Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1883-02-19
The Fence Question.

This matter is recognized as a very
serious one in several Of the Southern
States. 1t has been discussed very
freely in the North and South com.
bined and somewhat in Mississippi.
Ia the latter State the experiment Of
no fences has been tried in one or
more counties, aud seems to have
given satisfaction, although at first
bitterly opposed. The:HBatesville
PanOlian discusses the question very
intelligently 10 the following remarks:
The original cost Of fencing land
amounts to a large percentage Of the
value of the land to be fenced, and
the annual cost for repairs makes the
fence a continual drain upon the
whole country, which seriously effects
the profits resulting from the
use of the lands. This constant
expense aud annoyance is forcing upon
this section the consideration Of plans
for either doing away with fences
or adopting some cheaper plan
Of enclosing land. 1t appears
reasonable aud just that the men who
own stock should take care OF it them
selves and not force upon others the
expense Of keeping up fences to pro.
teot their crops from the depreciation
Of stock running at largo. A. farmer
can have lots provided 10 keep his
stock much cheaper than he can fence
iu his whole farm, and even when he
has his whole farm enclosed, he has t:,
have cross fences and lots for hia own
stock, SO that the principal use Of
most of our fencing Is to protect crops
| from stoak in which we have no in-
terest. Horses and mules should be
kept in stables or enclosed pastures at
all times to prevent their Btraying and
to keep them where they can be had
when wanted, and the value of the
cattle and hogs raised in this part Of
the State is so small, when compared
with the cost OF fencing, that
it is hardly worthy Of consider.
alton. If farmeEG will calculate
! the value of their cattle and hogs aud
compare it with the cost of their
fences, they will find, as a simple bus
iness proposition, that it would be
much better to have 10 cattle and
hogs and no fepaes than 10 have both
pudsr the present expensive system.
But it may be suggested that some
people own stock who do not own land
that they could not have l0ts and pas.
lures for their stock. While this is
true, We see no reason or Justice il
forcing land owners to spend thOus,
ends OF dollars annually 10 protect
their crops from the depredations OF 4
few hundred dollars worth of stock
owned by parties who have no land
But we think this question can bt
solved to tho satisfaction Of all Oan
cerned by adopting systaa Of cheal
cattle fences sDd keeping up the hogs
There ara numerous ways of con
s;ructing cheap fences which vii
turn cattle, and as long as our smoke
houses are in the Nest, the few hog
raised acre can be more pEoatabIy
kept in pens than on tho commons; il
: fact, in the West, where hog raisinJ
is made a business, hogs are no
allowed to run at large, and it woulC
be much better TO keep them up anC
|, attend to them properly here. Th
! fence question is simply a matter o
business and should b NA,nlated a
any other matter of business. A
system Qf fencing which is expensive
j, inelioient and wasteful should b,
abandoned and something better sub
stituted, even if it oonhiots with es
], tablished customs and causes tempo
!, rary Inconvenience to. some. W
N ke these suggestions with the bop
Of calling out the views of partie
: interested in the subject, and woul
be glad 70 have the SUBJECT thorough
!; discussed through our columns,