Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1895-06-01
FREE RANCE n WESTERN KANSAS.

The Hoxie Sentinel had a well writ
ten editorial on the subject OF Free
Range last week, but the editors de-
auctions. we think are not well taken.
The Sentinel says: Pass law fore
ing every farmer to fence his farm
land instead OF his pasture land In
this way it would not require as much
OF an outlay for fencing material as
under the present system and the rest
could be invested in an irrigation
plant. with the aid OF which enough
vegetables could be raised to live on.
That this country is adapted TO stock
raising is known TO all acquainted
with its history and no matter how
low in price stock goes on the market
there would always be money in it.
provided We had no herd or damage
bills to pay. With law of this
kind. in a short time our prair-
les would be covered with herds
of cattle, sheep and horses; we
would be sought out by eastern
buyers. who would bring money in
abundance TO Us. instead of sending
all we can rake and scrape together
east to procure the bare necessities of
life"
We used TO think and talk the same
way but experience and observation
and a careful consideration of the sub
ject has effected a most radical change
in our opinion. Free range would
mean that large cattle owners from
eastern counties would mOnopolize
our pasture during the summer
months without a dollars advantage
to the farmer or to the county. This
stock would be brought in the county
after the first day Of March, and
therefore would be assessed elsewhere
and. in the fall, would be driven back
and, when ready for market, sold by
nOn-reSidentS and the proceeds eX
pended elsewhere. That it would be
a good thing for non-residentS must
be admitted. but we are supposed to
be looking after our own welfare
principally. That it would be posi-
tive detriment to our small stock
raisers seems to US apparent. These
large herds would mOnOpOliZe our
prairieS and in year or two the grass
would become inferior and our own
stock growers would suffer without
any compromising advantages. Buff
falo grass pasture is limited in its
growth and too much stock or too
close pasturing is not desirable. A
rich cattle man, or a corporation. by
the purchase OF a very few quarter
sections of watered land might prac-
tically control the half of county
while our own farmers would be COM
PEELED to fence pastures for their
dozen or so head and put in pumps
and wind mills for water. As it now
is they roam at win and feast and
grow upon the rich and abundant feed
without any expense to the owner.
Large herds would drive them back
and the farmer with only few head
would be driven out of business. Such
law in our opinion would be grand
thing for foreign cattle men and for
men and corporations owning large
herds, in other words the law would
foster monopoly to the serious detri-
ment of our own small farmers. If it
would be constitutional to pass free
range law restricting the right TO res
idents only, we might favor it, but to
pass law entirely in the interests of
those who have no interests in our
county and who would not even pay
taxes here, we think should be oppos-
ed by every citizen Of our county. We
advise the farmers OF western Kansas
to consider the matter very carefully
before they vote to donate our rich
pastures to aliens, corporations and
rich men who have no interest what
ever in your success but whose inter
est will be in conflict with yours in
every instance.