Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1882-03-17
Proposed Fence Law.


had been allowed to pass that body; and
stated that we were ignorant of Its provi-
sions. We have heard considerable dis
cussion of the subject since, and although
diligent inquiry of several persons whom
we thought ought to have been in the con-
idence of the author of the proposed bill
has failed 20 obtain any definite or author
itative information as to its provisions,
yet the prevailing impression among all
we have heard discuss the ques ion is that
its effect, if it be allowed to become law,
will be to entirely take away the right 70
dis!raiu cattle etc while in the act of tres
passing upon enclosures, or damage .teasant
as the law term goes, and RENTS parties
aggrieved by trespasses to an action a
gainst the owner of the stock. The effect
Of this would be to render ire ponsible
persons, who own stock valued at less
than 500, exempt from ali liability for
the trespass of their stock upon The crops
and enclosed feds of others, and would
be an outrageous hardship upon farmers
We heard it stated last fall that Mr.. VIM.
Dec. Mitchell, in his speeches to the ne
groes, had been promising to have the law
enabling persons to distrain stock upon
unenclosed lands, repealed, and we then
took occasion to remind him that such a
| provision was already contained in our
statute law but it seems now that he is
endeavorlng to deprive the white land
owners of the county the right to protec
their crops and enclosed ,tiel,ls as well.
The sections Of the law sought to be re
pea'ed are the following sections of Art. 9
of the local code, ii lie Charles county.
IL. Partition fences between the adjoining
| fields of different proprietors in Charles county,
shall be made and repaired by the parties re-
| Il cir joint and equal expense. and upon failure
of their party 10 make or lepair his respective
proportion of such fence or pay his equal share
of the costs thereof he shall be anSwe,abIe there
! for in an action of debt, to be recovered before
a justice of the peace; but no person shall be 10
answerable unless the fence. for the making or
repair OF which he shall be sued. shall have been
constructed OF the usual materials and in the
ordinary way.
No action OF tSftSS IU'tFe CftifNNH tfftt',
in Charles county, shall be adj judged To he main
tanned or supported by evidence that the defend
ant, or any horse, COW. hog or other domestic
animal belonging to him, passed on or over any
waste or unenclosed land in said county. or 10y
proof that any such animal trod down or ate the
! grass or heritage or rooted up or disturbed the
soil or earth on any such waste or uuenclo>c';
land, and the defendant i'll any such action may
plead the general issue and give the special mat
| ter in evidence
! 49, No person shall di>train any horse, hog OF
other beast damage feasnn npon any waste or
unenclosed land in Charles county.
Il would certainly appear that those
sections afford sufficient privileges to the
class Mr.. Mitchell represents, and. his pur
pose in seeking to repeal them and sub.
stitute provisions more onerous TO The far
mer can he nothing less than 20 extend &c
the colored population the right II DIES
troy the crops Of land owners with impu
nifty
When the law abelishing gates on the
public roads went into effect few year:
ago, we recollect 20 have heard genera
expression of opinion among farmers o
different poll zeal opinions, that, rs a cor
relative measure and in order to lesser
the hardship the law would work, all tht
! fence laws should be abolished and the
common law, which requires every one |,
| keep his stock within his own enclosures
should be reinstatcd. Such demand i'm
pressed US as only a reasonable one. Tn,
GU rage, therefore, of not only retaining
tine renee laws our now gong 10 an unpFe
cedented extreme in the other direction
and striking down d remedy as old as the
Eng ish people becomes more apparent in
view of these facts. We shall endeavor Il
procur. copy OF this bill b fore the next
issue of cur paper, and further discuss it
but in the meantime il would be We Ia
take prompt measures To get up petitions
to be used in defeating the bill in the Sen
ate or in procuring the executive veto. =
The fence laws now in force are since the
gate law went into operation, sufficiently
onerous to the farmers; and any change
seeking to make them more stringent
should be promptly opposed. There is ne
doubt of tae ability of the tax payers To
defeat by proper exertions this or any 9th
er bad measure Mr.. Michel or his con-
freres at Annapolis may seek to impose
upon them, and if they fail to do it, it will
he their own fault.