Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1873-04-24
April 18th, 1878.
EUGENE DIeGEs, ESQ.


---, April 18th, 1878.
EUGENE DIeeEs, ESQ.
Dear Sir lin replying to your favor of
the 10th inst, take pleasure in express
ing the satisfaction I feel in finding that
your attention has been called to, and your
feelings enlisted in, a cause that intimate
~ concerns very large number of your
fellow countymen Indeed, 1 cannot see
how the public spirit,-a rare virtue in
these degenerate days-which prompts
you, for the general good, to take an in
terest in matters from which you can per-
sonally expect no special benefit, can be
otherwise than highly appreciated. 1t is
not, I apprehend, generally known that
Charles county possesses, in the Wicomico
river and adjacent waters, such extensive
beds of oysters that, under proper manage
ment, they might become source of great
profit to our people, and of no iEconsider-
able revenue to the county and even to the
State as in Virginia. But that, under the
operation of law passed by the General
Assembly of Maryland, at the January ses-
sion, 1872, CHI. 1877, all the advantages of
profit and luxury, which our citizens had
a right to expect from these valuable pos
sessions, are about to pass away to strang-
ers. By this Act, those sections of previ-
Gus laws, which prohibited all persons ex-
cept residents of the county, from catching
oysters for sale, in the waters of Charles,
were repealed, and the same privileges
granted to persons from all parts of the
State, as to those ofour county. This law,
although it purports to be general, is, as
far as the Western Shore of Maryland is
concerned, virtually an enactment for the
special benefit of the people of St. Mary's
county. They have many years experience,
and large capital invested, in the oyster
business, we have neither, and, from pres
emit indications, by the time we could be
prepared to successfully engage in the bu-
siness there will be no oysters left. At
this present there are, in full view from my
premises, five large vessels, with formid-
able fleet of small boats, occupied in their
usual work of destruction-the larger YES
sells are, learn, from Virginia, and take
from our river, for the purpose of bedding
in Virginia waters, daily average of sew
eral thousand bushels. It is true they have
principally confined their depredations, up
to this time, to the st. Mary's side of the
channel, but having nearly exhausted the
supply within their own waters, will soon,
[ am informed, make descent upon ours,
and, in that event, I can safely say that the
time is near at hand when oysters will be
a rare and costly luxury for our people.
You will readily perceive from the above
that our real grounds of complaint are not,
as you seem to suppose, with the violators
of the law, but with the law itself 1t not
only gives away, without any considera-
ton, a valuable right, but by reducing the
boat license for those engaged in the bust
ness, to an insignificant sum, makes the
probable revenue from this source mere
bagatelle. Oysters, from the daily increas-
ing demand and difficulty of supplying it,
are rapidly enhancing in value. A few
years ago their consumption was limited
to the seaboard and few miles interior,
now they are sent, in cans to all parts of
the world, and, such are the extraordinary
facilities for rapid transportation, carried
safely in the she'll, to all parts of the United
States and even to Europe; hence the pros
pective value of those in our immediate
vicinity can be easily estimated. We, the
owners of the adjoining lands, claim no
exclusive rights, but consider them as the
common property of the county, and wish
them to be protected and used as such. I
feel impelled to say much more upon the
subject, but as the above hasty suggestions
fully indicate my views, shall leave the
matter, for the present, in your hands.
Before concluding, however, you must
pardon me for inquiring, what part the
Delegates from our county bore in the pas
sage of this Objectionable Act. Did they
favor or oppose it2 Ifthey favored it, was
it upon the general principle that they
were opposed to the protection of local in
terest2 Why, then, did they support laws
for the protection of the herring fisheries
and wild turkeys in the upper part of our
county, or, if they opposed it, where is the
indignant protest they must have entered
against its passage, as an outrage upon
their constituents? I am sure the course
of these gentlemen is susceptible of the
most satisfactory explanation, and mere
ly inquire for my own personal informa
ton. Very truly yours,