The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1886-09-15
YouR NEIoHsoR.s HOGS.
Pointed Discussion Of the "Fenoe.
Or No-Fence Law"


Mr.. EIlTToR:
Some time ago a number of your
correspondents discussed the fence
law quite vigorously, after a style.
I watched the discussion with a
great DIAL Of interest, hoping that
some ore would branch out on the
subject as It IL, and treat 1t as a
question under which equities and
Justice Hrise and effect communi.
ties and the interest of the public
generally. My hopes and expecta.
tions we're not realized. Writers
were vigorous and emphatic on the
popularity of this side or that, on
men getting votes If they favored
this or that feature of the question,
but they failed to reach the core.
Now, ALLOW your correspondent
to ask = few questions. Is it just
and right that poor man, with his
small A0ld Of corn, the sustenance of
his family for the winter months,
the result Of the hard labor of the
summed, should awake In the morn.
ing and and that his neignbors' cat
tie and hogs have broken his fence,
and that his summers labor is lost to
him, ana gone to fatten his wealth.
ier neiehbors' stock? And when,
sick at heart from his loss, he
speaks 10 his neighbor and is an
swered with the question, "Why
don't you fix your fences~ That
is all the comfort he can get, while
he is without legal remedy. Is that
right? Will some one answer that
question? Come straight to the
point and answer in q manly way.
I don't care q snap for the votes on
this question, for I am not candi-
didate, present or prospective. The
question ID, aIs it right, ID II equita-
ble?"
Then again. A man has ten
acre field Of corn, and the same
Of oats, q patch Of potatoes, cane
and other vegetables growing.
He hasn't a hog to his name,
and he don't want any. It will
cost him perhaps two hundred dol
lars or more to put such a fence
around his growing grain as will
keep Q rasor-backed, long-nosed,
lank-sided, fop-eared sow Of his
neighbor from playing havoc with
his crops. That thievish hog could
be penned up with forty rails SO
that she could not possibly get out
That pen would cost about fifty
, cents, to the owner, whose place II
, is to feed his own stock. But under
the law he is allowed to turn hit
? thievish hog out to tear down hi
| neighbors' fences and eat and de
stroy his grain, or force him t.
spend hundreds of dollars to keel
, this hungry swine from tresspass
> ing on him. Is that right? MY
! doctrine would be to have ever!
3 man look after his own stock, and
. il his stock trespasses on his neigh
. Dor, let the owner pay for the dam
: ages done. If q man keeps roguisl
, stock, then he would see to 1t him
J self, look after his own fences, ant
Q not compel all his neighbors to lose
their time and spend their none!
!. in building fences to prevent hi
8 stock from eating and destroying
their grain.
0 Again, Is It policy? One of th'
!. greatest expenses attending tn
2 business Of farming Is in keeping
: up the fences. Is It good policy t
waste the timber, the time and tn
L labor in this way, in order to ALLOW
Y stock to run at large and nibble Of
the commons? The stock dom
fatten, as q rule, while the fenc
9 expense impoverishes the owner
y And all this in order to keep tn
J stock OF ones neighbor from tres
g passing on him. If the expense
T the fencing was put to the improve
. ment of the soil, wouldn't 1t be bel
ter policya Then, ifbadly dispose
,. stock breaks in and eats the crop
t one must have a large degree o
grace to not get mad. A quarre
6 ensues and family feuds arise fror
y this very thing. If one knew tina
Il he had to pay The damages Of hi
|. stock he would walk up and do Il
# expecting nothing else, and peac
would follow.
8 Iwould be pleased If these que'
tions should be answered In
IA straight forward way by one
:. your correspondents.
AMERICA.