The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1874-07-02
The Fence Law.

MR.. EDITOR: By Act of the General Assem-
bly, approved March IA, 1874 the County Com
missioEers of Anderson County are required to
submit to the qualified voters Of said County,
at the next general election to be held in said
County, the question Of Fence or mo Fence"
the same to be voted upon by ballot written
or printed, "Yes or "No," and if majority Of
the votes cast shall be Eyes" then it shall be
the duty of the Commissioners to erect and
keep in repair a fence on the boundary line
between the County of Anderson and the Coun--
and substantial rail fence, of not less than
twelve rails in height, properly staked and
ridered, and to erect good and sufficient gates
on all public roads crossing the boundary line
between either of the Counties.
End. That persons owning or keeping any
stock-such as CATTLE horses, mules, sheep or
hogs, or other stock-to confine the same by
such good and sufficient fence as shall pre-
vert them fron entering upon the lands of
another.
Sd. That each and every employer in the
said County shall furnish each employee
hired by him good pasturage for the stock
owned by such employee, not exceeding two
head of cattle to eveiy feld-hand in humber.
4th. That the gates erected are to be duly
placarded, and all persons opening are required
to close and securely fasten the same; and in
case he fails to do so, is to be deemed guilty of
misdemeanor, and upon conviction therefor,
shall be fined in sum not less than ttty dol
lars, nor more than five hundred dollars, or
| Imprisonment for term not less than thirty
days nor more than one year, in the discretion
of the Court.
Now Mr.. Editor it would appear to blind
man that if this Act be passed that it will be
| &c
ton will be confined for the most part to the
| Court of Sessions The difficulties between the
landlord and tenant about pastures, &C., may
be settled by Trial Justices, and on this latter
point there will be no little trouble, because
the Act is imperative But outside of this,
what about the cost? Let us see:
lst. The Anderson, Pickens and Oconee line
is thirty-seven miles long. Say two panels OF
fence to the rod. That will take "a rails to the
rod, besides the stakes and riders. 32O rods to
the mile will take 1850 rails to the mile, and
the 81 miles will require 2S4, l6O rails. Say to
buy the timber, cut, split and put these rails
up costs $1.00 per hundred, will make this line
of fence cost S2S41.60.
End. The Anderson and Abbeyille line is
81 J miles long. This will require, as shown by
the calculation above made, 240,920 rails to
fence this line of 314 miles, which will cost
the County S2,4O9. .2O-making the two lines
cost St, ,250SO. This is outside of the cost OF
gates, water-gaps and stakes and riders, which
will augment the cost to at least Sc, 900, which
will amount to about one-tenth of the County
taxes.
We are of the opinion, first, that this Act is
within itself of doubtful propriety when con-
fined to County and not the State at large
Second, that if the Act was not productive OF
trouble between the landlord and tenant, the
cost is more than our people are able to pay
for this would be a tax placed upon us in ad-
diton to our present taxes, which is now more
than we can pay, as appears from the sales
made by our tax-collector. We ask that TINS
question may be considered, and we shall be
content with what the people do. II.