Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1877-06-28

paid If subscribers do not wish their papers dis
continued, the date maalst be keptin Advance.
Cash.-It must be distinctly understood that
our terms for subscription, advertising and JoD-
work, are cash in advance.
THE FENCE LAW.
The probability is that an opportunity will
soon be given the voters of the several town
ships in each county in the State, to declare
for or against the proposed change in the fence
law. It would be we'll for each voter to give
this subject that consideration which it merits
1t is not political question at all, and poll
tics should not be dragged into it. At the
same time, it is question which concerns all
classes in society, from the humblest laborer
to the highest official.
Before deciding as to the right or wrong,
advantages or disadvantages, contemplated by
the law, it should first be distinctly under
stood what the proposed law contemplates ef
fecting. Clearly, nothing more is proposed to
be done by the new fence law than is done by
the law now in force. At present, every plant
er is required, by law, to enclose his crops and
thus secure them from the depredations of his
neighbors stock. The proposed law-the law
respecting the adoption of which the voters Of
the several townships will be called in short
time to vote-contemplates protecting the
crops of the planters of the country by requir-
ing the stock to be enclosed. 1t is true that
the law, as it now stands, does not compel
any one to fence his fields, but necessity does
The law now in existence regards all unfenced
lands as common pasture grounds In order
that the planter may be able to receive DANA
ges in the event his crops are destroyed by
his neighbors' stock, his crops must be secured
by what is called "a lawful fence"
The proposed law does not contemplate
forcing any man to keep stock but it contem.
plates forcing every stock owner to prevent
his stock from depredating upon his neighbors'
crops. tits clear that the proposed law takes
away from no citizen any right which he now
has or can have. All it aims at in this re-
spect, is to protect the rights of all at the
least possible expense to the individual.
To say that no disadvantages would follow
change in the fence law of the State, would
be unreasonable No man can change the
location of his front gate, or of his stables, or
of any of the fences or buildings on his plan
tation, without experiencing some disadvan-
tage. Notwithstanding this fact, every far
mer makes many and great changes on his
farm. Before he made the changes, he was
fully aware of the disadvantages which he
would experience. Why did he, in view of
these disadvantages, still make the change3
Simply, because the advantages we're more in
number and greater in magnitude than the
disadvantages. He was willing to suffer a
small loss that he might acquire great gain.
This is the question which is presented to
the mind by the proposed change in the fence
law. Which can be fenced the easier, the
crops or the stock? The law grants every
land owner the right to enclose every acre Of
land he owns. The law, so long as this coun-
try remains a civilized land, never can pre-
vent him from doing this. The only excep-
ton to this general rule is in case public roads
pass through mans farm. These roads he
can not stop. They belong to the public, and
are kept open for the public good.
There is no need that time and space be
consumed in attempting to prove that it will
cost the country far less to fence the stock
than it does to fence the crop. No one who
knows anything about the facts in the case,
will call this statement in question. Less than
one-tenth of the lands that are cultivated,
and, consequently fenced, will be more than
sufficient to pasture all the stock in the State.
One hundred rails will 60 farther in fencing
the stock, than will thousand rails in fenc-
ing the crops. This would be clear saving
of nine hundred rails in thousand. Let it
be remembered in this connection, that, in
themselves, rail making and fence building
are pro6tless labor. There is nothing in them
that is productive. Corn and cotton will
grow as we'll and produce as much in a field
without a fence, as in field enclosed with a
marble wall. All that the fence is designed
to do, is to protect the crop from being des-
troyed by domestic animals.
The man who owns no land can not say,
"This new law is Matched up for the purpose
of preventing me from owning any stock"
In every well regulated government, labor
and capital are mutually dependant upon
each other. As the fence law now exists, the
landholders of the country can as easily
prevent those who have no land from owning
stock, as they possibly will be able to do if
the change is made in the law. Every land
holder has the right to fence up all his land,
and thus keep all stock, except his own, off
his lands. Every property owner knows per-
fectly well that whatever has tendency to
crush out the laboring class of country,
destroys the value Of property.
Some persons object to any change being
made in the fence law because they will not
be able to pasture their fields after the crops
are taken off them. This objection is based
on the incorrect deduction that the law pro-
poses to prevent the farmer from fencing his
fields. That would be tyranny. There is not
legislature of any State in the United States,
that dare make such an enactment. 1t would