The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-07-12
AaaeGs0ll g2atRlliger.elel
.aCOMELETU REASON TOGETHER %
Which Shall it be, Fence the Stock or
Fence the Cropsf

SssCOME LET us kEASOa TUGEthETs.>'
which Shall it be, Fence the Stock or
Fence the Cropsf
= Mr. EDITOR: In-the discussion Of this
important question, there should be no
appeal to the passions or prejudices of
one class .of our community asgarrayed
against another class. For instance, in
some quarters in the discussion of the
practical question, as ite4which is best
for all classes of our community; TO fence
in or fence out the stock, the attempt is
sedulously made to array the tenant
against the landlord, as though their in
terests were antagonistic. No greater
mistake could possibly be made than
that. The interests of all the cultivators
of the soil, whether laborer or employer,
are so intimately allied and in perfect
sympathy on this and all other questions
pertaining to the agricultural interests OF
the country, that the man who attempts
/; to array one class against the other only
betrays his own ignorance. So far as
the present question Of fence or no fence
is concerned, to show that there is no
diversity of interests, as between the
tenant and landlord, but only diversity
sofyiews as to what would be for the best
for both classes, it is only necessary to
note the fact that in almost every neigh
borhood some of the strongest opponents
of the proposed change are the largest.
land-holders, while on the other hand
many of the most intelligens renters are
taking sides in favor oft. On thisques-
tiou of fence or no fence, whatever poll
cy is best for the landlord is best for the
tenant, and uice versG. Neither can any
political party aspect be attached to the
question, for two years ago the Republi-
cans submitted the question to the voters
of Anderson, and afterwards incorpora-
ted the adoption Of the proposed change
ilrthe fence law as a plank in their plat
form Of principles for the campaign sof
last fall. So, on the ether hand, the
Democrats, when they succeeded to pow
er, deemed this question Of so much i'm.
portance agriculturally that they have
submitted the question to the decision of
the people of the whole State by town.
ships and counties. And it is we'll that
it is so. It is no political question; it is
no proposed class legislation. 1t is sim
ply and purely an agricultural question,
affecting alike the interests of all con-
cerned IN agriculture; and as such the
discussion of the question should be en-
tered into with calmness, with no bitter
ness, or acrimony, or party or class spirit,
butsimply withsa sincere desire to reach
a favorable conclusion, looking to the
removal of every hindrance possible to
the resuscitation and rejuvenation of the
agricultural interests of our State.
And then, again, it is argued by some
that it would have been far better to
have made the proposed change matter
of State policy, and not have authorized
its adoption by townships and counties.
This, / think, is mistake. There are
some counties, not onlyin the mountain
Gus regions, but also along the coast
lines, whose extensive grazing lands af-
fording an abundant supply of nourish-
ing grasses nearly the whole year round
for large numbers of cattle and sheep,
would make the establishment Of a gen.
eral stock law very onerous and deleteri-
Gus to them. And while such a law as
is proposed might meet exactly the me-
cessities of large majority of the coun-
ties of the State, it would not be the
desire of those counties to oppress or
injure unnecessarily any portion of the
people of our State: Hence, the man
ner in which the question has been SUBJ
mitted to the people by the last Legisla-
ture is the fairest and best, all things
considered, that could have been devised.
That some inconvenience will be expe-
rienced by people living along the town.
ship, county or State lines there is no
doubt. Hence, to diminish that incon-
venience as much as possible, it would
be better for the people of Anderson, for
instance, to carry the whole county for
the proposed change, by carrying ma
jofity of the townships. And, besides,
it is quite probable that the adjoining
townships along the Pickens line can be
carried for the proposed change. cspeci-
ally if it were known that the County
Commissioners of Anderson would unite
with those townships in building joint
line of fence along their borders, thereby
dispensing with the expense of building
line of fence on the County line. That
such fair proposition would meet with
favor by our County Commissioners, there
cap be not a particle of doubt.
With these preliminary remarks, we
will now proceed to discuss the practical
operation of the proposed change in our
present fence law, and to show, as we
believe we can, that our present condi-
tion as farming people makes it to our
interest to fence the stock and not the
crops.
It is quite evident, and needs no argu-
ment, to, prove the proposition, that when
the present fence law was enacted requir-
ing farmers to fence their crops instead
of stock, the condition of our country,
and the interests of our people agricul-
A. a,,.,x,