RENFREW MEMBER CALLED UP-- .--___ Tax is Approved. f t oN TO RETRACT HOT WORDS.. The Legislative Agricuiture Com-- f | «_2 k --||mittee d@ecided yesterday mprning to |Conservative Member Resented Mr.||increase the tax on dogs, with a view Elliott's Insistent Examination of ||to protecting sheep. Mr. P. H. Bow-- Hon. Mr. Beck----Mr. McDougall ||yer, East Kent, was the sponsor ofg Protest. e measure that received a very vig. | Withdrew From Room in g:ous Support from the legislators.i conmantommmemtaiimmmmemmezsmems The Kent man explained ttt;mat gosfl, 'he i s . Elliott|| were doing much damage to the sheep ("'!'het l\rrllsiistence of, M* J C Ei:-;)es rhroughout the Province. He propos-- est Middlesex) in his inqu ed, with the idea of discouraging the concerning Hydro--electric expendi-- ke'epins and harboring of vicious can-- tures was not appreciated by the}||ines, that every (lo;i i'twhtaa':e(}hat é\glo J 4 % s, and every bitc 'e -- Conservative members of the Public ]daorlslarlThae Lbill. he explained, did not : Accounts Committee yesterday. refer to kennels. Mr, J. J. _Prg\,ston.' The Middlesex member had direct--~||mast Durham, opposed the bill in all| ied attention to the amount of 818.-'lit,s compulsolry filaemr%ire fFegont and l000 paid for legal expenses, and was e,g}f'eshfifé'mf 7 s Es inquiring of Hon. Adam Beck what '\On the suggestion of Mr. Neely. 'proportion of the amount had gone|| middlesex, the bill was amended to to Mr. A. F. Lobb, K.C. The Minis--|| make the tax $3 for the first and $5 for all additional bitches, and _ thus ter of Power explained that the ar-- passed. The committee decided that| rangement with the solicitor called the law would apply to all municipal-- for $400 per month and expenses up[ ities, so that the Province would be || under one law. No petitions asking to March 1, 1909. | U agoniaby' 9 i4 a for a repeal of the dog tax law will | Since that time, however, Mr.! be considered. . Elliott directed attention to the fact | hecimecconmnnnen esn omectsnnint tecucnmcsinsinemmedliii that the solicitor had charged some-- times $30 per day and expenses, and at other times $40 per day and ex-- + penses. At the latter rate he would be drawing $12,000 per annum. p; ¥ Hon. Mr. Beck stated that thesel amounts had not been paid. The com-- mission intended to have the accounts taxed. Directing attention to the sum of $37,000 under miscellaneous account, Mr. Elliott asked what proportion of it the municipalities would repay. |' _ '"None," replied the Minister. i *'*Then," said Mr. Elliott, "It is cur-- | rent expenditure, and should not be | ?inc]uded in capnital account. Should | (1t?" | ' Before the Minister could reply,i Mr. T. W. McGarry (South Renfrew) | f !spoke up, objecting to the Minister being asked concerning a matter of policy. Mr. Elliott opined that the Minis-- s ter could take care of himself. "All} [ am asking is whether what the| . municipalities are not expected to pay| back will go to current account," hei said. Mr. McGarry disputed the repeti-! tion. "When the member says so, ho' states what is deliberately and absol--| utely false," he declared. There was an instant scene of dis-- ||order. Mr. D. J. McDougall (East \()ttit"';l') demanded -- a retraction of \| the unparliamentary language, and \|appealed to the Chairman (Mr. G. IH. Ferguson). | The latter declined to give a rul-- ing beyond the statement that Messrs. McGarry and McDougall must "keep quiet" and let Mr. Elliott proceed. | _ Mr. McDougall, after lodging a | brief and dignifiecd protest, thereupon withdrew. The withdrawal had its effect, and Mr. McGarry withdrew the offensive | 'comment. l