Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-09-12
PROTECTION.

To the Editor OF the Union and American:
Under this heading desire to say q word
or two on the "fence question" The idea
seems to be to have some method instituted
whereby one farmer may be protected from
the stock Of another. In order to secure
this we advocate neither fence nor no fence.
Let the farmer have few or many fences,
Just as be wishes. The eno fence" plan is
not likely to furnish the desired protection;
nor will fences furnish it. The one plan is
altogether inexpedient in a grass and grain
growing and stock raising State like this;
too inexpedient indeed, to be generally
adopted Without fences we must
herd. But we are not, nor are we likely
to be, in the habit of entertaining the idea
of every farmer In the State herding his
mules and bis cattle, horses and sheep.
Even if majority Of the farmers were
prejudiced in favor Of the plan-which is
not the case-more than one hercsnan
would be required on most farms, so that the
expense would soon Guido the convenience.
As for fences, they have been tried. There
are but very few throughout the country
which come up to the legal standard. They
cannot be made to do so by any reasonable
expenditure Of time, labor and money.
So shat this method is also totally
Improbable. Still, We say, let the
farmer have few or many fences.
They serve his private convenience
but do not afford the desired protection. A
scrub bull comes wandering along the high
way on the common, by some unknown
means finds his way into farmers lot, aud
corrupts tie cattle which he is compelled to
keep there. No owner for the bull can be
found; but il in driving it out the scrub is
injured, one soon turns up, and the farmer
has damages to pay and gets bis cattle
spoiled besides. II owners were made
responsible for the trespSsses OF their stock
upon their neighbors, the country would
soon be rid OF many wandering, roguish
| nuisance. We need law that will make
them responsible. Let every man that wishes
| turn his stock upon the common, but IL they
| break in and damage me in any way, let it
| be his look out and not mine. This is the
kind Of law we want-the reverse Of the
law as it is. The present law makes the
wrong man responsible, and the conse-
quence Is every farmer almost is annoyed
with class Of stock, marauders by pro-
feSSiOn. III rem onstrate, l am told that
my fence is not such as the law recognizes.
| There are not two dozen legal fences in
! Wilson county, nor in any other county Ia
the State upon an average. Even if my
fence, and every other mans fence, were
| such as the law calls for, the necessity for
| the law suggested would by 10 means be
obviated. II is impossible for most farm
ere to make their fences "bull-strong, pig
tight and mule-hgh." Some bulls and pigs
and mules possess an Unreasonable ability
to go where they do not belong, besides IL
mysterious power of laying off rails and
opening gaps. =.
Let us, then, dispose of the "fsnce
question" allowing every man to suit his
convenience about that, as he evidently has
a right to do. But let us have a stringent
''stock law" not one requiring man to
keep his stock up, or to do anything else
with them he doesn't wish to do; but one
that will make him entirely and uncondi-
tionally responsible for the damages they do
off his own premises. This we conceive
to be the only effective method of securing
the desired and much needed protection.
WILSON COUNTY.