Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-02-25
A Protest Against the Proposed Oyster
Law.
To the Editor oftAs Dispa;ch;

Law.
To the Editor cftAs Dispaich;
Please allow me space in your paper for
few comments on o matter OF vital i'm
portance to Eastern Virginia--viz, the pro-
posed new edition Of the oyster law.
The writer proposes toj:deal with only
one branch of it (the most Important
the planting of oysters, for on it depends
the development, III great measure, of
Eastern Virginia, and the future supply of
them as an article of food for the masses.
The planting OF oysters Is not as re-
munerative Is " is represented to be.
There is no capital-seeking investment in
this direction. The surplus money IN
counties where oyster planting Is in opera
ton is invested otherwise because of the
risk and lack of profit in It: Most Of the
planting, and only the psohtablepart OF 1t,
II done by men who catch the small oysters.
plant. aud guard them until ready for
market-usually about two years.
Not one thousandth part OF the oyster
bottoms are planted, and il should be the
duty OF the State TO encourage and expand
this business. One Of the drawbacks to
planting oysters Is lack of security In hold
ing the oysters after an expenditure has
been made on the bare, saltwater covered
bottoms.
The right TO hold the bottoms might in
duce capital to 90 INTO the work, but until
1t 10 done it will remain out. The expert.
ment of trying TO get capital invested in
the oyster business Is certainly worth
every effort Of the State. This recent bill
proposes to give longer lease than here.
tofoye. but this will not inspire confidence
In the right to hold the bottom, for the next
Legislature may reduce the lease. or 1t may
increase the tar, 400 per, cent. as this
very bill does. 1t looks well in theory. but
In practice it Is otherwise, ~ oystermen
in lease, and especially II open to lirgs-
ton.
The plauted grounds leased to the plant
ers for.26 cents per acre. this bill makes the
tax at once 81 without giving the planter
an opportunity to Get out OF the business.
| The former law induced tho planter IN the
| trap at rs cents per acre; the present law
springs the trap and II costs 81 to get ont.
THIS tax of one dollar per acre Is unfair
and unjust not only to the oyster planter.
but to al Of the oyster oountiee N Viz
Which ought TO bring wealth to this Sec
The bare submerged lands ere ussessed
ct o250 per acre for taxes, for forty cents
| on the 600 value produces the d per sore.
| This valuation 10 forty times the value Of
Che highlands Of the State. Eastarn Viz.
einia can never develop the oyster indus
~. handicapped u that fashion.
no matter how rich IN minerals , may BE-
owned by any one. desiring them by
buying : land warrant q the Isnd-ofics
| for ten cepts per acre, and IN dus time Z
| grant vii b Issued By the qovsznor, con-
vsy,ng the land In tee, While bare lsndl
| under salt water are 70 Be rented tor ten
tunes the price Gin fes IN the mineral
landD by the year. Iheownez Of the mine
raj lands creates nothing, while the renter
Of tie submerged lsnd must grow {
Drop on 1.-THE former bar q ten cent
par acys IN fss, while the latter b 70 pay
u pee ooEe Per amman ront ~ th4 arol
case the STATE cots lite soy9olen. n III
latter like gfasping landlord yeedY q
| syict the tenant (her oitizsn) on lailur(
70 pay rant Tbs state hee 10 neod g G
into the .rso! estate bustqeeA 9ut = y
~, e ohuuld be dono obo9i ~ Weter
Evsn-handod 1unt1oe ohquld II uotod 81