Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-24
Oysters and Reyeuue-Again.

To me FTltOr Of ne DfSpdlch:
/ do not intend to reply to the arguments
OF Underwater" for | am not the advocate
of any special measure. l am not dredger.
n tongnan. "a planter, nor shipper. and
do not expect my views to be acceptable
to either class. am urging the necessity
of a report from a shell-fish commissioner
10 give to the State the latest possible in
formation from the highest sources. and
from opposing experiences. J..
| will correct some of tho mistakes OF
Underwater and add to his information
with the hope that he will discover that L
am very sure of my ground"
Taking nv quotation from Professor
Brooks, "Tidewater says: Professor
Brooks made the above remark, but he
made it IL dozen years ago"
He made it in his report to the MARYLAND
Legislature ia 1884. pages 9, %, rs, and a. q.
Tidewater quotes the last paragraph of
the report Of the shell-fsh commissioners
of Connecticut in 1892 page 10. IN lauda-
ton Of their own system and III deprecia-
ton of others. In 1t they refer to &.
SYDNEY Smith and J. b. Mason, OF Provi-
dence, and A. b. Capron. of saltwater.
ANY one who will read their elaborate
reply, in their report for 1883, 10 the caus-
tic criticism. in their own state. on their
own work, tho spending OF Sl3,so4,O6
during the past year, besides what tho
same men have drawn from the state as
fish commissioners" will discover why
that paragraph was written.
| wrote to these gentlemen, and have
their replies.
Mr. Smith, under date of November 20,
1889, says
hand. am unable to answer your ques-
tions. and will take pleasure in directing
the attention of our commissioning to them,
Our laws governing the oyster industry run
all through the statutes, and are as hume
rous as the moral laws-a condition which
nv committee Iabored to correct with but
partial effect in the line of success. Will
hand vour letter TO our Shell-Fish Com
missioner. Hon. James &. Collins, and sug
cest that il might be well for you TO adj
dress him for such information as you de-
sire on the subject. as he is entirely IA
miliar with the subject. having been IN
Office many years. By this mail forward
to you tho report of my committee on the
subject. and also an act that prepared on
the subject looking 10 q boiling down OF
our hundred and one provisions. Sections
and 10 of this act were all that the last
General Assembly was willing to add to OK
isting laws"
Section required the commissioners TO
give bond, and section 10 required them
to report annually 10 the General Assem-
bly, in May.
gave quotation from the letter Of the
Hon. James c. Collins of December 20.
1889. in the preceding article, showing that
he thought "our system Is the best, not
only for that purpose" (reyenue), but for
promoting the oyster industry in this
State"
so hope that Tidewater will discover
that ! am not only familiar with the eighth
and last report of the Connecticut COM
missioners, but that my information Is of a
much more recent date. and that l AIN
quite sure of my ground"
As Tidewater seems TO be enamored with
the Connecticut law. let me give him the
reply OF the Connecticut commissioners to
just such arguments as he has advanced !:
HTo-day no one doubts that the business
is rapidly extending, and that it is exceed
ingly profitable. Why, then, should it not
bear, like all of the other industries of
the State, its share of burden? If it is ex-
posed to the perils of gales and water enc
mics, as no doubt it IS, so are the farming
interests of the State exposed TO storms and
droughts and destructive insects" and
competition. First Report, 1882, pages "a.
IS, and So. K. 5. THOMAS.