The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-08-06
CATTLE MEN NOT SATISFIED.
PETITIONS FOR ANOTHER FENCE
OR NO FENCE ELECTION.


sIr. Miller, Their Attorney, Contends
That the County Has Had an Elec-
ton But That the Militia Districts
Have NOt-Protective Associations
Formed in the Country Districts.
An Obligation TO Vote as Suits
Their Leaders Many Lawyers
Think That the Election Cannot BE
Held Twice in the Same Year.
Although the mo Fence law was car
ried by a majority of 23l, at tie recent
election, it seems that the cattle men in
some Of the districts are not fully salts
fed and desire TO further test the matter.
Petitions from four of the county mill
tia districts have been filed with the or
binary. petidoning him. under the Geor-
gia code. of 1852. sections 1449-J0-51-52-53
and 81 TO order another election.
The petition from the Fifth district is
headed by Abram simons. f. r. Stone,
J. II. Wotcttman and is signed by six
teen others. all claiming to be freeholders.
That from the Sixth district is signed by
George McLoud, Admies Bush, Gordon
Ruchney and twenty-five others. The
Seventh district has the names of c. T.
Cooper, J. w. Heston, Chance Grant and
sixteen others, and the Eighth district
has the signatures of S. J. Waller, l.. H.
Williams, B. NJ. Heath and fourteen
others.
These petitions are all gotten UP in the
,.,.rr
out the sections above quoted, which pro-
vide that whenever fifteen or more free
holders in a militia district petition for
such election, the ordinary shall proceed
to put up notices and shall advertise for
a period Of twenty days. The election
shall be held as soon after this period
elapses as is practicable, the statute says.
! G. II. Miller is the attorney representing
the fence people.
The law provides that the change as
provided for by the result of such an cleo
ton shall go into effect six months there
after. At the election held in July the
decision of mo fence" goes into effect in
January next.
Besides providing for the holding of the
election, etc. on the petitions as given
above the statutes go further and adds the
following significant paragraph: "Provi-
ded that said last election shall not be held
oftener than one time in every year
Judge Ferrill the ordinary, stated that
he had not fully examined the petitions
as yet, and could not say what he would
do, but according TO the above quoted
provisions Of the statute. there cannot
be two elections upon this same question
during the same year.
The election in July was strongly fought
on the part Of the cattle men, but the peo-
pie interested in having cattle restrained
and kept from trampling upon crops, gar
dens, and all other improvements carried
the day by a majority of 231. Now the cat
tie men are trying to get up elections by
militia districts, leaving out the districts
where they know that the sentiment is
strongly against the free running of cattle
at large
Mr.. Miller. the attorney who is acting
for the petitioners, claims that the districts
never held an election, and hence that the
clause prohibiting more than one election
in any year does not apply to this case,
as the election held in July was a county
election. He says the districts mentioned
are almost unanimously for a for fence"
law, and that they will fight for it strong
ly. Clubs have been formed in all these
districts styled Peoples Protective As
ISOLATION" and all have banded together
for this object. The obligation Of every
applicant for membership is as follows:
Il, ---, agree to obey the consti-
tuition Of the Peoples Protective Associa-
tion and to vote in all matters relating to
the material welfare of the association
in accordance with the instructions of the
executive committee"
Mr.. Miller further says if the ordinary
does not think the election can be called,
they will likely make a test case of the
matter, and have a mandamus issued to
| compel him to advertise for an election,
as provided In the statutes.
Several lawyers TO whom the question
was submitted as to the meaning of these
two statutes. relating to county and dis
trict elections, thought the question was
rather a delicate one. but that it seemed
as if one election should settle the matter,
the evident idea of the trainers of the law
being to prevent too frequent use of the
election machinery, by placing the limit
on each year.
Judging from the last election returns
the people in the four country district did
! not seem to care much about the question,
one way or another, as the figures below
/ indicate: