Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-12-15
ouR OYSTER PROPERTY.
How to Preserve IL and Secure some
Revenue from IL.


To the Editor of the Dispatch;
Politics may be good for some OF the
people all OF the time, II may De goou
| for all of the people some OF the Tune
but IL Is not good for all Of thu people
all OF the time. All politics and no busi-
ness makes Jack poor boy. and II such
a policy is to prevail we may as well re-
conclle ourselves at once to a condltloh
Of poverty.
The application OF the foregoing to the
| letter Of the Hon. Senator from Accoinae
which appeared in your issue Of yester-
/ day. considering the many sound propo-
| sltions II contained. would be difficult
were il not for the warning 1t sounds re-
speeding things that have not, but may
happen.
II it can be shown that the things
feared are not likely to happen more
over, II IL can be shown that nothing
has happened to justify fear OF the
happening apprenhended, then the warn
ing sounded is practically a notice on the
part Of the oystcrmen that they VIII
smash things If legislation does not please
them.
THE TRUTH.
Is this a forced conclusion? Let us
see. For over one hundred years Virginia
has been the landlord Of oystermen. Can
they point TO a single extortion? a more
lenient landlord the world has never
seen. What has happened since our pres
ent Legislature has been in session wnich
indicates that rapacty will dethrone be-
nevolence? And If no cause exists why
inject politics into a question which
should be considered on its merits as a
business proposition? Look az Atlanta g
Exposition. the product of 100000 enlight-
ened citizens; take a glance at another
10000 men--omigraLts from the North In
yited by Georgia, and now establishing
homes within her cOndnes-a State whose
population in 1880 was l,s2J 2l6-divided
into g7S.375 whites and SJSSl5 blacks. The
statcmen who invited these emisrants
and the multitudes who welcomed them
with shouts Of acclaim. certainly knew
that many Of them were not of their po-
ltical faith. and yet not a dlscordant
note Of politics marred this anthem Of
progress and prosperity.
IL becomes necessary 10 drop the sub
Jet Of politics for the moment 10 call the
Hon. Senator's attention 10 what seems
a confusion Of ideas on his part IN re-
spcct Of a supposed conflict between oys-
termen and planters Planters contend
that no such conflict exists for the fol-
lowing reasons: The subject Of planting
relates TO barren bottoms; its object 10
their cultivation. The subject under no
tice when Oystermen are considered re-
lates TO Oyster-r0cks: the object relates
10 catching as many oysters as possible
from them. To catch too many oysters
destroys the procreatiug power OF the
rocks and IN turn prevents the fecunda-
ton of the barren bottoms. For this rea-
son the planter uses his influence to pre-
serve them. but since the living Of oys-
termen, present and future. depends upon
the provocative power OF the rocks he
has. or should have the same interest in
preserving them that the planter has,
hence there is no conflict between oyster
men and planters on this ground.
THE SURVEY.
Next comes the Baylor survey The
planter demands that this shall remain in
violate and final. he does so because his
title Is clear or c0uded as II remains
stable or unstable The same survey en-
closes 10000 acres Of oyster-rocks within
certain fixed boundaries, and since the
business Of playing shuttle-cock with the
survey is as dangerous for the planter as
FOR the oystermen. there should be no
conflict between planters and oystermen
on this ground. Oystermen should stand
shoulder TO shoulder with planters in de-
fence Of the inviolabillty Of the hnallty
OF the survey. because It is dangerous to
invoke a power which can just as easily
take away as add 10 the area OF oyster
rocks. The FISHERMAN may oppose the
principle OF Industrial freedom for the
reason that II II is granted II will largely
Increase the production Of oysters. and so
interfere with their present monopoly.
but since the development OF natural re-
sources is In the line OF sound public poll
cy the Hon. Senator will surely refuse 10
include this In the category OF conflicts
One more very interesting subject 70
mains TO be disposed Of the increase Of
employment which viii arise from indus
trial freedom. the granting Of which In
Connecticut has enabled her planters 20
give labor 10 ten men. where prior only
one had been employed. Considering the
larger area Of the Chesapeake, the more
fertile power OF its water. the absence
from them OF the oysters enemies and
destructive storms. our milder climate.
and hence longer seasons, IL must follow
that Industrial freedom once granted. the
planters Of the Chesapeake will eventu-
ally employ fifteen men 10 every ten en-
ployed In Connecticut, to say nothing OF
the employment that VIII be furnished 10
thousands now idle In the oyster marts
OF the Chesapeake because Of the scarcity
Of oysters.
INDUSTRIAL FREEDOM.
II would prove unfortunate for oyster
men 10 include an eventuality so desirable
In their category Of conflicts To do so
would arouse the sense Of proportion out
Of which would grow contrasts that would
not be in their favor. but the best proof
that there is no conflict between planters
and oystermen as 20 industrial freedom
lies In the fact that the oystermen OF
Connecticut became planters. and not a
few OF them have grown rich. our oys-
termen should hail the opportunity which
Industrial freedom offers and the pro-
gres-iye among them will not be slow In
taking advantage Of IT, II will prove a
misfortune II a confusion 81 ideas In re-
spect Of alleged conflicts Of interests be-
tween oystermen and planters is permit
ted 10 influence legislation. The fact that
oyster-farming may put an end 70 the
oystermens monopoly OF the Chesapeake
domain ought not and probably will not.
be regarded an unfavOrable factor when
the advantages Of this industry come to
be considered.
The object OF this communication IS
achieved II II establishes that the oyster
question ought to be settled on It's merits.