The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1875-11-25
VOL. XI- I--NO. 10.
The Fence Law.

a correspondent of the ,Sumter True
Southrm presents the following strong
argument for Il change of the existing
law relating to fences. We are glad to
sec that the subject is receiving general
attention and feel assured that proper
discussion cannot fail to establish the
impolicy of the existing law. When
large stock raising State like Texas is
able to keep its stock from depredating
upon the crop of the farmer, it is time
fO- South Carolina, where the cost of
fencing equals the whole value of its
stock, to do something in the same direc-
tion. Read the following:
"Under the present Statutes, no one
can lawfully worry or otherwise iniure
stock found in his field; but if his field
is enclosed by a lawful fence, he can re-
cover damages for the injury done to his
crop by such stock. The Statutes in
question were intended to afford, and
whenever enforced do afford, equal pro-
lection to stock owner and farmer, but
unfortunately give satisfaction to neith-
er. The farmer complains that the stock
owners turn out their stock--to range
where they please; the stock owners
complain that the farmers fail to protect
their crops by proper fencing, and that
many of them boast that they make
their guns their fence; one poor man
complains that the COW bought with his
hardly saved earnings, has been killed,
because found in his ncighbor's field
another poor man complains that the
crop he has toiled so hard to raise, is be-
ing destroyed by his neighbor's cattle.
The misfortuncs of either party create
strong sympathy and an earnest desire
to find a remedy, if one can be found.
Experience proves that the desired rcm-
cdy can never conc through the parties
themselves, and can only be affected by
iudicious legislation. If in reply to the
stock owners complaints, you ask why
he does not keep his cattle out of his
neighbor's field, his answer is that the
law makes it the farmers business to
keep them out by proper fencing. If
you answer the farmers complaint by
asking why he docs not fence his crop as
the law directs ?-If he is a renter, his
reply is, that he can't pay high rent
and keep up fences; also, if lie is
landowner, his reply is, that with low
prices for produce, high taxes, and pre-
carious collections from tenants, he can't
afford any better fencing than he has.
If then as it appears, the parties most
directly concerned, cannot settle this
vexcd question for themselves, and it
becomes the duty of the Legislature to
arbitratc, us it were, between them, the
inquiry naturally suggest itself, what
must the Legislature do in the premises? ?
1t has been proposed, and the PROPOSE
ton has met with considerable favor, to
repeal existing Statutes, and enact what is
commonly called 81 no fence law" and
it would seem to be the best remedy for
the evils complained of that can be de-
vised, and if properly understood, would
perhaps meet with but slight opposi-
tion
"During 4 residence of seven years in
one of the largest stock raising States of
the Union, Texas, the writer heard few
er complaints about stock deprcdations,
than he now hears almost daily, not
merely, as some might suppose, because
the excellent prairie pasturage of Texas
satisfies the wants of the stock, but be-
cause, as a general rule, Texas stock when
not in an enclosed pasture, are in the
charge of herdsmen or stock-minders. 1t
seems hardship, and is Il hardship, to a
South Carolina planter that a crop can
be raised in safety in state teeming
with cattle, and yet here where the
amount of stock is extremely limited, 10
field can be safe from their cncroach-
ments, unless the owner or tenant goes
to an expense he can i'll afford in these
hard times, and besides, he can never
calculate with certainty, when his field
will be safe, even should he build high,
strong fences. lie knows that they will
be constantly needing repair, and the
necessity of such repair, involves addi-
tional expense, loss of time and trouble.
"In the rural ncighborhoods of our
State, almost every man Is farmer
comparatively few are stock.owners-
consequently the number of those who
suffer from the depredations of stock, is
far greater than the number whose
stock are injured. This, however,
would be no argument against the rights
of the stock-owncr, nor is it proposed to
interfere in the slightest degree with
his rights. The measure proposed is for |
his protection as well us for the farmer,
and would, in the end, prove advanta-
gcous to him in many ways. 1t is pro-
posed to fence the stock. and leave the
fencing of crops optional. A poor man
WHO owns but the one COW and calf,
may say that he cannot afford to fence
in pasture field. True; but number
of such poor men might easily combine
together and do so or some one man in
every ncighborhood could be found to go
into the bookkeeping business, enclose
large pasture, and for so much per
head, keep all his ncighbors stock for
them. Whoever reflects upon the great
and irrcparable injury his stock can do,
must be extremely selfish, if he be.
grudgcs the slight expense that would
prevent such injury"