The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-06-02

operates differently In Chatham county
than anywhere else in the world.
This is a commercial city, its prosperity
greatly depending upon its extent of trade
Does not truck-farming chiefly support
our fine lines of steamers and the railroad
companies at this season of the year, with
their army of employees, who handle the
hundreds of thousands of packages. But
for truck farming in this county would
Savannah enjoy her present degree of
prosperity? Does it not bring annually
large amount of money into the commu-
nityf Without reference to the host of
hands employed in the production of the
crop, would there be many laborers on
the wharves. on the railroads, in the iron
boundaries, on the street car lines, as con-
ductors and motormen, etc. etc. On the
other hand, in what degree has the cattle
interest benefit the city? Does it employ
labor? Has there been one single pound
of beef, pork, mutton, bacon, cheese or
butter, or a single pint of milk exported
from Savannah? Not street car con-
ductor or railroad employee would lose his
employment # not a COW existed in the
county. How foolish then the objection
that the mo fence law would injure the
poor! Poor and rich alike are benefited
by every enhancement in the prosperity
of their city, hence ii is the plain duty of
every citizen to promote it when oppor-
or business man will deny the correctness
of any of the above statements. yet l have
recently found many of them too indiffer-
ent to have even taken the trouble to
inform themselves of the meaning
of the election. The charge has frequent
ly been made against the citizens of Sa-
vannah that they are not sufficiently alive
to the interests of their city, allowing 9TH
ers to reap advantages they might readily
have secured for her. and it seems to be
well founded.
The value of all the agricultural lands
in South Carolina in 1850 was estimated
at $40 900, COO. The first cost of fences to in
close them was $16, 600, 900 and the annual
outlay of the farmers to keep them in re-
pair for protection against poor stock,
with only fraction of any of these sums
was 1880, coo. Fortunately her legislature
has had the good sense to relieve her farm
ers of this useless, enormous burden, leav-
ing Georgia Gn parD of all the original
states, the discreditable distinction of still
being cursed with the present stupid fence
law.
Below I quote a letter recently re-
ceived from the commission of agriculture
of South Carolina.
Clemson College, S. c., May 49, 1895. DR..
A. Oemler: Dear Sir-Replying to yours of
oath inst, l would state. after a trial of
about sixteen years of the stock law in
this state, all objection to the same have
disappeared. and our people of all classes
are thoroughly satisfied with its workings,
and could not be induced to go ack to the
old system of fencing crops. The poor peo-
pie. as we'll as the rich. realize that they
have been benefited by the change. Yours
very truly, R. W. Simpson,
Pres. Trus. c. A. c.
That burden had remained for many
wears self-imposed, through the mistaken
ideas and ignorance of those most deeply
interested. and this danger confronts us
now. l have heard of truck farmers be-
ing opposed to the mo fence" law for the
following reasons:
l. In any case they would have to re-
tain fences.
9 Not having the great expense of fenc-
ing to encounter many persons would be
able to plant small areas. Production be-
ing thus increased. the large farmers
would encounter the competition Of these
poor people In regard to No. l, it is safe
10 say if mo fence prevails after the
fences now existing have rotted away (un-
less removed no farmer will go to the use
less expense of erecting new ones, thus
losing the use Of a part of his land and
perpetuating the source of weed seeds.
AS to No. ,, mo fence seems to have
hard road to travel. Some of those who
should be its most ardent promoters, thus
object 10 the great help 1t must afford