Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1891-02-21
COrresI'oIidence.

Mr.. EDITOR:-Thc letter in your
last issue signed United Oystcrmcn, /
have read with care. I find he is in di-
rect opposition to me, so he says, and
to give strength to his antagonism he
assumes positions for me; but keeps
clear of what really said. I will give
him another chance to understand
me. I am for
First Oyster culture.
Second. The reservation OF the ma
tural oyster beds for the common use
of the citizens of the State.
Third. For separation of the two
branches of industry, so that one
shall not encroach on the other.
The first proposition I advocated
twenty years ago in the columns of
the Norfolk Virginian. 1 believed in
it then, aud experience has taught
me that I was and am right, and
the necessity for it is being recog-
nized on every hand. There are le-
gal impediments to this work; I want
to see them swept away-the work is
hazardous and expensive and itshould
have every protection that the law
can afford, and all the encourage
ment that the State can give. The
work is divided into two branches
1st, planting and growing oysters for
seed; and End, the making of new
oyster beds by placing on bare and
waste grounds under salt water, oys-
ter shells or any other clean hard sub
stance for the young oysters
to adhere to as soon as
formed in the water. The Difficult
ties and expense of this business l
need not detail here, but, if it is sue
cessful the results are wonderfully
great and profitable.
On the second proposition, l am
willing for the State and the oyster
people, that use them, to say how
they shall be managed.
The third proposition is absolutely
necessary for the success and main
tainance of the first and second
propositions.
United oystermen is enjoying the
natural beds and he and his followers
are getting rich-that is their state
ment-I am glad to hear tit adds
wealth to the State and her citizens.
But why should united oystermen
and his followers object to oyster cul-
ture or the means necessary to it's
success. If United Oystermen has q
monopoly of the natural beds, and no
one asks to deprive him of it, can
not he be satisfied? Is it necessary
that he should stop oyster culture?
Not at all-the two branches of this
industry can go on, hand in hand
for the benefit of the people and the
State, and there is no reason for envy
or jealousy on the part of either.
I wish to correct a few statements
in Uuited Oystermen's letter. The
Oyster Navy was established in 1868
and not in 1ST4-the reasoning which
followed based on this mistake in
dates-has no foundation in fact.
Again United Oystermen says that
each laborer who worked on the
Connecticut oyster fields, received
s2.57, as his share of the in
come; according to his own figures
it is $e52.5O to each person; quite o
difference.
United Oystermen says the income
last year, from the Connecticut oys-
ter interest was 81 1892, 145.
That is what oyster culture did for
Connecticut; her once barren oyster
grounds that had to buy seed from
Virginia to plant, are now yielding
an annual income to that State,
equal to, one fifth of the assessed
value of all the real and personal
property of tie county of Accomac.
No better proof is needed, of the val
ue of oyster culture-and these are
the figures, vouched for, by United
Oystermen.
I hope writer's on the oyster ques-
ton will stick to the subject, and not
drift off, on points, not in question.
If my views are wrong, 7 want to see
them destroyed and swept away by
facts and reason; but ! know, they
can stand, any and AL attacks, be-
cause they are right, for the best in
terest of the Stat, and people.
Respectfully,
ORRIs y. BROWNE.
WaSEsED.