Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1872-03-15
(CoMMuNIcArEp.1
Potom.e F,sher,es.

g ICoMMUNIcATEp.1
Potomac Fisheries.
Mr.. Editor:-In an article on the subject of
fishing in your issue Of the LIST inst, over the
signature of ga Giller," we find the following:
"The section repealed by Mr.. Stones bill
confined gilling to the citizens of the counties
bordering on the Potomac, and this is just
whatzthe county gillers WANT
Mr.. Chapman substitute was to retain this
feature in the bill. So our worthy representa-
tives found themselves in the dilemma of pull
ing in opposite directions, something they
could not well avoid with proper regard to
limitations thrown out to their constituents
last fall during the canvass.
Chapman was for Buncombe Stone had
read somewhere in the Constitution of the
United States that: tsThe citizens of each State
shall be entitled to all the privileges and inn
munities ofcitizens in the several States"
AS giller, sto the manor born, +" I am will
ing to accord to our worthy and distinguished
Representatives. due credit for the way they play
their separate parts. They have acted in good
faith, fulfilled all promises, and we, their con-
stituents, should throw aside for the time, and
on this subject, variety of opinion, and say,
"Well done thou good and faithful servants"
Mr.. Chapman substitute, according to the
decision of the Courts, in t'parallel cases."
would render. any law upon the subject, how
ever good, nugatory, but he was acting in be-
half and for what number of his gilling con-
stituehts considered their peculiar rights and
privileges.
Mr.. Stones view, as it would seem to me as
a "Fisherman, I" was, that five pass a law upon
this vexed question of ''Fishing and Fisheries
upon the Potomac it should be not loose anu
unguarded, but contain, within itself, the ele-
meuts of strength as derived from law.
Suppose we have, in our opinion, exclusive
right to the Potomac, this is not the time to as
sert it by .arrogantly excluding non-residents
from the privileges, in common with ourselves,
of its waters. Our dogma might eventually
put the "dead wood' upon our shoulders.
By recent Investigations made by Mr.. DeJar-
nett, in England, it seems that Virginia is pre-
pared to prove an absolute right to the Poto-
mac up to high water mark on our side. Then,
if this doctrine of "a Giller'' is good, and Wis
tied upon us as he would have it upon others
that the State, into whose borders our beauti-
full Potomac may fall, has entire jurisdiction
and control over the same, to the exclusion of
all others-we may enjoy the privilege of sit
ting on our banks, but no other. A right to
a "fry," a "bite," or even ''nibble, mary
time"
The doctrine that the Potomac is free for all,
to certain extent, is not only sound, but, for
us, safe. Nevertheless, believe in riparian
right, or else must regard the basis of our tax
alton wrong. River lands are assessed, we
may say, as general thing, doubly as high as
the same grade of land without river front
know of an instance where few acres of
land, on the Potomac destitute of any kind of
improvements, saye an old dilapidated shed, is
sssss1 aa|IaEs, CAST as
u =! - 1!SS0, add paid CORES
ponding tax. SCI
Why this high valuation? The land ofitself
would not now, nor ever would have brought
over $50. But it was the sgater privilege, the
"RiUer Berth, that caused the high taxation
and value of the property.
This is only an instance, but it will enable
one, at glance, to perceive that land-holders
on the river pay tax on water as well as land,
and it is generally conceded that an individual
has claim on things he is taxed for-hence
riparian rights. FISHERMAN.