The Shasta courier., 1872-01-13
The FENCE QUESTION-THE ARBI-
TRARY DEMANDS OF SOME OF
THE mo FENCE" ADVOCATES
REBUKED By A "NO FENCE"
PAPER.

| [From the Sacramento Reporter, JAM, 5th.
There was a disappointment in some
quarters because the Legislature did moth
ing on the fence question before the holi-
days That matter imperatively calls fer
early consideration and settlement at the
hands of the lawmakers, and it cannot be
long before the desired Legislation will be
had. 1t is not at all likely, however, that
that legislation will be the sweeping, arbi-
trary character demanded by some "no-
fence" journals. We are strongly for
'snofence" ourselves; but, as we have
before said, there are certainly two sides to
this question. The people of some coun-
ties are insisting very earnestly and properly
upon the passage of aNo-fence" law
The very life of some sections seems to
depend upon the passage of such law.
But we apprehend that the legislature in
giving sustenance to some parts of the
Otdte VIII uot dulnlHiSlci poloou W UthcI
parts. The SHASTA COURIER complains
that certain journals entirely ignore the
fact that there is opposition on the part of
the people of some counties to the passage
of a general 'No-fence' law. This COM
plant seems just The COURIER names
Humboldt, Del Norte, klamath, Siski-
you, Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Lassen, Gala
veras and Plumas as some of the opposing
counties. The representatives of the people
will, no doubt, take good care to ascertain
the sentiment of their constituents on this
very important question We do not un-
derstand why any public journal should
urge the passage Of "No fence" law of
general application, when some counties
have manifested hostility to such meas
ure. 1t is pretended that the interests of
the State demand that no county shall be
excepted from the operation of the proposed
measure +! 1t will not be easy to prove
this. 1t is W II to inquire why "No-fence"
law, general in its application, has not been
enacted bofore now. There are reasons
for this, and those reasons, while they have
lost their force in perhaps a majority of the
counties, still apply to some with undimin-
ished strength. We have great State.
1t is not strange that with so vast an area
and such variety of soil and climate, the
State is not of one mind on the question.
In the settlement of this matter we ap-
prehend no great difficulty will confront
the Legislature. There should be "No-
fence" law, but every county that says it
doesn't want any of that pie ought to be
permitted to go without it. The question
is simple enough. There are times when
the law-making body, having in view IL e
greatest good to the greatest number, feel
compelled to enact general law against
which some portion of the people protest.
But our Legislature is placed in no such
unpleasant predicament in the solution Of
this matter There should not be general
demand for it 1t is clear that the demand
for such law is not general. Los Angeles
demands it, but is it necessary to her we'll
being that that which she Graves should
be thrust down the throat of Calaveras
and Shasta The question would be
absurd were it not rendered pertinent by
some journals published in the lowlands.
Let us have no arbitrary settlement of this
matter The mining counties, whence
poured the golden stream that made us a
rich and powe full State, have lost their
preponderance in the Legislature, but hav e
not lost their voice or their right to be
heard. They should be remembered for
what they have done, aud tostered for what
they are doing and will do.