The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1899-11-09
OUR BACKWOODs FENCE LAW.
Hasn't the Time Come to Have Some Law
That is Up-tO-date or to Come up to
the Old Common Law Even.

the Old Common Law Even.
To the Editor of The Republican.
One of the most holly contested
cases often tried in Justices court
was recently tried before Squire
Sweet, of SwantOn. 1t was case
where that annoying animal, the hog
in the case referred to it was a
whole family of them-was at the
bottom of the trouble. Everyone
knows the almost utter impossibility
of keeping out drove of hogs and
pigs when they once find access to a
good cora field. In this case the party
owning the corntield, not only had his
crop destroyed but in logging the
animals off some of them were injured
and altogether it cost him over thirty
dollars in damages and litigation, be-
sides a month or two of worry and
trouble. With our present fence law
this was the only ruling possible for
the Justice He had not a lawful
fence, he injured the hogs, therefore
he must pay for them. Only one
person in the whole neighbOrhood
was benefited by having these ami
mails Why should not the one bene-
fitted be asked by the law to care for
their stock? Why should everyone
in nelghborhood be compelled to
defend themselves against stock from
which they derive no benefit? 1t is
about this way: AS stock steals
off of B; BIS stock steals off or G, and
C's stock steals off of A, and bless you
can't you see they are all getting rich
on the stealings of their stock. ..-- Last
year AS sheep got BIS oats on the
clear; this year BIS hogs got AS corn
on the clear. Nice isn's it? In fact
we are kinder to our neighbours cows,
sheep and hogs than even to their
children. We have a law on our
statute books which compels us to
give the COWS, sheep or hogs what
ever they can get, even to our whole
seasons crop, and if we injure them
we must pay the damage, or if we are
cruel to them we are liable to fine
and imprisonment If our neighbours
little boy or girl comes on our prem
ises and takes our property, it is they
who are liable to fine and imprison-
ment. 1t is said in Garrett county
that we must fence against stock
Does the law say that any mans
family, any mans children may eat
at our table unless we bolt our doors
when we eat our meals? Why should
l, who derive no benefit from neigh
boris stock, be compelled to fence
against them? Why should not he
who derives the sole benefit there
from be at the sole expense of main
tanning them. Did you ever reflect
that the fences Of Garrett county
have cost more than all her stock is
WORTH that there is not highly civ
ilized section in the Union but where
IllC oWhCl vi bUOCh 10 W
care for them, and you may ride for
miles through corn and wheat fields
without fence to be seen that the
finest towns and cities in the land
have no fences, and that the abolition
of all fences but pasture fences tends
toward advancement - toward civili-
zation. Why, the day was in our
mother county when houses had to
be castles. That days of barbarism
is long past. The day of fences for
defense is past in most sections of our
advancing land. They, too, are a
relic of barbarism, and hope their
days are numbered. Let every man
take care of what belongs to him and
see that no other man is injured
thereby. The lawful fence" lives
only in name. In practical farming
it is q dead letter. Let us advance
by repairing this source of endless
litigation. C. T. S.