Savannah courier. (Savannah, Tenn.) 1885-1979, 1885-10-08
FARM FENCES.
Why Farmers Should Not De Forced to
Wall In Their Fields.

Why Farmers Should Not De Forced to
Wall In Their Fields.
One night not long ago was awak-
ened by the ominous sound of tramping
feet near my house. knew too we'll
what 1t meant. for It was a 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 / suppose every one
else would have dous under similar cir
cumstances : threw on few clothes
and ran out. intending to drive the in
truders into the street. After several
vain endeavors to drive them out final
ly decided to 60 TO my neighbor, awaken
him 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, q 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 outP 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 be9 As our laws
have heretofore been, man has been
compelled to build an efficient barrier
around his place whether he kept stock
or moi.
In Ontario, Canada, and many of our
own States, this law has become obso-
lete, and the more equitable law and
custom have tsken 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 anothers horses or cattle. An I'M
ruly bull or COW or vicious horse at
large may do more harm than kill
sheep dog, or even wild beast, and
the responsibility of the man who per-
mits such an animal to inhict injury
upon others ought to be as great.
Moreover, q 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
depredations Of wretched scrub
may cause an outlay hundred times
greater than the worth of the beast
1t will take long time, however, to
change a custom so deeply rooted as
our practice with regard to fencing. bu,
/ It is evident that it will sooner or later
be accomplished. With the improved
method OF temporary fencing il is, il
most localities, easier and cheaper tc
fence cattle in than to fence them out
Let the principle once become thor
oughly established that it is every
mans duty to 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 will be avoided Let us all, as {
matter of principle, see to it that oul
own stock is properly taken care OF, a
the same time insist that our neighbor!
shall take care Of theirs. and our minds
will be easier and we shall be on bettel
terms with our neighbors and liy'
longer and happier.-Raral Aes
Yorker.