The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-08-23
BOUNDARY FENCES.


Of congratulaticn that eleven of the SIX
teen townships in the County have adop-
ted the new act on the fence law, and il
is much to be regretted that the remain
ing five townships failed 10 adopt it. AS
it was not uncommon objection that
thu vote should be submitted to the
County AZ a whole, and not to the town
ships separately, doubtless these five,
under the lead Of the others, would now
adopt the act, if they had the opportuni.
ty of another vote. This may not be
until December, if indeed another and
second election can be had under the act
before it is amended by the Legislature.
| very much doubt if .such second elec.
tion can be had without an amendment, or,
new act authorizing it. In the mean
time, as the law now stands, it will be-
come the duty Of the County Commits
sioners, prior to the first day of January
next, to fence in as whole these town.
ships that have adopted the act, by erect
ing fences on the borders, north and
south, contiguous to tho territory that
adheres to the old law. Fortunately. as
the townships are laid off in tiers Of
fours, running north and south and cast
and west, this gives us straight line on
the south or Abbeville line and running
east on the northern border an equally
convenient line to the Williamson town
ship, which rejected the net. With the
exception Of this township this line will
embrace the second tier of townships on
the north. The Saiuda River on the
east, the Savannah and Seneca on the
west form the natural barriers or fences
east and west.
But in requiring the territory adopting
the change to be fenced in, venture 10
suggest that the act is Objectionable and
inconsistent, aud in this particular should
be altered and amended. The change is
radical one, and means that the stock
must be fenced in and not fenced out
fenced in or enclosed by the o,cner thereof
on his own land, and not fenced out by
others TO exclude them from their lands.
That every man must restrain his own
stock from trespassing upon the property
of bis neighbor, instead of requiring his
| ncighbors to barricade their lands against
his stock. 'Tis wise and wholesome
law, and draws the distinction suuarely
between meum and fuun,, saying to every
one, you can no longer use and subsidzc
your neighbours unenclosed land to Craze
your cattle upon.
This being the law between individ-
uals residing within the territory accept
ing the change, why require them as an
aggregation or community to do that
from which they are relieved individual
ly. If A and B, living under the new
law, have to fence in their stock, why
should they be required to aid in fencing
out the stock of G and D just across the
border of community adhering to the
old law? If G and DIS stock (so TO
speak, have right to run at large, A
and BIS unenclosed lands arc just as truly
protected from trespass Would it be
any more unjust TO require tine former to
restrain their stock from trespassing upon
the lands of the latter, than to require
the latter to protect or fence their lands
against such trespass. One lew is as
sacred as the other and if the old can
claim for its vindication long established
usage, the new certainly has the advan-
tage in natural right and justice. If
there must be line fence to keep the
stock Of one community OF the lands OF
the other, does not common sense and
common justice require that the burthen
of erecting it should at least be shared
by those whose stock are to be fenced
out?
The inquiry is very suggestive of the
plain and naked right which underlies
the new law, and once recognized, it is
difficult to restrict or deny its general ap-
nlication. To extend the illustration
just used: if it be Wong in principle for
the stock of A to tsespass upon the uncn-
closed lands of B, within the new terri
tory, it is just as wrong in principle for
the stock of G and D, outside, to 30 tres
pass. 'Tis the wrong that makes it &
trespass, and the law of fencing can't
mako it any the less wrong. And this
is just what it amounted to under the old
law, which all the while "winked at the
trcspass." Under this view of the right,
would it not be more consistent with JUS
tice to require of residents Of the town
ships or counties, adjacent tc those adopt
ing the new act, to restrain their stock
from trespassing on the territory of the
latter, and if for this purpose line fence
must needs be erected to erect it them
selves 'Tis their stock that has to be
fenced out of o territory that the law de-
clares shall be protected from trespas1
without fence. Or, perhaps, the simple
plan would be by relieving the townships
or counties making the change from the
necessity of building line fence, leave
it to the contiguous communities to adapt
themselves to the law. Under this con-
dition of things the stock on one side of
the border being fenced in could not
trespass across the border, and the lands
on the same aide being protected from
trespass, the stock on the other side must
he kept of. This is fair, and equal jus.