Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-11-18

| fences thclr range must pay for his
| tcmerity and must suffer nj the hands
| of the fencc-cutter. Fencecutting has
! thus become the natural offspring OF
| the old fence lows. Those laws We're
| always discriminating and unjust.
Farmers upon whom they forced the
| expense of fencing before etltiVating
their hand have long been accustomed
I to the burden and do not fully feel
| how great the burden is. They have
not raised the cry oi oppression that
| they well might have done against the
| inauity. But political economy and
| the gencynl interests of the state call
mon our legislators to wipe the foul
| ding from our statute books. Ii isa
fair illustration, to be multiplied 10y
millions of like eases, To ~ay that
but for this law the farmer
who tilIs one hundred acres of land
might fence ten or twenty acres OF
pasture for his cows and work animals
| and save the expense of fencing the
| lOO acres In cultivation, lie Is forced
| to make from four 10 six times ms much
| fence ns his own necessities as n farmer
| would require, in order 10 keep his
neighbours stock out of his crop. THIS,
| 100, when besides the Injustice 10 him,
| there is no corresponding beneht 70
his neighbor or himself. For stock
raisers themselves, who have counted
the losses and gains, have discovered
| that 10 IL more economical to fence
| their stock than 10 lot them run ~
large, and hence their widely extend.
ed efforts 10 fence, which nave woReu
ND the bitter enmity of the ience'eul-
tiers. But by far the greatest eva
which has resulted To The country
from that fence luw Is the false notion
Of the rights of property when u 80
long implicated and ioslered IN Tue
minds OF those who are no" tlle renee,
cutters. This law must be substituted
by one which will protect every, man
who owns properly, ol Mi'ateNei hlnu,
in the free, exclusive ana quie' use ~
/ il, before The disorder Will be cfadi-
! Gated.
It would be difficult 10 assign any
plausible reason for holding property
! in grass less sacred than property ~
timber growing Oh the same iann.
| Yet the law i,Tbids 10 take the liinbrr
! without the owners consentand WIN.
holds protection FROM the grass. ~
protects my horse from thelt, Dnt az
lows my grass. upon wiici nc lceus'
TO be taken with impunilS. Aiy grasp
ing cupldity coyets my neighbor :
growing crop Of hay, ana the law al
| lows me to turn my cattle upon against
! his protest; because, lorsooth. he may
no. have been able TO exclude me by
a fence. Why this discrimination
lie paws taxes for protection as well as
liz. IL it because the owner OF tho iahd
and The tiller Of the soil are less desirai.
/ Die or les mcritsrious citizens" Is II
1 tlut ihcre il wisdom and economy III
/ laying greater burdens upon Feal es-
J tate and It's products than upon nova
I Die cha,teis?
Mol oar fence laws have been
upon an uuwi.c and unjust discfiini-
/ nation against the owners OF iond,
/ which the legislature should hasten "a
abolish rs the fruitful source OF the dls'
order of fence-cliting.
| we should have fence laws, ~ y
trne, nut HEY should impose the bur
den of fencing upon Those VINO slye
occasion for fences. Alen shpniu "
required by Law 10 fence any lana upon
which they keep lheir stock witnoh,
herdinn; aud they should be requires
| 10 Keen their stock on their own ianu;
| either by fencing or herdlng. ana
,nnde responsible for the trespnss 81
| shelr ,dock upon their naighbor's iahu,
with out putting him 20 Tue unfeasoh !.
able expense OF fortifying ngainsi,
them. The rule .hat every man siia.i
have tile excluslye right TO use NE