The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-07-12

cattle, or even more, rs allowed by law,
and your few hogs? Five acres, we take
it, would be ample pasturage for the
number of stock specified; so that on
score of economy of labor, you would
by that single operation save the fencing
of thirty acres of land. And then your
stock would do better, and always be at
your call where you could see after them
and provide for them in case of sickness
or otherwise. On the other hand, if you
decide to fence in your thirty-fve acres
of land, and turn your few head of cattle
and hogs to roam at large in barren
range, they derive no advantage from
this extensive range. which they would
not more surely obtain in your enclosed
pasture. There is now no outside range
that is worth the name. The broom
sedge is the only inducement, and that
in general range where everybody's
cattle brouze, and under our parched
summer suns, soon become dry and un-
nutritious. Then, again, in the fall of
the year the half.starved cattle and hogs
roam around the fields, and if they find
single broken panel of fence, in they
go, to be dogged and perhaps killed by
those who will not vote for the law, but
who practically have "no fence" Any
fence less than lawful fence is, under
the present law, no fence at all; and these
people, many of them, seem to glory in
their half-fenced farms, and whose only
protection in the fall of the year for their
ripened crops is pack of hungry ours,
who will in few minutes tear, and main,
and sometimes destroy, their neighbors'
stock that unluckily make break
through or over rotten and low fence.
Then, on the score of good neighborship,
vote for the mo fence" law. As matters
now stand, there is virtually no protec-
ton to the landlord or tenant, either, for
their ripened crops, after a hard sum-
mer's work. There is not dozen farms
in the County enclosed with a lawful
fence; hence, in the eyes of the law, less
than lawful fence is no fence at all. If
your neighbors' stock commit depreda-
tions on your crop, you have no redress
but to stari suara with dog and gun,
and then you would be liable in an action
at law for any damage done to the stock
under such circumstances. So, if you
wish to preserve neighborly and good
feeling in the community, vote for every
man to be responsible for his own stock.
He need not necessarily remove any of
his outside fences, as many farmers have
ia suficiency of inside ones to enclose
pastures for his own and his renters
stock. Can anything be more moderate
or reasonable than such a proposition? I?
There is but one serious objection to the
proposed change in the fence law, and
chat is the want of good running water
on many of our ridge farms. But it is a
notable fact that on most of our highest
ridge lands there are depressions and low
wet places, which, in the winter and
spring, is abundantly supplied with rain
water, and for the dry summer months
shallow and cheap wells could be con-
structed at very little cost, wherever
needed.
To the landlord we will say few
words, and then bring this communica-
tion to close. Why should the land
holder oppose the "no fence" law, as
some of them are now doing? One will
say, II have plenty of timber to last for
my generation, and let posterity look out
for ITSELF" This principle has had full
sway long enough for the past hundred
years of our existence, and surely the
ruined, SCARED and gutted fields, the
destruction of forests aud forest timber
during that time is enough to cause the
thoughtful man to stand appalled,. If
the same or similar policy is to be pur-
sued for another hundred years, not
forest tree will be left to tell the sad tale
of reckless destruction, and ghastly and
forsaken old fields will greet US on
every side. What patrimony to leave
to our posterity! Let us "right-about-
face !" and spend the next hundred years
in endeavoring to repair the waste and
destruction of the last hundred. Let US
husband and preserve our forests and
forest trees, for ornament, for health, for
fertility, for comfort along the wayside
and around our dwellings, and our chill
dren will rise up and call us blessed.
Suppose you have enough timber for
yourself and children, the greater the
reason why you should unite with your
more unfortunate neighbors in policy
absolutely indispensable to them. In
doing so you make no sacrlhces whatever,
for having an abundance of timber you
can fence up your stock without tearing
down the fences around your fields, if
you are not disposed to do SO.
One other argument and We are done.
It is very evident that in this part Of: the
country, at least, we must abandon the
all-cotton policy. What shall be the
substitute? Small grain, grasses and
stock. Not an increase so much in num-
bers of stock, but an improved quality.
Why should any man milk three head of
cattle when one COW we'll kept and we'll
fed would give more milk and richer
butter than all three under our present
system? To improve materially the
= L g. k,,x &I,o ,,ar,,