The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1865-10-21
DAILY N EW S.
CHARLESTON.
SATURDAY MORNING. OCTOBER 2l. 1865.


and rapid restoration of our country, We become
conscious Of vast work to be performed, and OF
the probability that thcro will be great deficiency
of labor. 1t becomes important, therefore, to
cconouizc labor and i'll view of such necessity, wc
have thought it not improper to bring to tho
notice of our readers and moro especially of the
members of tho Legislature, measure which,
some years ago, was urged upon attention, and
which now would DC even more appropriate.
This measure is q change in our laws upon the
subject of enclosure. The law ut present throws
the onus Of preserving his crop from tho deprcda-
tions of stock upon tho farmer. He may have no
stock himself, but he must fenco his fields to pro-
tect them from the stock of other people. This,
We think, is wrong i'll principle; thero is no natu-
raj right in stock to dcvastate ncighbors fields;
no natural obligation OH the farmer to incur the
expenses necessary to protect himself The prod
uco of bread is meritorious as the production
Of meat, and who undertakes to produce bread
therefore, should DO allowed to do 80 with no other
charges upon him than necessary to protect
the community from tho damages to result from
his pursuit; and as the community is liable to no
damage from it-as he may plant his corn perpet-
ually without injury to anybody without enclos-
urc, it is not incumbent on him to erect fences;
but the same principle applied to tho stock raiser
would throw the onus Of enclosures upon him; his
stock will do damage unless restrained and it is
for him, therefore, to see that the community sus-
tain no dotriment.
This law, wrong in principle, adapted to q
state of facts not now existing. When the colony
WAS comparatively common, it was proper that the
farmer, appropriatng portion of it. should fence
this portion and leave to cattle unrestricted range
over the balance. But it is not now common-al
has been appropriated; and it is now a question
simply whether it is right that the men whose pro-
ducts do no damage without fences, or the men
whose products arc likely to do damage without
fences, should be put to the expense of the cree
ton; or, perhaps, what amounts to the same
thing whether it be cheaper to fence the cattle or
to fence the crop.
Upon this subject we think there can be no room
to doubt. One-twelfth'of the labor of this State,
amounting to little less than two million dollars
and vast quantities of valuable timber, have been
annually appropriated to tho task of sustaining
fences, and, have said, to no advantage
The fenccs around crops are Of no conceivable adj
vantage to the ocountry. They would grow rs well
without, and any creature with reason must
confess they would be as harmless; and moro than
two million dollars, thcrefore-a fund more than
four times as great is necessary to carry the
State Governments imposed on the planting in
terests, without the ability in any human being tc
say that plantation products arc benefited by it.
But it is said this is the condition only upon
which wecan raise stock, and that what the plant
ers suffer in the way of fences is compensation tc
the community and to them, as members of it, il
the way of stock That proposition is not true
In the first place, the stock of the entire State il
not worth much moro than 81, ,000,000; and it car
scarcely be policy to spend every year, in the means
OF raising stock as much tho stock itself il
worth Nor, in tho next place; is this the con
dition of stock raising. II men were obliged t.
fence thoir own stock, much would be raised NJ
is raised now. Worry many, and tho most success
full planters, fence their own stock under the con
vction that is profitable, while they keep u,
miles of fences to protect their crops from tn,
stock of others In fact, it ia in this way onl,
that stock can be improved, and tho business b.
made really profitable; and we have every conf
dence that If the Of stock in this State wer
compelled to fence it, the quantity would be in
creased-the breed better-the products in til,
way of milk, butter, and cheese and tallow, great
er And looking, therefore, to stock raising it
self, we feel assured the obligation to fence ant
care for it is tho measure upon which it's success
depends.
Such were the considerations presented at al
earlier period Of our history, when labor was cheaI
and abundant, and when agricultural products
were not so vastly valuable and important, ant
they exist now in vastly greater force. It is to b.
feared that the efficiency of colored labor vii
be much impaired, and much of that available
would be exhausted upon tho present fencing
system, with little left for other pursuits.
The labor brought from abroad will be costly
and ought to bo directed Immediately to the worl
OF production. In many of our rural districts
much Of our fencing has been burned or has gone
to decay. The cost Of reconstruction now vii
much transcend tho annual estimate, even fol
maintenance Of structure In some sections ther,
Is scarcity Of TIMBER in many others tho impos
sibility Of restoring fences; and, under the cir
oumstances therefore, it is matter Of exceeding
Importance that this system should be changed
We VIII not present scheme in detail. TIL,
delegations from the rural districts will be com
petent to devise them, but Of the policy we thinl
there can. be no kind Of question; and we thinl
this is not only proper time for its adoption, bu
that its adoption, under tho circumstances is i'm
perative.
Farm Culture.
One OF the most attractive pursuits among tn
&ol 30 IL.