The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1873-01-23


exempt from the operations of the fence laws,
and now contain but few enclosed farms.
The second objection can be met by having
a sufficient area of the wet bottoms and pine
barrens enclosed for pastures, the proprietors
charging small fee per annum.
Tie third objection would be obviated by
driving the cattle to water, or taking the water
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
catt;e-owners desire to Craze their stock on
lane which they do not own.
should add that provender for stock would
be greatly increased in product, and conse,
quetly cheapened, by the greater area that will
surely be cultivated, should all fencing be dis
pensed with.
have thus dwelt at length upon the reasons
which should operate in favor OF the abolition
of our fence s,-frst-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 doc
trine in this State, that our present fence law
is adapted to the protection Of the poor farmer
or cattle-ovner against the landed proprietor
or wealthy farmer. So far is this doctrine from
being founded on fact, or even deducible by
reasonable inference, that in many other States
where the "non-fence law" is of force, the
small and poor farmers are the very class who
most loudly protest against any change IN
their laws on this subject. ;, :.
In this connection | 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
the said County.
1t 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 county. Whatever utility
these laws may have subserved in former pc
Rod of our country, it is certain that now they
constitute a system unnecessary, unjust, and
burthensome to all, especially to the poor and
humble tillers of the soil, and are unknown to
the most enlightened agricultural countries Of
the world. BY statistics collected from the re-
port of the agricultural department for 1871, ii
appears that the value of fencing in this State
sums up twenty-one millions, one hundred and
tl.irty-six thousand, eight hundred and ninety
six dollars The value of cattle in this State
sums up two millions, four hundred and one
thousand, two hundred and fifty-two dollars
| Apportioning the former value pro rata to this
county. we have value of fencing in this coun-
ty, amounting to six hundred and forty. thou
sand dollars while the total value of cattle
fenced in by this system Of fencing in this
county. ia one hundred and nine thousand, nine
hundred and five dollars, disclosing the as
founding fact that we employ six dollars worth
of fencing to restrain one dollars worth of cat
tie. In reference to the relative effect of the
repeal of these laws upon the rich and the poor
rlen of the county, the Grand Jury quotes
from said report: "There is also inequality II
the tax which fencing bears upon the farmers
the rate of which increases with the decrease o.
the area. For example, a farmer enclosing
section of land six hundred and forty acres with
cheap fence, costing but one dollar per rod
pays twelve hundred and eighty dollars Tor as
many rods of land, or two dollars per acre; an
either, with quarter section OF one hundred
snd 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 elgh
dollars per acre-the poor man, in this case
| being burdened with an extra mortgage of siA
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, OF
| parts of counties, to which it shall apply. AL
objections that are at all reasonable, it appear:
to me, may be fully met by providing that en-
ployers contracting with agricultural iaborerS
shall be required to furnish pasturage for not
exceeding three head of cattle for each one o.
the laborers employed. Persons may also be
authorized to enclose pastures, and to charge
not exceeding one dollar per annum for each
head of cattle pastured and attended to there
on: the owner of such pasture to be held re-
sponsible for any damage done, or any loss tc
the owner of such cattle, by their escaping
from the enclosed pasture through any fault OIL
negligence of the proprietor thereof.
And it shall be Further provided that the let
ting down, or the attempt to let down, any pas
ture fence, with view to allow any cattle to
escape from such PASTURE shall be declared q
misdemeanor, ard punishable with fine and
imprisonment.
Municipal corporations should also be re-
quired to keep public pasture enclosed within
a mile or two of the corporation limits, for the
convenience of residents in the corporation
who may be charged reasonable sum tor the
requisite care and pasturage of their cattle.
SALARIES OF JUDGES.
recommend that the salaries of the Su-
preme Court and Circuit Court Judges of the
State be proportionately increased, respectively
They are the hardest worked and poorest
paid officers in any department. of the State
government and, while I am constantly ad.
monished of the necessity of economy in the
administration of the government, deem it an
act of simple justice and sound policy on the
part of every State to appropriate for the sala'
rries of high judicial officers such amounts as
are consistent both with the dignity OF thell
positions and the necessities thereby imposed
on them.
JURY LAW.
Under existing laws providing for the prep
aration of the jury lists, no Court of Common
Pleas or General Sessions can be legally held
; in the month of January, although it is ,provl-
1 I tLct couorol aOuptipc thprpIn