The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-06-21
THE FENCE LAW.

We publish elsewhere an article signed
'sVarennes," which opposes the adoption
ofthe proposed change in our fence sys-
tenn. The only ground which the writer
assigns in opposition to the law that has
any weight, is the question Of water for
stock, and there is really very little force
in this objection, for, as ageneraf thing,
every farm has a spring branch upon it
chat would afford an abundance of water
for stock, and those few farms which
have no water on them are so situated
that it does not pay for stock to ramble|
off to branches on other mems farms to
get a little water. It would pay the
owner better to draw them water three
times a day than to have them scattered
about over the old fields and in the woods,
subject to being lost or stolen. Itmight
induce people to keep a smaller number
of cattle, but those which they do keep
would pay them much better for being.
taken care of. On the water question,
also, We might reply that nearly every
one of those farms where there is no wa
ter has some child on it large enough to
draw all the water necessary for stock,
and hence very few poor men, or any
other sort of men, would have any water,
to draw. Again, Che writer thinks winds
might blow down the pasture fences, and
turn the cattle upon the crops. A good
fence with stakes and riders would be
apt toswithstand the storms, and even if
it did not in a few instances do SO, the
farmer would not belworse of than he is
now, for a wind storm that would destroy
pasture fence wonld destroy crop
fence, and turn every persons stock in
the neighborhood upon the crop, and it
would not be as easily corrected as the
blowing down of the pasture fence would
be. ss ..,.,S,s .ss4sz.,-5.ses ...Y
Again, he says hogs and sheep could
not be raised in the same pasture, but
with little attention and penning of at
one season of the year it could be done
atsleast as we'll as, if not better, than
can be done by allowing them to run at
large together. What our correspondent
says about the rich and the poor, and
about selfshness, is also unfortunate, for
itappeals to the prejudice and passion,
rather than the reason. Matters like the
one under conside should be calmly
discussed and decided without prejudice
or passion. The simple question that
every public-spirited man ought to con- n
slider is, will the change benefit the ma
jority of the whole County? If it will,
it should be adopted (; and if it will not,
it should not be adopted. If it is a.
measure that will injure the poor man, it
ought to be frowned down Immediately ;
but this should be proved by argument
and not by assertion. We believe the
change will benefit the poor man as we'll
as the landowner OF. rich man, as our
correspondent terms him and if the
election is ordered, ne propose to en-
deayor to advance some arguments for
the belief we have expressed. We shall
do SO candidly and courteously, and. hope
that the discussion of the measure will
be free and full without any hard feel
ings, with the desire to advance the in
terest of the whole County uppermost in
the mind and heart of every writer or
speaker. 75it5'