The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-07-05
Rp1,suy CREEK s. c. June 3Oth 1877.

| The citizens are cordially invited to attend.
BRusHY CREEK, s. c., June 3Oth, 1877.
Mr.. EDITOR: The principal object Of this
article is to notice briefly the late proposed
fence law, and may touch on other matters,
too, for do not propose to enlighten the
public mind, but merely to provoke q more
general discussion of the fence act. I, for
one, am in favor of the change when carried
out in proper order and at the proper time,
under an act properly framed. But in the
shape that the thing is in this time will
ever oppose it, and speak the sentiments
of many other good citizens. We do not
want to make two bites Of one cherry when
the whole pill can be swallowed without
greasing. What is wanting to carry the
thing into effect is all act of the Legislature
repeating the present fence law, and substi
tuting an act with proper safeguards thrown
around, making it positive, to so into effect,
say, next January. The change is good
one for the country, and is demanded by the
most energetic and practical farmers, and
will eventually work itself into operation,
but never under the act proposing the
change for the people of the State have cut
their eyeteeth eight years ago under radical
rule. I believe had the Legislature passed
the bill permanently, and made it general
instead of sectional, that in very few years
it would have proved as great blessing to
the State as the present system is curse
but to have one township "no fence" an
other "fenced" county "hog in an
other "hog OUTS calculated to produce
confusion and unnecessary expense, where
a general law would soon work smoothe
and harmoniously, producing lasting bene-
fits upon the poor and laboring class as well
as to the land owners; curtailing a heavy
tax upon the laborer in the way of labor,
making and repairing so much unnecessary
fencing, and the landlord in the way of
rents, timber, and wear and tear of wagon
and team. I venture the assertion that
Pickens county will retain the present fence
system. Well, now suppose Anderson
adopts the change and not enough counties
to make the thing general, there is miles of
useless, unnecessary and extravagant fenc-
ing to make and the over-burthened tax
payer is taxed to make it, initiating as much
as possible the Internal radical rule we had
thought ourselves rid of, that of creating
useless, wasteless and extravagant expense.
Again, the thing is of doubtful issue at best,
and our country is in poor condition to- try
experiments on so large q scale. We have
barely been able to keep on our feet after
the long and heated contest for home rule,
and our State needs time to breathe before
attempting another stride of such magnitude
as the proposed change of fence. Let US get
squarely on our feet with our heads above
water and then try this "hog up'' question.
The times are not propitious for the trial
now, and this very act has shaken the con-
fidence of the colored people in the Hamp-
ton government, and, unless remedied, will,
two years hence, rebound and be source
of untold vexation and trouble, for the
negro will be negro even if you white
wash him, and their duplicity is patent to
every sensible man. Their willy leaders
have not abandoned the struggle, and are
now busy sowing the seed of discord silently
with their forked tongue, and the noble
Hampton's shoulders must bear the whole
blame if any attaches, when every one ought
to know Hampton had nothing to do with
passing the bill. Again, if this matter was
pressed by memorial or otherwise on our
Legislature enough to pass the bill, why not
| pass it outright at once and have done with
it. They have the authority. All power of
legislation is vested in the people, and they
have delegated the power to the Legislature,
and made them, the Senate and House Of
Representatives, the "agents" and true rep
resentatives of the people of the State at
large, and why put this question before the
people at such time to kindlc anew the
prejudices of either class or party? If the
Legislature did not want to assume the re-
sponsibiity of passing the bill outright for
fear of offending the people, why did they
not leave other questions of as much i'm
pUTIlICc W IilC dA-ptlyC yClS tto LlC lCllCc law
to the people also? Forinstance the appro-
priation bill. Think the people would have
made decided improvement on it by lcav-
ing out the 100000 interest clause, and the
"salary grab by. restricting the delicate"
members to a decent salary more in keeping
with their income at home and their services
abroad. We certainly had right to expect
much from this Legislature, taking the plat;
form in consideration, and they certainly
have done much good and think some
harm, but they have come short, far short,
of what was expected of them in the matter
of reducing salaries and useless Offices, re-
pcaling some good acts and passing some
bad ones, among which is a scattering no
fence law. too thin to hold water, where a
good, wholesome, substantial, non-expen.
sive, positive law is required. Such an one
will meet with pretty general approval
throughout the Palmetto State, and will be
advocated by
De- Il Ca,