Year: 1877

From the Anderson Tntelgencer


FENCING GIN" vs.. FENCING "OUT."


The fact that We are soon to vote upon the
proposition to change the system of fencing
which has been pursued in South Carolina
from its early settlement to the present time,
induces US to present few thoughts in advo-
cacy of the change. We do not expect, nor
desire our citizens to support the measure
without carefully considering its advisability,
and, therefore, we believe there ought to be
the fullest and most unprejudiced discussion
of its merits and demerts A system which
has prevailed for more than a century ought
not to be lightly overthrown, but if, after ma
ture deliberation, better plan of fencing
than our present one can be discovered, every
one ought to be not only willing, but anxious
to adopt it. Many of the old customs Of life
have given place to modern progress. A
traveller would scarcely 60 from here to New
York by stage because that was the old way
of locomotion neither would he take passage
across the ocean on sail vessel because it is
the ancient manner of ofnavigation. The same
principle is applicable to every department of
human action. Men are always willing to do
what is best, and old systems are constantly
giving place to new and improved ones. 1t
should apply to our fencing as we'll as to any
other subject, and if it is shown to be better
to fence in stock than to fence them out, eve
ry voter should assist in adopting the change
in the law necessary to secure the advantage.
Assuming, then, that every voter is actuated
BY the desire to ascertain what is best for the
whole county, upon this important subject,
we shall endeavor to address whatever we
may have to say on it, to the reason and not
to the prejudice nor passion of our readers.


The original settlers of South Carolina
came, as is known by all, from England,
where the enclosure of lands to prevent the
trespassing of stock, has not been practiced
for very many years, if it ever was done, and
when they reached American soil, they would
no doubt have enacted laws requiring the
fencing up of cattle had they been allowed TO
frame their own legislation but on arriving
here they found themselves under the domin-
ion Of British Lord, who gave such local
laws as suited his interests, and we may rest
assured that these laws we're framed not
for the rich and more influential. Only the
wealthy at that time had cattle, and as they
were not engaged in agriculture to any con-
siderable extent, they were willing enough to
make their tenants fence in all crops in order
to allow their stock to run upon the fine pas
lures the country then afforded.


At the time when the Revolution set Caro-
lima free, the system of fencing was continued
as it was established in colonial days, because
the cultivated fields were ready fenced, and
there was an abundance of timber to maintain
fences for long time, and the pasture lands
were at that period in their original perfec'
tion. Thus the system arose, and has been
continued to the present time. Is it wise
longer to maintain it? We think not, for
several reasons. First, the physical benefits
to be derived from change Of system are
very valuable. The abolition Of our long
string of useless fencing would allow our wood
lands to grow up, and the fencing of cattle
would give our old fields luxuriant carpet
of grass within two or three years, the result
of which would, as science teaches US. in few
years increase the rainfall of our country, and
thereby add to the fertility and productive
ness of our soil, as we'll as tend to prevent ex.
tremes of temperature. That all may COM
prehend this, we have but to illustrate by
simple example. If person blows his
breath, which is q hot current of air, upon
pane of glass, which is cold substance, the
result is that moisture is formed and settles
upon its surface. So, if large forests are grow.
ing in our country, when the hot currents of
atmosphere are passing over in the summer,
they will, by coming into contact with the
cold surface of forest leaves, be condensed in.
to showers and when our fields are growing
up with grass, much of the rain which falls
will be retained instead of rolling off to the
creeks, and the tendency of its retention and
evaporation will be to lessen the extremes of
heat, which we sometimes have in summer,
and which have been noticed to increase as
the clearing up of the country has progressed.
This would be of advantage to all planters BY
securing, to some extent, an increased produc-
tiveness of the soil planted. Another of the
physical benefits would be the increased
healthfulness of our climate. Persons who
imagine that malarial fevers arise entirely
from unditched creeks and ponds, make very
great mistake, for it is matter Of experience
that these fevers have been gradually extend
ing as the country has been cleared. lfthey
were not caused by the clearing of timber,
why is it that the mountain CREEKS which fire.
quently accumulate large quantities of debris,
do not cause fevers2 The correctness of this
position is attested by science, which teaches
US the connection of the animal and vegetable
kingdoms. Men, in respiring, give of carbon,
which, if taken into the lungs again in guam
tity, is destructive of life Trees and vegeta'
BILE growth absorb this noxious gas, and give
off in large quantities oxygen, which is most
necessary for man. Of course, we do not
mean to say that malarial fevers cannot exist
where there is growth of forest but We do
believe that they would be very rare, and
only to be found where evident causes over
balance the proper equilibrium. We believe
it would pay to change our fence system in
order to take care of our timber, for the pur.
pose of protecting the health of the county, if
for no other reason.


Secondly, we favor the change because we
believe the necessities of the country demand
it. Another century, yes, another fifty years,
of such destruction of timber as has been
practiced in the same period of the past to
keep up our present system of fencing, will
place this State in a very deplorable oondl.
ton. There will be very great scarcity of
timber, and it will be almost impossible then
either to keep up pasture fence or to obtain
6rewood. If we are wise these things must be
considered. We have no coal fields conven-
lent to our section of country, and if our tim
Der should give out, fires would become a
very expensive item. Even if coal for fuel
could be had at reasonable figures along our
railroad lines, our farmers would find it very
expensive and troublesome to haul it to their
homes. The ipiudcious destruction oftimber