The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1872-12-26
Fence or No Fence.

Farmers do not need to be told how great was
the cost of fencing their lands in slavery times.
They know that the fences represented large
part of the value Of their property and required
constant labor to keep them in repair. And
every difficulty which surrounded this subject
before the war is now increased. Timber is
more scarce, and it is hard to make the colored
laborers devote themselves to work which does
not bear directly and Immediately upon the
cultivation of the crops A poor fence is as
bad as no fence at all. To accomplished their
purpose the fences must be "bull-high and pig
tight" And We cannot see why they who till
the soil should be forced to fence in their lands
for the benefit of the owner of stock. 1t is
surely easier and cheaper to fence cattle IN
than to fence them out.
At the same time it must not be forgotten
that in some sections of the State the raising
of cattle will become we'll nigh impossible if
they are deprived of the ranges where they
roam and feed. These long miles of swamp
and barren cannot be fenced in by the stock
owners, and under general no-fence law the
cattle certainly could not run at large. This
would lead to a serious diminution of the hog
crop. Where cattle can be enclosed or watched,
and we'll fed, they will thrive better than where
they run free and must "root hog or die;" but
this cannot be done in every county, and any
abolition of the existing fence laws to be just
and benefit the whole people, must be applied
to those sections only in which the change
would be advantageous to majority OF the
people. The people themselves are the best
judges whether it is advantageous to them to
have fences or no fences, and the decision may
safely be left to them.
There is before the Legislature bill to re-
peal the existing fence laws which, in its gen.
eral provisions, appears to be sensible and just.
1t makes the boundary line of each lot or tract
of land lawful fence, makes it unlawful for
animals to run at large beyond the limits of the
lands of their owner, makes the owners liable
for damages done by stray cattle, prescribes the
| manner of obtaining redress for any trespass,
and provides that the various counties, each for
itself, shall decide by popular vote whether
they will accept or reject the act. Objection is
made to the clause which allows the fence laws
to remain in force in one county, while in the
adjoining county the no-fence law is adopted.
It would be better, of course, to have one law
for the whole State but, as already suggested,
the law which suits one county does not suit
another, and we think it possible that, for this
reason any effort to make the no-fence law ap..
ply peremptorily to the entire State would
cause the summary rejection of the measure.
The present bill is compromise, and we be-
lieve that similar laws are found to work we'll
in other States.
The rural members of the Legislature must
have the fence questions at their fingers end,
and they have practical knowledge of the
conflicting claims of the farmer who advocates
fencing-out. There should be no trouble in
arriving at such conclusion as will be equita-
bic to every interest, and WILL at the same time,
prepare the way for the extension of the no.
fence law system to all South Corolina.-Chas.
NetCs