The union Democrat., 1870-02-12
The Folly and Injustice OF Fence laws. .

The Folly and Injustice OF Fence laws.
We have been requested by one of our citi-,
zens who is interested in having laws passed.
restraining live stock from running at large. to
publish an article which appeared in the s.
F. Cal few days since under the aboys
caption. as follows:
Next to the character Of agricultural lands,
the question of fencing is probably the most
important to the farmer and others who occu-.
py or cultivats the SOIL In many parts Of
the world, fencing 10 any great extent is out
of the question. Men leasing land for short
terms could not afford to fence. and even tho
owners cannot afford to build division fences,
or even subdivision intn small fields, pastures.
or farms. because Of the great cost of timber
or other fencing material. Where the ground
is full Of stones, as in parts Of New England,
fencing becomes a necessity. the land being;
cleared and made cultivable and fences or
stone walls built at the same time. Orwhere
lumber is abundant, q similar condition as to
fencing exists the land is cleared by the
same process that constructs the fence. But
these conditions do not exist everywhere.
How could the French hushaniman exist if
he were obliged to enclose his lands with fen
ces? In country where firewood is bought
and sold by the pound and ether materials,
perhaps, almost equally costly. fencing be-
comes impossible. The result is. that farm
after farm, vineyard after vineyard, is cult
waited from year to yea: without any division
fences. If any Of the people keep horses or
cattle, the burthen Of keeping item from tres,
passing rests upon the owners. The man
who cultivates q farm, little or large, is not
compelled to construct fences strong enough
to resist the attack of powerful animals, or
high enough to prevent horses or breachy cat
tie from jumping them. In fine. the cultiva-
tor is not required to beggar himself for the
benefit Of the owner of the cattle. As in
France, so is 1t in some parts of California.
There, for instance, are the great praries of
the West here. the great Valley of San Joa-
quin. Suppose there sre ore hundred farm
ers in that Valley, cultivating one hundred
acres each or. better for illustrations sake,
six hundred and forty acres each, or a mile
square. Now suppose there be one stock
raiser among them. Must these one hun
dred farmers inclose all their farms with cost
ly fences, lest the one man who does not farm.
but raises cattle. should he put to the trouble =
to taking care of his stock? q? 1t will require
four miles of fence for each mile square of
land. Common sense and common Justice
tell us that the whole care of stock belongs ~
the owner, and not to his neighbor; that if
fences be necessary, it is for him to build
them. Suppose the proprietor of menagerie
should claim that the public must protect
themselves by fence or other means against
injury bv his beasts, his leopards, tigers,
lions Yet his demand is of the same clas,
as the idea prevailing that people who own,
lease, and cultivate the land must protect their
farms against the inroads of other peoples
stock. Most of our laws seem based upon
this unrhilosophical idea. Fencing has often
been the means of begSarng the farmer, and
yet legislation goes on. as in our statutes,
describing what shall be considered "lawful
fences" Is it not time that our lawmakers
took the trouble to consider this question a.
sensible men, and to act upon it with the idea
that the farmer is morally under no obliga-
tion to erect legal fences. that there should
be none required. and that tho owner of stock
is the party, and he alone, whose business it
is to see that his stock does no harm to others.
and that he is responsible for any damage
they may commit? If the Legislature would
repeal all acts which recognize the obligation
OF the cultvator or occupier of land to fenco
1t. except for his own benefit, or fancy, it
would by that act add millions of dollars to
the value of lands. rs it would relieve their
owners from the almost ruinous necessitv Of
fencing them for the benefit of the few.
There are two neighbors. one cultivates one
hundred acres of wheat; the other cultivates
none, but keeps one COW, or perhaps ONLY
goat. The one must build two or three miles
of fence in order that his neighbor's COW,
goat, or donkey may not destroy it. Such is
law on this subject. Ought such senselese.
and costly requirements to exist?
DYSPEPSIA AND LIVER COMPLAINT are often
the cause of u very severe and harrassinr
cough, and in such cases the cause must be
removed before permanent cure can be af-
fected. DIR. Walkers Vegetable Vinegar Bitters
acting directly on the liver, strikes at the
root of the disorders, and is q certain cure for
all diseases which arises from inaction or.
irregularities Of the liver and bowels 1t is a
perfect renovator of the system, carrying off
every particle of poisonous matter, whereby
the old are made young, and the pale and
sallow will become fresh and vigorous.
DIED.