Tama County Republican. (Toledo, Tama County, Iowa) 1867-1872, 1869-11-18
The Herd Law.

we nave, az various times, expressed
ourselves in favor of such law as
should effectually put stop to the ne
cessity, under which farmersnow labor,
Of fencing against the common and un-
ruly herd OF tie whole neighborhood.
We are glad to observe in the Mar.
shall Times arguments for the same OBJ
ject It's subject that needs great
deal of discussion aud study. We
hope no one will fail to investigate it.
Here IS what the Marshall Times says:
"The Stock Act so called, was rat
fled at the last election in this county
In fact, there was scarcely any oppo-
sition to it, which shows pretty concIu.
sively the prevailing opinion of the
farmers of Marshall county on the sub
ject OF distraining stock at night; and
by analogy we reason that they would
be in favor of going further and saying
by daylight, also.
This paper has been the only ono in
the county that has advocated the rat
ification OF the Stock Act, and its edi-
tor was the first mover in Its being
submitted to the people. We were
clearly of the opinion that the taxation
required of US to protect our crops from
the depredations of few cattle, was
entirely unnecessary and wanton
waste of means, that could be more
usefully employed for the present and
future benefit of tie farmer. We have
never been able to see the argument
that compelled the grain raiser to fence
for the benefit of the cattle raiser, for
if he is compelled to fence, it is tor the
latter's benefit solely and entirely
No one will claim that wheat and corn
has to be enclosed to prevent its tress.
passing upon q neighbours premises,
while every one knows that stock has
to be enclosed to prevent it's becoming
trespassers and destroying that which
does not belong to its owner it the cat
tie raiser has any natural rights that
take precedence of the grain raiser,
compelling HIM to work tor his (the
stock raiser's) sole and exclusive bene-
fit in the matter Of fencing, we would
like to see that right of precedence
pointed out, and to that end we have
invited discussion in our paper, and
still extend that invitation, tor we are
in sober, downright earnest in this
matter, believing that millions OF taxes
levied, indirectly, of course, upon the
grain raiser by the stock raiser, is a
waste OF money and tyrannical act of
oppression, that ought not to exist on
our statue book. We will ask few
questions for the consideration of the
enquiring mind.
| LIST. Has not the owner of real es-
tate the exclusive right to the products,
subject OF course, to the taxes of Gov
eminent?
I'd. What natural law or right
would give the product to another?
Sd. Ought not law to protect every
man in that which Is lawfully and right
fully his own?
18th. Is not the law an unjust one
that allows the property of one to in
wade and destroy that Of another?
9Th. Because ones property has
self-locomotion, and can travel off its
owners property upon that of another
and destroy portion OF it, has it any
claims for protection by law?
9Th. Ought not every man to be re-
quired by law to prevent his property
from destroying that ofanother?
We invite attention to these ques-
tions and others that naturally arise in
the mind, and wait for the answer"