Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1878-12-05
Fence Hne, or Fcsace Out!


Fence Hne, or Ecsace Out!
EVILS OF THE FENCE LAW CLEARLY AND
VIGOROUSLY EXPLAINED
To the Hons B. r. GRAFTON, j. N. Lips.
comb, Is. II. Aossey, j. w. IHuus, ".
/ K. Bradley and other Agricultural
Members ofhe State Legislature.
GENTLEMEN-You are all farmers and
aw.makors. That you will advocate the
enactment of laws favorable to agriculture
no one can doubt, nor would for moment
believe that you would do 80 10 advocacy of
| special or class legislation, but upon the
| broad ground of lcgislating for tho greatest
good Of tho greatest number Of our citizons.
Thon, as a farmer writing to farmer,
address you, and respectfully urge you to
present to tho Legislature come bill propos-
ing change III our existing Fence law. Prac
ticallywe havo no law upon the subject, for
if there is suoh law upon our statute
books, it is SO nearly obsolete that no far
mer knows what arc its provisions, and
doubtless most Of our lawyers would havo
to turn the leaves of their dusty tones
before they could adyiso one certainly
whether this or that act was in violation OF
it. At any rate, tho progressive farmer
to-day cries aloud for change, and his
reasons for the demand are unansworablc.
Shall enumerato thcm2
| Look yon first at tho cost of the fencing
in Sohth Carolina. think it reasonable
to sny that onc-twcifth Of the time of tho
lahorers on our farlns is consumed 10 build.
and repairing fences. There must be over
one hundrod thousand such ucn in South
Carolina. Value their services at tho low
figure of five dollars por month, and there
is direct tax upon the labor of tho State
Of half million dollars annually; and |
may appropriately ask cut bono9 E,oploy
this labor in making manure, ploughing
under green crops, or otherwise in improv.
ing our farms, and who cnn estimate the
material benefit it would be to the State?
In my opinion they had better be idle con.
sumcrs than oxtravagant employees.
In tho next place the continued aud in
crcasing disposition of our farmcrs to de-
nude our most fertile land of the mnguiti-
cent covering which nature gave them is
annually, and with increasing certainty,
sonding millions Of money to tho sea in the
shape Of soluble fertilization. Our already
open lands are capable of producing two
fold heavier crops than we grow, if skilfuly
msuagod llnlarsing this area does not
increase our crops, but simply lays bare
that much more of the surface to be baked
by the sun, while tho scarifyiug process
goes on to impovorish tho frcph lands J.
| believe, and no one can rcfutc it, that this
I "a ho Of I.>n.
so much of our surface soil, causing an TN :.
due evaporation of moisture, is the prime
cause of tho dcloterious droughts from
| which we now suffor annually.
| But again, what is tho chief requirement
Of tho existing fence laws9 1t is that VIC
shall protect our growing crops
against tho dcprcdations Of rambling stock
The annual agricultural products of South
Carolina are perhaps worth thirty millions
of dollars. What is the stock worth against
which wo have principally to fenoe-Acattle,
sheep aud hogs7 Thoy are generally a
disgrace to the State. Two,thirds of tho
iutruders in Abbeyillc County are worth
littlo more than their hides, and have no
reason to believe that they arc inferior to
those Of the other counties of tho State
And us worthless as they are they are made
still more worthless by the methods of
torture resortcd to to prevent eirjumping
| Who has not seen, timo and again, poor
COW with her horns tied to her forcfoot with
chain, perhaps throo feet long, to prevent
her jumping, aud before she had epont
twenty four hours in this painful position
both her ankle and forehoad will have bo.
como chafod and swollon? Or scrawny
pig with hickory witho around his neck
to prevent. ~ crawling through the fence
where tho cyacks wore not three inches
wider Ycsj once saw herd of goats
that had tho front foot Of each one of them
deliberately chopped off "to prevent their
Jumping into tho cotton patch." Why,
prevention Of cruelty to dumb brutes de-
mands TINT wo should change our existing
! fence laws
The experience of some Of you is an argu.
meut in favor of change vastly moro
| potent than ] oan adduoe. Anderson and
| York Countics both have the existing laws
reversed and what is tho consequence? If
mono other, this one is sufficient, that tho
people arc delighted with tho change.
have frequently met mon from tho few
counties in the State whero stock are fenced
and not tho crops, who have told mo that
they wore greatly opposed to the change at
first, but they would not now have it other.