The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-02-25
FENCES AN TOOK LAWS.

very able and exhaustive communication
from a reader III Ayoyelles parish, thanking
the DEMOCRAT for the position 1t has taken on
the subject OF stock laws. Our correspond
On. not only reaiizes the force Of oil that we
have said, he goes further and illustrates by
numerous practical examples tho evil and In
Jury or the system which compel tho farmer,
large or small. to keep up a costly fence
for no other purpose than TO
protect his crops from tho depre-
dations of stock running at largo. It Is
not enough that he shall erect enclosures to
%confine his own stock for tho careful farmer
always does this he must 60 to tho
enormous expense OF enclosing his entire
plantation In order to keep his neighbours
stock out. In this connection our CORE
spondent makes n very startling statement,
which is that the interest on tho original
sum he has invested In fencing, purely for
purposes of protection. added to the annual
amount required for repairs, aggregates $3.50
a year, and this $3.50 would more than pay
his State and parish taxes. In other words,
while the agricultural districts are grooming
under taxation which they declare to be ex-
cessive, they suffer still more seriously
from a system which has not a single
consideration OF policy or justice to recon-
mend 1t. The government must be sustained,
the laws must be enforced and society must
10 protected. and to this end 1t ID necessary
to levy such a tax as may be required. But
there Is no conceivable reason for compelling
the owners OF property to erect and maintain
that most expensive and perishable of all
things-a fence. Ii those who own stock
would IA lra rrnpar n a,.a M than, thnra vyanlJ
be no necessity for these fences, ald we claim
that In a civilized community the law should
enforce such care upon the owners OF stock.
The claim has been set up that the enact
ment Of stock laws would be u measure for
the exclusive benefit OF rich planters and to
the great Injury OF the small farmers and
proprietors. This claim was set up by tho
Times with Its customary flourish or ears,
and the impression was sought to be created
that the DEMOCRAT and its friends were
meditating a deadly assault upon the interests
Of the poor and industrious. To show how
false and foolish al argument this Is. 1t Is
only necessary to consider that the cost OF
fencing decreases in an astounding ratio with
the Increase Of the area to be fenced. Sup
pose A and b are living neighbOrs. "A has q
field of GAO acres or a mile square. b is a
small farmer and has only 40 ~acres-just one
sixteenth OF what A has. Yet. assuming the
cost OF fencing to be $3.50 the running mile
BIS fence would cost $3.50 and AS would
cost only $1,000. That Is to say that b.. owning
only one-sixteenth as much land as A., would
have to epend one-fourth the moneyfor fenc-
inp, The fact Is, the less the area cultivated.
the greater the relative burden OF this en-
49,, -, ,,lc, TLo ,o1Ior a.--
rienced by the small farmer as a consequence
OF sensible and civilized legislation on the
subject Of stock would be far greater In pro-
portion than In the case Of the extensive
planter. It needs but a brief calculation In
land measurement to see that the fencing for
forty acres Is Just four times more expensive
than the fencing for six hundred and forty
acres. If land is $40 per acre, and fencing
Be $3.50 to the running mile, then
$1,000 worth Of and can be enclosed for $1,000,
or about Is per cent, whereas $500 worth Of
land would require $3.50 worth OF fencing, or
about 60 per cent. It Is the most absurd Of
all propositions to say that the small farmer
il chiefly Interested In the maintenance Of the
present system. The fact Is exactly the con-
trary. And just here it seems pertinent to
quote from a recent Issue Of the New York
Sun on this very question:
But. to go back to the starting point. the far
mer OF stock owner must first make up his
mind to be an honest man. and he cannot De
one If he turns out his animals TO prey upon
his neighbor's goods, whether 1t be the grass on
. = pasture or the grain already harvested. We
have received numerous complaints about the
stock laws from Northern people VINO nave gone
South and purchased land. and. several nave
written ua that it costs more to fence out the
cattle Of Others than their land and all the crops
they could raise were worth"
This seems to answer the preposterous
claim that the small farmers are In danger
through the operation OF stock laws.
There Is just one point on which we feel
bound to disagree with our correspondent,
and that is relative to the propriety OF rele-
eating this subject to the police juries. We
must Insist that the matter is one coming
within the province OF local authority. 1t
may true that five. sixths OF the parishes nave
the same interests as Avoyelles, but 1t must
always be remembered that the other sixth
nav have different interests, What would