The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1885-10-02
FARM FENCES.

Why Farmers Should Not BE Forced to
Wall In Their Fields.
I Zone night not long ago L was awak-
ened by the ominous sound of trampino
feet near my house. l knew too well
what it meant, for it was sound I 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 done under similar cir
cumstances threw on a few clothes
and ran out intending to drive the in
truders into the street. After several
van endeavors to drive them out final
y decided to go to my neighbor, awaken
him and tell him the condition of thjnos.
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
yolved in this matter which it may not
be Improbable to consider, Are fences
like the Chinese wall, built to keep 9th
eys 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 omnipresentt town
COW fiourishes, 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 ii our persons and personal proper
ty are protected, why should not our
land and crops also 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
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.
Ii adjoining farmers agree, for mutual
protection and convenience, to build
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 I'M
ruly bull or COW or a vicious horse at
large may do more harm than a kill
sheep dog, or even wild beast. and
the responsibility Of the man who per-
mlts such an animal to infiict 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
depredations of a wretched scrub
may cause an outlay hundred times
greater thar the worth of the beast.
twill take a long time, however, to
change q custom so deeply rooted as
our practice with regard to fencing, but
it is evident that it 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 the principle once become thor
oughly established that it is every
mans duty to prevent his stock or his |
dogs from injuring the person and |
property of others and much of the It'll
CATION and hard feeling between neigh |
bors will be avoided Let US all, as a |
matter of principle, see to it that our
own stock is properly taken care OF, at |
the same time insist that our neighbors |
shall take care of theirs, and our minds /
will be easier and we shall be on better
terms with our neighbors and live
longer and happier. -RaraL NeU
Yorker.