The Florida agriculturist., 1881-11-30
Fencing.
FloridG .Arictlturist ::

EGtL0f OF In6 PbOTtUU dyTtCWttTtcts
/ find in vol. 2, page SIG Rural
Carolinian, a "Report Of Commits
tee OF the Beech Island Farmers
Club" on "Fencing Stock vs.. Fencing
Crops" from which l take the follow.
ing extract: 4E
"Your committee to whom was
submitted the question OF the propri>
ETY. of enacting stock laws and aban.
doning the fencing Of crops, respects
fully report
THAT the present laws OF enclos-
ure in South Carolina are burden
some upon our agriculturists, while
those for preventing trespasses are
very detective, or wholly imperative.
Legislative preference for any branch
of industry is not less unjust than i'm
polite. The consideration of expe>
diency which occasioned preference
10 grazing over tillage in the early
history of our State, unjust at the
time in theory, are now injurious in
practice. Though landed interests
should be placed under the sacred
protection OF the law, yet every man
should be privileged by law to have
and enjoy his own, alike as to real or
personal property. Personal prop
erty, as apparel, provisions, stock,
implements, etc., such even as is not
of immediate, or even any use, is not
common property. Yet all land is
common property, unless under a
strong, close five or six foot fence
Landed property IS practically out
Ldaoed.
"I2dividuals should be restrained
from trespassing on the properly Of
others. This is principle in the
laws Of all ..civilized nations. Yet
la'aa and crops are deprived Of tSis
protection. The law permits any one
to consume or destroy all crops, nat
ural or cultivated, not thoroughly
guarded, without any redress tor the
injury done. $ = The princi-
pie on which fence laws are based is
adverse to all laws in general, as well
as to Justice and the rights of props
erty. 1t does not punish or forbid
wrongful invasions of landed proper.
ty, but it requires the owner to guard
ard protect it, and holds the aggres-
sion as justiiable and blaneless' The
trespasser is not required to prove
anything. The whole burden of proof
lies on the sufferer. To recover dam
ages, the fence must be strong, sound,
OF legal height and closeness through.
out. Any defect or decay, whether
by wind, fire, flood, hunters, or any
thing else, precludes damages. The
stock must be got up and confined,
and the owner noUified within TWEEN.
ty-four hours.
at the claim is sustained, IA thing
next to an impossibility under the
rigid requirements of the law,) fine
of twenty-five or fifty cents may be
collected, though the damage and an
noyance may be tenfold. =
While the farmer can forbid any per-
son from ranging or passing over his
land under heavy penalties, and may
send the trespasser to jail If he per-
sists. he cannot prohibit his stock
but at his own peIil, except by law
full fence. If left to his
choice would not every farmer prefer
to avoid the expense of fencing his
crops, and get full restitution OF dam
ages if his neighbours stock injure OIL
destroy them? Can any farmer
choose voluntarily to be compelled
to fence out his neighbor's stock?
The miles of outside fences, il
dispensed with, would save labor and
expenses that would enable all tc
have good pastures, or enriched spots
for soilihg purposes. The fences o.
the United States have cost more
than the houses, cities included; more
than the ships, boats and vessels O
every description which sail the ocean
lakes and rivers; more than any one
( class of property, aside from real es
tate, except it may be the railroad
Of our country"