The Savannah morning news., 1903-06-03
A MOVEMENT BACKWARD.

A petition against the mo fence" law
is being circulated, and, 1t is said, has
received many signatures. 1t is re-
markable that such a petition should
meet the approval of any considerable
number of people of the county. 1t
will be recalled that the law was
adopted after a hard campaign, and
| there is no question but that 1t has
been of great benefit to the county.
! There has been a decided increase in
the cultivated area, and the prospect
is that the increase in the next few
years will be far greater than in the
last few, because of the construction
of so many good roads.
1t is understood, of course, that as
the law is at present land is cultivated
without being fenced, and cattle and
hogs are kept within Enclosures. We
venture the opinion that cattle and
hogs are in a much better condition
since this law went into effect than
| they ever were before in this county.
The reason is they have been given
more attention. When they ran wild
specimens of their kind, and the hogs
were known as 'razorbacks." Now the
cattle present very much better APP
pearance and the hogs are much more
of credit to their owners. Those who
have the good of the county at heart
ought to consider the matter carefully
before signing the petition. OF course,
/ IA 49,.
but a sufficiently signed petition opens
the way for repeating it. Probably the
most of those who are seeking to have
the law changed-to have the law so
that stock will be permitted to run at
large and cultivated fields will have
to be fenced in-seek to pasture their
cattle and hogs on lands that are not
inclosed.
The argument is advanced that the
law is against the interests of
the poor man. That was the
argument that was used to prevent
its adoption. 1t isn't good
argument. A poor man who has
a COW or two and few hogs
cannot afford to turn them into the
commons. He wants TO get the best
possible results from them. He, there
fore, keeps them in good pasture and
| feeds them. If he should let them run
wild he would get no benefit from them
worth considering. 1t is the man prob
ably who has a large number of young
cattle and hogs, and who wishes to
raise them on the unfenced lands, who
is the one who expects to be benefited
! by the proposed change in the law.
And the fact ought not to be over
| looked that cattle roaming at will over
the country would do great damage to
the canals and bitches. In crossing
them, and wading in them they would
push the soft soil into them, thus in
creasing the cost of keeping them
open. Besides they would be getting
on the railroad tracks to the annoyance
of the railroad companies and on the
improved roads to the annoyance of the
automobiles.
The mo fence" law is the poor mans
law, because it enables him to culti-
vate a few acres of land without go
ing to the expense of constructing
fences. The demand of the poor man
is no fence for crops and fence for
cattle and hogs. If the present law
is retained we shall see vast improve
ment in the county in the next ten
years. There are signs of it on every
hand. Now that the county is pretty
well drained and good roads are being
| built TO every part of IT, the lands will
be brought under cultivation. To re-
peal the law would be going backward.
and that. too, for the benefit of COM
paratively few people. Improvements
would be stopped and some OF the land
that has been recently brought under
cultivation would be abandoned. Pub
lie sentiment should veto the petition
calling for an election TO repeal the
mo fence" law.