Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-12-08
FARM AND GARDEN.

/ a bill was recently introduced into oui
Legislature by Mr. Allison, Of Williamson
contemplating the enactment Of some law
by which the prodigious expenses Of keep
ing up fences may be obviated.q Wehope
a revolution may be brought about by this
bill which shall compel the lawmakers to
recognize the principle that each farmer
should take care Of his own animals, and
not compel his neighbor to protect himself
against their rayages at great expense and
trouble. A fee simple in land should carry
with it the right to be undisturbed and free
from molestation, not only from men, but
from stock. A king may not enter
the premises of peasant without his
permission, is the doctrine Of the
common law, and yet the wild animals be-
longing to an Individual are allowed priv
leges that are not granted TO the individuals
themselves. a few years ago the people Of
Maine undertook to gather statistics to de-
termine the expense 30 them Of building
road and line fences. The figures went up
into millions, and all this sum is really so
much distracted from the industrial inter
ests of the country, and-add immensely to
the cost of living. We are glad to learn
that the agitation of this question is going
on all over the United States, especially
where grain growingsis carried on and in
regions where timber is scarce and dear
There are parts Of Middle Tennessee where
timber is so scarce fences will have TO be
abandoned from necessity, if not from poll
cy. The cost of material is becoming so
great in some counties in our State that the
fences around a six hundred acre
farm are worth more than all the stock that
runs abroad. 1t is wrong principle to
compel thousand men in a county in the
aggregate to expend a thousand times more
than all the stock running at large is worth.
Why should the owner of stock not be
compelled by law TO guard his stock as well
as the owner of crop to protect it from
the ravages of such stock? The crop re-
mains on the land of its owner; the stock
having more than regal privileges can leave
the land of the owner and devastate at will
the property Of another. Where is the
Justice in this?
In order that our readers may know
something of the outlay necessary to pre-
vent these inroads upon the farmer, we
compile the following from various sources
at the request of some of the members OF
the Legislature:
teThe fences of the United States have
cost more money than the houses, cities in
cluded; more than the ships, boats, vessels
of every description, on all the oceans, lakes
and rivers; more than our MANUFACTURES,
of all kinds, with their machinery; more
than any class of property, aside from real
estate, except, it may be, the railroads of
our country. This may be ike an exagger-
ated statement, but a little estimate will
show that it is not extrayagant as would at
first appear:
'The first cost of the fences Of New
FORK State was between 100000, 900 and
Sl50,OOO,000. Robinson gives it at $144,-
100000. Assuming this to be approximate
ly correct, and estimating the first cost of
the fences of other States on the same ba-
sis, we have, as the total first cost of the
fences of the whole country, the vast sum
of 81 100000.
"This requires to be renewed once in ten
years, giving Sl29, AGO. 600 as the annual cost,
to which should be added, however, at
least half as much more for repairs, making
the aggregate sum of S194 100000 as the
annual national expense sum we believe
below the actual figures, yet quite beyond
comprehension. James T. Worthington, of
Ohio, says that there are S1S,000,000 acres
Of land in Ohio, inclosed within $1,000
miles Of fences, at prime cost of S115,-
000,000y and a yearly expense for repairs,
ETC., of S7,680,000.
ssIf roadside and boundary fences can be
dispensed with, half the cost of fencing
will be saved. That cost is now an annual
tax of $1.50 ON every acre Of improved
land in the United States-the fence tax
being twice or thrice as great as the aggre-
gate of the State and local taxes combined.
"Why can not large portion of this out
lay be saved for some profitable investment.
Every dollar rescued from fences may be
added to productive wealth. Fences are
dead capital; they pay no interest and are
a constant drain upon the pocket. As Mr..
Greeley says: we poison our land with
fences; they are shelter for weeds, as well
as a vast and useless expense. The indi-
rect cost which they infict is almost as
much as the direct. A Virginia zigzag
fence occupies five acres for every hUndredin-
closed, thus imposing five per cent. tax on
the market value Of the sofia tax which
would be felt to be oppressive if it was for
the payment of the national debt instead Of
for the shelter of growth of weeds
'Shall we fence stock out or in? There
is no doubt that our people now expend
four times as much money to fence stock
out as it would be required to fence it in.
Our present custom, which requires uni
versal fencing, is the worst blunder the
practical American people ever made. En-
teFprising and original in many matters,
they are here following slavishly, generation
after generation, the habit of the earliest
English settlers-fOllowing it, though very
expensive and inconvenient, because it is
the good old way. Europe has learned a
more Rational way. There are ten times
more fences in Illinois than in Germany;
and Duchess county in New York has more
than all France. In France, Germany and
Holland, farmers hold their lands in COIN
mon, with only narrow paths between them.
"The immense cost of sustaining fences;
the inconvenience of having them always
in the way Of thorough tillage, and Of easy
egress and ingress to the premises; the i'm
passable SNOW drifts accumulated by them;
the shelter they afford to weeds and briars;
the protection they afford to many of the
worst animal pests of the farm, and their
unsightly appearance generally throughout
the country, as the receptacle of stone
heaps, piles of brush and dead leaves and
to say nothing of the countless acres rem
dered worse than useless by their occu-
pancy, would seem sufficient reasons for
disposing of fences where not indispensa-
bic for purposes of pasturing." r--.
GEN. JACKSON'S ADDRESS.