ANIMALS AT LARGE.
Mr. Menzie's bill [S. 33] to prevent the running at large of horses, cattle, mules, sheep, goats or swine being read the third time--
Mr. MENZIES said the bill embodies the Ohio law, with the stringent measures excluded, and has worked well there for many years. The amount of money expended for building fences to keep out stock, has amounted to about $1,000,000,000, with cost of repairs about $1,000,000 annually. The object of the bill is to compel owners of stock to fence them in. This bill is more desirable by the people representing the agricultural interests of the State, than any other measure before the General Assembly.
Mr. FOSTER was satisfied a bill of this kind would not be acceptable to his people, it being mandatory in its character.
Mr. TRAYLOR also opposed the bill as it would work great hardships to people of limited means. It will compel the poor man owning a cow to sell her, or she will b e gold by tn Marshal.
Mr. LOCKRIDGE said the Committee were favorable to the passage of this bill. The State contains a population of nearly 2,000,000--the sixth in population--and the time has come when we should legislate in favor of agriculture. Most of stock running at large becomes breechy. This is a fair bill--a majority of the people are in favor of it, and he hoped it would pass.
Mr. BELL called attention to page 62 of the acts of 1879. This law leaves the matter wholly in control of local authorities, where it ought to rest. It is better adapted to our needs. In certain portions of the State are large bodies of land.
Mr. Spann did not think the law of 1879 comes up to the standard required by the people. In his part of the State some Townships petition while adjoining Townships do not, and so the law is inoperative. This seems to be a wholesome law that will meet the approval of all classes of citizens. While a friend to the laboring man, and a poor man himself, he insisted no one has a right to let stock trespass on the lands of another.
As Mr. URMSTON understood this bill he favored it. The cost to the farming community in this State for fencing against stock amounts $5,198,000 annually, and such a measure as the one proposed would save most all that heavy expense.
Mr. KRAMER believed the present stock law sufficient to meet the wants of the farming community. In Perry County a great portion of the wild land never can be made tillable, and there stock runs at large, though no record of restraint has been made by the Commissioners of that County. It is better for the community, and better for the land. Owners of stock should not be compelled to pay damages. The present law is working well enough.
Mr. HART would like to see a stock law, but his constituency do not want such a law, and he would represent their wishes though conflicting with his own. The Commissioners passed a restraining order against the running at large of hogs, last April, but no attention was paid to it.
Mr. GRAHAM opposed the bill as a matter of principle. Under it malicious persons would tear down fences for the purpose of releasing stock and getting pay for taking up the estrays, for such stock would be the moment they would get into the highway. It opens a door for fraud.
page: 165[View Page 165]Mr. WOOLLEN would have to vote against the bill. To the people living in small places it would lead to great hardships. If it is desirable to legislate for those who own farms, it may do to pass this bill, but if it is desirable to mix up humanity in our law-making and legislate for the many, it is better not to pass it. Believing the present law meets all present demands, he should vote against repealing it.
Mr. HENRY believed no bill before the Senate would be of as much service to the people in the agricultural interests of the State as the one now under discussion. The running at large of cattle and hogs destroy the ditches along public highways, and owners of forty acres and less in his locality are favorable to such a measure. A man that can keep a cow during the winter can pay $1 or $1.50 a month as pasture rent during the summer. The bill is in the interest of small farmers who do not wish to expend all his money in putting a stake and rider fence around his forty acres.
Mr. BENZ was in favor of the bill personally, but his constituency being opposed to it, he would vote against it.
The bill failed to pass by yeas, 19; nays, 25.
