Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1886-11-11
COMMUNICATED

Messrs. Editors The recent decision of
Judge Stone on the Fishery law you very
justly observed will be 'far-reaching in its
effects" and seems also far-fetched in its
conclusions. II based on the old right Of
usage in common under the common law
of England, that has been abolished by
Parliament and was never applicable here
under our form of government. The de-
cision states that the right of fishery be-
longs To the people in common: that they
had never surrendered that right" To
whom could they surrender ity We have
no King and il has not been surrendered
to the General Government. Under dem
ocratic government the people are sover-
eign and all public property belongs to
them in common. The vacant lands of the
state belong To the people IN common and
yet they can be escheated, surveyed, taken
up and applied 10 private use without any
special constitutional surrender" The
public lands under the water are equally
subject 10 the disposition of the Legislature
Is those above. The jurisdiction of the
Legislature was exercised over them, lines,
limits and bounds marked out and the State
Fishery Force organized bctors the adoption
of the present State Constitution and the
members of the Constitutional Convention,
clothed with sovereign power, aware at the
time of the exercise of this right by the
Legislature, never questioned il or Surmised
that solomon or a Daniel would sit in
judgment 10 expound higher law" I'M
written and invisible to human eyes and
undreamed of in their philosophy. The
division of the water lines To the several
counties within their limits was an act of
general equity and not specially lin favor of
any class or section" Ii had become a
fixed and settled law, just and satisfactory
10 all but this hair-splitting decision has
overriden the expressed will of the
people, unsettled the law and brought moth
ing but chaos and confusion.
The Constitution of the L. :. SAYS that
mo State shall pass any law discriminating
between the citizens of one State and the
NAtEt hS va Ct ClliLctlS
of another State cannot take out an oyster
license and it is criminal offence TO take
or catch oysters within the waters of this
State. This is straining at gnat and
swallowing II camel.
Ii the Legislature had no right Ia pass
any special fishery legislation in favor OF
any class or section and cannot draw II
line for county limits the right to survey,
mark and bound five acres of oyster lands
must be null and void also for special pri-
vatc uses. Yet the law in the latter has
been affirmed and the former annulled bv
the same authority. Ii is good law for
five acres, but bad for five thousand-gooI
for individual residents To- monopOlize ovs-
ter lands binding on the river, but bad for
licensed tongers TO be confined To county.
If 1.-THE right of fishery belonged to the PEG
pie in common" with no surrender what
right has the Legislature to tax them s;,eei-
ally for longing. dredging and using a COM
mon right: Is there any constitutional
distinction between longing . bivalve or
angling fish: Why not tax both:
Moses had but ten laws-so simple, -
terse, so concise that il embraced all moral
ity; all jurisprudence; all that was neccs-
sary for humanity. How many have We
now! Millions would not enumerate them
Every decision of Ibis Honor, the Judge"
is law of itself-not like those of the
Modes and Persians, but as changable as
the Chameleon that sits on the bench
What constitutional commentators and CON
structionistS! What sophistries and alb
stractions, nice points and labyrinths OF
knowledge so unbelievable that an honest
man with q just cause finds law but lot
terry and knows not whether he will come
out Of \ Court House on his head or his
heels. ToNGER.
Patuxent, Nov. :, 1886.