The Springfield herald., 1916-03-10
The Pros and Cons
AS to a Herd Law

troduced in the next Legislature,
the question OF its propriety is
just now holding the attention of
the people of Colorado, and calls
for their consideration. The
Herald, along with every
body else, Wants what is to the
best interest of Baca county.
The question has too many sides
and angles to be passed on in
a short write-up, and we
shall consequently continue
the consideration Of the
problem through probably three
or four issues of the paper; and
meantime the columns of the
Herald are open to any opposing
views. AS will be seen else
where, the Herald intends to get
the sentiment of the county in a
voting contest, and in this way
every settler in the county will
have a chance to express his
views.
AS preliminary, the first
thing that wants to be under
stood is that the question of a
herd law has some good argu.
ments on both sides.
The second thing is thatabuse,
vilification and an attempt to
ride rough shod over the
views of those on either side,
won't get anywhere. You may
convince-a man, but you can't
bully-rag him out of his views.
What We Now Have
Befor entering into the mer-
its of herd law direct, what we
have at the present time wants to
be first considered.
From the time the first of the
new settlers came into the coun-
ty, the claim has been made by
some of them that free
range applied only to govern
ment land, and that there is con-
sequently practically no more
free range in the county.
Their argument is that the
government obligated itself to
protect settlers against tres
passers when it vested title in
their names, and that it would
be an outrage, if not actual rob-
berry, to take their money and
require their residence on and
cultivation of the land, knowing
that they could not raise any
thing and hence could not live in
the country.
In few words, when the land
passes from the government it
becomes private property, and
the public can not appropri-
ate private property. Hence, as
a corolIary. there is no such
thing as free range.
The trouble of this argument
in both cases is faulty premis-
es.
The government sells you the
land. hut it doesn't vouchsafe
protection against range stock
any more than against wild ami
mals-not even if you have a
fence Il mile high. In all the
legislation at Washington from
the foundation of the government,
there has never been an act
along this line.
The facts are that the United
States government direct doesn' t
protect its citizens very much in
any way-Won even listen to
their grievances.
1t has courts, but it bars us
poor citizens from going into
them with our troubles.
IL follows consequently that
the protection we get depends
upon the state we live in.
1t is seen consequ, entity that
the talk of the government pro-
tectlng Us, whether we OWL the
land or don t own it, is built Oh a
faulty premises as to fact.
In the other matter, that the
public cannotappropriate private
property; it can't so far as occu-
patton is concerned-that is a
com mon protection in all states.
AS to protection against your
neighbor's stock, however, it fol-
lows that, since there is no fed
eral statutes or laws applying,
and consequently no government