Show comes back EDITOR THE STANDARD I 1 did not and do not beaire any controversy with any man who will follow the business of catching and cremating dees the only animal that will forsake its own species for its master vituperation and vilification will not answer facts it is the common understanding in ogden that boys are employed in the city to catch dogs and taice them to the dog catcher it has been done frequently now as to the vain ble do belonging to a man near the corporate limits here are the facts the dog belonged to mr john hutchins who lives just west of the points the dog wac caught last spring and taken to the dog catcher mr hutch ius went after hia dog next morning and offered to pay alie dog catcher the 3 tax but 4 was demanded sir hutchins asked why the extra 1 was charged he was told for keeping him over night mr H asked it he kept the dog at the reed hotel the dog catcher refused to surrender the dog and sold him next day tor 5 and it is supposed put the money in bis own pocket at the least of it my original article was that the claim of the dog catcher now before the city council of was for doga supposed to have been billed during the not six months did the dog catcher catch all there dogs oraid be hire to do eo at 25 cents per dog so much the worse on the city taxpayers I 1 repeat the expenses of the city in running the dog catching business was tor last year the expenses from january ast 1st 1894 to june SO 1894 was and since that time to the rendering the present account I 1 again ask the city council if there is no protection to country people whose dogs follow them to town we do not owe any tax on our dogs yet scores of them are dragged off to the crematory and cremated forthwith this is wrong and should be stopped in the above I 1 leave used the name of mr hutching without any permission but let the dog catcher maice good bis promises I 1 am done with the discussion countryman |