Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-08-15

bec0lne the very capse of an imperative ne
cessitv of their removal. Such is the case
with regard to the liberty of allowing stock
to run at large, and it is surprising that any
reasonable person should insist upon It's De-
ing kept in existence. -
The absurd and preposterous Ideas tnat
seem to be entertained by some cohcernln ::
the meaning and intent of the "no fence"
idea, demand that short and explicit state
ment of the question should be made for
the benefit of those entertaining such ideas.
To illustrate: First, one writer opposed to
ano fanee." with reference to The same,
saws: | do not doubt in the least, In my
humble opinion, such law as would COM
paI every owner of stock Of all descrlp-
lions to fence them in with corn and wheat
fields with no fence around them, would
cause more dissatisfaction, etc. second:
the same writer says further, such Law
could but come under the head OF class
legislation, Third: others talk Of the evil
results of compelling every owner OF stock
to keep them confined in close quarters.
Fourth: still others, endeavoring to oppose
the needful legislation, say that the less a
people is governed the better.
AS to these false and misapplied oolec-
tioLs 1 have to say; first, utterly fall 10 see
the meaning, applicability or even possible
ty of compelling every owner OF STOCK 10
fence them in with corn and wheat helds
with no fence around them. To fence
without fence seems to me- absurd. Sec
ond, "such law could but come under the
head of class legislationw What is class
legislation? Is it legislation that affects but
a portion or class ofEhe peeple,or it is legis-
lation in the interests of one class at the
expense of another? In neither sense can
the proposed law be called class legislation |;
for In the first place law of more general
application could scarcely be named. The
rich, the poor, the land owner, the nom
land owner, the lawyer, the doctor-in fact
ali that work at home or travel the
public road, would be affected by
such a law. If it is class legislation
in the second sense, who is relieved
and who is oppressed. 1t is admitted by
all that the large land owner would be ben
Gifted, or at least not injured, by it. Then
it must be the small land owner, or the
non-land owner, or both, that must suffer.
This is the chief corner stone and main
foundation of all the argument against mo
fence.n Its oppoSers say that the small
farmer cannot have his large grass lots,
fine clover fields and eXuberant meadows,
and consequently must have the grazing OF
the public roads and his more wealthy
neighbors' utland, to enable him to make
an adequate living for his family. The
non-land owner, or rather the poor man,
they say, being deprived Of the g orious
privilege Of raising a few little razor
backed" hogs, wiry cattle or knotty-
sheep at his neighbours expense, must eth
er steal, starve, or go West where be VIII
still have this glorious privilege. Ii deny
ing them this is oppression, then in the
sense under consideration it is Class leglsla-
ton. But see the position in which con-
tending against this imaginary oppression
places those who would be thus oppressed.
Here is practically what the fence men say:
Where men make their living by farming
they can do very well provided they have
large farms; but if they have only small
farms, or hire their labor to farmers, they
cannot earn enough for living and con-
sequently must either beg starve or steal or
employ some ''rasor-backed hogs, wiry cat
tie or khotty headed sheep" to do 1t for
them, as they are apt at the business and 1t
is lawful for them to do II. This view OF
this class legislation shows plainly the mean
and dependent position in which laborers
and small farmers are placed by those who
contend against no fence on the ground
that they must have the use of the public
road and all unfenced land in order to
make a support. A grosser SANDER could
scarcely be cast at an American citizen
than this is at farm laborers and small
farmers. It denies them the true American
spirit of rnanliness and independence, and
attributes to them, that of dependence and
unthriftiness. l have too high regard for
farm laborers and small farmers to acquiesce
in any such SANDER, particularly since L am
one of the former class myself. The otner
view of this class legislation is that, In the
Hght Of Justice; that in the light that every
owner of stock should protect them and
prevent their trespassing upon his neigh
bors, on the same principle that be would
not pilfer his orchard or watermelon patch.
In this view of the case the large land
owner would be even less benefited
hv the "no fence" law than
the small land owner. For first, suppose
each wished to raise stock, it costs less pro-
portionately to fence a large farm than 1t
does to fence a small one. Secondly, II a
man did not own enough land to justify
him ia raising stock, he would be entirely
free from the enormous tax Of fencing 1t IN
order to possess the hard earned fruits OF
his labor in cultiyating it. Again, our best
political economists say that we need
larger proportion of land owners. The
"n0 fence law would have direct tend
ency to influence men to own land in at
least two different ways. First, by remov'
ing the liability of being imposed upon by
negligent stock owners; and secondly, by
granting them the use of their land without
the tax of fencing it.
The third objection, compelling every
owner of stock to keep them in close quar-
ters, in stables or pens, is nothing less than
folly and madness. 1t is surprising thai
any reasonable person should think Of such
thing. As nothing of the kind is pro-
posed by the no fence men, to bring such al
accusation against them is but to add
strength to their cause.
Next comes the fourth objection: We
are too much governed, we need less legs
latiou instead of more; tn
laws are already too complicated. Thii
is but the enunciation of straightou'
"no fence principles. This is their crown
ing argument. In lieu of all the laws con
corning stray stock, and the protection o
crops from their depreciation, by that aD
surdity lawful fence, we want but ont
brief and explicit law embOdying that shor
| and plain statement of the question aoov
referred to, viz: A law compelling ever!
owner of stock, not to fence them in witt
corn and wheat fields, not to put them in
pens, not to drive them TO water, nor carry
| water to them, not to raise "razor- backs,
s.scrubs,' nor eknotty heads" DOR thoroug
bred Berkshires, Durhams, or Cotswolds
but simply, plainly, justly and honestly t.
take sufficient care of them to prevent thel
trespassing upon his neighbors, or falling l
this to pay all damages previous to thel
recovery. Whether he stables, fences
herds, should be his Ol1R business and n
one elses.
| As the use of the terms "fence" or "n
fence" to designate the two contested idea
concerning stock and fences, has led to sue
erroneous and unreasonable ideas as tina
the no fence men think it high crime an
misdemeanor to build fence or own
fence rail. propose that the question Q
hereafter discussed under the more apprt
priat headings of fence out, or fence Il
headings under which some discussion
the question has already been made.
p.
FAIRFIELD, Bedford county, Tenn.
CARBOLIC ACID FOR KIDNE
| WORMS IN HOGS.