The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-03-01
SleehsLAw.
EFFECT on THE WEST.

/ GFFECf OA THE W E29T.
| The secessity OF enclosing with fence
| Is the baRr Of Western farming. A mon
bnya g quarter section, and is compelled
to make either one or two miles o! iencs
the quantity depending on sht circurn-
stance whether he "joins fencei" or not.
| He may wish 20 raise wheat anil keep no
stock; but he is compelled 10 fence Just
the same, TO defend himself aI.ainat his
neighbore cattle. If they have not r,ore
than fifay head, it will be cheaper for him
to 90 upon their farms aud eacIoan their
pastures, than, 90 build his ewa Boundary
| fence.
| The squatter finds TO his amazemeh.
thet his fence will cost Eve shines rs much
as he's land did not less than four hun.
dred do'iars mile. He has teams, tools
and boys sufficient to raise fifty to hun
dred ae,t=s of wheat, but not having
money enough 10 fence it, is driven TO
letting his own rich land lie idle. Farm.
ers can about as we'll afc.d to pay ten
dellarB per acre for farm, snS %
obliged 70 fence only erough 10 restrain
their own stock, as tp pay fve dollars per
acre, aud be compelled to fence against
the stock Of the State. ..,d -,..s
Many men :-ho rent all their lives,
would buy land and pay for IL, we're It
not for the serious expense OF fencing.
The writer in the Illinois Report, already
quoted, rays: about three. .fourths of
all the 'cussin' in Illinois may be fairly
charged TO the practice of fencing crops,
rather than stock. Had Illinois passed q
Law thirty, twenty, o. even ten years
since, tha. stock should be fenced, or
otherwise taken care Of by their owners,
/ do not believe there would be an acre
Of goud prairie uncultiyated in the State.
| know this IL q strong statement when
We think how many acres of the best
land in the State are yet lying out but
shaae who have lived In the State but the
last ten years have seen miles Of prairie
come pnder, the plnw- right ar6unil them,
even nnder the crop fencing incubus.
During the whea: mania Of few years
since, large portion of the prairies Of
central lllinois wonld have been turned
bottom Hide up, had it not been for the
expense @: fencing. &
Michigan pine to keep our corn and
wheat from going off our farms to prev
on our neighbors' hogs anu cattle p
Under uniform law compelling every
man to take care of his stock, and in
suring him against harm from his neigh
bors, it il certain that the population of
the Western States would have been some
millions greater than now, while their
wealth. would have proportienately in
creased. Moreover, the fafms would
have been better cultivated, the houses
better built, the barns larger and more
comfortable, and the average stock of
purer breed and higher quality. Let
every Legislature say to every settler,
Take care Of yOnr own stock, and we
will see that your neighbor takes care of
his" and NO farms will be opened
along the frontier where one now is.
The West seems to be. pervcrsely blind
to it's own interest in this matter: but il
will not much longer be "the poor ,nnn's
asylum" unless il shall open its eyes,
and, ~ relieving him Of the enormous
"fenc INK" place the virgin soil within
his Teacn.
INJUSTICE OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM.
The proof of the bad economy and the
bad policy of our present system of fenc-
ing, has suggested, also, ito Injustice. To
compel A TO fence aghinst B'a catt1c, 10
morally and socially wrong. It inverts
the relation of things. 1t takes property
from A without rendering him an equiv
alent. Corn, wheat, fruit trees, vegeta.
bles, stay at home quietly, trespassing on
nobody, and interfering with nobody.
Shall We Put the omuB of fencing on
stationary or on locomotive property :?
Shall we burden with the cost of fencing
the man whose property 5tays where it 10
put, aud cannot getaway? or on the man
1 whose property hds legs, horne and grind
ers, 9Th graniverous appetite9
! The writer IN the I'lino:s Report asks
"Is there any good reason why one man
should be compelled 70 build from oneto
ten miles Of fence to protect his crop,
from his nighbors' stock, when such
neighbeys might do it with one-tenth the
fence :? Can any one give me good rea.
son why the Law should be that man
shall stand guard over his one hundred
and sixty acres of grain, rather than his
! neighbor over his one cow? Does, or
doee it not, seem right that every man
shall take care of his own stock? On
this hinges the whole question. lily ides
in that every man shall take care of his
own atoek; end, ls o reosollery, that@he
shall be compelled to make only so much
so little fence as f,ecesBafy TO dc, that
thing" {fAy2
THE Law OF FENCING.
Law" ssys Blackstone, ais o rule of
eooiety, authorizing what To- right and
fofbiddiag what is wrong" So wo shall
not expect to find the law, in the present
case, commanding. what has been shown
to be fisgnanely unjust. WeaEFe not dis.
| appointed. The cnmmon Ia9g does not
require esay Eisn as IlaHea aai3st stock.
Its spigit is To- ta&fe iegg esgss isssF of Htock
resbonstbiS fSt ais seaations tlIEE Il
shall cofnmit. Hans. .s:;;ss
i
sRILila TEE OH zSAnn. There is q
constant buying anissiiiiiips 81 r iaEpD 60
ipg,on from year to year in our e6untry.
"EAs.e ses:!ss=asss on thH part of the farm.
er, and this desire to Ihsnge o present
location for another one. hundreds Of
miles OF, is 30 frequently Witnessed in
our day that NO cease 60 wonder att. In
the stirae pfouF forefathessd dwk q s s512au {
was settled on farm, he cohini6hly ebhg
tinued on it through life, and then leie it
for hio son.s In times gone by, the Same
farm was frat occupied by the grand
father, and 30 on BY son and grandson.