The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-08-16
now is, unchanged9 BUTT is suggested


before the courts are unknown. When
this law was enacted, not one head of
cattle was without its keeper, and the
preamble of the act recites that "persons
cultivating corn, &C., are esilly minded
people, enticing cattle, &C." No court
would judge any owner Of cattle running
on wood land free from trespass. A
strict construction exempts only Guilt
vated lands from trespass if uninclosed.
But the stock owner says to the farmer, |
am not at the expense of fencing stock
under the present laws, and he is not.
We are on the same level rs to pastures.
The owner of cultivated fields is COM
PEELED to fence to prevent another's cat
tie from eating his grass. 1t is an equal
ity in form but not in fact. This re-
minds me of the anecdote of the two
boys who were sleeping together.
Thomas called to his mother that John
had half of the bed, to which she replied
that is all right. But, expostulated
Thomas, John has his half right out of
the middle.
The relative cost of fencing stock in
and stock out has been exhibited by Mr..
Crayton. It has been said that figures
never lie. I do not believe that for
nothing lies as much as figures except
facts. But these figures and facts about
fencing are true. The United States GEN.
sus shows that fences in this country cost
$25, 100000. The cost of repairs at two
per cent. is $50O,000 per year. This is,
remember, not to enlarge the area of cul-
tivation, but to restrict it. On 100 acres
the Virginia worm fence, which is so
dear to all of us, and runs along like a
horizontal cork screw, extracting the life
blood of our farmers, occupies five per
cent. of our inclosed lands, or 5 acres in
every 100 acres. There are 100000
acres of land in South Carolina, and of
these 100000 are under fence as culti-
waited land, so that 250,000 acres of cul-
tivatable land are occupied by worm
fences, costing $500, 900, to restrict the area
of the field which the farmer cultivates.
If he who causes two sprigs of wheat to
grow where but one grew before is a
benefactor of his race, what kindly
and grateful thoughts must people have
for him who causes one sprig of grass to
grow where two grew before. Disguise
It as you may, the advocates of the old
system, that oppose the new fence law,
are asserting pure and simple COM
munism of the uninclosed land. Suppose
the old law is unconstitutional, as the
courts will decide, for they will enforce
the estray law, you have rejected the
new law which provides for pasture, and
the old law is unconstitutional because it
conflicts with Section Is, Article 1, of the
Constitution, which guarantees man
the use of his own property without
molestation. The present law denies the
right of damages for unfenced land that
is not cultivated and trespassed on, but the
owner has a right of action for trespass
upon his uncultivated land. The small
landowner and tenant, who have no place
for pasture, will, if the new law is re-
jected, be at the mercy of the large land
owners. Two-thirds of these tenants
favor the new law in my section. The
men opposed to it are large owners of
woods. The cattle are now continually
sounding the fences for their weak parts,
and are attracted by the growing crops,
but new pasture fences will be stronger
and under the frequent observation of
their owner, and the chances of tres
pass will be much less. Mecklenburg
County, N. c., one year ago adopted the
new system. The canvass was very Bit
ter, but those who opposed it then are its
strongest advocates now. Suppose you
have twenty hogs on the highway, and
they enter the field of some one without
fence, as the law is to-day the owner
of the hogs is liable for all damages.
The law does not require any one to
fence against anything but cattle, horses
and mules. This does not include sheep,
goats or hogs. AS the law now is the
landowner can take up trespassing stock
and notify its owner in six hours, and if
he refuses to pay for it he can advertise
and sell it. Under the new law no man
can sell without suit at law to fix his
damages, where the parties cannot agree.
In conclusion, for this is an extended
subject, state that was approached by
a colored citizen to-day who is concerned
about this matter, and is most heartily
opposed to the new law. He suggested
that if the new law is adopted it gives
the right of pasture, but the employer
might discharge him in the middle of
the year and leave him without home.
Let us look at its probability. Suppose
a farmer has a hand and two head of
stock. The farmer discharges his tenant
in June for good cause. Does it follow
that the laborer will be unprotected, and
left on the highway with his cattle :?
No. That stock will be liable to run in
the uninclosed crops of others, and all
farmers of the neighborhood will be in
terested in furnishing pastures for them
until the laborer gets home.
There are those who are either igno-
rant or bent on mischief who are telling
the colored people that they will be forced
to sell their stock for almost nothing to
get rid of them, or to pay high prices for
the privilege of pasture. Let US judge
the future BY the light of the past. We
might as we'll allege that as children of
the colored laborer do no work the farm
ers would force them to get rid of their
children. And yet they are supported
by advances from the farmers. Men
stood up here in the churches, in the
woods and fields last autumn when the
leaves in crimson and gold were falling,
and told you that if Hampton became
Governor the ku klux whistle would be
heard in the land, summoning the negro
to receive the ku klux Lash, and that you
would find shelter in the woods or under
rocks. Has time vindicated these false
prophets? No. Through the thirty thou
sand square miles of this once more
sovereign State the humble and lowly
will sleep tonight as secure as if sur
rounded by an army with banners. The
law, girded in the panoply of sovereign