Year: 1877




Legislature to the voters of the State, and
very generally decided in favor Of the pres
ent system of enclosing, in sham way, the
cultivated fields against the depredations of
hobbled cattle and pike.nosed hogs. Ches-
ter County, We See it stated, voted in favor
of change in all her townships. In An
derson, where the county had actually been
canvassed upon the subject, few of the
townships opposed the change. Only one
township in Abbcville County and two or
three in Fairfield favored change. So
we may say, the law proposing to enclose
S5YsdS5satsd whssSVe put % The test of:f6e
Ebailot box, ,'as q State measure.


We do not consider the law as proposed
by the Legislature fair test of the wants
of our people, simply because it had in it
the anomalous feature of allowing townships
to adopt or reject it. AS we'll may it have
been said, let any two or three farmers adopt
or reject it. We would not favor the pas
sage of a law submitting this question to
counties, simply because such law would
infiict unnecessary hardships upon the citi-
zens of certain sections of every county
1t should be law for the State or no por-
tion of it; though We doubt not, that if the
land owners of any one county would petit
ton the Legislature for change in the cx-
isting law their petition would be granted,
and the remainder of the citizens of that
county, who really have no just ri ght to op-
pose the change, would be required to con-
form- -teStkernewt law, We do not care to
discuss this question here, because we could
not convince any one who is opposed to us
that his views are incorrect, but we are bold
enough to say, that any farmer who opposes
the change in any part of the State is, in
our Judgment. an old fogy, and is ignorant
of the quantity of land necessary to Craze
his cattle and other stock during the plant
ing, cultivating and harvesting seasons.


But We do propose to say word upon
the subject of who defeated this stock law
at the recent election. True, many land
owners were opposed to it because it was
submitted by townships; others opposed it
from the fallaeious idea that fencing
stock was denying the poor man living
chance, mere sentiment we think, and yet
StAsEs 0RESssd i because they feared
work we'll. But who gave systematic, or
ganized opposition to its passage? The ne
groes; they turned out to man and boy and
voted against it unanimously, and why? Not
because they knew or believed it would in
jure them; not because they felt an inter-
est in the country's welfare; not because
they had stock and no land upon which to
pasture them, for they were told, that their
employers would by the law be compelled to
furnish them pasturagc; (and just here we
would inquire of the trainers of the law,
could such provision have been enforced
had the law passed? is it not worse than
unconstitutional not because they en-
joyed the luxury of maulng rails and build
ing fences not because they anticipated
any injury, or curtalment Of rights, civil
or otherwise, by the passage of the law
but the negroes as a body opposed the pas
sage OF the new stock law, with malice
aforethought, for the sole reason that the
white people favored it, and this they will
do on all occasions until their number is 90
reduced, or the number OF the whites is so
increased, that their opposition will amount
to nothing.


But does not this opposition of the ne
groes teach the farmers more ideas than
one! 1t clearly shows how united and thor
oughly organized they are, and that they on
ly require a malicious leader TO prove them
selves capable of voting return of those
days we have in the past fought so manful-
ly to conquer. Thisqucstion Of the fence law
they made political question, and would
listen to no advice or counsel from their
employers, but went blindly against it be-
cause it was favored by the whites.


And what further does this action of the
negroes show? 1t simply proves how COM
pletely unorganizcd the farmers of South
Carolina are. We are not a "band of
brothers," we care nothing for each others
likes and dislikes; we have no concert of
action we have no industrial or political
organization whereby each and every one is
required to stand shoulder to shoulder with
his neighbor, even though his interests are
temporarily sacrificed by so doing. Each and
all Of us have most potent and independent
individuality, which enables us to contest
and thwart the interest of the majority
whenever We chose to act from selfinterest
or even obstinacy'


Does not the recent election read us a
valuable lesson upon the necessity of organ
ization? What has become of our Demo
cratic Clubs p Where are our Labor Re-
form Associations? Why does not the
Grange organization show its power in all
questions that concern the industrial devel-
opment of the country? There is no State
in this Union that is an agricultural State