Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1881-11-10
THIEa NT9.
Whe nyouugest
knee:
The Fence Law.

praoton tavoring it's adoption by petition L
ir the Legislature, while others strongly oppos
It and advocate the submission Of the uues.
tlon OF its adoption to q primary election
Public meetings have been hold by boil, par
ties and addressed by the members of th
Legislature and efforts are being made |,
teconoile the division. Fears of o serious
split In the party are entertained, but ~
hope' there as here, that no division of opin.
ion upon matter Of this kind will bo per,
mitted to divide the Democrats and lose ths
State.
Ihe Same question is being quietly agi.
tated In this county, and thero is a wide di-
Sefsity OF opinion as to tho propriety and
advantage OF extending the law to the North
Carolina line, or at least to some point above
Walhalla. We believe on popular vote
the opposition to the stock law would hayo a
majority; but among the andholders the ro-
suit would be doubtful, with probability
that those favoring tho law would have q
majority. The extension of tho law pecul.
larly effects the farming community, and as
the people ale sensitive on all such questions
they should be cautiously acted on, lest by
dividing the people we should lose tho State
government for whut many conceive to bo a
local benefit
We believe the selling price of lands bo.
low the line fence has been greatly increased
and that similar rise in value would result
from the extension Of tho law. An exten-
sion OF tho law would likewise prevent many
neghborhood difficulties, cut off much ex-
pense to the taxpayers from indictments fer
malicious trcspass. and in few years of
trial would become both acceptable and prof.
liable. These opinions are being realized in
the growing feeling Of acceptance of tho law,
where it exists, many of it's bitter opponents
IN our county arc now favoring it. We have
found, too, that nine tenths of those seeking
homes In our county prefer to buy below tho
stock fence. AS tho people adapt themselves
to the law, they will bo stronger advocates
of it and would oppose its abolition rar moro
than they did it's adoption.
We are nota stock growing people, as
they are in the West, and any attempt at it
would result 10 failure. Our woods pastur-
age is not sufficient to sustain aud latten |
large he:ds, and if they wero, growing cot>
ton as we do to the foot Of the mountains, We |
would be unable to carry them through the
winter. In fact with the little stock we now |
have there is great dcarth of food for their |
wntor support and OF it's prices the forage |
eaten by dry cattle during winter is worth
about as much as the beef when fat at pros-
ent prices. few head of good mixers is
far more profitable than score of scrubs.
Tho same ie true Of hogs. We have but little
mast in this county and a good stock of hogs
we'll fed and pastured on small area would
pay better, counting the cost of growing and
fattening.
This is our opinion and re believe The pco.
pie Of this county would bo strongly attached
to the fence law on few years rial. Wc
may be mistaken, but we hope if the law
should or should not bo adopted oil our peo-
pie will submit to the result without division
or dissatisfaction.
The great change in our system of farming
before and since the war tenders q stock law
more desirable. Cotton is now our LEADING
staple, while then corn. wheat oats, &c.,
were grown almost to the entire exclusion Of
cotton. This caused forage for stock to be
very cheap, while beef sold at as good prices
as now, making scrub stock somow hat proito-
BILE. Now such stock hardly re pays the ex-
pense OF wintering and we hardly believe
that three year old beof, selling for $40 or
Sl2, pays to it's owner q small return for its
feed. Fodder last spring sold at So to 1926
per hundred bundles and shucks at So so 10
"a for o two horse load Those who win.
tered stock last winter lost money and with
nm increasing urea to cotton this result is
likely to continue.
Taking as facts these estimates. and con.
siderlng the large cost of building fences,
and is not the stock law desirable? We NAV
DO in error and desire to hear all sides Of tho
question. Our experience, and op;niops
b:sed on them, is not as satisfactory to our.
selves as those Of persons actually cnpoped
In farming. Whilo then theoretically and
from observation whero the stock law nreyo;ls
We favor its extension, we arc open to con-
'ioion by fair reasoning
The question at this time is of direct inn
portanoe to the citizens of this county above
the line fence. Spartanburg county already
has the stock law to the North Carolina line
and 1t is expected that efforts will bo made
TO extend it in the counties of Crecnyille and
Piokens to the same point. IF this be dono
how will our people avoid like extension?
The keowee River at Old Piokons is hardlv
any bar to stock and from McKinnoy's ford
to the line It would turn nothing. It cannot
bet fenced a]9pg lis banks, and il It could.
Yrif fence DO built on the ridge, it would
~. e