Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-31
Oysters md Revenue.
Oysttrs uhh hV'c"~'
To H.o Lilif0f. nf lie Dlsnnfch.

| To he Editor of he Dispatch:
I beg to thank You for the space you
kindly gave me to reply to the first article
of Mr.. II. S. Thomas on oysters and
Revenue" and to ask your further in
diligence by the publication OF tins reply
to his card in your issue of the Path. -,
MIR. Thomas opens his article with the
following words:
Il do not intend to reply to the argu-
ments of 'Iidewater.' for am not the adj
yocate of any special measure. am not a
dredger. tongman, planter, nor snip
per, and l do not expect my views to be
acceptable TO either class. l am urging the
necessity Of a report from q shell-fsh COM
missioner to give to the State the latest
possible information from the highest
sources and from opposing experiences"
What think you OF this proposition. gen.
tlemen OF the COMMITTEE on the Chesa-
peake and its Tributaries "-you who
have grown gray in the service OF the State
studying this great question; you who
have come from the coast to the General
| Assembly year after year representing con-
stituences of tongmen, of dredgers, of
| planters, and of packers; you who have
| patiently and continually investigated and
| familiarized yourselves with this subject
| by testimony. by personal inspection, and
| collective and individual examination until
YOU know the location of almost every bed,
| rock assignment. and establishment WITHIN
| the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth
what think you, gentlemen? Mr.. Thomas,
"a naming of no Names" wants report
| from a shell-tish commissioners to give to
the State the latest possible information
from the highest sources and from opposing
experiences upon the oyster industry"
After this, gentlemen of the committee, we
need not etold that republics are migrate
full.
accept Mr.. Thomas's amendment to my
date to Professor Brooks's remark. lie
saws il was made in 1884; that was six
years ago. 1t does not change the point
first made. | said that Professor Brooks
would seriously object to having it brought
forward rs his opinion in 1890. That Is. he
would object to the bringing forward of
this remark if used in 1890 as an endorse
ment of Rhode Islands oyster-planting
policy. Professor Brooks gave expression
TO a simple calculation. Its very enor-
mousnesS showed its impossibility.. II all
| the grounds suitable for planting IN Mary
| land waters could be made IA profitable as
| the oyster-grounds of Rhode Island now are.
| thew would return annually to their Guilt
vators S6OU, 900, OOO." That is. if all the
grounds suitable for planting oysters i'll
Maryland were occupied. and the oysters
| on each acre were crowded as thickly as tho
| Rhode Island planters were compelled to
plant to pay the excessive tax that was i'm
posed by that State. it would produce the
| prodigious figure ne names. Was this an
endorsement of the Rhode Island policy !?
| MIR. Thomas appears to think it was.
Suppose Professor Brooks had SAID
| to the General Assembly of Virginia,
IF you could impose, tax upon
the people of Virginia equal to that levied
by the Rhedive OF Egypt upon his subjects
in 1876 you could wipe out the entire
State debt, principal and interest. in two
years. would this expression show that
| Professor Brooks favored the levying of
| the Egyptian rate? Let Mr.. Thomas's ar
gument be strengthened as he desired it to
| be, and let us suppose that Professor
| Brooks did endorse the Rhode Island pol
| lev. Now, let us look at the result of that
policy. The annual yield of planted .oys-
| tiers in that State has dwindled from
400, 900 bushels TO 10000 bushels in 1889
about enough oysters to keep the Balti-
more market supplied for six hours.
Mr.. Thomas has not disputed these
| figures. What weight, then, could Pro-
| fessor Brooks's endorsement have to
policy that would bring about such
a disastrous result MIR: Thomas says
ticut law. Not at all. The laws of some
of the other States are more favor
able to the planter. North Carolina. for
example, allows the planter to purchase
ms land at rs cents an acre, while New
York gives q perpetual franchise for the
purpose of shell-fsh cultivation to planters
already occupying grounds for rs cents an
acre. and for lands not IN occupancy
perpetual franchise can be had for one
dollar an acre. have cited the Connectl-
cut law because it has been long enough
in operation TO furnish reliable data.
Mr.. Thomas concludes his article with
these words: LET me give him the reply
of the Connecticut commissioners to Just
such arguments as he has advanced. To-
day QSS2) no one doubts that the business
IS rapidly extending and that i is exceed (, ed;
bear, like all of the other industries of the
State, it's share of burden? If il is exposed
10 the periis of gales and water enemies.
as no doubt il is, so are the farming inter-
ests Of the State exposed TO storms and
droughts and destructive insects and CON-
petition" For the life OF me | cannot SEQ
what answer this can DO to any argument
that have advanced. The CONNEXIONS
commissioners sell the land to the planter.
IL becomes the planters property. The
law makes the shell-fish commissioners
the assessors of this land. They are dis
cussing the matter of this assessment IN
1882. From this discussion MIR. Thomas
makes his extract. What answer can this
extract be to my argument when the total
assessment the commissioners make on 49,
600 acres of planting ground in 1889 was
only s5.s4sY The Virginia planter asks for
no such leniency. II will be observed that
MIR. Thomas makes his concluding and
crushing extract from report OF 1882.
This is ancient history again. His shell
fish commissioner, to give to the State
the latest possible information from the
highest sources.n would have to keep up
with the procession better than this or ne
would "get left.n TIDEwATxR.
Heavy nosas prevail slons ne xhias. Tn =.