The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1875-11-10
THE FENCE LAW.

.SOut{trOn presents lile iollo"ihS "'i'6
argument for change of the existing
law relating to fences. We are glad 10
see that the Subjects receiving general
attention and feel assured that proper
discussion cannot fail to establish the
impolicy of the existing law. When a
large stock-raising State like Texas IS
able to keep its stock from depredatihg
upon the crop of the farmer, 1t IS tlme
for South Carolina, where the cost OF
fencing equals the whole value OF Its
stock, to do something in the same di-
rection. Read the following:
Under the present Statutes, no one
can lawfully worry or otherwise lnlure
stock found in his field; but If his held
is enclosed by lawful fence, he can re-
cover damages for the injury done to his
crop bv such stock. The Statutes IN
question were intended to afford, and
Whenever enforced do afford, equal pro-
lection to stock owner and larmer, Du1
fortunately give satisfaction TO nelth-
'er. The farmer complains that the STOCK
owners turn out their stock 10 range
where they please; the stock owners
complain that the farmers fail to protect
their crops by proper fencing, ana lhat
many of them boast that they make
their guns their fence; one poor man
complains that the cow bought with his
hardly saved earnings, hasibeen killed,
because found in his neighbor's field !;
another poor man complains that the
crop he has toiled so hard to raise, is
being destroyed by his neigbbor's cattle.
The mislortuncs of either party create
strong sympathy and an earnest desire
to find Il remedy, if one can be found.
Experience proves that the desired rem
e,lv can never come through the parties
themselves, and can only be effected ny
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. Ii
you answer the farmers complaint by
asking why he does not fence his crop
os the law directs IF he is a renter,
his reply is, that he can't pay q high
rent and keep up 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 as it appears, the parties most
directly concerned, cannot settle inns
vexed question for Themselves, and 1t
becomes the duty Of the Legislature to
arbitrate, as it were, between them, the
inquiry naturally suggests itself, what
must the Legislature do in the premises?
It has been proposed, and the PROPOSE
tiop has met with considerable favor,
to repeal existing Statutes, and enact
what is commonly called "a no FENCE
law,n and it would seem to be the best
remedy for the evils complained OF that
can be devised, and if properly under
stood, would perhaps meet with but
slight opposition.
During residence Of several years IN
one of the largest stock-raising States OF
the Union, Texas, } the writerheard few
er complaints about stock depreuatlohs,
than he now hears almost daily, not
merely, as some might suppose, because
the excellent prairie pasturage or IeXas
satisfies the wants of the stock, but De-
cause, as general rule, Texas stock when
not in an enclosed pasture, are IN the
charge of herdsmen or stock -mindefs. II
seems hardship, and is hardship, 10
a South Carolina planter. that crop
can he raised in safety in a state teem-
inr with cattle, and yet here where the
amount of stock is extremely limited, no
field can be safe from their encroach-
meuts, 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 he safe, even shonld he build hlghi;
strong fences. lie knows that they VIII
be constantly needing repair. ana me
necessity of such repair, Involves aaui-
tional expense, loss Of time and trouble.
IN the rural ighborhcods OF our
State. almost every man is q farmer
conlparatively few are stock owners
consequently the number of those VINO
suffer from the depredations OF STOCK, Is
far greater than the number whose
stock are injured. This, however,
would he no argument against the rights
of the stock nor is 1t proposed 10
interfere in the slightest degree. with
his rights. The measure proposed Is lor
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 fcnce 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 num-
Der of such poor men might easily COM
bine together and do So; or, some one
man in every neighhorhood could be
found to go Into the stock-kceplng bus
ness, enclose i large pasture, and for 50
much per head. keep all his neghhors
stock for them. Whoever reflects upon
the great aud irreparable injury his
stock eau Go, must be extremely selfish,
! :, -, h,,,r,,Irac tho cIiubt pSDpnSp that