Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1883-02-16
The Fence Question.

EDlTOh LEDGER Y our CORES
spondent of ednesday and KY"
in the Appeal OF yesterday oppose the
stock law on grounds that seem to
have little reason in them.
They say the law would not be to
the advantage of city COW owners, be-
cause they could not send their COWS
out to pasture upon land which they
do not own and upon which they have
no claim. Therefore the thousands of
square miles of the State where the
law Weuld be beneficial must be de,
prived Of the opportunity to Adolf it.
In the first place, this as we'll as other
arguments of these correspondents.
should be addressed, not to the law
itself, but to the question Of its adop.
ton by a particular section after its
passage. Second, the bill provides
for herding as we'll as fencing stock.
SO that waste pasture would still be
available to cattle properly herded.
Third, city is but the creation Of the
surrounding country. The prosperity
Of the one makes the prosperity of
the other. II this law will add to
the prosperity of the country the cows
of Memphis cannot afford to oppose it.
1t is said the law will not be bene-
fetal to the dairy interests. | cannot
see that the dairy men, by virtue of
their occupation, have any right of
common in the lands of Others. If
men wish to keep COWS, let them pro-
vide Enclosure. The demands for
fenced pastures will soon produce them
and diaries will not suffer. If city
COWS need pastufage and exercise in,
closures will be provided for their
accommodation near the city, or an
additional force of COW boys may be
detailed to herd them. Even if the
luxury Of country air costs them a
little more than now, they will no
doubt consider that tariff should not
be imposed upon the State at large to
cheaper their recreation. Those who
have tested the matter tell us that one
acre of grass or clover, well feTtilized.
will support two COWS, if the grass Is
cut and fed instead of being pastured.
whereas it requires two acres to sun
port one COW when pastured. This
difference has induced many owners
of valuable dairy herds in the
North to adopt the plan o.
keeping their COWS up and feeding
them on the cut grass. This plan,
with fresh water in abundance sup
piled from well, would give US better
milk than we get from COWS running
on parched commons and drinking
from stagnant and ELUSIVE pools.
These correspondents insist that the
law would damage the poor man and
tend to drive the laborer from the
country, and yet it cannot be denied
that it would enable the landlord who
now has to charge "a and s. per acre
rent TO let his land for 50 and 81 30
and in the same proportion for cheaper
land. A great many Of the poorer
renters have not even one COW: thew
would save the whole expense of fenc.
ing. II a poor man owns a piece of
land the advantage of the law is no
less clear. The smaller his farm the
greater the proportion of the cost Of
keeping it fenced is Of the whole yalae
of the place. Suppose lie owns ten
acres and has to fence all around it; A
first class fence will cost not less than
$2OO. If he keeps one or even two
COWS, tor One.half or one.fourth the
amount saved in fencing he could
provide them with a comfortable
shelter; small lot for exercise
and a grass plot that would furnish
them better food than they now cel
and all in addition to discharping The
duty OF charity and good citiSensbin
in keeping his cattle from iniuripg
others.
Both OF the correspondents referred
TO call attention TO the fact that a
stock law would benefit the railroads
and seem to consider this an unan.
swerable argument against it. | cans
not see that it is a privilege worth
oontending for on the farmers mart
A L 4
that OF having his stock killed hv tbe
railroads, in order to make them nav
half price for the damage. If the law
saves the farmer his stock, or prevents
the railroads from destroying il at
half price, shall it be Condemned
merely because it does not damage the
railroads. If the farmer is saved one
halt the value Of the stock killed, and
the railroads saved the other half. Il
looks like a net gain to the wealth of
the country, The railroads, however
have nothing TO do with this act. II
they are benefited it is merely an in.
c!idental result. The proposed law il
Intended to benefit the AGRICULTURAL
lists, and through them the whole
State, MUG