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

of cotton and woolen goods, already established
for a like period, commencing at the close OF
the present year.
THE FENCE LAW.
The yery large consumption of timber for
fencing purposes, threatens speedily to exhaust
the forest trees in many Counties of the State,
and has created the gravest concern among our
leading agriculturists, and wide spread de-
sire, that the existing fence law should be, as
soon as possible, repealed.
As there has been, for some time, a great diff
ference of opinion in our State as to the legal
provisions which should be established in re-
gard to the subject of fencing, l desire to give,
at some length, some of the reasons which in
duce me to recommend the abolishing of our
present laws, and the substitution of others.
1st. The building of fence, including the
splitting and hauling of the rails, it is estima-
ted, to at least one-third of the market value of
our average cotton lands. The money and
work thus expended, would, if applied to the
cultivation of the land, increase, by a very
large per centage, both the area cultivated and
the production thereof.
I'd. Vast bodies of arabic land, that are now
untitled for want of fencing timber, and for
which, on that account, there is no sale, would
then find ready purchasers among our agricul-
tural laborers, and be yielding plentiful har-
of life, and adding 70 the wealth of the State.
Sd. To require the farmer to fence out his
neighbor's stock, instead of requiring the owner
of the stock to fence it in, is palpable act of
Injustice, and monstrance instance of folly, in
a State whose wealth is agricultural, and de-
pends almost entirely on tillage, and not on
pasturage.
Why should be required to build a fence
around my farm, at heavy cost, in order to
keep my neighbor's cow out of my growing
crop, when I derive no benefit from the COW?
Why should his property, consisting of few
rowing animals, be more sacred in the eye of the
law, than the few acres, from which, by indus
trious toll, derive my daily bread?
Is it not Just and fair, that every man should
be required to exercise reasonable care for his
own property, and not subject his neighbor to
any cost to prevent that property becoming the
means of injury to any other class of property :?
4th. The fences themselves occupy consid-
erable proportion of the cleared land, thus re-
ducing the cultivated area.
9th. In proportion as the demand for fencing
timber exhausts the supply of trees in that To-
cality, the price of wood for fuel increases,
which is consideration of great moment, in
country where there is no development of strata
of coal.
9th. Science and experience unite to prove
that, in regions where the forests are being
lessened, and the lands are parched by long
droughts, that only destroy vegetation, but
from the failure of water, prove fatal to stock
of all kinds that are permitted to run at large
I have read that this is notably the case in the
prairie belt of Texas and New Mexico; and
have been reliably informed that it is striking
ly exhibited in those sections of Virginia
where, in the late war, the trees we're destroyed
for fuel and other purposes, along the lines OF
military encampments.
7th. Cattle and other stock can be fenced in
more cheaply and securely than they can be
fenced out.
sth. The system of fencing in stock, while
it lessons the original expense of establishing
a farm, will tend to increase the yield per acre.
by preserving large quantity of the natural
manures, for application to the titled soil.
9th. Enclosed pastures will tend to incite
among our agriculturists the cultivation of i'm
proved grasses, and also to an improvement in
the breed of stock; in both of which particu-
lars South Carolina is far behind most of her
sister States.
10th. Our farmers may be better enabled to
rest their lands, by cultivating several tracts in
rotation, without the necessity of fencing each,
thus recuperating soils that are threatened with
total exhaustion by continuous cultivation, un-
aided by proper fertilizers.
18th. The fence law repels the agricultural
immigrants of the Northern States, whose cul-
tivated industry and thrifty modes of farming
are so much needed in this State, where there
are three acres of arabic land lying fallow for
every acre there is that is titled. That most
valuable class of laborers shrink from coming
into a country or State, in which, before they
can safely run a fnrrow in fifty acre field,
they must expend in some cases, more money
and labor to build fence, than are required to
build q house wherein to live.
18th. Itis not only cheaper to fence cattle
in than to fence them out but it is far safer for
the farmer rendering his crop less liable to
damage from the inroads of stock running at
large. Many yexatious lawsuits, and the kill
ing and wounding of hundreds of head Of cat
tie 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 are by no means exhaustive of the ar
RuI0eUU III IdfOT VI Ilic dUOllllOh VI luC lCIlCC
law, it is alleged, by the advocates of the fence
system:
1st. That there are many poor persons who
own few head of cattle, and do not own a
sufficient quantity of land to pasture them on,
and that such small landholders, if the fence
law is repealed, will be compelled to sell their
cattle for what they will bring, or let them
starve; and this alternative must surely occur
to the large number who own stock, but have
no land at all.
I'd. That there are large tracts of land, such
as our pine barrens and wet bottoms, that are
is repealed, cannot be utilized as at present.
Sd. That many small landed propretors can
not keep their necessary stock enclosed in pas
lures, 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
4