450 



FARMERS' REGISTER— PETITION ON ENCLOSURES. 



tliree thousand five hundred and twenty pounds. 

 The produce of the rows j)lanted with whole po- 

 tatoes was at the rate of four-hundred and fiity- 

 eight bushels or thirty-two thousand and sixty 

 pounds. The diflerence in the crop in favor of 

 whole potatoes was at the rate of one- hundred 

 and twenty-two bushels the acre, but as there 

 were twenty-two bushels more of seed the acre 

 used in planting the whole potatoes the nett gain 

 Avas only one-hundred bushels. However, as one 

 bushel of potatoes at the season of planting is 

 usually worth two bushels at harvest time, it will 

 be more accurate to calculate the gain at seventy- 

 eight bushels. The lund of potatoes planted was 

 the '■'■white blue, ■nose''^ which is decidedly the best 

 potato lor the table I have ever cultivated, though 

 a moderate bearer unless it receive generous treat- 

 ment. 



Ellsworth, (Me.) "id Nov. 1834. 



For tlie Farmers' Register. 



PETITION FOR AN A3IENDMENT OF THE LAAV 

 RESPECTING ENCLOSURES, ON aiARGINS OF 

 THE NAVIGABLE TIDE WATERS OF JAIMES 

 RIVER. 



[Lest it should be supposed that the appearance of 

 the following petition indicates some opposition to the 

 former one aslcing for a more general change in the 

 law of enclosures, it is proper to state tliat the two pe- 

 titions originated with dilierent persons, and in distant 

 parts of the country — and though without concert, and 

 asking for relief in dilFerent modes, the two petitions, 

 so far from being in conflict, will serve to aid each 

 other's object. Public notice was advertised of the 

 intention of offering this petition, some months before 

 the publication of the other.] 



To the General j^iseiibly of Virsinia. 



The petition of the subscribers respectfully 

 Bhowet?i: 



That your petitioners are owners or occupiers oi 

 Ian 1 lying on, and partly bounded by, the naviga- 

 ble tide waters of James River, or some of its 

 tributary streams. 



That in addition to the hardship and injustice 

 which, in common with most of our fellow citi- 

 zens, we sufTerfrom the general operation of the law 

 respecting enclosures, (which general hardships 

 we do not mean here to discuss,) your petitioners 

 are subjected to other and peculiar uijuries, from 

 which they may be easily secured by legislative in- 

 terposition, without any loss or disadvantage to 

 the community in general, and without inflictinir 

 wrong on any individual citizen whatever. 



That by the existing law, the navigable rivers 

 and their creeks and tributaries, however v»'ide and 

 deep, are not legally a barrier against the trespass- 

 es of live stock Irom neighboring lands — and there- 

 fore that the water boundaries of liirms must be 

 kept covered by a "lawful fence," or the owner of 

 the land be subject to sufl'er, without redress, any 

 extent of depredations from mischievous animals. 



The great width of the Lower James River 

 makes it in most places, an actual and sufRi-.ient 

 obstruction to the crossing of animals — and there- 

 fore the land owners may, and often do, dispense 

 with fences along the shores, by making "water 



fences"jutting into the river, or creeky, to such dis- 

 tances as circumstances require and permit. But 

 these jutting fisnces are not only very expensive 

 and difficult to construct, and to secure tioin de- 

 struction by storms, but they are not legal substi- 

 tutes lor complete enclosures, and he who uses 

 them does so at his peril — and he can have no re- 

 dress for any depredations of aniiTials trespassing 

 on a field fenced parti)- in this manner, because it 

 is not under a "lawful enclosure." 



Eut greater evils are felt where the waters, though 

 deep, are more narrovv'. There also, generally, all 

 stock, except hogs, are effectually kept from pass- 

 ing, by the miry nature of the bottom and margins 

 of the creeks. But hogs cannot be stoj^pcd by 

 these obstacles, nor by any dejith of water, nor 

 even by a considerable width, as well as depth: 

 and if a field of 100 acres was thus exposed to the 

 encroachment of a single hog trained to mischief) 

 there would be no legal remedy, or safeguard, ex- 

 cept fencing the whole water line. 



The fences thus required by the law along the 

 margins of rivers and navigable creeks, are by far 

 the most expensive in our part of Virginia, where 

 fencing has become generally a most burdensome 

 tax on agriculture. The adjacent lands in al- 

 most every case are divested of all timber suitable 

 for fencing, which makes it necessary to bring it 

 from distant places: most of the water lines are 

 marshy, or otherwise not easily accessible to carts: 

 and witiial so crooked as often to need fences of 

 double the length of straight courses: and after 

 being constructed at such great expense, i(?nces in 

 these places are immediately and alwajs in dan- 

 ger from storms, high tides, and the concealed at- 

 tacks of mischievous hogs, or their owners who 

 may desire to profit by such depredations. 



If there was any compensating benefit (by 

 whomsoever it might be received) for all the waste 

 of fencing along the borders of deep tide water, 

 we should hesitate to ask your honora,ble body for 

 this boon, however great its A^alue would be to us. 

 But in fact, the granting of our praj^er for relief 

 will encroach on no man's rights, and scarcely in 

 the slightest degree on any one's interest, whether 

 that interest be in the use of his own, or of his 

 neighbor's fields. The scanty supply of food ob- 

 tained by live stock along the margins of rivers 

 and creeks, and from which they might be debarred 

 by the desired change in the law, is scarcely vv'orth 

 as much as the expense and risk incurred liy stock 

 being allowed to range at large in such places: 

 and the whole profit thus derived from stock, is 

 certainly not equal to the tenth part of the expense 

 of the fencing which is now necessary for gaining 

 that profit, and for no oiher purpose. 



We therefore j^ray of your honorable body that 

 the general provisions of the law passed at the 

 last session, which makes the Upper Appomattox 

 a lawful ftince, may be extended to all parts of the 

 tide waters of James River, its creeks and tribu- 

 tary streams, navigable by vessels drawing four 

 feet depth of water — and that "stops," or "water 

 fences," under proper regulations, may be made 

 lawful fences between the adjoining lands, on the 

 same side of a water course. 



All which is respectfully submitted. 



