Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1873-01-23

| if obliged by law to MAINTAIN close pastures.
The answer to the first objection may be
found in the following legitimate deduction
from the principle which it seems to be based {:
Suppose that ten persons settle in seclu-
ded 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
tenth locates in their vicinity, and being the
owner oftwenty head of COWS, prefers making
butter or raising beef cattle, to tilling the
soil and as he owns but FIVE acres OF land, ne
is opposed to repealing.t the fence law, desiring
his stock to rang eat will. The COWS are worth
FIVE hundred dollars for the lot, but the cost
of fences on the supposed farms would at least
treble or quadruple that sum. According to
the theory of this objection, the two or three
thousand dollars worth of fences must be built,
and that amount of the money of the nine far
mers must be locked up as so much dead cap.
ital, in order to protect the fruits of their in
dustry against destruction by their neighbor's 8
FIVE hundred dollars worth of cattle.
Indeed, the same expense of fencing would
be required if the neighbor owned but one
head ofroving stock !; and thus nine farmers
would have to expend at least thousand dol
lars each to build fence to keep out from
their crop one twenty-five dollar COW.
| This fair and simple statement Of the theory
underlying the fence law seems to me sufficient
to demonstrate its injustice and impolicy in
our agricultural community.
That the consequences to the small land
holder, who is obliged to enclose his stock,
will not be as injurious as is asserted in that
objection, is evidenced by the fact, that this
very class of cattle-owners are, l have been
told, notably prosperous on the sea coast
islands in our State, which regions, though Of
great extent, and containing an abundance
of winter pasturage for outlying stock, have
been for many years exempt from the opera
tions of the fence laws and now contain but
few enclosed farms.
She second objection can be met by having
sufficient area of the wet bottoms and pine
barrens enclosed for pastures, the proprietors
charging small fee per annum.
The third objection would be obviated by
driving the cattle to water, or taking the wa
ter to the stock or by having we'll and
trough in the pasture ground.
The sum of the whole argument against our
present disastrous fence system is, that all
farmers are compelled to build and keep up
fences which they do not need, because some
cattle-owners desire to Craze their stock on
land which they do not own.
I should add that provender for stock would
be greatly increased in product, and conse-
quently cheapened, by the greater area that
will surely be cultivated, should all fencing
be dispensed with.
have thus dwelt at length upon the rea-
SONS which should operate in favor of the ab-
olition of our fence laws,-6rst-because /
believe that such abolition would be the first
step taken by South Carolina in the adoption
of progressive system of agriculture, in
which we are signally behind the age-and
second-because it has heretofore been the
popular, but erroneous doctrine in this State,
that our present fence law is adapted to the
protection of the poor farmer or cattle-owner
against the landed proprietor or wealthy far
mer. So far is this doctrine from being foun-
ded on fact, or even deducible by reasonable
inference, that in many other States where
the "no.fence law" is of force, the small and
poor farmers are the very class who most loud
ly protest against any change in their laws on
this subject.
In this connection I ask your consideration
of the following extract from the presentment
of the Grand Jury Of Fairfield county, at the
December term of the Court, which has been
forwarded to me by the Clerk of the Court Of
said county:
It will be seen thereby, that the grand jury
unanimously recommend the repeal of the
fence law in that county:
"The grand jury unanimously present to the
honorable Court, that the existing fence laws,
of force in this State, are an evil and an en-
cumbrance to the country. Whatever utility
these laws may have subserved in former
period of our country, it is certain that now
they constitute system unnecessary, unjust.
and burthensome to all, and especially to the
poor and humble tillers Of the soil, and are
unknown to the most enlightened agricultural
countries in the world. By statistics collect
ed from the report Of the agricultural depart.
ment for 1871, it appears that the value of
fencing in this State sums up twenty.one mil
lions, one hundred and thirty.six thousand
eight hundred and ninety-six dollars. The
value of cattle in this State sums up two mil
lions four hundred and one thousand two
hundred and ffty-two dollars. Apportioning
the former value pro rata to this county, we
have value of fencing in this county,
amounting to six hundred and forty thousand
dollars; while the total value Of cattle fenced
in by this system of fencing in this county, is
one hundred and nine thousand nine hundred
and FIVE dollars, disclosing the astounding fact
that we employ six dollars worth of fencing
to restrain one dollars worth Of cattle. In
reference to the relative effect of the repeal of
these laws upon the rich and the poor men
of the country, the grand jury quotes from
said report "There is also inequality in the
tax which fencing bears upon the farmers, the
rate of which increases with the decrease of
the area. For example, farmer enclosing
section of land ofsix hundred and forty acres
with cheap fence, costing about one COLLAR
per rod, pays twelve hundred and eighty dol
lars for as many rods Of land, or two dollars
per acre; another, with quarter section of
one hundred aud sixty acres, pays six hundred
and forty dollars, or four dollars per acre;
while third, who is only able to hold forty
acres, must pay three hundred and twenty
dollars, or eight dollars per acre-the poor
man, in this case, being burdened with an
extra mortgage of six dollars per acre, which
his richer neighbor is not compelled to pay"
An act repeating the fence laws may be
properly passed, designating the counties, or
parts Of counties, to which it shall apply.
All objections that are at all reasonable, it
appears to me, may be fully met by providing
that employers contracting with agricultural
laborers shall be required to furnish pastur-
age for not exceeding three head Of cattle for
each one of the laborers employed. Persons
..au olao ha authorized to anclnse nastIlreS