, 1880-03-13
@eeklp Statesman.
SsartyRpAy MARCH Il, 1850
The Herd or No Fence Law.

The Herd or No Fence Law.
From all sections Of the country, We
hear that the "no-fence Law IS losing Ia
vor. Could it be otherwise Have the
advocates of this law advanced any tena
BILE argument None whatever. Every
thing said in support Of ''no-fence law
has recoiled in favor OF the fence law.
The poor man, it is claimed, viii be par
ticularly favored by the enactment OF
"no fence law" We claim that he Will
be injured by it, and We propose to prove
our assertion. Every farmer requires
pasturAge hence he must build fences,
feed all the year around or pay pas'urage
to his neighbor These facts are indispu-
table, and 1--WE fail TO see where the poor
man is benefited Now as 10 fences, II
is not absolutely necessary 10 bmld rail-
fence. We are creditably Informed that
q ditch fence, of which there are thous-
ands of miles in the country, are equally
efficient A single ditch fence can he
made for twenty-five cents per rod, and.a
double ditch for forty-two cents per rod
A mile is 800 rods hence single ditch
fence costs eighty dollars per mile, and a
double ditch fence l3i dollars and forty
cents per mile, or siG0 for a single
ditch and s26S so for double ditch fence
per Quarter section Of 100 acres, OF which
his neishbor pays One-hah. Cost OF
fencing being so small, and the benefit
derived from II so large, every honest
man must acknowledge that the objection
to fencing on the ground OF being too ex-
pensive falls to the ground. Let the IN"
fence" question become law, and we can
point out dozens OF men, who are ready
10 buy sections Of land TO be T,Htcd to
some one. What viii lie the consequene
Larpe tracts of land without improve
ments, except cultivation ; hence no
dwelling houses, no families, no children
and no schools We find case III point
in the Sickler school district, below town.
One man has bought all the farms in that
school district, excepting perhaps two.
Two families only reside IN that school
district since it was mcnopolized. OF
these, one family has four children of
school age, and the other none, and as
schoo! districts draw school money III
proportion to the number of children OF
school age residing within their respective
limits, this monopoGzed school district
is not entitled to money enough to keep
a school for ten days and SO will the ''no
fence law" operate throughout. The
large land proprietor, has no use for I'M
proyements, or families, or children, or
school houses, all he cares is to raise grain,
and grain alone Again, north Of town
few spectators own about one-ha!f Of a
township township contains 23,040
acres What improvements do We tind
there None, excepting cultivation and
fencing, nothing to tac, except the land,
and the fences would not be there if our
laws did not require them. The enact
ment of "no fence law" no doubt will
lead TO quarrels, hostility among neigh
bors, and We are Of the opinion that the
amount of money expended III litigation
will build every farmer q good fence.
Again, how will ''no fence law" affect
those farmers who already have fences!
1t is well known that the fences Of
adjoining farms are owned Jointly. Now
let us suppose that neighbOrs fall out, rs
they often do, and one of them, out OF
pure cussedness, takes down his half of
the fences, SO that his neighbors stock
has free access to ad Joining fields what
will follow Litigation and damages, of
course. In a "no.fcnce law We can see
nothing but quarrels, brOils, litigation, If
not murderitself. The eSTATESMAyowns not
an acre of agricultural land hence, it is
disinterested, and it advocates the fence
law solely for the protection Of the
many as against monopolists. Under u
"no fence law it will also be 10 the in
terest Of the North Pacific Railroad to at
once stop the sale Of .heir large land grant
and rent the land annually for five or ten
bushels Of gram per acre, which they, no
doubt, had III their mind when that tcle-
gram to Mr. Perkins was read in the last
legislature, stating that upon the passage
of ''no fence law" depended the build
ing Of the Pen d'Oreille section of their
road This telegram was construed INTO
a threat hence the defeat Of the bill at
the last session. 4 mo fence law tends
to monopoly and Capitalization Will
drive the small farmer from his home to
become renter-lt will increase the
price of meat from four to SIX cents to
ten and fifteen cents per pound, and also
drive the raising Of stock, which is para
mount 10 the raising Of grain, from the
country. and virtually killing the goose
that lays the golden egg. In conclusion
We print the following from the Lewiston
Teller:
"A few months ago MIR Moore Of Walla
Wslla came to Lewiston and went out south
TO Tammany Hollow and selected SEQ acres Of
government land in that vicinity and entered
the same with soldier homestead scrip. Last
week Mr. WinIns of the firm Of Johnson
Rees ( "insns. visited that locality and Sc
lected and entered Go acres with the same
class of scrip. and took up so acres more
under the land laws. Moore and Winans are
abou. fencing the whole hHiy Of this land by
some joint arrangement, and cultivatins the
same % wheat and other cereals. We much
prefer these men come with their money and
improve these lands than to have them lie iile
but We would more prefer that these lands b.
taken in leo tracts by families and cultivated
energetically As separate farms and have
houses built upon them
We now advise our friends 10 keep this
question well under discussion, and We
cen assure them ths; the better the sub
iect is understood, the fewer votes there
will be cast for the ''no fence law"
lr-p sr,a,l ~, ,,-r,.,,,, - A. -,