Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1882-01-19
The Stock Law---Governor Ha-
goods Message.

inarkable document and has created no little
surprise, both from tho errors IL contains and
the tendency It's views have TO increase and
encourage dissatisfaction with tho stock law
After pointing out the great cost Of fencing in
our State and tho economic effect Of the stock
law, which lead him to approve it heartily, the
Governor recommends modification Of tho
law, so as TO allow common of pasturage as On
ancient right and one founded in equity, and
farther contends that tho consumption of pas
turage on unimproved lands does not impair
their value.
Both these ideas are falaoious. If common
Of pasturago ever existed in South Carolina,
which We deny, or in any of the States of tho
United States, it was confined to special loca-
tious and special grants and has long sincs
fallen into disuse. II is defined 10 be o legal
right to pasture tho lands of another and is
attached in some way as o right to largo landed
estates in England as between the owner Of q
pendant or appurtcnant, tho former being
limited right to pasture animals for manuring
and plowing purposes, being right founded on
prescription and annexed TO arabic land and
the latter to pasture also other stock, being
founded on grant as we'll as prescription. They
were considered rs founded on necessity and
common right and was apportioned upon the
alienation of tho land to which they belonged.
It was then common law right, based Oh ne
cessty as well as justice, that persons tilling
such lands havo tho right Of pasturage, which
passes with tho land.
Wo deny that any such right was over re-
10 he, 10 or cIoIo
grant of land to private citizen or that it has
been exercised in such q way and for such q
length Of time as TO ripen into legal right by
prescription. Such right exists only in
imagination, begotten solely from suffcranco or
tho acquiescenoc Of the land owner II is based
On no legal right, either from positive enactment
or from prcscriptvc right acquired by time
Will any one deny but that any land owner
could ut any and all times in tho past have
fenced in all his woodlands, though his ncighbor
had for one hundred years previous to such
fencing let his cattle roam and feed on the
lands? Had tho neghbor by reason of that
secured any right to tho land which could pre-
vent tho owner from fencing il? On the same
principle has not lnnd owner the right to
drive and keep the cattle Of others, without in
juring them, off of his unencloscd land? Who
.oan answer nay to these questions? What right,
then, common law, prescriptive, reserved or
otherwise, has any man in this State to pasture
the lands Of others? 1t is and has always been
a right only in the sense Of The consent of the
Hand owner Brought about by two causes: lst,
The failure of the Legislature to make the going
Of oatto on the lands of others a trcspass; and
I'd, In tho absence of such law the pecuniary
interest Of tho land owner to suffer it as less
expensive, from the injury done, than it would
be to incur the expense of fencing or guarding
his lands. Can that be called right Of which
person may, at the will of another, be deprived
against his own will and without subjccting the
person invading the alleged right to suit or
prosecution?
Prior to tho ACT of 1866 all persons could
travel. hunt and fish over the uncnclosed lands
of another if he cut no timber and did no posi-
tive act Of injury to tho land. Why should mol
tho people claim this as reserved right? Upon
the general principle that every citizen of the
State holds his property subject TO such genera
regulations as are promotive of the common
good and that the Legislature is supreme in al
things not inhibited by tho constitution, al
must fall, oven if they wero based on common
sense, much moro where they rest on On absurd
cranky and fallacious bass. If common Of
pasturage did exist in this State as legal right
we doubt if tho Legislature could take it away;
but no better evidence that it does not and nevcl
did exist Is wanted than that every land owner
always had the right to clear and till oil his
land, or to clear mono and yot fence all stock of
of his unimprovod land.
What benefit can the Governor expect from,
his recommendations, even if put into the form
lof law? Will it quiet the present unrest or
;Sause the people to face the great change put in
Operation by tho stock law and prepare to meet
5it? Will 1t not confuse and excite the people
more? Will IL not raise hopes never to bo ro
slized? How would it look to see tho citizen:
tof Walhalla, who own only house and lot, send
their stock out on the lands Of our country
friends and either watch them thero in herds
ssor fencc in part Of their lands to pasture then
3sonf We think this would como about as nea,
raising littlo neighborhood wars as any one
3Ahing could. Tho fact is, under tho present
saaw every land holder must furnish his tenant
and laborers with land for pastures, and ever.
ISoitzen of our State, not living in town, must b.
L Sither n tenant, laborer or land owner. How
chen, can the stock law injurc tho people? Shal
IA. or B. furnish prsturage for G. or D. or thei
Remnants? We hardly think So.
& Again the Governor, though said to be goot
y farmer, is greatly in error whom he says pastur
it,e unou.tivatcd land does not impair it's value
/ Eyery farmer who has enclosed woodland or oil
folds. keeping stock of Of them, has seon hoy
ffTI.- III, 49,, ,oounerate Leaves and decayip,