West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1885-10-23
FARM FENCES.
why Farmers should Not Ie Forced to
wall In Their Fields.

Why Farmers should Not Bc Forced to
Wall In Their Fields.
One night not long ago / was awak-
ened by the ominous sound of trampinp
feet near my house. | knew too well
what it meant, for it was a sound | had
heard beforc-my neighbours mare and
colt had trOken into my garden and
were tramping and tear NO it TO pieces.
Well, | did what | suppose every one
else would have done under similar cir
cumstanccs threw on a few clothes
and ran out, intending to drive the in
truders into the street. After several
vain e%ndeavors TO drive them out | final.
" decided 10 go to my neighbor, awaken
him and tell him the condition of thip0s.
He took the matter very quietly. il
seemed to me-, drove tho animals out.
and we proceeded to investigate the
matter. We found they had broken
through an improperly made division
fence n 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
VOWED in this matter which it may not
be Improbable to consider. Are fences
like the Chinese wall, built to keep 9th
crs out-for protection against intru-
sion or are they built to keep u own
stock from getting out? In sections
where large areas OF good grazing land
remain open and the omniprcscnt town
COW Hourishcs, fencing is clearly done
Tor protection, on precisely the same
principle on which % man has to carry
a sword mr. "a ray,1ynr R,,t - tts. -.
in thickly-settlcd countries at least
the guardians Of the law are supposed
TO protect our persons and property.
and if our persons and personal prope,-
ty arc protected, why should not our
land and crops Plso be? As our laws
have heretofore been, a 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
" states, this law has become obso-
Iete, and the more equitable law and
custom have taken its place. that every
man must take care of his own stock.
IT adjoining farmers agree, for mutual
protection and convenience, 10 build a
boundary fence, well and good; but one
neighbOr ought not TO be compelled TO
protect himself against the d~cpredations
OF anOthcr's horses or cattle An un-
ruIy bull or COW or "a vicious horse at
large may do more harm than "a kill
sheep dog. or even 70 wild beast. and
the responsibility Of the man who per
miis such an animal TO in1ict injury
upon Others ought 10 bp A. great
Moreover. n single beast at liberty i'm
any ncighhOrhoOd may compel adj the
land owners in the section To- go TO the
heavy expense Of Enclosing their prop
criy 10 prevent injury from the com
mon nuisance. Thus, the fear of the
dcpred8tiOus Of "a wrcfched ''scrub"
may cause an outlay hundred times
I greater than the worth ~ She beast
TO will take % long time. however. to
change % custom so deeply rooted rs
our practice with regard 10 fencing but
10 is evident that u viii sooner or later
be- accomplished With the improved
method OF temporary fencing it is. in
most localities, easier and cheaper TO
fence cattle In than To- fence them out
let Che principle once become thor
oughly established that 10 Is every
man duty 20 prevent his stock or his
dogs from inIuring the person and
property OF others and much Of the liti-
cation and hard feeling between neigh
bors viii be avoided. Let as all, as q
matter Of principle. see 10 10 shat our
" stock Is properly taken care Of, at
the same time insist that our %neighbors
shall take care Of theirs. and on minds
VIII be easier and we shall be ON better
terms with our %nriehbprs and live
longer and happier -,Rwa New
Yorker.