Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (Charles City, Iowa) 1861-1864, 1864-03-10
Legislative Summary.

In the Senate, on the 10Th ult., q
bill was passed legalizing the act OF
Boards of Supervisors making appro
priations for bounties to volunteers
The Homestead bill was up most OF
the day, and was ordered engrossed
by vote of % to IL. 1t limits the
Homestead to $4,000; exempts from
pre-existing debts, but is not retro
spective. Mr.. Bassett, from the spe
cial committee on the upper Des
Moines Land Title questions, reported
a plan of adjustment with two bills tc
carry out the adjustment recommend
ed. ..............
The House re-committcd the bill Il
provide for survey of Ship Canal route
and passed the Senate bill to fix sala
nv and fees of District Attorneys and
THE General Appropriation bill. The
bill to restrain stock from running a,
large was discussed during the whole
afternoon and was finally re.committed
to select committee of three. Mr.
Davis, of Union, offered an amend
ment to provide for restraining swine
from running at large, and upon this
amendment spicy discussion ensued
Mr.. Thompson from Committee on
Agriculture, said that numerous petit
tions and rcmonstrances in regard to
this measure, had been introduced
and he believed the bill would suit al
parties.
Mr.. Spurrier opposed the amend
ment, aud thought it would work
great Inconvenience to large class
of our people.
Mr.. King favored the amendment,
and believed it to be just the thing
our farmers demanded, and thought il
any class of stock was to be restrain.
ed it should be the hogs. All thrifty
and well managing farmers had al
ready adopted the plan of restraining
their hogs, and he thought it unjust
to allow the careless aud indolent tC
permit their hogs to run at large I,
the annoyance of the neighborhood.
Mr. Hildreth favored the amendment
for restraining swine. 1t was not 81
astringent as he would like, but still
he would vote for it in the absence o
anything better. He regarded hog
when running at large as a nuisance
and in almost every sense they wel
to be regarded as an evil. The use Il
pork as an article of food had entaile
innumerable evils upon the huma
family by causing scrofula and othe
diseases. Hogs were vile, ofiensiv
animals, and he believed the destrut
ton they caused to garden and feel
crops amounted TO more than th
whole hog crop Of the State. He I,
GREETED that when the devil got INF
the swine, and they ran down into I'll
I sea, any of them were spared to pc
petnate their species. If Iowa peopI
, would persist in raising such viciou
and offensive animals, let a law b
passed compelling them to restrai
them and keep them on their ow
premises SO that their neighbors shal
not be continually annoyed 10y them.
Mr.. Latham considered the question
of restraining stock as a very compl
Gated one, aud believed the ameut
ment might be very acceptable to
part of the people of the State. it woul
operate to the prejudice Of far great
er portion.
| Mr.. Russell of Washington. hope
the amendment would pass. He wa
not disposed to make war upon tn
hogs--was not an enemy, but frien
to the swine. He was in favor of I'll
hog, and woull Ven him up for h
own benefit. He believed the farme
who kept lis hogs enclosed wonl
raise better pork than the one VIII
permitted them TO run at large.
Mr.. Holdridge said he was interest
ed in this questionable greatest bore
in his county were the hogs, and h
was opposed to Legislation for thci
personal comfort. He believed th'
gardens destroyed by the hogs wer,
worth more than the value of the pork
Mr.. Davis considered this question
of restraining hogs as one of vital i'm
portance to the agricultural interests
of the State. He was willing to ad
NIT that the hog trade was a valua
BILE and good paying one, but where
it was carried on it monopolized ant
crowded out all other branches o.
Agricultural business. The law We
have now he believed imperative anc
impracticable. The advantages to be
gained by restraining hogs were jnsl
in proportion to the amount of the tim,
Der land Of our prairie I; while those
citizens living near the timber would
be injured in some small degree 10y
being compelled to restrain their swine
the interests of all those Lying upon
the prairie would suffer greater dam
age by the adoption Of the opposite
course. He was in favor of making
the law uniform or general.
| The question being put, the amend.
ment was lost
Mr.. Thompson, from committee on
Agriculture, stated in explanation OF
the bill that it was only asked that
stock should be restrained at certain
times when feed was scarce and stock
the most troublesome. Ii was meas
ure demanded by the farmers-was
asking but little and should be grant.
ed.
Mr.. Close considered the law as it
now stands dead letter, and of no
force. He believed the people dc
manded the passage of just such a
law as the bill before the House.
Mr.. Vinton offered all amendment
to the substitute making it obligatory
upon the Boards of Supervisors of all
counties to submit a stock law to a
vote of the people of the county.
Mr.. Smith spoke in favor Of the sub
stitute. lie thought nothing could be
more just than to submit such ques.
ton to vote of the people of the coun-
ty, as provided by this substitute.
Opposition to the measure looked as
though gentlemen were afraid to trust
majority Of their people. He was
in favor of leaving the matter to a