The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1875-12-09

| itself in this: Who gave to Committee:
the right TO establish "a censorship, or, in
other words, the power to dictate line Of
policy to be followed by any individual
The same right to govern or control the &C.
tons of person can govern or control the
actions of community. How absurd
But instead of reading" that Committee
out OF the party by way of retaliation,
would suggest the propriety OF reading
them lesson, say, on attending to the lie.
gitimate business for which they were elect.
ed. As an evidence that THE TINES is still
the chosen paper for the Republicans here
and as an evidence, also, that We :eel it ID
the nearest in sympathy with the wants and
needs of its patrons, the people, on Fri
day evening, by resolution, instructed the
undersigned to furnish, for publication in
its columns, the views rs expressed upon g
discussion of the all-abso.bing topic, the
Herd Law.
A goodly number Of prominent individu.
ais were present, and great deal of in.
terest manifested in the ANNA.
ted discussion that followed the
introduction of the resolution. Mr.. J. G.
Kirby, in an eloquent and impressive man.
ner, advocated the passage of the law,
dwelling upon the importance and need OF
protecting our young forests and hedges,
showing that by the denuding of our land
of its forests, in the construction of our
fences, We were pursuing a policy which
would eventually make an arid waste of
our Eow fertile acres, decrease the quantity
OF rainfall, and render our State more IL
able to drouth and grasshopper visitation
He urged that the true and just policy was
10 compel people to take care of their
stock, and not to compel the people of a
community to construct fences at a ruin
Gus cost, in order that few head of stock
might range at will.
Mr.. Samuel White also advocated the
passage OF Herd Law, showing how the
seventies OF our climate might be mitiga-
ted by growing trees and hedges, and show
ing, also, how such a law would prove ben
elicial, by enabling the poor man, instead
OF investing his small means in fences, to
break up the sod, and construct more sub
stantial and comfortable houses and barns.
Mr.. Stephen Stanton, in lengthy and
able argument, substituted comparison
between our Southern herd law and anti
herd law counties, showing by statistics the
enormous increase in mich COWS, in but
ter, and in the number Of rods of hedge
fences over those adjoining counties not
having the benefits of the law. He also
showed the enormous increase of the num-
Der of bushels OF wheat in those counties
under the operation of the Herd Law, and
argued that what had proven so beneficial
to those counties, could not help but prove
beneficial 10 Leavenworth county.
Mr.. John Ward also spoke in favor Of
the law, and argued its necessity
Hon. Thomas billiard spoke in opposition
to the law, taking the ground that it would
work injuriously against the poor man, and
favorably to the rich. He argued against
the position assumed by the Hon. J. A.
Halderman,-contending that there was an
evident unfairness shown in the statistics
showing the great increase in cattle in
those counties having the Herd Law, over
those counties not having it-ridiculed
the idea that fences were perishable every
seven years, and concluded BY expressing
the opinion that to adopt the Herd Law in
our county would in a measure depopulate
il.
Mr.. Stanton Pierson also spoke against
the propriety of the law, claiming that the
other counties was due not to the Herd
. Sheaf soil; ours was a corn
county, and, necessarily, We needed fences |
TO protect our growing crop; claimed that
fences were not as short-lived Is represent
ed, but giving fourteen years the average /
length OF duration. He thought COMPARE |
son Of younger counties with older unfair /
and unjust, and claimed that the principal |
cause of depression, financially, in our
county, at,ribu table to our high taxes; re-
yarded statements OF railroads, to the eff
feet that in the event of the passage of the
Herd Law they would not compel citizens
along the line to pay for grazing their cat
lie On their lands, as rather 6shy, and not
entitled to credence. He ridiculed statis-
l,os oiousnt iol.aIu Gaming tnss me
p'ese as suueia'1eu " tne rshroaos, ana
no y EARNING the people 20 oeware oil
me ~ tAeru LAW.
MI. eNi Eamo argued against the Law,
'ec19se As Inines nov $1,000 the people
,ould help themselves to graas, timber, etc,
growing upon railroad lands.
ms tne speaker argued, was not steal
ng, ior having improved our farms We
AVE enhsnceo the value OF theira and con-
equehuy entiiied 10 our pay. II the herd
aw was adoPtea, all thus would b changed,
md instead Of farmers having acceo 70 tim
,er nee oi cost, they would have to buy
neir encing, ana that would be something
nardsmp.
M. 9osn stewart put In general plea
\ cenIaA :eanst tne 1m5o a6vanced
p iavor o! the passage Oh the Law, claiming
iso, mat inasnuch ~ We had enhanced the
ai1e OF railroad ana specuiaton lands,
y iencins and improving our own, We had
ome soi! Of o.nelsnlP IN 'ne,r iand, and