Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-01-08

order M before, as they cou'u nc e'
unnn tbe same grass upon when they
RANGED after il had been bought ny lh'
a,ockman. and /. IL to be supposed c't
m, wnIld falten rs readily upon gras'
n,id for MS upon that which IL iTeS
! 'rhc difference might be seen ana rev
bv the cnttlemau, but evidently
M Inv the cattle. And now
wnuld such a law oppfcss an0
! drive ont the small cattle owner Il
il n hardship upon him, aud does Ne
| fail hpraIIse he does not own as many
cath. as his more fortunate brother "i
larger possessions? Then "oulu IL VI
a hardship upon him or cause nm !,
! fail because he could not buy rs hhucn
land? Ia il hardship upon FARMER
bpcause his circumstances coillpei MN
to rent land instead of buying H. or
buN ing II because h. cannot huy more
than 80 or 1850 acres =,
And would such law prevent tne
cattleman from borrowing money anu
AT us low rate uf interest? certainly
not. as he has both cattle ana lhnu
10 borrow money upon. And IL the
rat. of int, rest would be propnrtloneu
Ia the amount borrowed, the same
amount before invested in cattle ~
now invested in land, ANA money can
AZ readily be borrowed upon it, ava
the land is n safer security, ~ IL Is hnt
apl To- deterinrite in value, ana IL III
no danger of dying or being los',, -,
1t il also claimed that nerd law
would result, in producing ana estap-
fishing n monopoly Now this Is an
ingenious Dodge to frighten the gls-
lature from passing a law whlch
would bring abuut u result contrary 10
the policy of the state. But Is II
true" May IL Ice asked in what way
ii will do these thingN" What Is "a
monopoly and what cau-es produce
them? II is nothing more nor less
than control Of a given branch "i
human mdu try. And in the very
nature of things, there cannot be It
mcnopnlv or control of any industry
unless there IL an aggregation on sur
plus of capital with which to elect IL.
This supposed feature of the law
seems to Toe the cattleman's bone ot
contention." The herd law" in
stead of bringing arout monopoly,
viii prevent it, in that it viii require
the cattlunan TO invest this rapidly
acquired and surplus capital
in land. They do not get Il monopoly
in cattle or IN land. The land pro-
duces nothing but grass, and no at
tempt IL made To raise a revenue or
proht from the land itself. The herd
of cattle is reduced. and hence the in
crease il not rs great ~ formerly, aud
the capital realized smaller than al
first.
The only injury it would do to the
cattleman, il IL bc an injury, would be
to compel him to buy land That he
might have to pay high price for
this land, Is no ones fault but his own,
rs he could have bought ii nj Il cheap
or rate at I'M earlier date, before it had
been forced and improved. And even
in this they are NOT imposed upon rs II
class, and tins advanced price of Land
is not the result Of 81 herd law" but
the legitimate sequence OF thA progress,
civilization and building up of the
country.
And now, would "a herd law he int
practicable and incapable of being en-
forced? The impracticability of such
Il law, rs the citl leman claims lies III
The fact that under The free range sys.
tenn heretofore INDUCED in, the slo X
owned by different parties have hecu
allowed to mix and cumminge, 80
that it would be difficult and impossi-
bic To designate that OF { Oh and sepa-
rate them. Hnw is this effected when
the cattle are placed upon the market!
How do cattlrmen ever distinguish
their cattle from that OF others? One
would suppose 10y the marks and
brands. Then, if they can be- SO desig-
mated and separated tor market, whS
not fur purposes Of hrrding? Il Ger
tainly would not take any more time.
And, besides, ii would save a great
deal Of trouble and confusion, result
ing from mistakes mad- 10y young cat
TIE growing up ia This mixed cundi-
ton, before receiving the marks and
I nuds OF their owners, there
by preventing auy oppr,s-
sion and hardship which might
Ire brought about by innocent mis-
takes, \ "herd law WuulG not beupcp
TO the objection that it tended to limit
t4Ic wealth ui the cattle owner. Tor his
possessions would hens large as before,
hui divided ITO kind. OF course such
Il law would not declare that the cat
tleunn mus, sell part OF his stock
Nllt ~ hfA IL lulINlSt lbl tut SAatt niue
cares what line OF business man il
engaged in, so long as it Is |, Z innate,
and besides the state would have no
interest in the land he would buy
other than taxes, and she already re-
ccivtS her revenue in this Respect from
the present owners.
Because this la% would in its eject
bring about this result, Horld not
make 1t IA law passed ia favor Of any
particular Interest, aud therefore "A
species of class legislation. That law
would only declare that, for each and
every day that herds giazed upon
lands that did not belong to the
owner OF the herd, he should be
answerJOle 10 The owner Of such
land N stated amount, recoverable
as a Dtnalty or fine. for each and every
mead OF cattle so gTa2ed upon the land
each day. II would become g,tGsi
criminal aclion in which the owner of
such lands might recover the penalty
II he ode-ired. IL would have the re-
suit, too of causing each man TO look
to his own interest by assisting in hay.
ing the law enforced. Such "A law
would he within the scope OF legisla.
tive power and control in the same
way chat railroads ARE now nauuped
aS to overchngrc of freight and passen.
ger tariff, and il could be ~ easily en-
forced aud would be as constitutional
rs the present. law against herdipp
cattle within IoIf, nil, ar ~ =