Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1885-10-02
FARM FENCES.
Why Farmers Should Not BE Forced t,
Wall In Their sieIds.

Why Farmers Should Not BE Forced to
Wall In Their Fields.
I Zone night not long ago [ was awak-
ened by the ominous sound of tramping
feet near my house. | knew too we'll
what it meant, for it was sound had
heard before-my neighbours mare and
colt had broken into my garden and
were tramping and tearing it to pieces.
Well, | did what l suppose every one
else would have done under similar cir
cumstances- threw on q few clothes
and ran out, intending to drive the in
truders into the street. After several
van endeavors to drive them out final
ly decided to go to my neiighbor, awaken
Kim and tell him the condition of things.
He took the matter very quietly, it
seemed to me, drove the animals out,
and we proceeded to investigate the
matter We found they had broken
through an improperly made division
fence "a fence made by him, but which
he claimed belonged to me. Well, of
course the fence was repaired and the
matter was settled for the time being,
There is, however, o principle in
volved in this matter which it may not
be Improbable to consider. Are fences
like the Chinese wall, built to keep 9TH
ers out-for protection against intru-
sion or are they built to Keep our own
stock from getting out? In sections
where large areas of good grazing land
remain open and the omnipresent town
COW tlourishes, fencing is clearly done
for protection, on precisely the same
principle on which man has to carry
a sword or revolver. But in this age
in thickly-settled countries at least
the guardians of the law are supposed
to protect our persons and property,
and if our persons and personal proper
ty are protected, why should not our
land and crops also be? As our laws
have heretofore been, man has been
compelled to build an efficient barrier
around his place whether he kept stock
| or not.
In Ontario, Canada, and many of our
own States, this law has become obso-
lete, and the more equitable law and
custom have taken its place. that every
man must take care OF his own stock.
If adjoining farmers agree, for mutual
protection and convenience, to build a
boundary fence, well and good; but one
neighbor ought not to be compelled to
protect himself against the depredations
of another's horses or cattle. An un-
ruly bull or COW or a vicious horse al
largo may do more harm than kill.
sheep dog, or even wild beast and
the responsibility OF the man who per.
inits such ah animal to inflict injury
upon others ought to be as great
Moreover, a single beast at liberty in
any neighborhood may compel all the
landowners in the section to go to the
heavy expense of inclosing their prop
erty to prevent injury from the com
mon nuisance. Thus, the fear of the
acpredations of wretched ''scrub'
may cause an outlay hundred time:
greater than the worth Of the beast
1t will take long time, however, Il
change custom so deeply rooted a.
our practice with regard to fencing, bu
it is evident that it will sooner or latcl
be accomplished. With the improved
method oil temporary fencing it Is, II
most localities, easier and cheaper t,
fence cattle in than to fence them out
Let the principle once become thor
oughly established that it is ever.
mans duty to prevent his stock or hi
dogs from injuring the person an,
property of Others and much of the Iii
cation aud hard feeling between neigh
bors will be avoided. Let us all, rs
matter of principle, see to it that on
own stock Is properly taken care Of, a
the same time insist that our neighbor
shall take care OF theirs. and our mind
vii. bc easier and we shall be ON bette
terms with our neighbors and liy