FARMERS' REGISTER— ON THRASHING MACHINES. 



347 



and unless the breach could be proved to be their 

 act, its existence would serve to justify the trespass. 

 Even if by possibility neither this nor any of 

 Ihe other obstacles before named, stand in the way 

 of the farmer's obtaining redress, there are still 

 others that will prove sufficiently efiectual. For 

 the first offence, he is only permitted to recover 

 the value of the actual damages sustained — and 

 for this purpose the fact of every ofience must be 

 fully sustained by proof Well — the farmer finds 

 hogs in his corn field at earing time, or in his rank 

 wheat just betbre it is fit to reap. That damage 

 has been done, is untiuestionable — and that unless 

 the intruders are speedily removed, it will be en- 

 ormous, IS equally so — but how is it jiossible to 

 establish by testimony the extent of the damage, 

 and to fix it upon the particular animals that have 

 produced it ? The wheat field may exhibit evi- 

 dence that hogs have concealed themselves under 

 its heavy cover for at least a month, and have 

 caused perhaps damage to the amount of Sg;50: but 

 how can it be proved that all this was caused by 

 the one or more hogs found and caught at last? 

 Besides, it is most likely that the hogs would not 

 be secured so as to be identified, but would escape, 

 to return and renew their attacks. If any uncer- 

 tainty existed as to the identity, or the ownership 

 of the animals-— or as to whether the damage had 

 been actually committed by them, there could be 

 no redress obtained under°the law. If, however, 

 the farmer has a legal witness present, and that 

 witness actually sees a hog tear down and eat six 

 ears of corn, and he can swear to the individual 

 hog, either by his ear marks, or from former per- 

 sonal acquaintance — and the survey is made, and 

 the fence found lawful, then all obstacles are at 

 length overcome, and the iiu'mer who has suffered 

 the trespass may recover damages to the amount 

 of the value of six ears of green corn: and if (by 

 almost a miracle) he could a second time get 

 through all the like difficulties of proof, with the 

 same trespassing neighbor, and convict him of a 

 similar offence, he would receive as compensation 

 double damages, or the value of twelve cars of 

 corn. I doufit, however, whether he would be 

 entitled to double damages, unless it was the same 

 animal that committed the first trespass. 



It is ditficult to be serious in discussing the pre- 

 tensions of this law to the character of being re- 

 medial, and giving compensation to the sufferer, 

 and adequate punishment to the trespasser. In 

 truth, its provisions offer no redress whatever: they 

 are a solemn mockery of the claims of right and 

 justice, in the details, no less than in the general 

 principle of the law — and it might more truly be 

 entitled "an act to authorise the trespasses of live 

 stock on the fields of neighboring proprietors, and 

 to prevent all remedy therefor.'''' Its actual opera- 

 tion is according to this title and character, and not 

 according to its title in the statute book — for in 

 more than thirty years that I have resided in a 

 part of the country where there has never been a 

 lack of trespassing stock, I have never heard of 

 any resort to the law lor damages, nor of any suf- 

 ferer who even thought of" it as a remedy. This 

 fact alone, (and I belie\'e it is general,) is enough 

 to prove that the law in every particular is utterly 

 worthless for the purposes which it professes to 

 sen'e. 



It may be asked then, "if the law is so inopera- 

 tive, how does it happen that fences actually serve 



in most cases to protect the crops, and that all 

 fields are not frequently depredated on by the stock 

 of men who are willing to take any privilege that 

 the operation or omission of the law can give?" 

 I answer, and the truth is notorious, that it is not 

 tear of the law that restrains such acts of such 

 individuals, (who, thanks to God, are yet but few 

 in number,) but the tt3ar of public indignation, and 

 perhajjs of such damages to their trespassing stock, 

 as are not authorised by law, but which are far 

 more efiectual. It is to the general sound moral 

 sense of the community — to the strong percejjfion 

 of right and wrong, and tlie different effects of thia 

 on those who act upriglitly or unjusdy towards 

 their neighbors, which serve more to restrain tres- 

 passers than all the protection promised by the 

 law. 



From these views of the particular provisions 

 of the law, and its general disuse, I reacli the con- 

 clusion, that the law of enclosures is in every res- 

 pect inoperative — in efl'ect, null and void — except 

 so far as it gives up the property of some individu- 

 als to be used or destroyed by others, without the 

 possibility of compensation being obtained, or legal 

 punishment inflicted. 



R. N. 



BONE BIANURK. 



From Long Island Star. 



This most valuable article is now sufficiently 

 known to be in very great request by the liirmers. 

 The mill of ]Mr. Ogden at Red-Hook, has been at 

 times unable to supply the demand. The mill of 

 Mr. Hornby in New York, has 10,000 bushels on 

 hand, which can be obtained of JNIr. Chikls, 63 

 Fulton street, Brooklyn, who informs us that the 

 accumulation of bones in N. York is such, that 

 800 tons will be sent off in a few da3-s, to manure 

 the soil of Great Britain. Exportaiion of bones to 

 England is no new thing, but we liope an increas- 

 ing knowledge of their value will create a brisk 

 demand at home. — Long Island embraces 925,000 

 acres, of wliich 587.095 are yet unimproved. 



OIV THRASHING MACIIIKF.S. 



To the Editor of the Farmers' Register. 



It being my wish to procure before the next 

 year's harvest a jiortable wheat machine, I seek 

 information througlr the Register for directions 

 where to obtain the cheapest and the best. I con- 

 sider that machine the best, which will thrash the 

 most A\'heat in the cleanest manner — which is least 

 liable to break, and which ret j aires no more than 

 the ordinary skill and care which we can command 

 in our overseers and negroes — and which is easy 

 of transportation and fixfure. 



I have a stationary machine — a wooden one 

 upon the plan, I believe, of the Scotch machines — 

 with which I finished thrashing a fortnight ago, 

 the fourth crop. It was erected ibr me in 1831, by 

 John Clark, ot" Fredericksburg. It thrashed 1014 

 bushels in 1831, in 9 days, being an average of 

 112-| bushels each day — 102 bushels the least, 147 

 bushels the greatest day's work: besides wheat of 

 mdift'erent quahty — not thrashed very clean. 



In 1832, it thrashed on the 25th of June, 158^ 

 bushels of early wheat, of superior quality; and in 

 August, 1477 bnsliels in 12 days — say 11^ days, 

 (having began late on the first day, thrashing 40 

 bushels only, and finishing early on the last day, 



