The daily state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 188?-1891, 1891-02-25

dredging The foreign vessels can
oe kept out If dredging is allowed. t
tie declared that if dredging were
lowed 1t would require four or FIVE II
trol boats 70 regulate affairs The Ma
land AID Virginia dredges had clean
up the oyster Industry in those Sta
and then they came in our borders
declared that tue Gamers were the D, =
pie who were raising the row. Tht
Gamers we're getting the Bohemians
work, and here our people were call
on to aid these pauper laborers, t
scum OF Europe. The wide water can
tonged. Three hundred dredging Y.
GELS. be said, have been driven out
North Cardinals waters.
Mr.. Galloway said the whole Dol
was that one allowed dredging and j
forbade it, and that neither could
passed without injuring somebody. T f
plan was TO consider which of the {,
would do the least damage. He spo
OF the work the dredging usually di
They bought oysters from tongers in II
day and at night put their tongs owe
board and took oysters by wholesal
tie opposed dredging. 1t vas one
tlon between few facsori,
and the people. If dredging is allowe
IN two years the oyster will be gon
The factories will last only as long as Il
oyster and the labor only as long as IL
factories.
MIR. Sutton said the question was
very serious one, and asked il what hs
been done early in the session in passi1
the urgency bill to drive out the dredge.
was not warning He thought it VIZ
and hence thought dredging should |
prohibited. The pirates are here becaus
they have plundered the Virginia an
Mary land oyster beds. They are exte,
mlnatlng the oysters. Stop dredging {
| least two years.
MIR. White said two years ago Jus
such lax as the one proposed in th
substitute w.s passed. The people ha
violated it. They bad dredged in a
sorts OF water and on Sundays. Tha
bill was failure. Whenever dredgin
has been allowed the oy ster industry wa
destroyed and the beds depleted. Jus
as certain as the people Of this State al
allowed to go back and dredge for til
canneries, just so surely will the oyste
industry be ruined and the home peopl
suffer. He appealed to the members,
behalf of the people, never to perm
dredging
Mr.. Bond said the trouble about til
act Of 1889 was that there was no macl
inery 20 inforce it. LII his subs,i'u
there was machinery.
Mr.. PEBBLES thought the question w,
not as to the Gamers or the oystermel
but the protection of the oyster. VIII;
will best promote the ern with Of the oy
terS. He sad that l. .Winsi0w had sta
ca that in the North Carolina Soun,
oysters could not De prof ably taken
water over eight feet deep, ami tn
longing did not scatter oyS, ers, the sea
teging being necessary to the inc ease
, the oysters,
! He contended that the substitute shou
pass and that ne law allowing dfedgir
in water 90 deep for tongS could be e
forced. IT it could not be, neither cou
the law forbiddiag dredging. There a
only three means Of ingress by forei,
boars, and these can be guarded. t
tongers would also be virtually intere.
| Ni Al tliO ChlOI COLAcLlt vi IuC law.
Mr. Morton spoke in favor of limit
dredging and hence supported the m
jority bill, as he considered the oystc
in the vast areas of deep water simp
useless if only longing were allowed.
Mr. Mann said the oyster experts h
/. stated that every State which had p
mitted the use Of the dredge had lost
Z oyster interests There are bills pen
ing now to forbid dredging in the ent
!: Chesapeake Bay. In conclusion
! called the previous question. This v
q ordered.
The substitute was then put to v,
, and lost The bill then passed its s.
! ond reading On motion Of Mr. Jor
E the rules were suspended and the /
passed third reading, with an amer
; ment that it shall not apply to Onslo
u