The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1888-07-31
NO-FENCE LAW.

Many of your correspondents are
discussing the Fence" question. /
regret to see members of the Farmers
Alliance discuss any question from a
selfish standpoint. When we do so,
wherein do we differ from the mer-
chant, who robs his poor customers,
by charging them 100 per cent. profit?
His interests prompts him to charge
as much as he can get, and yours are
for the defense of customs that are
equally unjust. Let us first actertain
the right-the equities, in the case.
Governments are but aggregations
of individuals.
States enact laws for the benefit of
it's citizens. -r --s
The States owned at the close of
the Revolutionary war certain unoc-
cupied lands, known as Pacific lands.
By agreement of all the individual
sovereign owners, through their rep
resentatives, the price of public land
was fixed. When any part was sold,
title was made by the State for a
valuable consideration; that is, every
citizen gave a quit claim deed to his
right and title. Under such a con
tract it is clear that the Individual has
a right to his lands; and that no other
citizen has, until by contract he gives
another his right. No one has claimed
that a Legislature has the right to en-
act a law that would rob me of vested
rights. Henry George does not go so
far. From this data let us make de-
auctions. To illustrate, take a civil
township in one of the newer States,
a tract six miles square, 36 sections.
Mr. A. buys a section for Sl.25 per
acre, and cultivates it. Now the
value of his land is increased by cul-
tivation, by the improvements erected
thereon, and by association. If no
one owned lands within 100 miles of
him, his lands would not bring much
if put on the market, however produc-
tive OF otherwise we'll improved.
Suppose "a others buy in the same
township, and such improvements as
are common are erected thereon. The
land in the township has advanced in
value by association.
Suppose the reader has just pur-
chased the remaining section, which
the other 35 owners had used as a
pasture. Would you think it right
for them to continue to do so ? Would
you think it fair to be compelled to
fence it You might only have
money enough to buy a team and i'm
plements, and yet if you were COM
PEELED to fence it at a cost of $35, you
would never have bought it. Would
you not say: Gentlemen, I have
bought this land. and you must keep
your stock off, rs l intend to farm it,"
Suppose they were to reply: awe
have been pasturing this section for
years before you came here, and if
you don't like our methods you ought
not to have come amongst u.s."
Yet you that argue for the privilege
of running your stock at large are
only doing as l have supposed in the
illustration. Let me ask a few ques-
tions of you:
What right have you to enter upon
my lands and derive benefits there
from? If l bought the land then by
charter right, have I not the sole right
to it ?. If you have no right to it, as
an honest man you ought not to injure
me or my land. We have a law in
North Carolina that makes it a INSIDE
meanor for you to enter on my lands
against my expressed wishes. Has
your stock rights that you have not ?
We have a law that says if you enter
on my land and cut and remove tim
Der growing thereon, you are a trans
gressor, and the law af6xes a penalty.
Yet there are many that are anxious
to have by law mot the right, for
there is none) but to have the privilege
of turning their stock on my land, of
cutting and removing grass (pasture)
against my wishes, when they have no
claim at all. If it is wrong for you
to cut and remove timber, is it not
equally so to cut and remove grass, in
form of pasture? Is it a good prin-
ciple that I cannot collect damages of
you for injury done me by your stock,
when I IAN if you do me any?
Is it better for the State to allow
you the privilege of keeping stock that
you have no feed for, and destroy
crops, or is it better that lands be
titled and labor receive compensa-
ton. 1t goes without saying that I
can buy plantations with good build
ings thereon for less than it would
cost to conveniently fence them for.