The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-12-16
SATURDAY. DECEMBER IS, 1882.
Maryland Oysters.

The article ON the preservation of oys-
tiers, in a recent issue of the ADVOCATE,
has been republished in every county on
the water courses, and general discussion
of the oyster interest has sprung up. The
views Of this journal have generally been
commended, and only one journal dissented
from its suggestion. All agree that the
oysters are failing, and that legislation is
needed to protect them, but the nature of
that legislation is not subject of equal
unanimity. Our respected contemporary,
the Easton Star, makes some suggestions
similar to those of the Governor in his
message upon the subject to the Legisla-
ture-that the bay ought to be districted
and worked and protected from being
worked alternately, giving the oysters in the
exempted districts chance to grow and
increase, for period of two, three, or more
years. The idea is good, if practicable.
The greatest difficulty this plan would en-
counter, would be to get the dredgers and
tongmen to respect the law and keep off
the forbidden districts. AS we said in our
former article there are no bounds to the
cupidity of man-and dredgers and tong
men would have them, unless vigorously
guarded by the oyster police. Nor do we
believe it practicable to guard the exempted
beds SO as to afford the requisite protection;
hence our suggestion to encourage the plant
ing of oysters by individuals in private coues
and inlets belonging to residents living upon
the water courses. To this suggestion our
esteemed contemporary, the Crisfetd
Leader; takes exception. 1t seems to have
Inexperienced both the letter and the
spirit of our article, and says
''The plan of the Adcocate will not meet
with the approval of the thousands of persons
whose living comes by the oyster, because
such measure would discriminate against
them. 1t would result in placing the oyster
beds of the State in the hands of capitalists to
The foregoing extract from the Leader
pleased, no doubt, the Crisfeld oystermen,
but it is no answer to our suggestion.
Oystermen generally are opposed to all
reservations of oyster beds, no matter where
such beds may be located. But what have
they to do with the private coves and inlets
of gentlemen living upon the water courses?
Those coves and inlets are invested with
riparian rights, and belong to the freehold
or farm, with which oystermen have moth
ing to do, unless they become trespassers or
freebooters. Is it not competent to protect
such oyster beds by law, without consider
ing the approval or disapproval of -''the
thousands whose living comes by the oys-
ter ?' Why you might as well contend
that the farmers meat-house and corn-crib
could not be protected "because such
measure would discriminate against the oys-
termen" The Leader knows full we'll
that these narrow coves and inlets, within
prescribed limits, are private property,
where oyster beds may be planted by the
owners of the land with the same rights
and immunities as they could plant their
orchards on the land. Surely the Leader
does not mean to contend that the oyster
man has the right to take oysters from any
place where he can push his canoe, into
private coveg and inlets of this SORT Such
has too often been his practice, but our
suggestion looked to the better protection
of such private and individual enterprises,
not to the natural beds in the bay and in
the rivers, for these are doomed already,
and nothing can save them, in our judg-
ment, from the common rapacity. Again,
the Leader says: ... ...
''The idea of protecting the oyster beds of
private individuals at the expense of the state
is not good one, and the taxpayers would
revolt at such legislation" Netr I'D
Doubtless they would, but there was no
idea of that sort in our suggestion; it orig
mated with the Leader exclusively, and
proves what we said in the outset of this
article, that it had Inexperienced both
the letter and spirit of our remarks. Our
suggestion was for further Legislation, if
needed, to foster and protect these private
enterprises protection which the law
gives to private property; there was no al
fusion to protection by the oyster po-
lice, because such thing would be absurd.
How, then, could tax payers ''revolt at such
legislation p Why, it is the very thing
that all taxpayers want protection of their
private property. Let the Leader read us
more attentively hereafter. lle-
Praise and Censure. .'