Cedar Falls gazette. [volume] (Cedar Falls, Iowa) 1860-1895, 1869-12-10
THE GAZETTE.
CEDAR FALLS, DECEMBER 10, 1859.
The Proposed Herd Law

4
| Mos: Of our readers have dobt,es
seen the following petition, which
has been extensively circulated ant
unhesitatingly signed by ever;
farmer to whom 1t has been present
ed, so far as we have observed:
TO The Thirteenth assembly Of tn,
State of losca:
your petitioners, citizens of -
county, respectfully represent
that q law preventing stock Of any
kind from running at large, without
being bearded, is required by the
citizens OF many counties In the State.
Should your Honorable body see
proper to pass such law, 10 will be
the means of materially aiding the
settlement Of the State. In many
counties timber is exceedingly scarce
and not durable for fencing purposes;
the fences are expensive. and only
temporary at best, and will not turn
stock I'm the fall of the year when
grass becomes scarce. We therefore
pray that your Honorable body will
take into consideration the propriety
OF passing such law, leaving IL with
the counties to adopt or reject.n
This system. we understand, has
been voluntarily adopted i'm some
counties, and wherever it has been
tried, 1t has worked to the great sat
isfaction of the community. The
expedience of such law will be OBJ.
vious to every PRACTICAL farmer. In
a State like Iowa, generally destitute
OF timber, fencing is aud must al ways
be, extremely expensive. The wire
fence more generally adopted i'm the
prairie districts cannot be built,
when labor and all Is counted, for
much If any less that One Dollar per
rod. In some localities it exceeds
this figure by considerable. At one
dollar per rod, the expense of fencing
one eighty acre lot Is $3.50, and of a
quarter section $64O. On this basis,
the cost of fencing In any township
or county can be easily estimated
We are aware that In new districts,
many farmers now get along with
fencing only one or two sides of their
farms; or number of owners of
contiguous tracts unite i'm fencing
large squares and thus materially re-
duce expense. But 1t Is evident that
as population becomes denser, and
the number of head of stock increases
las it Is now increasing at very rapid
rate), this mode of fencing will not
answer. If stock Is permitted to run
at large, each farmer will be COM
PEELED to fence against his neighbor's
stock, and fenced fielde will grow
constantly smaller In area. This
may be seen by travelling through the
old farming districts of the Eastern
or Middle States, where fencing tim
Der has always been cheap, and where
herd laws have, consequently, been
not much in vogue. 1t is estimated
that any number OF cattle can be
grazed and herded from the Ist OF
May to Nov. LIST, at one dollar pei
head. Let any farmer take the mum.
Der Of tillable acres in his own town.
ship, and the number of head o.
stock, and estimate the comparative
cost of fencing and herding.
lfeconomy argues strongly i'm favor
of the proposed herd law, much more
so does the principle involved. The
assumption which really prevails In
practice, that stock have an inalian.
able right to go into o mans field
and destroy his crops unless he can
In some way keep them out, Is radi.
cally wrong. 1t Is giving one species
OF property advantage over another.
LII one man owns property which
may become detrimental to other
property, the onus of prevention on
protection should rest on him, and
not on the owner of the property that
may be damaged. The logic is az
plain as the nose on a mans face. II
stock are to be fenced at all, they
should be fenced in instead of OUT
America is the only country where
the unjust practice OF fencing against
stock has obtained. In Europe, sc
littleis the practice of fencing known,
that there is no word for fence in
most of the languages on the CONT.
nent.
The cost of fencing Is the most Sc
rlous drawback to the settlement and
cultivation of our prairies. Let the
Legislature pass this herd law and we
shall see Immediately, we venture to
predict, a very sensible increase In
the rate of settlement and bringing
landsinto cultivation. In any event,
II can do no harm. If there are
counties which do not want 1t, they
need not adopt 1t; and If there are
counties which tire of it, they can
return to the old system. The legis-
lature should not hesitate to give the
people of the several counties the
privilege Of choice In the matter.