Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1872-06-14
Fences-Liabi lities Of Owners Of Farm
Stock.

Fenees-1iabi'itSIss: ss & owner' Of Farm
The following communication was
referred to Gov. Carpenter, with
the request that he furnish the in
formation sought. This he has
promptly done through his private
secretary, Mr.. Fleming, and we
are glad to publish the inquiries
and answers, as the facts brought
out address themselves to land and
stock owners in all portions of the
State:
EDITOR HOMESTEAD Dear SIR :
AS various and conflicting reports
are in circulation as to what the
law of this State is with regard to
obligation of owners Of land and
stock as to fencing, l have conclud-
cd to state the case to you, believ-
ing that an answer through the
Homestead will be acceptable to a
large number of your readers.
lst. 1t is stated in some Of our
papers, and generally believed here,
that our Legislature at its last SEES
sion passed law rendering all
owners Of stock liable for any dam
age it may do by trespassing on the
land of another, whether there is
any fence around it or not, thus
doing away with the obligation to
build any fence, except to restrain
ones own stock. Has this been
done? If it has, when does the law
go into effect, and docs it do away,
with law in regard to division fences
and the obligation Of railroads to
fence their roads?
Cd. Has our Supreme Court deci-
ded that laws depending upon a
vote of a majority of the people in a
county or any given section of the
State in favor of the law for its
effective force, unconstitutional,
thus destroying the law for restrain
ing stock in those counties that have
voted in favor of it?
Sd. Prominent attorneys have
given it as their opinion that the
law of the 18th General Assembly
virtually does away with the law
requiring owners of lands to keep
up an equal share of division fences
between them. Is this SO, or does
the law remain as in Revision Of
1860?
The question of fencing is now
one of more Importance in this sec
ton that at any time previous. 1t
has been the practice to fence sew
eral farms in one common field,
depending on the open prairie for
pasture; but as the country is fill
ing up and pasture getting poor,
farmers are beginning to make
tame grass pastures, which necessi-
tatcs the building Of more or less
fence, and some who do not keep
much stock do not wish to be at the
expense Of putting up fence. In
one instance there is over a section
of land in one field, about 25O acres
Of which belong to man living in
a town who does not keep any stock
but rents out his land to be cultiva-
ted in grain. This man is very
much in favor Of a law rendering
owners of stock of all kinds liable
for any damage they may do, as
then he thinks he will get all the
income of his land without any ex-
pense for fencing, while those own
ing the balance Of the field, living
upon their lands and keeping stock,
will be literally fencing his land.
Please answer if you can and
oblige,
A FARMER.
l. 10 this question, we might
answcr-No; but this, while techni-
cally correct, would perhaps con-
vey a wrong impression. The Gen
cral Assembly passed an act, as
our correspondent is doubtless
aware, permitting townships, as we'll
as counties, to adopt the provi-
sions of the act of 1870 restraining
stock from running at large. This
law will take effect July 4th, next.
(The vote is to be taken at general
upon petition of one-third
of the voters; and if the affirmative
prevails, the law goes into force
ninety days thereafter). By Chap.
50 Of the pablo acts of the Four
teenth General Assembly, owners
of swine and sheep throughout the
State are required to restrain them
from running at large, and arc to be
held liable for any damage done by
them. This act takes effect on the
first day Of October next.
2. The Supreme Court, last
December, held the prohibitory act
of 1870 unconstitutional, because its
adoption was made dependent upon
a vote of the people in. the several
counties. The section thus over
ruled is similar in language to that
of section of Chap. &c of the same
session, i. e., the stock act; and
was evidently modelled from it, or
from the section providing for
submission, in Chapter l44 OF tho
acts Of the Twelfth General Assem-.
bly,. The principal difference be-
tween the prohibitory act and the
stock act is that the former provides
for the repeal of an act therein
specifically nampd in the counties
adopting the new law. There is
nothing ofthis character in the stock
act. Nevertheless, the language of
the court does not favor the SUPPOSE
ton that this would make any diff
crence, so as to save the stock act,
the other failing. Furthermore, the
form of question in the stock act
may be considered more obnoxious
to constitutional objection than that
in the prohibitory act. For the
latter, the form is ''For prohibitions"
or against prohibition;" in the
former, the form is thus, ''For the
act restraining stock from running
at large" or against the act" &c.
Thus it will be seen that in the stock
act, the question of what shall be the
law 10 cuhm;ttn1 tn tho naon1a moro