THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



513 



the legal policy ol Virginia in regard to, let, fenc- 

 ing, and trespasses o! live-stock on crops— 2cl, the 

 drainage of extensive swamps, or lands of sundry 

 proprietors subject to inundation by one common 

 Biream — and 3d, the existenee oi' uiill-ponds inju- 

 rious to health. 



The pecuniary losses to the commonvvealih pro- 

 duced coniinually hy each one of these obstacles 

 to improvement are enoimous. Bui, in addiiion, 

 the two latter evils annually produce mjuries to 

 the health, lo the Iivi;s, and to the liappiness ol 

 many thousands of persons, which cannot be esti- 

 mated in money values, and wliich greatly exceed 

 all possible extent of the pecuniar}' sacrifice. But, ' 

 ildismissing Irom consideration and estimate these 

 higher and far more precious interests, and hav- 

 ing regard merely to the money value ol' the 

 cost and ol" the products of the erroneous existing 

 policy ol' Virginia in these three things only, the 

 balance ol' annual loss thereby susiained, (alier 

 making lull allowance lor all gains from the sys- 

 tem,) it" correctly estimated, would amount lo as 

 much as a very large proportion of all the real 

 agricultural profits derived I'rom other and truly 

 productive and valuable sources. 



Neither is it the purpose of the writer lo go fully 

 into the discussion of even these three subjects, or 

 to aitemjjt lo exhibit all the force oi their operation 

 as obstacles to agricultural improve. nent, and de- 

 stroyers of agricultural profiis. To embrace even 

 the important details, would require the sujijects 

 to be treated at such length as would be unsuitable 

 upon this occasion. In such general and cursory 

 manner as is deemed suitable and requisite, the 

 three subjects will now be treated in the order 

 stated above. 



/. The legal policy of Virginia in regard to enclo- 

 sures, and trespasses. 



Justice and policy have concurred in fixing as a 

 general principle in the laws of civilized nations, 

 that eac/i individual should be compelled to refrain 

 from trespassing injurioushj on Ihe properly, or 

 otherwise doing wrong, either directly, or through 

 others under his control, to any other person un- 

 der the protection of ihe laws. In Virginia, how- 

 ever, there is one most important exception to the 

 general adoption of this principle. The whole 

 land of our country is, in eflect, deprived of this 

 protection against trespassers and wrong-doers. 

 Our law does not forbid A to permit his cattle to 

 eat and destroy the growing or ripe crops of B ; but 

 compels B to secure his fields effectually against 

 the entrance of the cattle, or otherwise maintains 

 A as innocent. In this case the rule just named 

 is reversed ; and so far as our fields and crops are 

 in question, the principle adopted is this : each 

 individual shall guard and protect his property 

 from depredators, and every person is permitted to 

 consume or destroy all that may not be well guarded. 



The injustice ofthis reversed rule would be rea- 

 dily admitted by any one who considered the ques- 

 tion abstracted from thecircumstaiice?! from which 

 our policy sprang, or who was not in some degree 

 blinded by being accustomed and reconciled to the 

 practical operation ofthis policy. But I am no ad- 

 vocate for aiming at theoretical perfection in go- 

 vernment, or consulting arithmetic and geometry, 

 rather than the actual condition of men, to make 

 rules for their direction. I freely admit that, at a 



former time, circumstances in Virginia required 

 the general adoption of this policy^and that it is 

 still expedient over a large portion of her territory. 

 But in another large |,'oriion of the slate, from 

 changes of circumstances, this policy has become 

 as injurious iu iis practical operation, as it is unjust 

 in theory. 



When our country was newly settled, the ex- 

 tent of cultivated land was very small compared 

 to the lorests and waste land, much of which, even 

 in that stale, was valuable lor pasturage ; and it 

 was by liir cheaper to lence in a lew and small spots 

 of arable land than the extensive woodland pas- 

 lures, or range for stock ; and the range was much 

 too valuable to be abandoned. It was beneficial 

 to every landholder that such should be the general 

 plan 0) enclosures, although the open land thereby 

 became one large common pasture, for the use of 

 him who owned but little, or none of it, as much 

 as lor those who owned the largest shares. Ac- 

 cording to these views our legal policy wi;h respect 

 to enclosures was fixed ; and from it all derived at 

 fiist some benefit, though certainly the benefits 

 v>ere very unequally divided. The law, stated 

 generally, requires that each owner of a field shall 

 surround it with a good lence, of a certain height, 

 or shall have no remedy against the intrusion of 

 his neighbors' live stock. 



But now the siate ol'things in much the greater 

 part of eastern Virginia is altogether changed. 

 All ihe liertile land has long been cleared and made 

 arable, and much more ol such as is extremely 

 poor is also under tillage. In districts where the 

 soil is, or has been, of good quality, very little tim- 

 ber lor liencing remains j and, consequently, the ex- 

 pense of lencingis increased greatly more than in 

 proportion to the increased extent of enclosures. 

 The remaining wood-land is poor, and so worthless 

 lor pasturage or range for stock of any kind, that 

 many ol the owners make no use of their unen- 

 closed wood-land for that purpose. But this aban- 

 doning the use of their woodland (which in fact is 

 noi worth using by any one,) does not relieve the 

 owner of the expense ol lencing his arable land ; 

 and this is required merely that other persons may 

 not be deprived of the use of his wood-land lor 

 range, which he does not consider worth using as 

 such for his own live stock. 



The great extent of lencing required bears es- 

 pecially hard on the tide- water region. There, on 

 and neargood lands, the original growths of durable 

 pine and good oak have all been destroyed — and a 

 choice has been alread}', or soon will be presented 

 to every farmer, either to purchase suitable fencing 

 timber at a distance, or to use the old field pines 

 which form the second growth of his worn fields, 

 and which are not more remarkable for their rapid 

 growih, than for their rapidity in rotting, when 

 used for lencing timber. There are no durable 

 materials lor dead fences, and the frequent di- 

 visions of lands, as well as the laws permitting 

 stock of every kind to range at large, forbid or 

 discourage the attempt to make live hedges. 

 There are many farms which have five miles of 

 perishable fences to keep in repair, that do not 

 yield §500 of clear profit ; and many other tracts 

 are thrown out of cultivation, and yield nothing to 

 their owners, (who in most cases are the especial 

 favorites of our laws — widows or orphans — ) be- 

 cause the expenses of lawful fencing would exceed 

 the whole rent. 



