The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1873-12-25
Fencing and Soiling Stock In Georgia.

| TCiCAuS 0HV OOlAuS SVtCA AL UcVTSRGs
Mr.. EDITOR I'm the agricultural depart.
ment of your paper wish, if YOU can. obtain
it, you would give the experience Of those
counties in any State that have dispensed with
the use of fencing. The farmers in thiS coun-
try-middIe Georg rgia-are 80 welded to old
traditions and customs that they cannot under
stand the arguments setting forth the manifold
disadvantages of the present system Of worm
fences; nor have the; any idea that it is far
better to soil than pasture cattle. believe
there is no country in the world where cattle
could be grown to greater perfection than here,
if proper attention was paid to soiing. We
can raise the COW pea in abundance, and GER
tainly there is no food which cattle relish more
We can raise sweet potatoes more easily and
with less labor than you can raise turnips. and
certainly there is more nutrition in the one
than the other. i!t
We have neither the excessive heat of your
summers nor the intense severity of your win
ters. Where live there are no chills and
fever; the nights in July and August are cool
and pleasant, free from mosquitoes, and snow
rarely falls during the winter, and lasts scarce
ly over a day. One great reason why We can
not diversity our crops but are forced to plant
chiefly cotton and corn is the immense amount
of fencing required for the purpose. No man
can be said practically to own any land thatis
not enclosed with fence; the rest is all waste
and common, to be roamed and pastured over
by the stray cattle of the community. The
main argument against the use of fences is,
that the poor man could raise no cattle; hence
large tracts Of land are thrown out of cultiva-
tion annually for want of fencing. Conse.
quently the country is growing poorer for the
benefit of the poor man meanwhile there is
mot in tl,o mfr md flo RI
struction to the crops of cotton and corn every
year from brcaching by cattle if calculated in
figures would hardly be credited. There il also
another reason why we do not diversity our
crops. The negro prefers greenbacks to solid
comfort. For cotton we obtain money in ez-
change, and with money the negro can buy
sweetmeats or horse, or pistol, or anything
that is worthless. The abolition of fences and
the soilng of cattle would operate q revolution
in Southern agriculture.
If some practical Northsrn farmer would
come and settle among US and pay attention to
the soiling of cattle, and introduce among US
all the modern improvements, his example
would outweigh all editorial advice on the sub
ject of a diversity of crops.
JOSHUA NICHOLAS.
Warrent0n, Warren County, Ga. .aa.;.
REMARKs.-New York State has law which
compels every man to fence his own stock and
obliges him to fence against no ones else,
really. At any rate there is 4 law which pre-
vents any one turning his stock into the high
ways. We remember that when this law was
because it was going to deprive the poor man
of the privilege of keeping cow or pig;
but it was urged that it would be cheap
er for neighborhood of farmers to agree to
pasture q cow for each poor man therein than
to be compelled to fence against them. The
law was enacted some years ago and the result
is that it has cost the people of the State far
less for fencing and no poor man who vas not
too lazy to work land the sooner all such are
starved or driven out of any neigh borhood the
bettcr) ever suffered perceptibly Farmers viii
keep cow for an honest, industrious poor man
at merely nominal sum. We do not think
the farmers of New York could be induced to
open their highways to live stock now. a..
In some States where attempts have been
made to enact general stock law of this char
acter it has failed, especially in the newer
Western States, where there are vast unoccu-
pied ranges for stock. Each farmer is COM
PEELED to fence against his neighbors' stock;
but as these countries have become thickTy
settled, the farmers have induced the Legisla.
ture to pass law submitting the question on q
vote of the inhabitants of individual counties.
In some cases the vote has been strong in favor
and in others equally strong against such
fence law-depending chiefly upon the density
of the population and the interests involved.
As to the profits of soiling in any given locali-
ty, that must depend upon the price of labor,
value of land, and the market value of stock
or its products. There are doubtless many To-
calities in the South where it would be cheaper
to soil stock than to build fences. This is,
however, question that requires more elabo-
rate discussion than we now have space to give
to it.-Ne,c York World. i'