The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1882-01-19
Gov. Hagood's Message on the
Stock Law.

The following message was sent to
the Legislature upon its re-assemblns
on the llth inst. 1t may be ofinter"st
to cur people to know the position taken
By the Governor upon this very impor-
taut Act of the Legislature:
Columbia, s. c. Jan. II, 1882.
Gentlemen of the General Assembly:
herewith return with my approval the
Ac, tc provide general Stock Law and
TO f~giIate the operations of the same.
l, doing so I desire to accompany
the approval. with some comment.
Tae Agricultural Department at
W rs<tt; 5ssr.- 57r5otaTs aud care
fully prepared report in 1871, upon the
cos of farm fences in the United
States. estimated the cost of such fences
in South Carolina at s2l, 1856.
Before and since 1871, some of the most
accurate agricultural writers of the
Sta. have established the fact that the
are.ar" cost for boundary fences alone
:, y Ms State Is about four dollars for
ev.rv acre enclosed have not the
fon..s of the census recently taken, but
nre,icnsly the number of acres Of i'm
nroved lands in South Carolina was put
at4 000,OuO acres. This gives the SUN
ofsl6,OO0,0O1 as the cost of our bound
ary farm fences, aud is incorroboratlon
Of tie estiuatc Of the United States
Agricultural Department, which in~
clubs cross as we'll as boundary fences.
TIE duration of the ordinary rail
fsuct of the country Is known not t."
exc,.d ten years. With, therefore,
an aouual depreciation Of 10 per cent.
upos the capital and interest at Z per
cent, upop the investment, it clearly ap
oears that the annual cost Of boundary
f.nc.s to our agricultural industry ex-
cee6, s2,700,0O0.
Til, State ana county taxes levied for
ali purtas fer III" last fiscal year, as
shosn by tn C"up'ro'ier's bucks
ann qntcd to 81 30S BIG.
1t is. therefore, apparent that the
abolition of boundary fences saves am
nua " 10 the agricultural industr' twice
AS u. urh money as is paid in taxes by
all .he industries of the STATE comhined
IN view of the fac's and figures have
civ. IT,. tie general scope and Object OF
the Act I return to you meets with my
app..val Iregard it as emlnently wise
and jadiciously progressive. There is
a Ee .ur in it, however, which docs not
com: end itself TO NE, and which is
no, , ,,,ee-sary to the accomplishment OF
the ;hjce: sought. You will permit me
TO CO.; YOUR attention to it, and suggest
its r. .Aoval By supplementary legislation.
C,mmon of pasturage on unenclostd
land is a feature in our public policy
cosv.d with our history, and has pre-
vailed unimpaired with us until Very
recen: period. Along with it came our
law IF enclosures, which the law under
consideration so fundamentally changes.
Com-aon of pasturagr was the right o'
every citizen to graz his animals upo"
ahs u"snclospd (Which was then synony
mou, With the uuimproredJ lands OF his
o.igthor 1t was right founded no;
only in supposed public policy but 10
absi:.at eqc'y. The theory OF our Ia"
~ rs., estate is. that in the origin Of
50 socis: H. organization all lands belonged to
the r.rope in common. When they be-
gan ~ parcels to b" assigned to indlv'd
uals !, was, except in some f'w caaes
unor broad srounds OF 9 neral beneht'
20 accrue, that thus ass'en"d they woul'
obecou,- i'm proved, and through taxation
add =, the general w"lfare.
III. grants from lh- State t" the In
diyid uai were all free, and there Wa