Year: 1877

cheaply as nows We answer unhes
sitatingly, yes. The proposed law
makes it obligatory on the landlord
to furnish pasturage for two head of
cattle to each field hand. This is
more for cattle than most renters
will need, but they can substitute
hogs or sheep, or more Of both. And
those renters who properly appreci-
ate the necessities of the landlord in
this respect, from the scarcity of
timber, will excite in the hearts of
the landlord, corresponding kind
feeling towards his interests, which
will make their efforts reciprocal to
advance as far as possible, each others
interests. This feeling of reciprocity
ofinterests, If properly cherished by
both parties, has always in the past,
and will in the future, result bene-
hcially to both parties. Pasturage
being assured to the renter on az
favorable terms as before, then it
follows that if he consults his own in
terests as well as that of the landlord,
they will vote Jointly to fence the
stock.


But the objections a,e due to the
subtertuge of saying, that 10 fence
the stock instead of crops is good
Thing, but we object to the law be-
cause it was not passed as State
law to cover the whole State, to 90
into effect some definite time in the
future, ono says next January, an
other says some five years hence,
giving the people time to make the
required changes. Let us analyze
this spccious pretext little. The
law as passed, leaves it with the
people OF each township, to adopt it
Or not, as suits their interests or con.
vcni> nee. These oLjectors say, don't
leave it to the people, but pass
State law giving time for the people
to mako tie necessary changes
Ihls argument would do very well
if the condition of the people Of the
different Counties of the State were
exactly alike. But such is not the
case. Take The County of Pickens
tor an example. While the lower
half of the County is just as much
Interested in the proposed stc OK law
as the people Of the upper half of
Anderson, yet it may be safely pre-
sumed that the people of the upper
part of the County do not now need
such law, and probably may not
for many years to come, if ever.-
They have large excess of grazing
lands over arabic lands, hence their
Interests would perhaps be bett er
subserved, by continuing in force the
Old fence laws. Would it not be
oppressive to force upon these people
the adoption of policy 80 antagoa
nlstlc to their interests, merely be,
cause the people of other portions of
the County, or Of other Counties, do
manded auch change in furtherance
OF their own interests. And then
again along our coast lines there are
many countless where grazing lands
and stock are their most valuable
property, hence, they too, like the
mountalneers, do not need a law, in
deed, would be injured by it. And
then again, by submitting the ques-
ton by townships to the people, every
section can consult it's own interests.
and decide accordingly. If it shall
be found after the election, as in An.
dereon for instance, that Il majority
OF the townships are in favor of the
proposed law, but not all, the County
commissioners can await the meet
ing OF the Legislature and change the
law so as to fence in the whole conn,
ty. The opponents of tho meas,
ure could not consistently object to,
and then again, as tho law now