The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-06-24
mo FENCE THE CRY.
Some Reasons Why Stock Should be
Kept Within Bounds.


ago is sad but logical argument for fence
ing the cattle. The headlines were, 1.-TWO
Killed and 100 Wounded, -" and the body of
the dispatch announces the derail-
ment of tram carrying several
hundred laborers and mechanics to their
work near Birmingham. An unfenced cow
had selected between the rails for its man
ger, and two human lives were sacrificed,
and 100 people, many Of them with broken
limbs, are spared as living monuments OF
the criminal carelessness and laxity Of the
laws Of any state or community that per-
NIT cattle to roam at large under conditions
that are constant menace to human life.
"But, say the defenders of the policy of
fencing crops and influencing and unfetter-
ing CATTLE" the gentleman said, railroads
should fence in their rlght-of-way. Where
this is done these accidents occur. Neither
man nor cattle respect these barriers, and no
caution will provide against fence destruc-
ton sufficiently rapid to prevent invasion
OF rlght-of-way unless railroad companies
could line their routes with repairing gang
night and day. Cattle fenced by owners are
surer to be kept away from running trains,
because there is less fencing to be looked
after, and when there Is no law for unfenced
cattle its owners are very apt to look con-
stantly and closely to the condition of their
fences. Therefore, if no other reason could
be advanced in advocacy of no fence, this
alone of affording increased protection to
human life in railway travel in Chatham
county should answer every argument of the
fence advocate.
mo doubt the owner Of the COW that cost
two human lives near Birmingham, Ala.
and manned hundred people, did just as
an owner of an offending COW in Chatham
county could do under the law, and doubt
less would do-sued for the property value
Of his killed or manned stock. Until the
statute of Georgia authorizing such pro-
ceeding is wiped from the code of laws it
cannot be called a civilized community.
The owners of such cattle, destroying life
and property, should be held for murder, and
thef full value of the property destroyed, as is
the case now in some states, so far as
damage for accident and loss of property
can be estimated. 1t is only refinement
of language that makes any difference be-
tween the man who puts cross-tie or rail
on track and he who permits his cattle to
Craze where the hundred contingencies,
among them vicious cattle, against which a
railroad cannot provide, that may destroy
the sole barrier for protection to life upon
its moving trains, for keeping cattle off
the right-of-way.
vannah, which is Chatham county, clamors
and struggles and offers bounties for more
railroads, a large and respectable element
who claim to represent the majority of the
voters, who must decide on July 3,proximo,
whether agriculture or stock-raislng are
more important for the county, insist that,
Notwithstanding the increased travel, new
roads must induce through the county, the
old order of things must continue; that it is
more important to protect the shekels in
cattle, IS they view it, than life that is in
the human form divine.
"The accident at Birmingham is one of
almost daily occurrence, with varying con-
sequences to human life and property. OF
course more cattle are killed than the acct
dents that follow, but the danger of the
most serious consequences following in
such accidents is always both possible and
probable-escape exceptional.
Call then fencing crops and freeing
cattle a poor mans protection or a widows
supportl When poor mans cattle is per-
mittsd to pasture upon his neighbours prop
erty, that legalized abuse Of another's rights
may cost hundred lives no more for
tunate in worldly goods than he,
and where one widows COWS en-
able her to support herself and
care for and educate the children her cows
may make hundreds of widows without
cows to support them or their children, be-
cause the more fortunate sisters cows,
under a code of laws that were adopted
to Chatham county when wilderness, per-
init her COWS to feed and fatten upon her
neighbours lands, to the daily and hourly
menance of human life."
Another well-informed gentleman says:
Fence or no fence, that is the question.
Whether it is better to make your neighbor
fence in his crops, or your neighbor make
you fence in your cattle. That's about the
size OF it; a case of crops versus cattle. 1t is
question that requires a logical mind to
thoroughly understand and wrestle with
its intricacies, and only a Greek sophslt
could determine what is really required.
1t is a question as tortuous as zigzag fence
itself, and as susceptible of as many mean
ings as chapter in Deuteronomy, a law
yer's pleadings, or q politicians policy.
'Those people who have got a fence
curious inconsistency-want no fence; and
those who have no fence insist upon every
one else having fence; or, in other words,
those who vote mo fence simply want
those who uphold the fence side of the
question and yet have no fence themselves,
to be compelled at least to fence in their
cattle that they may not be committing
depredations on their mo fence neighbors.
Fence or no fence, whichever way you will,
You'll find twill be the samee STILL
Aud the same political shyster will
occupy the same political place to see on
which side he shall drop, and the same
alphabetical A Fence and d Fence operator
as pertinaciously and litigiously as before.
The whole thing is as clear as the limpid
Ogeechee after freshet, and / venture TO
say that not one in hundred outside of
those Immediately interested know what 1T
is all about
Suppose, for instance, that I owned
few hundred head of cattle, which pasture
on few thousand acres of unfenced land !;
am obliged to fence it if the fence law Is
carried, and, on the other hand, if have
few hundred acres under crop, and the
mo fence law is instituted, must l pull
down my fence to comply with the edict?
Why, this is neither fence law nor a no
fence law, but a conglomeration of con-
hicting ideas. that confuse instead of en-
tighten, and must lead to endless litigation
and internecine luminosity.
81 must confess that my feeble mind does
not fully comprehend the situation, and l
write to be instructed. Is the law at present
so lax and inefficient that cattle can tres
pass on cultivated land, break down bitches,
upset fences, and eat crops with perfect
impunityl If SO, then it is time
that something should be done
to remedy such fragrant abuses.
question like this il seems 70 me should