The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-06-28
TAKE DOWN THE FENCES
And Get into Line With the Progress
sive Spirit of the Times.

And Get into Line With the Progress
sive Spirit of the Times.
WILMINGTON ISLAND, JUNE 24-Editor'
Morning NetCs: As a representative of the
truck interest Of Chatham county l am
constrained to add few reasons to those
already enumerated in your columns why
her citizens should vote for mo fencen in
the approaching election. The late Rev.
ID. E. Butler delivered the first speech in
the cause of the farmer against the enormity
of the present fence law before the agri-
cultural convention at Griffin on Aug. IA,
1872, and the governor signed the first stock
law ON Aug. &c, 1872.
The fence law only being adapted to
regions worthless for agricultural purposes,
| county after county, in advancing civiliza-
tion, has since then repudiated it at the polls,
until all the more populous, progressive
/ and prosperous have adopted the mo fence
law, except the earliest se,tled-Chatham
| Up to a year ago such was the case with the
| following thirty-five counties; Bibb, Butts,
| Campbell, Clarke, Columbia, Coweta, Clay
ton, Dougherty, Ebert. Greene, Hancock.
Hart, Henry, Houston, Jasper, Jones, Lin
coin, McDuffie, Meriwether, Monroe, Nor
| gan, Muscogee, Newton, Oconee, Ogle-
| thorpe, Pike, Richmond, Rockdale, Spald-
| ing, Talbot. Taliaferro. Troup, Walton,
| Warren and Wilkes.
VIII the citizens of Chatham fail to place
their county IN the same category of prog
ress? The following twenty-seven had
adopted it by districts: Baldwin, 2 dis
tricts; Carroll, Z; Chattahpochee, /; Chero-
kee, /; Cobb, 8; DeKalb. all but one; Frank
lin, 6; Fulton, g.; Gwinnett Q; Hall, l:
Harris, s; Heard, half the county; jackson,
| 8; Macon, east half; Marion, 1 Milton, s.
Paulding, 2; Pulaski. L; Quitman, l; Ran
| dolpl, 2; Scriven, 3; Stewart, 4; Sumter,
1; Schley, L; Twiggs, 3; Epson, 3; Wash
ington, 8. OF the remaining counties 2f
had not reported and in 40 the Anticipated
fence law was still in force
Soil formation and its natural increase in
| fertility depend upon the decay of accu-
| mulated vegetable matter. Where cattle
are allowed to run at large there can be no
such improvement. The case becomes ag.
gravated when the woods and fields are
burned off by cattlenen for the benefit of
their stock in the spring, and the expensive
| fencing the farmers have had to put I'D 10
s6if-defense are frequently recklessly de.
stroyed. On what just grounds is the
| farmer deprived of this fertllizing vegetable
matter? If he is entitled to the minerals
! below and to the timbers upon the surface
! of the land without the necessity of inclos.
ing it, why should he be compelled to
maintain fences to protect other products OF
his soil?
The cattle owner does not help to till the
| farmers crops, and the latter should not be
expected to feed the formers stockl II
each class confined its operations within its
| own boundaries there would be less quar-
reling and litigation.
A few years ago crops of cotton and pro
visions were grown on this island by the
negroes. Now not stock of the former
and hardly single acre of the latter is &c
be found, the eolored people having beer
nearly all driven off by cattle running al
| large. Thef few remaining have been com.
| PEELED to resort to fishing and oystering for
| support. Thus has labor been diminished
| in quantity and demoralized in quality
| What becomes in this and similar cases OF
| the clap trap assertion of injury to the pooI
| and who are here the ''land barons ~ As
matter of fact. there being more poor farmers
than poor cattle owners the mo fence'' law
would confer benefit on a greater number
| of Door people. Twenty-Five years ago the
acreage value of land in California was sc
cents per acre. Soon after the passage of a
no fence law it incaeased to $50 per acre.
| In 1850 the improved lands in South Car
| DINA were estimated at $4,000, 600 The
| first cost of 100000 miles of fencing wa.
$4,000. 900, and the annual repair:
amounted to $1,600.000 No wonder hel
people not only acquiesce in, but rejoice at
| the passage of the ''no fencen law, which
has removed the burden. Previous to tha
date the cost of fences in the United State.
was estimated to be more than twenty time,
all the specie in the land, and in 1870 theil
total first cost was 1900, 900, 000 Tht
waste Of this enormous sum occurred main
! " at the south, for at that time the western
states were already more progressive upoi
| this subject.
A generation ago the fences in Pennsvl
/ A4O6 rAf0 49,
! co., 000
1t is nothing short of tyranny to impose
such a burden on one class, in order that an
other may be benefited, and he who vote
for fence will help to perpetuate the op
preston. A. OEMLER.