The Pence Question in the South. 17 



For a century and a half a large population has been consuming and wasting 

 the best timbered region on the continent that lying between the Atlantic 

 and the Mississippi River and the consumption of lumber for building, fenc- 

 ing, implements, railroads, etc., is increasing with gigantic strides. 



The fence question has been taken up and discussed with great intelligence 

 by State Boards of Agriculture, notably that of Kentucky, the Report of 

 which latter Board, in 1878, contains the following : 



There are in Kentucky 125,000 farms, which will average 600 rods of fencing to the farm. 

 This will aggregate 75, 000,000 rods.chiefly of the old " worm fence," which still holds jts prepon- 

 derance. To build this amount of fencing will call for 2,000,000,000 rails, and not less than 70,- 

 000,000 rail trees. To keep this amount of fencing in repair will call for a yearly consumption 

 of 280,000,000 rails and the destruction of ten millions of timber trees. The money cost for the 

 whole of our fencing, at $1-00 per rod cannot be less than $75,000,000, and the annual cost for 

 repairs and renewals not less than $10,000,000. The census reports make the value of Kentucky 

 farms $311,238,916. The value of the fences $75,000,000 is therefore nearly one-fourth the 

 total value of the farms. Farmers must learn that fences are costly, and be ready for some plan 

 to help diminish their great cost. 



Such facts as these have been widely received as pressing suggestions for 

 fence reform, a better economy in kind and use of material, and in legislation 

 modifying the system of fencing. 



THE " NO FENCE LAWS, SO CALLED. 



A movement to do away with fences on the boundary line of farms and for 

 the protection of fields, began in the legislation of Virginia in 1856, in the 

 passage of a special act for abolishing the general fence law within the 

 limits of King William County. In 1857 a special act of a similar nature 

 was made applicable to a part of Prince George County. In 1866 the whole 

 principle was embodied in an amendment to the general fence law of the 

 State of Virginia, to be adopted at their option by vote in all counties or 

 townships in the state, and in the act of 1873 the county Boards of Super- 

 visors were authorized to adopt the law of 1856 for their own counties. By 

 this Virginia system, since copied in the statutes of North Carolina (1872) 

 Georgia (1872), South Carolina (extra session 1877), the parties seeking the 

 benefits of the new system, whether as residents of a county, township or 

 parts of either, are required to build and maintain a " lawful fence " the 

 definition of which remains unchanged in the statutes, on the outer boundary 

 of all such territory ; as the following from the Virginia act will sufficiently 

 show. 



SEC. 15. Provides that the boundaries of all counties adopting the fence law of 1866 shall be 

 declared lawful fences. Good and substantial gates to be erected in such enclosing fences at all 

 crossings of public roads with gate keepers, where the court of the county shall require the 

 same * * * the cost of such outer fences to be equitably distributed among all owners and 

 occupants admitted to the privileges of this act. 



SEC. 16. (No domestic animal within such boundaries to be allowed to run at large beyond 

 limits of owner's land.) 



(SEC. 17-18. Owner of animals liable in double damages for injury sustained by such tres- 

 passing animals), ( Virginia Rev. Stat. 1873, p. 795.) 



Obviously this is not doing away with fences, and is improperly termed the 

 " No-Fence Law," since it is a modification which seeks a better economy in 

 fences ; for not only must the large territory within named limits be strictly 

 enclosed to keep trespassing animals out, but all animals within such bounds 

 must be carefully kept within the fence enclosures of their owners, since 

 within such defended limits the rule of common law prevails. It is only 

 a new vindication of the utility of the fence, and as we have before shown, 

 this resort itself is nothing new. Circular fences and enclosures in common 



