The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-12-20
Fence Cutting.
OANO OUOVHHS :
10 the Editor of the Statesman:

1 have read, in vain, the numerous
| communications and editorials that
| have appeared in the leading papers
| of Texas, to ascertain the fence-cut-
| ter'S alleged reason for his action, or
the law-abiding mans remedy for the
base and coWardly crime now so prev
| alent.
The right to fence and the grass it
encloses, if the land has been bought
or leased by the owner of the fence,
| has the same foundation as all other
property rights, viz. the constitutional
and statute law. Arson and theft are
as respectable and as eXcuSable in all
respects, as fence cutting: and if as
prevalent as the latter, would he no
more disastrous to the welfare of the
| state.
Does the fence cutter demand "free
range" as l think we must infer,
since we have no authoritative expo
sition of his demand. No power, hu-
man or divine, haSSpromised him such
a boon; our whole civilization, with
all that it gives and promises, mega
tives the idea; the written and com
mon law of the land is the casKet
holding and protecting the jewel-in-
dividual right to property. Does he
demand that no one shall fence or ex-
| clusively use land to which he has
not exclusive right under the law?
So much he has the right to demand.
| would enforce his demand by de-
claring such fence nuisance, to be
abated at the suit of anyone, with a
penal fine of one hundred dollars
per day against the owner of
the fence. Does he demand
that ranchmen not controlling front
on living streams of water, shall have
access to such streams? Under the
maxim "the greatest good to the
greatest number" | think the state
may well regulate the width of pas
| lures on living streams and require
uniform intervals between pastures
fronting on such streams; but even
this much is stretch of government
al power, that harmoniZeS poorly
with the history of private rights
among the English speaking people.
| Public opinion, or such at least as the
author dares subscribe, agrees, [ think,
| that the man who cuts or destroys a
fence the owner has the legal right to
maintain, should be declared felon.
But the difficult matter will be to Sc
cure the arrest and punishment of the
| offender. suggest:
First. Easy provision in favor of
| the state for change of venue.
Second. Repeal all law of lilnita-
ton as to this class of offenses.
| Third. Max ats an apprOpri-
alton as may be'deemed needful, and
empower the governor to offer a re-
ward of $500, one half to go to the
| informer and remainder to the officer
making the arrest for each conviction.
Fourth. Let the judgment against
the criminal be that the state recover
of defendant the amount of the re-
ward paid out, and that he be confined
in the penitentiary, etc.
Fifth. On failure of the county
where the offence is committed, to
collect the sum of the judgment from
the criminal, provide for the levy of
a special tax on that county to reim-
burse the state.
The above measures are extreme,
but regnant crime requires radical
| treatment. The late statute against
| forgery was radical remedy, but its
| execution extinguished the crime in
Texas. All property values in Texas
are dependent on the prompt suppress
| sion of fence cutters; for if rights of
| property in fences and exclusive con-
| troll of land for pasturage May be des-
| troyed by lands of jay-hawkers, the
farmers fences and houses, and then
city property that is combustible will
soon follow. Leniency to crime is re-
belion against God, for harmony is
| Heavens first law" LEX.