St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1881-04-09
FENCES AGAIN.
New Orleans Democrat

| lNeW orleans Democrat.
! We are very glad to see the conn.
try papers renewing the discussion
of the fence question. It is q fore.
gone coBcasaoa that, the more in
diligently this matter is considered
The more universal and rooted will
be the conclusion that the planta-
ton fence is the greatest burden
borne by agricultural industry. Any
farmer who sitsdown and calculates
the yearly expenditure he is put to
IN order to protect his crops against
the depredations OF other people
stock will realiiEe ct once that it
constitutes the heaviest, because the
most unjust and unnecessary load he
cures. And the smaller the farm
the greater in proportion is the ex.
penditure. The figures representing
the amount Annually paid for fenc-
ing in the South arc simply appall-
ing. This money, if spent il. i'm
proxements, in drainage, in build
ings, in stock, il lal,or-sasing ma
chinery, would make the South
wealthy and prosperous beyond
computation within a very few years
It would enable thousands Of lar
mers, who are now barely able to
make both ends meet to improve
their property and to place
themselves in position to accumu-
late handsome independence.
Heretofore, when the proposition
has been made to pass fence laws,
greatopposit;oa has been displayed
by the small farmer class, who claim
ed that the movement was in the
interest of the large land owners.
Yet if the small farmers would only
consider it for a moment, they
would see that the fence incubus is
five, ten. fifty fold more Injurious to
them than to the planter on q large
scale. Brown, we will sag, is a
Woodworking man with forty ceres
of land, worth SIS an acre. If he
incloses this forty acres of land
with q substantial fence. It will cost
him at least $3.50. Thus, upon
5000 worth Of land he las to expend
$50, or Is per cent, for no other
purpose than to keep Jones stock
flom destroying his crop. Twenty
five per cent. added to his invest
ment without increasing its value
or its product. Next to Brown
lives Robinson, who owns l60 acres
-four times as much as Brown.
Does it cost Robinson four times
as much for tencing2 Not At all;
for whereas it is just one mile
around forty acres, it is only two
miles around 100 acres. Hence
Robinson, with $24OO worth of
land, spends only $500 for fencing
-l21 per cent. The expenditure
is quite as useless and outrageous,
but it il much lighter on the 100
acre man than on the 40-aere man.
Again, let US take Smith, who is a
large planter and works $40 acres. |
Calculated at SIS per acre. his
property is worth 5000. Yet it
takes only fouf miles of fencing to
inelose his large feld-or, in other
words, 5000, which is st per cent
Thus the rich man can fence his
plantation at ST per cent. of its
value, while the poor man is taxed |
25 per cent. to protect his humble |
little patch! And so on, with the |
ratio always mounting up against |
the poor, and always diminishing |
in favor of the richi
1t is the blindest of folly, the |
most suicidal infatuation, for the
small farmers to array themselves
against q growing sentiment, the
practical realization of which will |
benefit them. in proportion, al
hundred fold more than it will the
extensive planters who can spend
2, 3 or 5 per cent. on fencing and
never feel it, while the saving Of the
Is, Az or SO per cent. would mean
comfort and independence for them.
This fencing question is bonnd to
come up again. 1t can not be sup
pressed. With the spread aud ad-
vance Of agriculture. the plantation
fence must disappear in Louisiana,
IS it has disappeared in all great
and prosperous farming countries.
And it is important, to hasten this
consuninatio0, that the farmers
should acquaint themselves with
he real merits Of the controversy.
HOW TO FEED BRAN.