Year: 1872

LOWER PLACER, Jan. 18th, 1872.


Mr.. EDIToR: In the discussion Of the
fence or no-tence law, it seems that most
persons wander from the question of prn-
ciple to one Of policy. None will deny that
in the radical change of any policy, some
will be injured, but the benefit is found i'll
the increased prosperity of the general well
fare. As a question of principle, will some
enc tell me why should fence my wheat
field or grass field or my hogs, or my sheep,
and my neighbor should allow his cattle or
horses to wander at their WILL regardless OF
the rights of those too poor to fence. Yet
such is the law, and none seem TO regard it
as such terrible hardship, OF that lawsuits
are more common now than they were when
sheep and hogs were free commoners. 1t
seems to me (as question OF public econ
opy) the argument is entirely with the no
fence law advocates; for 10 one acquainted
with the facts will doubt that or all the
farms in the lower half Of the county, the
fences on them have cost five dollars
at least for one dollars worth Of stock
in the same tract of country. Now one
does not need to be very well yersed IN
mathematics to know that when We spend
four dollars to save one we shall soon come
out at the little end Of the horn.


The above are the views of a neighbor Of
mine on the no-fence side of the question, as
obtained from him in conversation; if they
are of any use to you they are at your ser
vice. | wish to say that this one is all |
have found on this side of tie question
among my acquaintancea, and | must do
him the justice TO say that | believe him to
be honest in his o. inions, and not Influenced
by interest, as he has his land fenced


j. O.


To the above we may say that the hog
law is regarded as nullty, and by its own
conditions rendered Incapable of enforcement.
The sheep law is predicated on the theory
that bands of sheep, to be profitable, must
be herded, fence or no fence, and that where
these herds 60 they destroy everything be-
fore them That, as they must be herded,
they can as well he grazed on public as pri-
vatc Lands; in droyes Of thousands they
would destroy the home range of every set
tier, and make it impossible TO even keep a
COW or a horse by a poor man. Sheep are
no part of family living, while cows and
horses are an absolute necessity to the farmer
or settler. There is no law TO prevent sheep
from running at large the same as horses or
cattle; they are as free TO roam where they
please as any other stock. On this point
our no-tence friend makes fatal mistake.
The lac only merents The ouner from drir-
ing or herding them on otter mems hnd.
An equally gross error is committed when
our anti-fence friend says that, in the lower
half of this county, the fences have cost
five dollars to one the stock is worth Take
the stock that has been disposed Of and now
on hand and the cost Of fences in that half
of the county and it will be found that stock
has yielded more than five dollars to one the
fences have cost. All writers and theorists
ruin themselves when they argue from fal3e
data, as has our friend in the above. Placer
county has, in round numbers, 1000, 600
acres of land aud cultivates but 30, 900
that is, cultiyates but one acre out of thirty
three. Thus thirty-three acres Of range
must be lost to save one acre Of fencing,
This policy would surely bring her people
"out at the little end Of the horn" This
much, in goodnature, to the only no-fencc
man in ono settlement. A no-fcnce law
would be money in our pocket, and we speak
of it only in view of its effects on the pros
perity Of our county and people. We are
publishing paper 10 subserve public interest
and not for private purposes.