The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1873-01-22
threatened with total exhaustion by
continuous cultivation, unaided by

\
proper fertilizers: !.
), 11th. The. fence:law repels the agri
cultural immigrants Of the Northern
States, whose cultivated industry AM
thrifty modes Of farming are SO mucl
neededin this State, where there are
three acres of arabic land lying fal
low for every acre there is that il
titled. That most valuable class o
laborers shrink from coming into .
E Country or State, in which, befor,
they can safely run furrow in a fifty
acre field, they must expend in some
cases, more money and labor to builc
a fence than are required to build .
house wherein to live.
! 18th. 1t IS not only cheaper tc
fence cattle in than to fence them
out, but it is for safer for the farmer;
rendering his crop less liable TO dam.
age from the inroads of stock running
at large. Many vexatious lawsuits
and the killing and wounding OF hun
dreds of head of cattle that make
breaches through the fences, to the
great injury Of growing crops, car
thus surely be prevented.
18th The danger to life and prop
erty on our railroads is greatly in
creased by stock running at large.
In answer to these reasons given
above, which are by no means ex
haustive of the argument in favor OF
the fence law, it is alleged, by The ad
vocates of the fence system:
1st. That there are many poor
persons who own few head Of cat,
tie, and do not own a sufficient guam.
tity of land TO pasture them on, and
that such small landholders, if the
fence law is repealed, will be compel.
ed to sell their cattle for what they
will bring, or let them starve; and
that this alternative will surely occur
to the large number who own stock,
but have no land atall.
| 2. That there are large tracts of
land such as our pine barrens and we
bottoms, that are fit only for grazing,
and that if the fence law is repealed,
cannot be utilized as at present.
Sd. That many small landed pro-
prietors cannot keep their necessary
stock enclosed in pastures for want
of localities supplied with water.
and that such must be greatly injured
if required by law to maintain close
pastures.
The answer to the first objection
may be found in the following legiti-
mate deduction from the principle on
which it seems to be based:
Suppose that ten persons settle in
a 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 tenth locates in their vicin-
ity, and being the owner of twenty
head of cows, prefers making butter
or raising beef cattle to tilling the
soil =! and, as he owns but FIVE acres of
land, he is opposed to repeating the
fence law, desiring his stock to range
at will. The cows are worth FIVE
hundred dollars for the lot, but tho
cost of the fences on the supposed
farms would at least treble or quad!
rup'e 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 farmers
must be locked up as so much dead
capital, in order to protect the fruits
of their industry against destructian
by their neighbors' five hundred
dollars worth Of cattle.
Indeed, the same expense Of fenc--
ing would be required if the neigh
Dor owned but one head of rowing
stock; and thus nine farmers would
have to expend 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 demonstrate
it's injustice and impolicy in our agri-
cultural community.
That the consequences to the small
landholder, 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 arc, I have been told.
notably prosperous on the sea coast
islands in our State, which regions,
though Of great extent, and contain
ing an abundance of winter pasturage
for outlying stock, have been for
many years exempttrom the operations
of the fence laws, and now contain
bnt few enclosed farms.
The second objection can be met by
having sufficient area of the wet
bottoms and pine barrens enclosed
for pastures, the proprietors charging
a small fee per annum.
The third objection would be OBJ.
waited by driving the cattle to water,
or taking the 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
system is, that all farmers are COM
PEELED 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 consequently cheapsned,
by the greater area that will surely
be cultivated, should alt fencing be
dispensed with.
l have thus dwelt at length upoz
the reasons which should operate
f,ror of tho aholjfion of Ouu