Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1889-08-21
RIGHTS OF LAND is OWNERS

q RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS.
\ Few Words About tho Fence Question
vi and the Dog Nuisance.
The owner Of land has rights which
,hould be respected as much as the
,Wners Of houses or other property.
What a man purchases and paws for
With the proceeds OF his own labor
should be held inviolable. in whatever
'orm it may be. A mans field or gar
len should be as inviolable as the
house of another man and should not
need costly protection to preserve it
from trespass and damage by other
persons. Hence garden or a field OF
corn should no more be required to be
fenced for protection against wander
ing stock than any house should be
fortified with stone walls aud barred
windows to keep out trampsf and
thieves. And inasmuch as this was at
one time an incidentOf lawlessness and
semi-barbarity, when every mans hand
was lifted against his fellow who owned
any thing desirable to the lawless rob
Der, SO now it is an incident of equal
lawlessness and barbarity that mans
crops should be overrun and destroyed
by the cattle of his neighbors unless
more than the value of these cattle is
spent in fencing them out.
Pastures only need to be fenced for
the purpose of taking care of the farm
stock. All road fences and arabic
field fences should be unnecessary. In
many cases the relief from the cost of
making and keeping up fences would
be the difference between poverty and
pecuniary ease. No doubt the other
benefits resulting from such q just and
proper system as economy Of land,
less difficult destruction of weeds, ETC.,
would still further better the farmers
condition and make his life more
pleasant. AS it now is, where the
absurd and unjust practice of permit
ting cattle to roam at large prevails,
the farmer is obliged to guard himself
against every other man and to watch
and ward his property in the fashion
of the middle ages, while every other
man in permitted to harass and injure
the farmer with impun.ty. And per-
haps the most glaring injustice of all
is the wrong done to farmers in per-
hitting dogs to roam over his premises
away from home and from tle care of
their owners, and so worry and destroy
the sheep as to wholly prevent the
existence of this profitable industry of
keeping them over the greater part of
the most desirable portions of the
country. In fact the owner of a dog
enjoys privileges-or assumes the en-
joyment of them-which are most dam
aging to the business of the shepherd,
and yet popular sentiment is all on the
side of the dogs, whose entire extinc-
ton at blow would not injure in the
least any material interest of society,
while sheep are producers of wealth
and conducive to the welfare and pros
perity of the human race.
And yet no one proposes the ex-
tinguishment of the dogs, in spite of
their positive dangerous character and
the painful experiences of their fire.
quent vicious, ferocious and rabid at
tacks upon human beings, as we'll as of
their habit of killing sheep. All the
sheep-keeper asks is that public senti-
ment and law should hold the dogs
safely so that they may be kept in
charge of their owners and not be suf-
fered to trespass on the property of
other persons. And as the farmer is
forced to keep his sheep at home and
prevent them from running the gar
dens and crops of other persons, so the
errant proclivities of the dogs should
be restrained and these animals be al
ways kept on the premises of their
owners, where they can do no mis-
chief. This is bare justice.-N. Y.
Times.