Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-23

Oysters and Revenue-Mr. Thomas, Again

OYSTERS and Revenue-Mr. Thomas, Again
To the Eijlor of The Dispatch:
I have seen it stated on what I take to
be high authority, that the committees OF
the Legislature that are charged with the
framing of an Oyster-law "are practically
agreed that the wisdom of the situation
lies in the adoption of law authorizing
the grant in fee simple to persons Qndi-
vjduallv. not cOrporatIons), who desire to
take up the business of Oyster-farmlng
such reasonable area of water-bed as they
NAV wish to cultivate. This ground under
the water would thus be held Just as any
other realty il. and assessed by the State
nj reasonable valuation according 10 ITS
productivity. and the oysters themselves
should not be taxed, nor the privilege of
catching them, -" that it should be held
precisely in the same way as land is held
out of the water"-" that property thus
acquired would become productive and
valuable. and the State revenues would be
ourmented each year by the increasing
value of the land under water, which now
Yields comparatively nothing"
The policy here outlined Is deed IN fee
the land to the party wishing 1t, TO be held
as land is held and assess u according 10
its productivity-no tax on the oyster and
no tax on the privilege of catching II. The
test OF productivity Is not given. and SO /
suppose the value of the land must be LETT
to the statement of the owner. The as
SCISSOR cannot see il. IL Is covered with
water. The assessor cannot tell the num-
Der nor the value of the oysters. Ihat
must be left TO the owner. In the llght OF
past and present experience. is this judi
ciOus and advisable?
Part of the policy here outlined-the
deciding of the land TO tho individual to be
held As realty out of the wateris held-was
urged by Professor Brooks IN his report 10
the Legislature of Maryland IN 1884. and
vet having been before that Legislature
from that time TO this has never yet been
adopted.
In 1885 $50 Mr.. Eugene G.. Blackford. the
Shell-Fish Commissioner of New YORK,
with full knowledge OF the report of Pro-
fessor Brooks and of the laws and policies
of the Various States, did not in tho act
he submitted to the Legislature of New
York propose to deed the land IN fee.
In 1887 the State of New York. after
carefully considering the act proposed by
her Shell-Fsh Commissioner, and alter
greatly modifying IT IN important particu;
lars. did not adopt the policy OF the deed
in fee simple.
Neither Connecticut, New Jersey, Della
ware. nor Rhode Island have adopted the
policy of the deed in fee.
The nearest approach to the policy IS the
lease system of the States of New York and
connecticut to the parties so long as they
shall actually use and occupy the land in
the active cultivation and propagation Of
oysters.
some time last year, wishing to know the
specific reasons for adopting the systems
of the lease mentioned, instead of the
deed. | wrote TO Mr.. Eugene q. BlackfOrd
for statement of those reasons. He very
kindly replied. | cannot this moment
put INV hand on his reply, but the sub
stance of il can easily be cOnlectured by
those who are anxious to discover the
reasons.
There are in the main two competing
pollcies--one the lease of the land without
regard to its assessed value and the other
to assess the value of the oysters on the
land. The State of Rhode Island repre-
sents the ono, the States of Connecticut
and Virginia represent the other. The
State of Rhode Island rents her land out at
$40 per acre and realizes $1,000 from her
.1O1 acres of land. The State of Connecti-
cut taxes her land at 81 per acre and real
lied in 1889 from her Is, l67 J6-l00 acres
gross revenue of 81 .5S4.gS. Her expenses
were So. 493. so, and 4" her receipts over her
disbursements were S2,09l.lS. which
would not go very far towards paying our
State debt.
MIR. james @. Collins, commissioner of
shell-fisheries of Rhode Island. writes me
so late as December 26, 1899, with full
knowledge of the law and the revenues OF
New York and Connecticut: "l think our
system is tho best not only for revenue but
for promoting the oyster industry of the
State"
The exact amount of revenue derived by
the State of Virginia from the taxation on
oysters is not known TO me, but notorious
~ they are grossly insufficient TO pay the
expenses of that industry.
When the county of Nsnsemond only
pays 10 the State $40. go, and the county of
Isle of Wight only Sl4.15, and every other
county in proportion, the State must dis
cover that there is something radically
wrong if she looks TO that subject and TO
her system for revenue. What Is the
errorY l will not undertake TO point it
out, but will undertake to say that in
case recently tried Ia the county of Man.
semond. winch related 10 a part Of bar
called Higsby's bar. O small one. the de-
claration was made in open court that the
State could get for that bar alone rental
of $500 per year, and that. too. without
any competition in open market. All the
bars and all the rocks and all tho beds of
all the planters of that county, according
TO the report of A. w. Turner. assistant
commissioner for District No. 2. pay so. 60
per year. when one small bar can be made
to pay $500 per year.
lam not suggesting o law. That is not