Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1882-01-19
TEE STOCK LAW.
SPECIAL MESSAGE OF GOV. uAGooD AppEo

SPECIAL MESSAGE OF GOV. HAGOOD APPROV
ING TIE ACT.
Immediately after the Legislature rcassem
bled, on the 11th instant, Governor llagoot
sent to that body a special message approving
the stock law, but suggesting modification
of the recent Act, which, if adopted, will re
store tleancient right of common of pasturage
without replacing the fence burden upon tht
farmers The message created marked sen
sation in both houses, and it is understood tht
suggestions it contains meet with but littlt
approval among the members. The following
is the message in full
COLUMBIA, S. G., january II, 1882.
Gentlemen OF the General Assembly: l here
with return with my approval the Act to pro
vide a general Stock law and regulate the op
erations of the same.
In doing so, desire to accompany the ap
proval with some comment.
The Agricultural Department at Washing
ton, in an elaborate and carefully prepared re-
port, in 1871, upon the cost of farm fences il
the United States, estimated the cost of sucl
fences in South Carolina at S21, ,136, ,S96. Be
fore and since 1871, some of the most accurate
agricultural writer's of the State have establish
ed the fact that that the cost of the boundary
fences alone in this State is about four dollars
to every acre enclosed. have not the figures
of the census recently taken, but the number
of acres of improved lands in South Carolin;
was put at 1900, 600 acres. This gives the
sum of Sic, ,000, 900 as the cost of our boundary
farm fences, and is corroborative of the esti-
mate of the United States Agricultural De-
partment, which includes cross as well as boun-
Diary fences. ..- 2.
The duration of the ordinary rail fence oi
the country is known not to exceed ten years.
With therefore, an annual depreciation OF II
per cent. upon the capital, and interest at
per cent. upon the investment, it clearly ap.
pears that the annual cost of boundary fences
to ouragricultural industry exceeds 81, roc, 600.
The State and county taxes levied for all
purposes for the last fiscal year, as shown by
the comptroller's books, amounted to Sl,3OS,.
316
1t is, therefore. apparent that the abolition OF
boundary fences saves annually to the agricul'
tural industry twice as much money as Il
paid in taxes by all the industries of the STATE
combined.
In view of the facts and figures have given,
the general scope and object of the Act
return to you meets with my approval. re-
gard it as eminently wise and judiciOusly pro.
gressive There is feature in it that does
not commend itself to me, and which is moi
necessary to the accomplishment of the object
sought You will permit me to call your at
tention to it, and suggest it's removal by sup
Elementary legislation.
Common of paSturage on unenclosed land is
feature in our public policy coeval with oul
history, and has prevailed unimpaired with us
until a very recent period. Along with 1t
came our law of enclosures, which the law un-
,f.11y 11D mo
Common of paSturage was the right of every
citizen to Craze mis- animals on the unenclosed
(which was then synonymous with the unim-
proved lands of his neighbor. 1t was a right
founded not only in a supposed public policy:
but in abstract equity. The theory of oul
law of real estate is that in the origin of So
cial organization all lands belonged to the
people in common. When they began in par.
GELS to be assigned to individuals it was, eX.
cept perhaps in few cases, upon broad
grounds of general benefits to accrue that
thus assigned they would become improved,
and through taxation add to the general wei.
fare.
The grants from the State to the individual
were all free, and there was no other consider
alton than this involved. No present propri.
etor, whatever sum he has paid for his title,
can stand OIL higher ground than the original
grantee from the State through whom he
claims. Until now it has not been sought by
legislation to place him higher. When lie I'M
proved his lands and fenced them as existing
legislation required, he was carefully protected
by law from intrusion by men or animals
When he failed to improve his lands, and left
them unenclosed, though paying his taxes on
them at their unimproved rate, the law pro.
tected him in the enjoyment of such value as
he derived from them-the use of it's timber
and water. But that value which was left,
i. e., the right OF pasturage, which he had not
appropriated by improvement, was left to
public enjoyment. The first infringement
upon this common of pasturage by our LegiS-
lature occurred N 1866, when it was enacted
that every entry on the enclosed or unenclOsed
lands of another, after notice from the owner
or tenant prohibiting the same, should be a
misdemeanor
The Act which we are now discussing goes
further and absolutely abolishes common OF
pasturage 1t makes it a treSpass for the
owner Of any live stock to permit it to run at
large beyond the limit of his own land.
While the LANDS of much the larger part OF
our State are devoted to agriculture, there re-
main sections iii which it is not so. Small
areas are highly improved and devoted to prof
liable culture, while the larger portion re-
lllttluS Ill u StdIc VI lltGule dllu t'lloluo VIZ
wood and water and a pasture OF limited
value.
Even in the most highly improved sections,
portions of the country are waste, and there
would seem to be neither policy nor propriety
in forbidding to the general public the con-
sumption of the pasturage on these lands
which the owner does not himself appropriate,
and the consumption of which does not impair
the value of the lands themselves.
1t seems to me, therefore, that the Act to