The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-07-12
sslls ggDa asglilgElseEs.
syhieh Shall It -, Fence tho stock OF
Renee the Cyopsa

~ ~ - AfHNaOeAf fAtsuo uE9SuoStoi1 W tuio
{ ftnpostasst question:, there should be no
aPpea! TO the passions or prejudices of
one class ,of our community as arrayed
against another cIass. For instance, in
somo quarters III the discussion Of the
practical question, 9s itoswhich is best
G,As all elAsaes nfhA asl..A.l.y 70 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 tho cultivators
OF the soil, whether iaborer or employer,
are 30 intimately allied and 10 perfect
sympathy on this and all other questions
pertaining to the agricultural interests Of
the country, that TIC man who attempts
to array one class against the other only
betrays his own ignorance. SO far MS
the present question of fence or no fence
is concerned, to show that there is no
diversity of interests, IA between the
. tenant and landlord, but only diversity
Fofviews as to what would be for tie 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 intelligent renters are
taking sides in favor Of it. On this ques-
ton of fence or no fence, whatever poll
cy is best for .he landlord is beat for the
tenant, ialid rice vcrsd. 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 adc:'.ion Of the proposed change
ifgtsfe fe1ie. Law asa plank In their plat
form Of principles for l.he campaign of
last fall. So, on the other :lnnd, the
Democrats, when they succeeded to pow.
er, deemed this question of so much i'm.
portance agriculturally that they havo
submitted the question 10 The decision Of
the people of the whole State by town
ships and counties. And it il we'll that
IL IS 30. e is no political question; 1t is
no proposed class legislation. 1t is sim
ply and purely an agricultural question,
affecting alike tie interests of all con-
cerned in agriculture; aud rs such the
discussion of the question should be en-
tered into with calmness, with no bitter
ncsgr or sacrimony, or party or clnss spirit,
but aiEnPly witha sinosre dasire to reach
favorable conclusion, looking to tho
removal Of every hindrance possible to
the resuacitation 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 end counties.
This, I think, Is . mistake. There are
some counties, not only In the mountain
Gus regions, but also along the coast
lines, whose extensive grazing lands af.
fnrding nm abundant nj Amply Amply &c aen.i.h.-
ing grasses nearly the whole gear round
for large numbers Of cattle and sheep,
would make Che establishment of gen.
erai stock law very onorous and deleteri-
Gus to them. And while such law rs
ia proposed might meet exactly siio ne.
cesaities Of alarge majority of the coun-
ties of the State, it would not be tho
desire OF those counties to oppress or
ipjure unnecessarily any portion of the
people of our State. Hence, the man.
ner in which the question has been sub.
.=s'sssssa 70 sae pe0Hie by the less Lsgisla.
ture is the fairest aud hest, all thinge
considered, that could have been devised.
That some Inconvenience will be expe-
rienced by peoplo living along the town.
ship. county or State lines there is no
doubt. Hence, TO diminish that incon.
venicnce as much as possible, It would
be better FOR the people of Anderson, for
instance, TO carry tho whole county for
the proposed change, BY carrying o ma.
iority Of this teanshipss And. besides.
IL Is gaita pFphabie ihat ire sa:a.n:.s
Townships along tho Pickeps hno can be
carried for the proposed change. cspeoi-
4 ally ifit 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 sxpepse of building
line Offence on Che County line. That
such fair proposition would meet with
favor by our County Commissioners, there
on be not particle of doubt.
With these preliminary remarks, we
will now proceed to discuss the practical
operation Of % proposed change In our
pressE.t ssss.es l:s~; and 20 5ttsw, as No
believe We can, that our present condi-
tlon as 9 farming people makes Il 10 our
Interest to fence tho stock and not tho
erSps. 81
It ia quite evident, and needs no nrgu-
s1ept 70 prove tho imposition, that when
Che present fence law was enacted requir-
ing farmers % fence their crops instead
Of stock, The condition OF our country,
and the interests Of oar people agrieul,l
tusally, we're exactly the revefss in every
material aspect Of our present condition.
in tho early settlement of our country,
when the present fence Law was enacted,
3 iutysb anu sImUer lands we're superahun-
dsnt; ileilse, there vie no pressing ne.
rpsattst Gar s.t,srrs.,. t;s,s.s ~ y g