The Shasta courier., 1871-11-18
THE FENCE QUESTION.

At the session of the Legislature soon to
convene, there is little doubt but strong
effort will be made with some hope of sue
cess, to pass a general law for the whole
State, repeating What are known as the
"fence laws" The subject has been agi-
tated on several occasions heretof re, and
there is no doubt but in many of the
sparsely timbered regions of the State'
where the cost Of fencing frequently doubles
the original cost of the land, it would be of
great benefit to the small farmers, and
would result in the immediate location and
cultivation of a great deal of land which,
under our present laws, viii doubtless re
main unsettled and vacant for years. But
while we are willing that the Southern
counties shall, if they deem it for theirin-
terest to have it done, procure the passage
of an Act by which they may be exempted
from the operation of the laws requiring
farmers to enclose their lands, we shall OBJ
ject to any change in the law upon this
point which shall be general in its operations
throughout the State
In sections where the land is wholly ag-
ricultural in character, farming will, of
course, be the main occupation of the in
habitants, and that interest should be
fostered by wise legislation. In section
where various branches of industry are
followed, it stands to reason that each
should, in turn, receive legal protection,
and that discrimination which seeks to
build up one interest at the expense of all
others, would be radically unjust. This is
why We object to sweeping anti-fence
law, which would regard the State as a
vast grain-feld, within which no stock of
any description should be permitted to
encroach. In this county, agricultural,
mining, timber and pasture lands are
mingled in together, and each of these
four interests gives employment to num-
bers In many porti ons of the county,
where one acre of land is valuable for pur-
poses Of agriculture, ten twenty or hund-
red acres contiguous are worth nothing
except as stock range, or for the timber
with which they are cove ed. To say, in
effect, that all these lands should be held
subject to the few acres of farming lands
which they surround, would be the height
of injustice and would be resisted to the
bitter end
Wherever facilities for fencing exist
farmers are desirous, and of their own
accord will enclose their lands. The
necessities of farming life require more or
less stock, and where the farming COM
munity is made up of small farmers, it is
usual with them to combine dairy bust
ness to greater or less extent with the
business of farming. Every family which
is circumstanced to do so, no matter what
the occupation of the head of the family
may be, will keep one or more cows as ne
cessary for the daily use of the household.
To forbid them the range of the unoccupi-
ed government land by which they are
surrounded, would work great hardship to
the many that the few might be benefited.
We are in favor of the fence laws as they
are, and desire no amendment to them
which will affect our portion of the State.
In point of fact, it is simply struggle
between the cattle kings on one side and
the land spectators on the other and be-
tween the two we have but little choice
which side triumphs.