The Placer herald., 1871-12-02
THE FENCE LAW QUESTION.

credit Of making the fence law question a
prominent one before the people of the State,
and now large majority of the press have
declared with the Bee, for abolshing all fence
laws and substituting trespass law in
stead, and making it apply to the whole
State. This question las two sides to it, a
fact which seems to have been ignored by
the papers that have been demanding gen
eral no-fence law. We can readily under
stand the value of such law to many en-
tire counties and districts in the State, and
to applying the proposed law to such COM
munties and counties we cheerfully assent,
but there are other districts in which it would
be most ruinous and blighting. To these
districts we direct the attention Of the Bee,
and the other cow county papers, that have
seemed to overlook every portion of the
State beyond eyeshot and their local circuit
of travel and observation. 1t is sound
principle Of Legislation that all laws should
benefit the greatest possible number with the
least real damage to the minority, and it is
true that no law should be general where
whole States, counties or communities are
injuriously affected by such laws. Let us
take our own county, Placer, as an example,
and the entire Sierra range and its broad
loothill base, reaching down almost to tide
water, which, with the coast range, covers
an area of perhaps three-fourths of the State,
must be equally affected by such a law.
There are some six or seven Congressional
townships of Placer which are strictly agri-
cultural, and are excluded from what we
say. The foothills and mountains can never
be valuable for the cultivation of the cereals,
because wheat, barley, oats and rye can be
raised cheaper, placed in an export market
cheaper and in quantities so great as to starve
out and drive out all who would engage in
such pursuits here, except for home con-
sumption, which is extremely limited. The
domestic and foreign imports are Of a tonnage
which limits our exports as back loading to
what we now fully supply. Few vessels
leave our ports in ballast, except those bound
to foreign ports for cargoes. No one will
contend that any of the cereals can be raised
in the mountains and foothills and delivered
at San Francisco or Vallejo at rates that
would justify vessels coming in ballast
from any Eastern or foreign port to carry
them to market at profit. To expect ever
to raise cereals in these mountains and send
them East by railroad would be evidence Of
insanity. Remove the fence law from the
valley counties and they will produce more
grain than will reload every vessel that ever
enters our ports for cargocs The foothills
and mountains are valuable for fruits, vines,
nut bearing trees, wood and lumber, silk, tea
and as grazing, and for grain and hay raising
lands for home consumption only. None of
these productions require the abollshing of
the fence law, and most of them actually
depend upon its retention for their existence.
No man engaged in any of these pursuits
asks to be relieved from fencing, as all have
more or less live stock which they can neither
afford to herd Or feed the year round. The
area of land cultivated in the foothills and
mountains does not exceed one acre out of a
hundred. Lumber is cheap and close at
hand, and our numbering interests deserve
support. One acre of land in the foothills
in fruit or vines furnishes as much labor and
yields as much money as twenty acres in the
valley in grain; therefore we prefer to fence
what we use, and make the remainder
public common. Arguments to sustain these
views are unlimited, but we have adluced
enough for the purposes of this article.
There is another phase to this fence question
to which wo wish to call the particular at
tention of our valley friends and their organs
When they abolish the fence law in their
counties, we wish the fence law strengthened
in these sections, and accompanied by tres
pass law that will prevent every man owning
or cultivating land in the valley sections from
driving, grazing or herding stock OF any kind
within the limits of territory where fence
law is in force. If you can herd stock cheaper
than you can fence them, herd it on your
own territory, and if we fence for the pur-
pose of making our stock free commoners, it
must be for them alone. If our stock must
be impounded every time it reaches your ter
rtory, then we mustimpound yoursift enters
on our domain. If you attempt to dry up
our numbering interests and cat out our
range, we must retaliate by drying up your
stock interests for our benefit. This is fair, in
peace or war. Amity is a myth without
compensation or reciprocity. We hope the
Placer members of the Assembly will bor-
ron copy of the HERALD from some neigh
Dor, and read this article and study up this