The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1873-01-18


vexations lawsuits, and the killing and
wounding of hundreds of head of cat:l C
that make breaches through the fences,
to the great injury of growing crops,
can thus surely be prevented.
18th. The danger to life and property
on our railroads is greatly Increased by
stock running at large.
In answer to these reasons given
above, which arc by no mean, exhaus.
tive of the argument in favor of the
abolition of the fence law, it is alleged,
by the advocates of the fence system:
lst. That there are many poor per-
sons who own q few head of cattle, and
do not own a sufficient quantity of land
to pasture them on, aud that such small
land holders, if the fence law is repealed.
will be compelled to sell their cattle for
what they will bring, or let them starve;
and that this alternative must surely
occur to the large number who own
stock, but have no land at all.
ld. That there arc large tracts OF land
such as our pine bcrrcs and wet bottoms
shat are fit only for grazing, and that, if
the fence law is repealed, cannot be
utilized as at prevent
3D.. That many small landed pro
prictors cannot keep their necessary
stock enclosed in pastures for want of
localities supplied with water, and that
such must be greatly injured if obliged
by law to maintain close pastures.
The answer to the first objection may
be found in the following legitimate de.
duction from the principle on which it
seems to he based
Suppose that ten persons settle in
secluded portion of the State, and that
nine of them proceed to level the forests
and break up the soil to open farms
and determine to enclose and feed their
necessary farm stock, while the teuth
locates in their vicinity, and being the
owner of twenty head of cows prefers
making butter or raising beef cattle to
tilling the soil; aud, as he owns but
five acres of land, he is opposed to re,
peaing the fence law, desiring his stock
TO range at will. The cows arc worth
five hundred dollars Tor the lot, but the
cost OF the fences on the supposed farms
would at least treble or quardruplc that
sum, According to the the CRY Of his
objection, that two or three thousand
dollars, worth of fences must be built
aud that amount of the money Of the
nine farmers must be licked up as SO
much dead capital, in order to protect
the fruits of their industry against drs
truction by their neighbours FIVE hunI
red dollars worth Of cattle.
Indeed, the same expense of fencing
wonld be required if the neighbor owned
but one head of rowing stock and thus
nine farmers would have to cxpcnd at
least thousand dollars each to build
fence to keep out from their crops one
twenty five dollar cow.
This fair and simple statement of the
theory underlying the fence law seems
to me sufficient to demoustra'e it's in
justice and impolicy ir our agricultural
community.
That the consequences to the um all
lardholdci, who is Obliged to enclose
his stock, will be us injurious as is as,
serted i'll that objection, is evidence | "
the fact, that this very class of cattle
owners are, | have been told, notably
prosperous on the sea coast islands in
our State, which regions, tn hJugh of
great extent, and containing an abunI
ance of winter pasturaSc of outlying
stock, have been for many years excmp,
from the operations Of the fence laws,
and now contain but few enclosed farms
The second objection can be met BY
having sufficient area of the wet bot
toms and pine barrcns enclosed for pas.
lures, the proprictors charging small
fee per annum
The third objection would be obviatcd
by driving the cattle to water, or taking
tho water to the stock, or by having
well and trough in the pasture ground.
The sum of the whole argument
against our present disastrous fence sys-
tem is, that all farmers are compelled to
build and keep up fences which they do
not need, because some ,,cattle.owncrs
desires to Craze their stock on land
which they do not own
| shoull add thal nrnvcndnr Cor stncL