Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1872-01-12
[BY REQUEST
From, the anderson Iatell,gencer.
Town Cows and Town Council.

NlH lIDllOh' AubuI tIlTec ulOutnS ago YOU
announced in your paper that the Town
Council had adopted an ordinance against
cattle going at large in our streets. to go into
force on the 5th of October. With ,tbers,
have anxiously looked forward to the time
when this law should be enforced but it it
has ever been ador ted it has never been pub.
lshed, much less has it gone into operation
After the very general complaint about the
nuisance this law was intcrded to remove, it
is little surprising that our municipal gov.
ernment have not shown more alacrity in
adopting it; and that the nuisance is very
great one, think admits of little doubt
do not know the scope of tho ordinance,
if any, they proposed to adopt, but have
heard it was proposed simply to exclude cut
tie from tho public square of the Town.
would tekc the liberty of suggesting to the
Council that it be made to embrace cattle,
hogs, aoats-indeed, eyerytour footed beast.
and extend to the utmost limits of the Town
Hogs and Co,os are our chief pests, it is true.
and it is ut them am striking; but make
the law general in its subjects and extent,
and it will furnish fewer grounds of com
plaint
One very great advantage to he derived
from such an ordinance is the protection it
would afford our trading communty--t. e.,
friends from the country-in freeing them
from very serious annoyance 1t is dis
crcditable, if not disgraceful. the way these
roucish town cows hang about the public
square and steal the fnrage from the wagons
and carrages Of our country ncighbors -
They are public plunhcrers, aud it is much
to be regretted that some one has not been
found bold enough to kill IL few Of the rogucs
particularly certain red COW remarkable for
the dcxtcrts nnd cunning of her deprcda
tions Aud l should like to know who is
responsible for this state Of things but our
Town Council? 1t won't d, for them to say
that 1t il the duty of the owners of such cat
tic to keep them up ~ sense of dcoency
and propriety miuht, it is true, cohstrnin the
owners to "bate the nuisance; but let Coun
Gil declare the law and punish Offenders, aud
the gri, vance will soon cease.
But there il another md. think, greater
benefit to be derived from such law. Re
quire the owners Of live stoak to keep them
enclosed, aud you protect pctsnns residing
within the cnrpnrnte limits fran many vrx
atious trespass upon their yards aud grounds
know tile law. as it now stands. mikes it
the duty of persons to protect their cultivated
Bat undertake to say 1t is Que nT the most
scnerlrsS laws upon our statute bonks-rcr
tuiuiy fur all this rcgion Of the country. A1.
uptrd IN this State first about the wear 1904
when the whole country was onA vnst wilder
,icss, grown up in wild grasses and naive
pc.-yin,s, with settlements and cultivated
fields few and far hetwren. aud frming. you
may say. one vast cnttle-rangc, this law has
4 I -
changes. down to the present day. nnwith
stnndng the change in the face of the cnun
try. now siickly populnt"d. shorn Of its tim
her mud unft tor cnttle.grnzing Ifthere is
nnv one law upon our statute hnnks wholly
unadapted to our present cnd'lition, it. is this
same fence law; and it is to be hoped the Le
gisature will not nllnw it to gu unrrpealed
Ihuch longer. Ii ought to have been repealed
!nns psn, ana i. is certainly competent Iinr our
town authorities to effect II change within our
corporate limits, not hy why Of rcpealing a
statute, but in enforcing police regulations;
for ,nnke it ualawiul for live stock to be
found ut large in our streets, aud you relieve
the landowner from the necessity Of keeping
up his fences. it is a popular notion TINT
such law would operate harshly upon the
poor, by compelling them to give up their
hogs aud cows, us they can't keep them en-.
closed and support them. have no hesitan.
cy in snyibg that man who IS too poor to
feed COW or hog hos no business with it,
and he certainly has no right to keep it at
the expense Of his neighbor, as he too often
does, If permitted to roah at large. Waving
actual trespasses to cultivated fields, should
like to know what reason or natural justice
there is in requiring me to feed my neigh.
boris cattle, even off my unenclosed grounds.
My lands are my own, and because am un.
able to keep them enclosed by lawful fence,
and cannot. therefore, punish my neighbor
for allowing his cattle to browse upon and
tramp them, that gives him no right to pas.
turo them. The law gives me no remedy for
iris wrong, but thnt gives him no right to
the privilege. The confusion of ideas on this
subject is little singular; and some people
have come to think thnt when you talk about
keeping stock enclosed, you arc assailipg a
very dear right Of theirs, which, when ana.
lyzed. resolves itself into the privilege Of
grazing their cattle upon their neighbor's
lands. 1t matters not If these lands are CON-
mons or unused, tho principle is the same.---
| But you'll never find the land owner com.
hitting this mistake, and it seems to mo they
are haYpeople mostly interested in the mat
| ter..g a a
The inequality of the law, as It now stands,
is very decidedly against this GLASS, while
Insist change would not DO detrimental To
tho interests of the poor man. Evcry man
/! in tha community who can hire or b,Iy q