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

The Fence Law.
A correspondent of the Sumter True
Soutjron presents the following strong
argument for a change of the existing
law relating to fences. We are glad to
see that the subject is receiving general
attention and feel assured that proper
discussion cannot fail to establish the
impoicy of the existing law. When a
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: dtR
.".Under the present Statutes, no one
can lawfully worry or otherwise :iniure
stock found in his field; but if his field
is enclosed by 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-.
tec6or to stock owner and farmer, but
unfortunately give satisfaction to Geith-
err. 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 lin his neighbor's field;
another poor man complains that the
crop he, has toiled so hard to raise, is be-
ing detroyed by his neighbor's cattle.
THe misfortunes of either party create
ng sympathy and an earnest desire
to Ind q remedy, if one can be found.
Experience proves that the desired REM
edy can never come through the parties
themselves, and can only be affected by
judicious legislation. 7 If in reply. to the
stock owners complaints, you ask, why
he does not keep his cattle out of his
neighbors 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 does not fence his crop as
the law directs ?-If he is a renter, his
reply is, that he can't pay'a high rent
and keep mp fences; also, if he is a
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 us it appears, the parties most
directly concerned, cannot settle this
vexed question for themselves, and it
becomes the duty of the Legislature to:
arbitrate, as it were, between them, the
inquiry naturally suggest itself, what
must the Legislature do in the premises
II has been proposed, and the PROPOSE
tion has met with considerable favor, to
repeal existing Statutes, and enact what is
commonly called "a 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-
ton.
During residence of seven years in
one of the largest stock raising States of
the Union, Texas, the writer heard few
er complaints about stock depredations,
than he now hears, almost daily, not
merely, az some might suppose, because
the excellent prarie pasturage of Texas
satisfies the wants of che stock, but be-
cause, as general rule, Texas stock when
not in an enclosed pasture, are in the
charge of herdsmen or stock-minders. 1t 4
seems hardship, and is hardship, to a
South Carolina planter that a crop can
be raised in safety in a state teeming
with cattle, and yet here where the
amount Of stock is extremely limited, no
field can be safe from their encroach-
ments, unless the owner or tenant goes
to an expense he can i'll afford in these
hard timea, and besides, he can never
calculate with certainty, when his field
will be safe, even should he build high,
strong fences. He knows that they will
be constantly needing repair, and the.
necessity cf such. repair, involves addi-
tional expense, loss Of time and trouble.
"In the rural neighborhoods 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 ara injured. This, however,
would be ro argument against the rights
of the stock-owner, ,nor Is it proposed to
interfere in the slightest degree with
his rights. The measure proposed is for
his protection as well as for the farmer,
and would, in the end, prove advanta-
geous to him in many ways. 1t Is pro-
posed to Jeace the stock, and leave the
fencing Of crops optional. A poor man
who owns but the one cow and cali, 4
may say that he cannot afford to fence
in pasturs field. True; but number
of such poor men might easily combine
together and do so; or some one man in
every neiglborhood could be found to go
into the bookkeeping business, enclose
a large pasture, and for 80 much per
head, keep all his neighbors stock for
them. Whoever reflects upon the great
and irreparable injury his Stock can do,
must be extremely selfish, if he be:
grudges the slight expense that would
prevent such injury"