Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-05-17
THE FENCE QUESTION.

To the Editors OF the Union and American:
FAIRFIELD, Tenn, May !, 1S72.-In-
deed there are good arguments both for
and agains. fences; or more specifically, there
are Just and nndeniable reasons for sup
porting and protecting individual right to
the use of land while in a tbinly settled
country, there are at least plausible reasons
for owning it, in part Jointly. We agree
most heartily with the "fence men" in OPP
posing change simply for the name of the
thing. All change is followed by more or
less unfayorable res ats. In proposed
change the question should be whether or
not the advantage by far exceeds the disad.
vantage. Simrdy a slight preponderance
should not ind ace change. If we under
stand the cha nge in the law proposed by the
"no fence q len, . it is simply to protect every
man alike in the individual right 70 and use
OF land. No other fence law is in the least
needfU,.
Co nit be possible? can any sane man
lmF CINE that the enactment of such law
ould bring about evil results even to be
compared to the enormous and outrageous
expenditure Of money that IS required to
keep up the fences in the thickly settled por-
lions of the country. Many farmers expend
more money annually, than the whole of
their net income, in building and repairing
fences. Farmers too that keep but little
more than their work stock, which economy
demands should have but little time, for
grazing and running at large. Can 1t be
Just or right in any sense for these farmers
TO be thus subjected to the expenditure OF
sums so enormous that the interest alone
would exceed the value of all the stock thus
debarred from their crops; this s ock IN
many cases being owned by men who nei-
I,ocfr k.,r
the fact of the situation in those sections
devoted to raising cotton and such other
crops as do not need to be grazed.
But in the grazing sections it is equally
unjust and absurd for a farmer who grazes
sheep to be forced to fence against bulls OF
one who raises hogs to be compelled to
fence against mules.
The chief argument of the "fence men
is. that to protect individual right to the
use of land would Cypress the poor. Now
if the poor have natural right to the us'
of all the unfenced land around where they
happen to be, then to deny them it is a.
imposition. To grant this right is to main
tain that the land shall be used jointly, no
by its owners, but by every one who see
fit to use it, so that it is made use OF bl
grazing. Thus "fence,'' or ''no fence" i
individual or joint right to the use of land
"Perfectly absurd No such thingi" ex
claim the fence men. "WhO would thin
of returning TO the savage custom OF own
ing the land in common. Let the land
owner build and keep up a good, strong
lawful fence around his land and use it 70
whatever purpose be wishes"
We respectfully ask our industrious tent
ing friends to pause moment and conslde
the facts of the situation. A, wishes
raise stock but has little or no land. So b
lust turns them ont in the roads and con
mons. They are free to 60 where the
please, so far as their owner is concerned
so that they do not cross lawful fenc
Having devOured the grass in the roads, an
looking out for more they find BIS Glow
field lust over the fence, very well adapte
to their wants. So, in they go, as IN mir
cases out of ten, on examination BIS fen
is found wanting in some of the points OF
lawful fence. Then for another change c
wheat field or DIS corn is very convenien
Thus they may 60 on wasting and destro.
ing crops whose owners have no means
redrdts short of proving lawful fence.
thing that it most always impossible to d
A lawful fence is seldom made, and If ma
to-day it may come short OF the requlI
ments tomorrow bee use gust OF VII
has blown it down, a COW has rubbed
the TOP rail, or a faulty rail has exposed
crack too large for inspection. What &c
this want of owning land in common?
The building of lawful fence arou
every mans farm is an absurdity aud
keeping it up an absolute impossibility.