The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1876-02-17
The Fence Law.

already an absorbing topic in the thickly
settled agricultural communities, is the
Fence Law. This law was enacted in
the earliest colonial days, when popula-
ton was sparse, and but little land was
cultivated; {; SO it was a much easier task
tofence in the crops than to fence in the
stock. 1t provides "that all fences close
" and strongly made of rails, boards OF
posts and rails, or of an embankment oil
earth, capped with rails or timber of any
sort, or live hedges, fve feet in height,
measured from the level or surface of the
earth. shall be taken and deemed to be
lawful fences" 1t provides further on,
that if any person whose fields are not
enclosed by a lawful fence shall kill,
wound, main, chase, worry or in any
manner injure any stock found in such
field, he shall be liable in an action fol
damages, and by a subsequent act this
injury is made an indictable offence.
This law worked we'll enough while
population was scattered, and afterwards,
also, when labor was cheap and material
was plentiful. But the murderous sys-
tenn of agriculture that prevailed before
the war has in many places robbed the
land of its timber, and rendered fencing
almost an impossibility. Years ago il
was said that there was not q lawful
fence, "horse-high, bull-strong and pig
tight" in the State. And since the war,
with the prostration of industries and
tho demoralizstion of labor, this remark
is more true than ever. As the planting
interests predominate over the others,
the oppression of this law will become
more apparent. In almost all other agri-
cultural communities stock is fenced in,
and even in our State, Edisto, Wadma-
law, Johns and James Islands are ex-
empted from the provisions of the act
In many of the upper counties the Law
has been abrogated by popular consent
the people having become weary of de-
Gliding between the alternative of seeing
their crops destroyed in day, and Of
submitting to the inconvenience and ex-
pense and possible danger of standing
suit for damages or trial in the General
Sessions. -
: It isYestimatsd that tho value of the
fencing in South Carolina exceeds that
of the stock many times over, and that
the expense of repairing broken-down
enclosures is one cause Of the paralyza'
ton of agriculture. Judge Mackey re-
Gently, in charge to jury, showed that
nearly two hundred dollars worth o1
fencing was required to enclose fifty
dollar parcel Of land.
Continued but unsuccessful efforts have
been made to secure o repeal of the fencs
law. Several difficulties present them
selves. First, many colored voters have
each pig or q cow, for which they CLAIM,
pasturage on the lands of others; and
secondly, a great portion of the Lower
counties consist of swamp lands, on which
a large amount of cattle and other stock
feed; so that "no-fence" law would to
these stock-raisers be as onerous as the
present law is to their farming brethren
Suggestions have been offered for the
removal of these obstacles. Judge Mac.
key proposes to couple with the abolition
of the present Law an act providing that
the laborer be allowed pasturags for s
limited amount of stock on his employ
er's land.
This would meet the objections raised
blythe first mentioned opponents of the
bin. Local option, heretofore recon-.
mended by the News and Courier, weuld
settle the differences between the agricul.
tural and the pastoral counties. The
change has been adopted with success il
certain counties in North Carolina, where
in order to prevent any conflict arising
out of the existence of Numerically op'
posed laws in adjoining counties, it ha:
been necessary only to build lawful
fence around the county in which the
plantation fences have been abolished.
The recent action of the Senate in ex'
tending the provisions of the House bill
so that the counties of Anderson, Pick.
ems, Greenville, Union and Spartanbure
will be permitted, in additionfto Chester
to 7ote upon this question, is eminently
proper. It is sincerely to be hoped that
the amended bill will become a law. Il
provides, in case the voters of the respec'
tive Counties decide upon this change
that petitions must be presented by the
County, .Commissiaesfs to the Legisla'
turs, at it's as1t session, for appropriate
Legislation to carry the change into effect
If nQgiteration in the law be desired in
tbe counties affected, the vote VIII show
it, and the proposed act will have done
no harm. Ifthe majority deem the pres
ent law burden, ii is but right to give
them an opportunity of freeing them.
oalvea IT. ia pity that the act was not
amended 80 as to become general in its
application. It may, however, be the
opening wedge for complete settlement
Of this questioa.-Nesrs and Courier.