The Columbus journal., 1881-06-15
wild Land and Hay land.


In years past il has been the pre-
vailing custom for persons requiring
hay TO cut on almost any piece of
land regardless of ownership. There
has been such large tracts of wild
and uncultivated land that thus far
the custom has been the means Of
working little or no injustice. Now,
however, that putting up hay has
developed into a business of no
small magnitude and the further
fact that the country has rapidly ad-
ded to its live stock interests, the
hay question has become one of
considerable Importance. The Su-
preme Court i'm a case carried up
from Dodge county held substan-
TALLY that stock could Craze with
impunity upon wild and uncultiva-
ted lands. No matter that the OWL
er may have required the land for
the use of his own cattle, so long a.
the land was wild and uncultivated
he had no protection under the law.
1t would appear from this that if a
man would be protected in grazing
his cattle upon snother's land, he
would also be protected in cutting
the grass and converting il to his
own use. This decision has been
severely criticised and we might
add, ridiculed, by eminent members
of the Nebraska bar. Ii certainly
does appear unjust that a man sho'd
be deprived of his property, simply
because that property is the product
of wild and uncultivated land. A
grove of trees may be the product of
uncultiyated land, yet no one would
argue the right of another to fell the
trees and convert them to his own
use. And yet, in fact, there is no
difference whatever, except in the
value of the product. Perhaps a
msn desires to keep his land uncul-
tiyated, its product ia that state
being more valuable TO him than i'm
any other and yet by this decision OF
the Supreme Court, he has no pro-
lection. The last legislature TO meet
this decision passed law which
reads a. follows:
Cultivated lands within the mean
ing of this act shall include all forest
trees, fruit trees and hedge rows
planted on said land, also all land
surrounded by a piOwed strip not
less than one rod in width, which |
strip shall be plowed once a year.
This is somewhat of an improve
ment, but yet not enough to do |
exact Justice. Ii saves 10 the farmer
the difference between blowing the |
required strip of land each year and |
enclosing the land with a fence.
Now the law protects the cultivated |
land proper and other land that
comes within the meaning of the |
law. No fences are required. What
is there in reason or common sense
that will justify the protection of a
tract of land with narrow strip
plOwed around il and one without? |
What is that strip for? Ii isn't re-
quired to convince others that the
land does not belong TO them, and |
it is of no value as an enclosure. On
the presumption that grazing cattle
aud cutting hay on another's land
would be viewed alike under the
law, there are several interesting
questions which arise. a piece OF
land is unprotected by any plowed
strip. A. commences cutting hay
and is warned by b. TO desist, ex-
hibiting q bill of sale for the hav
product of the land for that wear
from C., the owner. Now under the
law and in view of the decision OF
the Supreme Court, could A. be pre-
vented from cutting and if he per-
sisted could be be punished? B. has
paid for the hay product and has
neither the hay nor money; G. re-
fuses to refund, what recourse has
b! Again, suppose that A. cuts
on BIS. land which is unprotected
as provided by law. After the hay
is cut and stacked b. plows the re-
quired strip, who does the hay be-
long to? Can A. take the hay
without committing trespass? There
are great many of these perplex-
ing questions which will arise i'm the
next few years as the tracts OF graz
ing lands are narrowed down and
even now are well worth thinking
of.-Schuyler Sm.
loo MANY Ia~varS ,n.I ,oo |