Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1877-01-11
Cite Farm aud fireside.
(Orlglnal.1
AGRICULTURE LAWS.

- (Onglnal.]
AGRICULTURE LAWS.
Anciently, the question which most engag-
ed the attention of the legislators and rulers
of nations, was how can the supply of food be
made equal to the demand? In other words,
the chief subject of legislation, in many of the
most civilized nations Of antiquity, was how
can the people BE- fed Things have changed
with the march of time. The all-abscrbipg
question, with no inconsidersble number Of
the legislators and rulers of the nations of the
present day, is how can the people be feeced
and the rulers made rich? 1t is true that the
advances which have been made in the science
of commerce and the improved modes of
transportation, have, to very considerable
extent, relieved rulers of the burden of devils
ing means for feeding those whom they rule.
On the contrary, rulers of modern times de-
vote the best energies of their minds in devils
ing means and in concocting schemes by
which the people can be, peaceably or other
wise, forced to feed government officials in the
most luXurlant manner.
In America, where the people enjoy 80
much liberty, and at the same time have so
little correct knowledge of what liberty means,
it is exceedingly unpopular in any legislator
to attempt anything in the way of law making
which is calculated to advance the interest of
the whole country! To save his own head,
he must be the faithful slave of party.
With his party, be that party what it may, he
must live or die The welfare of the whole
country, the prosperity Of all the people, is
nothing, compared with the interest of his
party.
It is admitted that agriculture is regarded
in our country as proper subject of legisla'
ton, and some attention is devoted to it. The
country, the whole country, receives some ad'
vantage from this legislation; but the indi-
viduals most pro6ted by the agricultural bu-
reau are the printer of its documents and its
other officials.
No doubt need be entertained by any one,
whether it is within the province of State leg
islatures to enact laws which shall govern and
control those engaged in agricultural pursuits.
Beyond all controversy, the right has been
conceded from the earliest period of the State
governments. In our State, we have law
defining what is lawful fence, what consti-
tutes trespass, and multitude Of other en-;
actments, which prove that it is the conceded
right of legislators to control, within restrict
ed bounds, the agricultural affairs of the
State.
The legislator has the rights and interests
of two parties committed to his care. The
individual is one party, and all the individu.
ais whom he represents, is the other party.
The rights of the whole can only be protected
by protecting the rights of the. individual.
The whole is made up of single individuals.
It is no difficult matter for legislator, or
combination of legislators, to enact code of
laws which will work to the advantage of the
few and to the serious detriment of the many.
A parent may-many parents do-confer
many advantages upon one child, to the sc,
rious detriment of all his other children.
Legislators may do the same thing in refer.
ence to those for whom they are called to leg
islate
The interest of the whole country demands
thss the ouprly of fnnd be equal to tAo-oS"
sumption. To pass law requiring every cit
izen to engage in some useful occupation, by
which he may procure livelihood, would
not be very agreeable to multitudes of free
Americans. They claim the right to do as
they please. In one of the best regulated
and most successful governments, such law
was enacted and put into rigid execution, and
however un-American it may sound, we boldly
declare that such a law ought to be enacted
and enforced in every State in the Union.
Such law, rigbteously administered, would
break up those dens Of gamblers and swind,
lers, and make thieves and night-prowlers ac-
countable to society for what they eat.
Another question which demands, at this
time, the serious attention of our legislators,
is what has been designated "the fence law"
In other words, does the interest of the whole
people of the State demand that the present
fence law should be so changed as to require
stock to, be enclosed and not permitted to run
at large? The farmers of our country should
think about this subject candidly, and legis'
lators be instructed in accordance with their
deliberate convictions. Strict justice demands
that some action be taken with respect to this
question. The rights of individuals should
be sacredly guarded. Every mans land has
certain metes and bounds. In few instan'
ces, these bounds are marked by barriers
which prevent intrusion; in others, no such
barriers exist. Where these barriers do not
exist-whether they be fences or walls, rivers
or creeks-the rightful owner Of the land en-
Joys no more advantages from it, under the
present fence law, than every other individual
in the community. In fact, he has this sim
pie right to it beyond his neighbors- the right
to clear it if it be forest, fence and and work il
at any future time. Until it is in some way
fenced, it is the common property of any one
who may see fit to use it as pasture ground
The purchaser has prospective right to ii
which his neighbors have not, and that is all
Is this just q? Is it right for few to pasture
the stock of a whole community? Every one
knows that the practice of the present system
prevents uncultivated lands from improving
The owners of the common pasture grounds