The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-09-14

time nor inclination to notice the person
alties of DR.. Oemler's communication Of
Sept. II nor TO go into an Investigation of
the family relationship of Ensign Drake, as
l cannot see what connection that matter
has with the discussion of the expediency
aud purposes of the legislation which has
invested his charts with so much impor.-
ance in Georgia, nor to consider the mat
ter of oyster beds as defined by Maryland
judges and college professors The issue
with us is whether the legislature of Geor-
gia should repeal a law which, if not re-
pealed during the present session, will give
over TO syndicates and monopolises the
entire oyster territory OF Georgia 1t mat
ters not now who is responsible for the law,
except in so far as the legislator Is respon-
sible to his constituents for his conduct in
relation to il.
DR.. Oemler disclaimsd, in behalf of him
self and Representative Ryals, of RESPONSE
bility for the validating clause of the
amendment which ent-apped the legisla-
ture into legalzing fraud, cannot divert
attention from that part OF the law which
will forever fasten upon Georgia an oyster
monopoly if the present legislature fails to
repeal it, whether Representative Ryals
keeps faith with his pledge to the governor
in reference to it, or sees 6t to disregard his
pledge. By the way, too, DR.. Oemler fails
to say upon whom responsibility for the val
dating clause should rest and fails, also, to
explain how Representative Ryals can be
dives ed of responsibility, in view of bis
failure to consent with Representatives
Clifton and Hartridge to n withdrawal Of
the bill from the governor, in order TO have
its pernicious features eliminated.
Whilst DR.. Oemler disclaims responsibility
for the amendment, he acknowledges the
paternity of the original bill Any legis-
lator who will carefully read the act in con-
nection with the memorial AID atiidavitS
submitted TO the governor In reference to it,
and takes notice of the arttul manner IN
which It has been framed, he will observe In
the beginning of section an emphatic re-
affirmation of the policy Of the state, as de-
clared in the act which 1T amends, TO reserve
forever as the property of the state the
natural oyster beds of the state, and to keep
the same "open to all her citizens for the
purpose OF consumption, sale, seed or propa-
eating purposes" and yet in this very same
section, the serpent is concealed which has
struck its fangs into the very vitalS of this
policy.
And Gs to section its inconsistency with
the reafiirmation referred to, is too garing
to admit OF question.
Now as to DR.. Oamler's charges Of mis-
representations in the memorial, propose
to notice but one as of any importance, 10
wit: that In which he attempts TO refuee
the statement that "a vast area of public
beds in the county has bsen staked OFT" by
the assertion that with a single exception
lat ThunderbolD not foot of any natural
Ted has been applied for under the law OF
1897 evidently not discriminating between
beds staked Off aud beds applied for. This
is an astonishing statement, in view Of the
fact that the doctor was present, as witt
ness for the state, in the case in which
Leander Richards was prosecuted by Paf
,aa.t,
leased, aud acquitted on the ground that tie
bed from whicn the oysters had been taken
was natural bed, despite the fact that Bul-
letin No. 10 did not SO designate IL. An at
tempt was made to use copy of Bulletin
No. 10 in the trial, DR.. Oeniler being the
principal witness to support it, If my MEM
Org serves me right
Now as to the Doctors reference to the
instance in which | caveated PATS appli-
cation for a lease OF oyster territory, a
statement of the facts in connection with 1t
may serve to illustrate how private prop
erty may be invaded under the oyster law
| When persons began to stake up oyster ter
ritory in Chatham county q rumor reache /
me that Mr.. PAT intended to apply for sew
eral five-acre leases to ground in front OF
my island below and near my residence.
Mr.. Ambos had already stakei of and APP
piled for leases to oil the ground imme-
diatelY in front of my residence and oppo-
site my property on the mainland,
and the taking up of the ground
opposite my island would have
left me without any resource for oys-
ters near my residence. Under these Cir
cumstances, although | had not intended TO
apply for any leases, proceeded to plant
| oysters on the ground in front of the marsh
| contiguous to my island and TO which |
have had title for over twenty-five years,
and upon which have always paid taxes
with view to applying for a lease to it in
! order to secure it against other occupancy.
About this time Mr.. Paff placed stakes upon
| the front OF this marsh land considerable
above low water mark and applied
| for leases TO it. l placed stakes at
low water mark. as the law required,
and caveated PATS application upon sew
eral grounds, one Of which was that he had
not complied with the law as 10 stalking
off the ground. As to the article
with his accustomed acridity as tissue of
nonsense and INTERPRETATIONS / do not
feel called upon to refer to it as ! was not
its author.
| l notice that the bill to sell the marsh
lands has been introduced in the legisla-
ture. When in Atlanta l discovered that
the representatives who were mainly in
strumental in getting the oyster law
amended were advocating it. 1t looks as if it
| is a part of the same monopolistic scheme. IL
title to the marshes. which carry with it
all unnevigable streams can be secured,
every creek that has oySters in it can be ac-
quired by the oyster company which secures
the title. Verify the octopus is reaching
out it's tentacleS to graJp everything in the
| state. MAXINE DEsv ERGERs.