DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF SOUTHERN AGRICULTURE. 
VOL, Xni. AUGUSTA, GA., MARCH, 1855. NO. d. 
WILLIAM S. JONES, Publisher. DANIEL LEE, M. D., and D. REDMOND, Editors, 
Scnunniij anii 
THE COST OF FENCING PLANTATIONS. 
There is scarcely a planter or farmer in the United 
States who has not seen and felt the heavy tax to which 
American agriculture is subjected by reason of that earl}' 
colonial system of compelling every cultivator to fence his 
crops, instead of requiring every owner of live stock to 
keep them out of his neighbor’s cultivated fields. We will 
not say that our forefathers did wrong at a time when the 
area under tillage was comparatively small, fencing tim- 
ber abundant, and a wide common range for hogs, neat 
cattle, and other domestic animals, was very desirable, in 
a new country. Lhider such circumstances, they might 
wisely and properly dispense with the ancient common 
law principle that a man’s premises are not to be invaded 
by another man, nor by another man’s stock, as a right 
belonging to the latter, fence or no fence. A moment’s re- 
flection will satisfy any one that to give one man’s cattle 
the privilege to graze upon, and occupy another man’s 
land, is an invasion of the rights of property only to be 
justified by the clear attain. men t of a liigher public good. 
In all civilized communities, private interests and person- 
al rights aremoi'e or less yielded up, and sacrificed for the 
better security of such rights and interests as are retain- 
ed and enjoyed by each member of the community. 
Not to consume time on what will appear to most read- 
ers as mere truisms, we proceed at once to discuss the 
question whether in a State or District, where Tillage is 
the great common interest, it is wise to compel the fencing 
of all crops against hogs and cattle, for the small advant- 
ages that accrue from their licened range over forests and 
old fields'? That this wide range in almost every county 
in Georgia, (to the circumstances of which our remarks 
are intended to apply) is worth something to the owners of 
stock, is not denied. But is it really worth a tithe of the 
cost of fences in the best planting regions'? That the 
first cost of a mile of good fence is very considerable ; and 
that it will soon need expensive repairs, is always liable 
to be consumed by fire, and must at the best be followed 
by another, and another, if the field be cultivated, and at 
a continually increasing expense as timber becomes scarce 
and scarcer, are facts too well known by sad experience. 
We shall not now enter into any estimate in dollars of the 
amount of this enormous tax upon Southern agriculture, 
because fencing materials are much more abundant in 
some districts than in others, and we have not the data at 
hand to make a fair average. This journal has many 
readers who are far better qualified by long residence and 
large experience, than the writer, to make a trustworthy 
estimate ; and we hope some one will deem (he subject of 
sufficient importance to tell the public through (he medium of 
the Soulhem CvUivatcr what is the probable cost of de- 
fending the crops in a forty or fifty acre field, which a man 
owns, from the invasion of hogs and other stock ; and 
wluit is the probable amount of this tax upon a County 
and a State. An intelligent, thoughtful gentleman, \vho 
has called our attention to this matter, says that all the 
hogs kept in several counties in middle Georgia, sold at a 
fair price, would not pay for the fences made and support- 
ted mainly to keep them out of growing crops. 
Such as have woods in which mast for hogs, or cane- 
brake for larger stock, or other forage abounds, can afford 
to fence in their woodhmd, and thu.s enjoy the exclusive 
benefit of (heir property. In the District of Columbia 
hogs are not free-commoners, but cattle are ; and by keep- 
ing up hogs, and only fencing against r.eat cattle, the ex- 
pense of fencing is reduced about one-half. In time, the 
community will see the folly of fencing against cattle ; for 
rails are now w'orth there from sixty to seventy dollars a 
thousand. 
In a purely economical point of view, we are opposed 
to allowing live stock to run at large without a shophcnl 
or herdsman, to bring the animals home to be yarded or 
folded, and thereby enrich the home fann or plantatit a by 
their manure. Under the daily care of a keeper, stock 
may range for miles without depredating on any cultivat- 
ed crops, and enrich their owner and the State by their 
products. In this way they will enrich arable fields by 
their droppings at night, and trespass on no man’s rights 
of property. They will promote civilization and augment 
wealth, instead of retarding the one and damaging the 
other. 
Stock -Husbandry is regarded by us with no inconsider- 
able favor wlnm right managed. The Creator of the ani- 
mal kingdom called into existence “the beasts of the field’* 
for a wise and useful purpose. They sustain cfi tain na- 
tural relations to plants, which no culiivatior of the soil 
should fail to study and understand Our present system 
of fencing against live stock, of turning them out to shirk 
for themselves, and too often steal their living or starve, 
is bad every way ; and it belongs, legitimately, to the 
dark ages of semi-savage life. It virtually excludes them 
from plantation economy, and makes them enemies and 
trespassers where they ought to be friends and profitable 
occupants. Under a wise system of rural economy, culti- 
vated plants and cultivated animals harmonize admirably, 
as do the vegetable and animal kingdoms everywhere ; but 
let our stock be fenced in, rather than our coin and cotton. 
I'hese and otlier c.'-ops will never travel off their owner’s 
land to injure others. As much cannot be said of hogs, 
sheep, cattle and horsea. Why should not the owner of 
