STOCK AT LARGE.
Mr. SHIVELY called up his motion to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Helm's bill [H. R. 462] to amend Section 1 of an act to provide for the regulation of stock running at large was rejected by the House February 22.
Mr. SHIVELY stated that in all fairness and justice this hill ought to pass. He was at his home, on the Wabash last Saturday and yesterday. He talked with farmers living along the Wabash and other streams, and they told him that something must be done or they can not farm their ground this year. The argument that the poor man's cow should be allowed to run at large should not be considered in this question. There are these page: 260[View Page 260] large farmers with their fertile valleys, and unless something is done these men can not farm their lands. Their fences are al swept away.
Mr. McMULLEN hoped the bill would pass. It has been stated that the bill should simply apply to the valleys of the Ohio, Wabash and other large streams. Such a law would be unconstitutional. We could not make it apply to a single locality or any particular localities and make It constitutional. As soon as the cropping season of 1883 and 1884 are past, the provisions of this bill go out of force, and the present law comes into effect again. He knew of a strip of bottom land thirty miles in length where not a fence was left.
Mr. HOLLER said under the present law the line of toe owner of the lauds was recognized as his fence, and he was not compelled to enclose his lands with a fence to prevent the trespass of stock unless the Commissioners of the County grant the privilege of stock running at large. He believed the County Commissioners and citizens of any County of the State were more capable of judging whether stock should run at large in their Counties or not than the members of this House. He thought this bill if passed and recognized fully would work great hardship and inconveniences in some Counties.
Mr. SMITH, of Tippecanoe, had made a culculation, and of the 13,000 square miles in the State nearly one-thirtieth of this whole area is without fences. He desired to place himself on record as being in favor of the passage of this bill.
Mr. MOCK was from a County that was traversed by the raging Wabash, but he thought the Board of Commissioners of his County knew better than himself what the people warned in reference to the question. He hoped the bill would not pass.
Mr. MONTGOMERY lived In a County where they have a river. He desired to say that for the last few years they have had but little fencing along this river, but the people have been magnanimous enough to keep up their stock. He thought the people should appeal to the County Commissioners.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas, 57; nays, 30.
The bill passed the House by yeas, 55; nays, 29.
Mr. JEWETT, from the Committee of Free Conference on the general appropriation bill [H. R. 302], submitted a report of agreement on some eighteen separate items.
The report was concurred in by yeas, 51; nays, 43.
Mr. GORDON, from the Committee of Free Conference on the subject of roads, reported the recommendation that the bill [S. 6] pass with amendments, and that bill [H. R. 48] lie on the table.
The report was concurred in by yeas, 82; nays, 5.
Mr. GILMAN'S bill [H. R. 7] concerning railroads and other corporations was taken up, and pending its consideration-
The House adjourned until to-morrow at o'clock.
