The weekly union record. [volume] (Oroville, Calif.) 1864-1866, 1865-12-16
The Fence or No Fence Question.

This subject occupies anew the attention Of
farmers aud stock raisers in San joaquin. The
Stockton Independent says:
The question is again being raised and dis
cussed by the farming community OF this
county, whether it is better, on the whole,
10 turn the stock loose and fence IN the
fields, or turn the fields loose and fence in the
stock The difficulty Is that the grain grower
does not see why be should be obliged to fence
bis land TO protect his crop from the stock OF
bis neighbOr, while the stock raiser Is equal '
unwilling TO be put to the expense. Fencing
would, Of course, increase the price OF lands 10
the county, and thus curtail the space now
devoted to pastuTage. They are still at swords
points about it.
Ia Butte county, the people have had bitter
experience from the workings of law that
amounted to the same as turn the feds loose
aud fence 10 the stock" The law was passed
in March, 'G4, with the intention to better
protect the agricultural interests OF our county,
but signalIy failed to meet the object aimed at.
10 short, 1t provided that any owner or oceu-
pant of any land or possessory claim, finding
any horse, or horned cattle, upon such land or
possessory claim, lghethsr intl0sed by LAWFUL
fence or not, could take up such animals aud
keep them for ten days at the expense Of the
owner, and if said owner is not found, such
stock posted and sold to pay damage and costs,
and the purchaser made a good title. When
this law took effect, with few exceptions, every
farmer had fenced bis grain and hay land
against bis own as well as his neghbOrs stock,
and to have commenced culliyatiDg the com
mons, every farmer must have necessarily
fenced for pasture 10 his stock, which has not
been DONE and with many is almost an impos-
sibility consequently stock owned by farmers
and stock men have been either driven out Of
The county, or allowed to run at large and be
captured and sold under what is almost univer-
sally termed the ''cattle stealing law" Whilst
this law has worked great injury TO the large
majority Of farmers and stock men, compare
lively few have been benefited thereby, and
they such as dump down on the "vnsty plains
under the pretense Of claiming q "hay ranch"
Complaints are also made against it as acting
as a shield to persons who care not how they
may accumulate filthy lucre." For instance,
such a party, claiming land on the commons,
makes business Of eorraling all stock tres
passing, and even driving them from the plains
and from the premises OF owners to his head
quarters, and they are generally disposed Of
before the owner is aware of the day of sale
The people of Suffer county, where no such
law exists, assert that their stock has been
driven into Butte in similar manner and sold
The report of the County Assessor for the past
year exhibits falling off in the assessment of
the sum of 100000, which be mainly attrib
utes to this law. In short, we do not believe
there is one in fifty permanent residents in the
county of Butte favorable to this law, and we
look forward to It's early repeal To oil farmers
who have lawful fences there should be rigid
protection as against oil stock breaking into
their Enclosures