The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1877-06-22
Pasturing Stock upon the Public Roads.


Pasturing Stock upon the Public Roads.
Mr.. EDITOR: In your issue of June 1st, in
slant, under head of "Court Proceedings" l OBJ
serve that decision was announced by Judge
Walters, Of the Circuit Court, which must
settle the question as to the right that has been
assumed and acted upon by many persons in
allowing their stock 10 run at large upon the
public roads.
The brief notice of the decision referred to, as
given in your paper, does not explain fully the
nature OF the case under consideration. 1t
simply states that an owner has perfect right
to drive his stock along the public roads from
one point TO another: But the public has no
right of pasturing along the public roads" -
This latter announcement, from the highest
judicial tribunal in the county, is the point that
we are particularly interested in. 1t is posi-
tion that we have assumed and openly advocated
for many years. 1t is nothing more than sound
common sense, and therefore should be the law.
The land which is used as public roads was
condemned solely for that purpose; and the
moment that it ceases to be used for that pur-
pose, or is attempted to be used for other pur-
poses, it legally reverts TO its former owner, or
to his or her heirs-at-law. There is no dispute
whatever about the law upon this point The
public roads are public roads and nothing else.-
They are not COW pastures, nor hog pastures,
nor places for people to leave their wagons and
carts in through the night, as many do to the
danger of the life or limb of passers-by in the
dark. These roads are for the convenience of
the "publc;" that Is the people generally who
wish TO pass and repass from one point 10 an
other either for business or pleasure.
We were not previously aware of the nature
of the specific law upon the subject, but we
knew the dictates of common sense would hold
such to be the law, whether it was written or
unwrittcn.
Judge Waters decision is opportune for it
settles question of still greater importance.
which has of late greatly agitatated the public
mind, particularly the minds of land owners.
1t settles the question of fencing the high,cays
agai,,st other peoples stock. If a man has no
right TO allow his stock to run at large
along public roads, of course he has no
has no right to the pasture of the adjacent fields
whether they be well fenced or not fenced at all
"Road stock" as they are called, that is the
cattle, hogs and other domestic animals that
are regularly pastured upon the highways dur
ing the spring, summer and autumn months
are VIGOROUSLY roguish; their necessities COM
pei them to be SO; they are thrown upon their
own resources; they must lie ("root hog or
die!") and when the food along the roads be-
comes too scanty for their subsistence, they look
with longing eyes at the tempting grass, wheat
or corn whose fourishing verdure they can see
through the fences, until finally they discover
weak place in the fence, and their scruples be-
ing overcome by hunger, that necessity that
knows no law, they plunge over or through the
fence, and satisfy their appetites. The barrier
human nature is easily broken again, even
though made stronger than at first, until finally,
after discovering how easy it is to obtain album
dant food, they no longer wait until driven by
the pangs of hunger, but disdaining to travel in
search of the precarious road pastures they
break down the fences and enter at once "upon
the green fields and pastures new"
This is the common experience that every
land owner has who borders upon the public
roads in neighborhoods where stock are allowed
to run at large. Notwithstanding the great loss
suffered in the annual destruction of crops by
"road stock" and the immense amount Of
money annually expended in the county in keep
ing up outside fences, there are yet to be found
plenty of people who whine about "thc poor
man not being permitted to keep COW to sup
ply milk for his children"
Politicians, who are candidates for Office, when
asked if they will use their influence to protect
land holders against trespassing cattle and hogs
from the public roads, will soon assure you that
that would be unpopular" that the poor man
would not vote for them Now, we would like
some of them to explain to our satisfaction what
greater privileges the poor man is entitled to than
the well-to.do man, or even the rich man. There
is certainly no law or justice in permitting
mans poverty to injure his neighbours property
If such were the case the neghbor should Ger.
tainlyhave the privilege of discriminating against
as he uses for pasture, and his corn fields or his
wheat fields No man, be he poor or rich, has
any right to own or keep any animal that he is
unable TO supply food for; and he has no right
to pasture the public roads than he has to pasture
his neighbor's fields Let this law once be estab-
lished and rigidy enforced and it would be found
that the money saved in fencing against ROAD
stock, would more than pay the entire amount
annually required for keeping up the county
public schools.
Even in our village, those who have q small
lot, with painted gate and whitewashed fence,
if they are able by their constant vigilance to
prevent actual intrusion upon their premises,
which many are not, they must daily submit
without redress-to the annoyance and sore irri-
tation of temper, of having lot of hogs smear
ing their gates with the mire in which they have
wallowed, and otherwise making the exterior
unsightly by roofing out every spear of grass
that grows along the fence. These hogs, too,
and to their shame be it said, are owned, in some
instances, by men who have many broad acres
of their own and yet they permit them to run
detriment of the purses and the charitable feel
ings of dozens of their neighbors, utterly for
getful of the golden rule.
in some counties in Virginia, / am told, and
probably elsewhere, the law provides in the
matter of fencing that each man shall be requir-
cd to fence only what may be sufficient 10 Keep
his stock upon his ocn premises. This, certainly,
comprehends the whole common-sense view of
the subject in nutshell. Every man is required
only, whether he belongs to the privileged class
-tnc pOOT-OT inc ITCH, 10 icncc against his own
stock. There his obligation ends. The damages
committed by other peoples stock are actlonabe
at law.
/ remember reading some mouths ago the
published report of the Deer Creek Farmers
Club, in which was discussed the subject of out
side, or road fencing; the increased cost and the
yearly diminishing supply of fencing material.
1t is to be hoped that the Farmers Clubs, and
Others interested in fencing, will take "a new
departure from Judge Waters exposition of
law, and not rest until it is clearly established
to every ones satisfaction that the lar express
ly forbids the use of the public roads for pur
poses Of pasture, and does not require any man
to erect fences to keep off other peoples stock.
Let the subject be agtated until "he who runs
may read" If have inexperienced, or mis-
interpreted Judge Walters decision, l shall be
pleased to have an authoritative correction.
VS.. F.
DARLINGTON, Md, June IL, 1877.
p. ST. was pleased TO notice in your issue of
June 8, instant, some very appropriate remarks
upon "Pasturing Cattle on the Highway"
copied from the PhiladSph Times. F.