Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-02-14
THE FENCE LAW
One OF the Heaviest Loads the Farmers
of Tennessee have to CarrJ-It
Ought TO be Abolished.
If 1t Is 1t VIII Lift Tax from Them Ten
Times Greater Than the
State Debt.
T. the Editors of the Appeal:

The papers few days since noticed the
fact that Mr.. Galloway had introduced bill
in the Senate to require the owners of live
stock to con6ne or herd the same, and to
authorize the cultivation of land without
fences. It seems to me there are many rea-
sons why the bill should become law.
Such law would put the burden Of fencing
where, in justice, it belongs-upon the owner
of the stock. The cotton and corn growing
in the soil will not STRAY off and will not
trespass upon or iniure reighboring premises.
Why should the grower Of the corn and cot
ton be compelled to fence his field to keep
out his neighbours COW? Why should not
the owner of the COW 90 the fencing? Sup
pose ten men start in = new csuntry,
WITHOUT FENCES AND WITHOUT CATTLE,
and then one of them buys a COW. Which
would be most equitable for him, to fence up
his cow or to require bis nine neighbors to
inclose all their fields? Originally, when
large bodies of land belonged to the govern
ment there was some reason in the right of
common, but in a section where all the land
is owned by individuals, to require the Gull
tivator of the land to fence instead of the
owner of the stock, is about as reasona BILE as
10 require all the inhabitants of a city to
wear defensive srmor in dog days instead OF
muzzling the dogs. One of the fundamental
maxims OF the rights of properly says:
$50 USE YOUR OWN AS NOT TO INJuRE AN
OTHER"
The cultivator of the land can use it with
out fence 90 as to injure no one. Can the
owner of live stock do 30? The present
fence law requires the landowner or renter
to use the land in such manner as to pre-.
vent anyone from injuring it, and allows
the owner of stock to use his property in
such way as 10 damage anyone who will
not at his own expense protect himself. 1t
has been objected that stock law favoTs tie
rich man at the expense of the poor. Only
little thought is necessary to show that
this is not 30. Suppose you wish to rent
fifty acres of land, worth without fence, say,
IS per acre. If you will take it as it Is, the
owner can rent it for ten per cent. of it's
value, that is, $40 per annum. But suppose
the landlord has to fence the land at cost
of say $500. He must pay taxes on the
Improvement as well as upon the land, and
will want ten per cent. upon his investment.
Ten per cent. of the total value of the land
fenced would be $40. But the owner must
charge more than this. Leaving out of ac-
count the destruction by material stolen,
THE FENCE WILL NOT LAST MORE THAN TEN
YEARS,
40 the landlord must not only have his ten
per cent. On the value of the fence, but must
have rate which viii, in addition to The
ten per cent. pay for the fence in ten wears
Allowing ope-half of the $500 to be paid by
the interest on the partial payments, which
Is at least approximately correct, there
would remain $3.50 to be made up during
the ten years in addition 10 the ten per cent.
of the value OF the fence. This would be
S15 each year, SO that you would have TO
pay f45 per snnum for the $500 worth OF
fence and $40 for the $500 worth of land.
For the land fenced you would pay $S5; for
the same land unfenced you would pay only
$40. Besides, under such law all the un-
fenced land would be in the market for rent,
and this would produce a further reduction
of rents. What does the poor man lose that
is to outweigh this gaip? He loses the right
to turn out his one COW and his six pigs TO
pick up and steal precarious living. There
are not more than seven months in the year
that pasturage on the commons is of any
value, and even during this time stock are
sforded but scanty subsistence.
THE SAVING IN RENT,
or expense on fencing, under the stock law
will enable the tenant and small farmer to
keep up his stock aud provide them with bet
ter feed. Besides, he would save all the time
spent in hunting strays and repairing fences.
He would save the damage inflicted on his
stock by high tempered neighbors with bad
fences. He would avoid great deal of i'll
feeling engendered by the provoking tres
passes Of the stock of others and escape the
damage to his own crops. 1t is the
s1 oHl l. a., I,,.l
fence, who suffers most from the trespasses
of stock. He may put in his crop well, and
work it well, and have fiue prospect; but
his fence is weak, cattle break in and deprive
him of large part of his years labor. His
fence is not q lawful one and he can recover
nothing for the damage. The law as il now
stands requires rail worm fence to be five
feet high, and q post snd plank or post and
rail fence TO be four and a half feet. This
is 10 provide against roguish stock. The
hight of three and q half feet would protect
against nine-tenths of the stock of a neigh
borhood. The additional fencing is imposed
by fence-breaking stock. This shows
THE WANT OF EQUITY IN THE PRESENT SIS.
TEN.
If man owns bad stock, let him do the
high fencing and not require all his neigh
bors to keep up extraordinary Enclosures.
The proposed law would remedy all this, and
make each man fence according to his stock.
Al this time the whole American press is
crying out against the wholesale destruction
of our forests and the rapid exhaustion of
our lumber supply. Nothing will do more
to work remedy Of this evil than to stop
The enormous waste by reason OF timber con-
tiuually being put into fences which will rot
down in few years. In addition, great
deal of time and capital would be liberated
10 be used in the purchase of better imple-
ments and the adoption of better methods of
agriculture. The bill now before the Legis.
lsture provides that the application of the
act shall be optional with the counties. This
wsuld seem 10 obviate all
OBJECTION TO ITS PASSAGE.
II the majority of county is opposed to it,
they will not como under it's provisions. In
some sections where there is a great deal of
stock and comparatively little open country,
it might be well to reject il, bit in a county
like Shelby, for instance, where the products
of cultivated land and the fences are 80
many times the value OF the stock, there can
be no question of the benefits of such law.
The representatives from those sections of
the State which do not want or need this
law, if there be such, should not deprive the
residents of other sections of the opportu.
nifty TO avail themselves Of its advantages.
II.
TH L PASTORS ASSOCIATION,