The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1877-08-08
Tho Fence Law,
Editor Press and Banner

Editor Press anG Banner
I notice in your last issue q comrnuni-
cation from Little River in opposition to
the proposed fence law, which seems to
me 10 be entirely on one sido of the fence.
| Ito not know certainly who Little River
is but Judging from the tone OF his article
| take him to be q nciShbor. If am
correct 1 don't think he has many big
oaks or small ones either, and as for his
old field pines, he had better keep them a
! while longer as many OF them Will take
two TO make II rail cut. lie says here
on Little River the cattle enter upon the
| winter campaign in tolerable condition
and with what little feed we can give
them they get fat by spring. I happen to
know something about this spring tat. l
have been farming on Little River longer
than your correspondent and have seen
but few fat cattle for many years. The
time was when they could manage to
scu1lic through on the cane growing along
the bank and on the branches, but this is
all cut down. Why, sir, all the fat OF Il
grown OK in the spring would not make
half dozen respectable eyes of grease in 4
pot of soup. lie says that Saluda III his
article that If the change is effected the
country would soon be covered with cane
and nutritious grasses and asks what
good would they do with the stock fenced
up the whole year, and suppose that ten
men could herd ten head OF cattle, water
them mt noon and drive them mp at night,
and asks, will it pay? According to his
| views, / admit that it would not but
Little River seems to think entirely of
present profit, ignoring the future adj
vantage which would certainly accrue to
! the country under the proposed change.
We could improve our lands more in two
years under the change than in five undcr
the present system. Every intelligent
farmer knows that land is materially i'll
jurcd by stock running on them in all
kinds Of weather. have seen my bottom
lands in the spring so troddcn by stock
during the winter that it was almost i'm
possible to get them in condition for the
crop---not a square foot but one or more
hoof prints, deep in the soil. l am Salts
fled that We loose more than we gain by
lpasturinS our lands. Again, ho says if
you want to see stock decrease most
beautifully make the change; that many
farmers would kill halt, and those who
could not provide pasture for nll.
Well, be it so, better have half than
!. | the present number Of scrubs.
l have three COWS giving milk at present
all young and I will give them all for one
that will give four gallons of milk per
day. Let US examine the other side and
soc if stock arc and will decrease faster by
tho present system than the one propos-
ed. A and b are n%eighbors, A has q ten
acre field in corr with a poor fence, Is
has a cow which trcsspasscs on said field.
Now it would cost y perhaps fifty dollars
to build q good fence around his fold.
SO it is cheaper for him to kill and pay j
for his COW than to build his fence, and
in this way stock will certainly decrease.
Again he says that as for ncighbors join
ing and milking q pasture in common
would do very well. but suppose neither
Of them had the land to spare what then ?
docs not this look very much like Little
River" was on his wi side of tho fence
and saying to his neighbor I need all my
land for cotton and corn, SO you must
furnish me pasturago for my stock.
Now in conclusion, I would say that
have no idea that the law will pass III
Calhoun township, at present, but it will
eventually have to be adopted.
THE OTHER SIDE