The Meridional. (Abbeville, La.) 1856-1906, 1881-04-23
Fences Again.

We are very glad to see the
country papers renewing the
discussion of the fence question.
1t is a foregone conclusion that,
the more intelligently this matter
is considered, the more universal
and rooted will be the conclusion
that the plantation fence Is the
greatest burden borne 10y
agricultural industry. Any farmer
who sits down and calculates the
yearly expenditure he is put to in
order to protect his crops against
the depredatlons of other peoples
stock will realize al once that it
constitutes the heaviest, because
the most unjust and unnecessary
load he carries. And the smaller
the farm the greater in proportion
is the expenditure. The figures
representing the amount annually
paid for fencing III the South are
simply appalling. This, money if
spent in improvements, in drainage,
in buildings in stock, in labor
saving machinery, would make the
South wealthy and prosperous
beyond computation within a very
few years. 1t would enable thous-
ands Of farmers, who are now
barely able to make both ends
meet, to improve their property
and to put themselves in a position
to accumulate a handsome
independence.
Heretofore, when the PROPOSE
ton has been made to pass stock
laws great opposition has been
displayed by the small farmer
class who claimed that the move
ment was in the interest of the
large land owners. Yet, if the
small farmers would only consider
for a moment they would see that
the fence-incubus is FIVE, ten, fifty
fold more injurious to them than
to the planter on a large scale.
Brown, we will say, is a hard
working mar with forty acres of
land worth SIS an acre. If he
incloses this forty acres with a
substantial fence, it will cost him
at least $3.50. Thus, upon 5000
worth of land, he has to expend
$50 or % per cent, for no other
purpose than to keep Jones' stock
from destroying his crop. Twenty
five per cent added to his invest
ment without increasing its value
Tor its product. Next to Brown
lives Robinson, who owns 1850
acres-four times as much as
Brown. Does it cost Robinson four
times as much for fencing ? Not at
all ; for whereas it is just one
mile around forty acres. it is only
two miles arOnnd 100 acres.
Hence Robinson, with S2400
worth Of land, spends only $500 for
fencing-I2a per cent. The expen.
diture is quite as useless and
outrageous. but it is much lighter
on the 100 acre man than on the
forty acre man. Again, let us
take Smith. who is a large planter
and works $40 acres. Calculated
at SIS per acre, his property is
worth $4,000. Yet it takes orly
four miles of fencing to inclose his
large feld-or. in other words,
$500 which is 81 per cent. Thus
the rich man can fence his plan
tation at 81 per cent of its value,
while the poor man is taxed Is
rer 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 rich
1t is the blindest of folly, the
most suicidal iniatuation for the
small farmers to array themselves
against a growing sentiment, the
practical realization of which will
benefit them. in proportion, a
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, 10 or SO per cent would
mean comfort and independence
for them. This fencing question
is bound to come up again. 1t
cannot be suppressed. With the
spread and advance of agriculture
the plantation fence must
disappear in Louisiana as it has
disappeared in all great and
prosperous farming countries.
And it is important, to hasten this
consnmmation, that the farmers
should acquaint themselves with