The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-02-10

this kind of business, the greater the
criminal, and if any man has SO many
animals that he can't take care of
them, he should be the one to suffer
the loss that accrueS in consequence,
and not his neighbor, the farmer;
neither should his neighber be COM
PEELED to enter a civil suit to collect
damages. If he is, he will have no
time to do anything else, and it is no
use talking about protection for him
in this way. But you say mans prop
erty cannot be taken from him with
out due process of law. What about
the farmers property under these cir
cumstances? Again, they will say, you
can't make these dumb brutes Grim
inals. Now, in my opinion. right here
IS where the compromise so much
talked of by our last legislature should
come in, for it is certain, according
to Webster's definition, these animals
are nuisance running at large, there
tore as all other nuisances they should
be abated; but, in contradistinction to.
other nuiSances they are of great ben
eft, and quite indispensable to the hui
man family; therefore, if people are
allowed to keep them for profit, and if,
for lack of care on their part, they do
damage to their neighbor, they should
be compelled to pay the damage with
out any civil procedure. This, as 1 view
1t, would be the compromise. However,
the laws they have in some other
places would do well enough for US
here. 1t is said that comparisons are
odious, but I say they are useful and
serve a good purpose sometimes. In
order to show the cussedness of the
law in regard to the matter, and also
the way the animals are handled, [
Will make a comparison. 1t is said it
is poor rule that won't work both
ways. Take, for instance, these same
ANIMALS; they are only property like
our farms and crops are 1t ought
not to be any more of a crime to steal
and destroy them than it is to steal
and destroy the farmers crops. want
II distinctly understood that I am not
advocating this line of procedure, as
Two wrongs do not make a right; yet
when man can go in the fields and
see animals by the score destroying
MS crops, and that in broad daylight,
and he is poWerless to do anything
with either them or their owners, it is
hard to tell what he may be driven to
90. The truth of the matter is, that
both OF them ought to be protected in
the same manner; and anything else
is farce and a mockery, and that is
Just exactly what the title of the law
should be that was enacted by the
people who allow their animals to do
these things, because they have no
fear of punishment? Is it possible that
they can justify themselves in this
kind of business? However, it is clear
that the farmer cannot depend on the
honesty of all the people in taking
care OF their animals. I am pleased to
say there are a great many honorable
exceptions of men who would not
think OF taking this mean advantage
OF their neighbors. Some say fence,
and a few are fencing their land in
order to keep these animals off. This
makes it worse for those that don't
renee; and the only safety for those
that Go fence, under present condi-
lions, is that their neighbors do not
fence. a strange proposition, you say;
but | will explain. We have field of
a thousand acres, more or less, all
farm land. 1t is owned in lots of from
five to twenty acres. There is a street
running through the field east and west
and streets a quarter of a mile apart
running north and south. Now, it
would cost a great deal to fence all
these lots, and most of the farmers
would consider a fence a nuisance, as
they have no water running on their
land for stock all the time; neither do
they want animals on it trampllng the
life out of it. Now, just think of all
these animals running loose on these
streets, and not a spear of grass or any
other feed outside; also the farmers
living in cities from one to three miles
away; how long do you suppose they
(the animals) would be before they
would break through these fences to
get the feed they so much desire, and
their owners are a great deal more
anxious they should get in than they
are, inasmuch that they often turn
them in those lots that are fenced, as
they have been seen doing these things
very often. Besides a great many in
conveniences and costs that are too nu-
merous to mention, it is very clear to
me that this is not the solution of this
trouble; but every man should take
care of his own animals on his own
land. and the remedy is complete. In
explanation, 1 will say, that these
streets are as much the private prop
erty of the owners of the fields as the
land is adjoining them, and they were
! left as streets for their convenience
only They tell us what a great
amount of money is brought in the
state by the stock and sheep industry
which is very true. Then let them
spend some Of this money in taking
care of the streets. Then they will re-
move the cause of our complaint in
The way they handle their animals in
order to make money; as, for instance
one man said he had the best fence
enclosing his land there was around
here. When asked if he put his ami
mails in his own field he said: why
no: l put them where they get the
best feed" This tells the whole story
and he might have said, when they
have stole and destroyed all there is
of my neighbors', I put them on my
own land,' for that is the way a great
many others do. This is one of our
stock and sheep men. Some Of these
would-be innocents want to know what
they must do with their animals when
they come out of the canyons, if they
can't turn them in our fields? Well
If they were as green as they want tc
make it appear they are, they (the
! tWo-legged animals) ought to be put
through a process in order that they
! might be preserved for future use in
some museum as curios. Consistency
thou art a jewel.
Hoping you will do all in your power
for the right, as you have in the past
remain, very respectfully yours.
JOHN DONE.