Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-04-27
For HE Eu0uiyI


Messrs. Edilors-The rroprieiy OF altering or
amending The existing laws OF Virginia in lela-
lion 10 fencing OF farms, seems in some degree to
occupy the attention OF farmers and planters in
various sections OF our Stale; and very well ii
may, according TO my judgment and views OF the
matter.
As the laws OF Virginia are at this time, and
have long since been, suppose the husbandman
is required to keep his fence five feet high, OF
good, sound material, and close, which no doubt
is reasonable and proper. But believe | am
one OF many whose experience in This matter de-
monslraes The inconvenience and expensveness
occasioned by continuance OF such law in
regard 10 fencing on farms. am not dis
posed 10 seize upon the subject hastily, or with.
out sedate and mature reflection "a matter which
deem So momenous as The one am aiming
10 discuss. am sure that much deliberation is
requisite in order 10 render an opinion before the
public which will ensure generally their favor
able consideration. That many in our Stale
would give their hearty assent 10 the passage OF
a law in regard TO fencing which would license
every asrculuralisI in The State 10 dispense with
the burlhen of enclosing his fields cntirciv, and
compelling III TO make enclosures for all their
stock. doubt not. And am also prepared 10
present il as my honest conviction, that the pas
sage of such law would confer upon Vir.
GINA a great blessing. hope may be per-
mitled 10 say, too, that ! teel, suppose,
The inconvenience Of fencing as little as most
practical Planters but yet, when ! see, as
believe the necessities oil the great masses OF the
agrculursts OF Virginia, and know, too that
any measure which, in The wisdom OF our Legs-
lature, nigh, lend TO the alienation OF the diff
cuities necessarily TO be encountered and sub
dued by The ter Of The soil, am al no loss TO
determine as 10 what course TO recommend ior
the benefit of that worthy portion OF society," My
own experience teaches me that turning stock
out uron the "commons" is merely matter ol
convenience, and not so much Of benefit il is get
ling them out OF The way: whilst if lots were ncos-
ed on certain portions Of the farm, and the stock
removed from one 10 another, as The discretion oi
the farmer might suggest as proper, his purposes
would be much better subserved, and his stock Of
all kinds be much benefned and as compen-
sa,ion for the harvest field grazing and cleaning
by The caue, the farmer could with ease SOW an
enclosure or two in oats for their benefit when ripe
and oats are certainly better for hogs than wheat
and they doubtless raise better and thrive more
when enclosed Than when permitted to rove old
fields and forests remote from home. There may
be objections from some 10 my theory, as i'm
practicable but actual experiment in part proves
satisfactorily to me the praclicability OF such
course as recommend. And, besides, the great
er benefit which would accrue to The hogs par.
ticularly and TO the stock generally from the oa
lo,. as above The detrimental Influences oil noses
hoofs and teeth would not be fell by the harvest
fields. the result Of which would be a great i'm.
provemcnt 10 those lands. w.
AMELIA Co., 18th March, l847.