Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-06-30
MATTHEWS COUNTY.
The Oy ster-vcsssi Ray MORAN Expeu-
stve Case.


Correspondence ofthe Richmond Dispatch.l
WEsTviLLE, June 2S, 1886.
The suit Of The Commonwealth
against Nirginius r. Machen, the object
Of which is to recover the difference
between 1850, the purchase-money Of
the forfeited vessel G. y. Raynor, aud
sl00, the sum for which tho vessel VAS
bought in by the Board on the Chesa-
peake and its Tributaries. was called at
the June term OF the County Court,
Mr.. Machen having failed to comply
with the terms of sale on the ground
that the State failed to make satisfac-
tory title to the vessel. Messrs. Jones
and Bland appeared for the Common
wealth, and Mr.. Machen, coniding in
the business Of his cause, declined
to be represented by counsel, aud
entered the arena with compo-
sure worthy Of trained gladia-
tor. lie did not attempt an elaborate
argument, but contented himself with q
plain and unvarnished statement Of the
facts bearing upon the case. Mr.. Bland
briefly stated the position Of the Com
monwealth, claiming, among other
things, that a receipt given upon the
court decree Of sale was sufficient. The
case was finally submitted. Judge Gar
nett took il under AMUSEMENT, and will
give his decision at or before the July
term. IL adverse 10 the defendant, no
will appeal to the Circuit Court and ask
for a jury.
am informed by Mr.. Machen that
the Raynor is mortgaged for $500. Tho
instrument being OF record in the Gus
tom-house at Crisfeld, Nd. This yes-
sci, twice captured by the Virginia
navy, and the subject Of many vicissi-
tudes of good and evil fortune--doubt-
less having made many successful raids
upon the Virginia Observation-Disclosures .
very long and stormy voyage through
the courts, was finally sold by the au.
thoritieS for the Insignificant sum Of
ilC0. The former owner becoming the
purchaser.
In litigation, guard service, and other
incidentals this vessel has cost the tax
payers Of the State all OF one thousand
dollars. Ii strikes he that this savors
more of ruin than revenue. The Vir-
GINA oyster law is radically defective.
Ostensibly measure for protection
and revenue, it il virtually a bill to
encourage ruinous litigation. | have
before advocated a change in this law.
4 careful retrospection Of the history
Of the oyster law as a conllscation
measure will show that it is a sad fall
ure and will not hold water. The
farmers, who are the bone and sinew Of
every land, the producers who feed
the teemiDg millions Of the world,
and constitute the great power
behind the throne, hold within their
grasp a lever which, intelligently ap-
piled, would control the destinies Of
the world. These and other tax-pay-
ers DEMAND that there shall be .
change in this law. Severe is the light
that flashes against the throne. Let it
flash. 1t is our only hope. Let our
Solons Of the General Assembly amend
this law, and give to the magistrates
court competent jurisdiction to dispose
of these cases, and impose q fine Of
500 in each case, extending to tho
owner or commander tho privilege of
appeal. They would gladly pay the
line, and the great object sought-tan-
gble reyenue--w would be the result,
and protection would be secured.
4. }. NJ.