The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1899-10-19
Proposed Constitutional Amendmen

! kulS
" Article l0-Sectiun No tax
shall be imp jsed ON any Of the citizens
4 this State for the privilege OF taking
or catching oysters from their natural
beds with tOngs in the waters thereof t;
but the amount OF sales OF oysters so
taken by any citizen, in any one year,
may be taxed at rate not exceeding
the rate Of taxation i'm 1Osed upon any
other species Of property. "
No explanation followed this publi-
cation, and most voters are entirely
in the dark as to its purport and
meaning.
An amendment to State Consti
tuition is always important, and any
attempts to amend or repeal any part
of the Constitution ought to be fully
explained to the people, but the fact
| is the various candidates and their
friends are generally so busy telling
the voter what terribly bad official
the other fellow would make that
side-issue, like a Constitutional
smendmelt, is lost sight Of, so The
Monitor will acqusint It's readers
with the purport of the proposed re
peal of Article 10, section ,.
In 1860 our present State Constitu
tion was ratified by minority Of the
white voters of the State. The ma
jority were disfranchised by an iron
clad t, st 9Th, that was a pre.requis-
ite for voting. The voter had not
ouly to swear that he had not taken
up arms against the United States
| Government, and had not given aid
/ and comfort to those who had, but
that he had not even sympathized
with the Lost Cause. This oath was
somewhat modified by subsequent
act, but even then the great mass OF
the white people were disfranchised,
while every cOntrabsnd (as the
slaves we're then called in the North
that was in the State originally, or
had followed the Union armies, was
a full-aedged sovereign by an act of
I Congress.
II WAS necessary then to undo the
work of such statesmen as Jefferson,
/ Madison, Marshall. Tszewell. Mon
roe, Doddridge, Barbour and John
Randolph, as far as it could be done,
and give Virginia Constitution in
keeping with the reconstructed order
Of things, and Dr. Bayne, Judge
Under wood, Lewis Lindsey, etc. etc,
collection OF corn.feld negroes,
scsllawsgs, and carpet. baggers, were
selei for this great work. 1t was
a sight to make angels weep. The
convention which sat in 1867 was
known as the " Banjo and Bones
Convention" or the " Bsyne- Under
wood Convention This last appel
lation was because the moving
spirits we're " DR.. " Bayne, a Norfolk
darkey, who was as ignorant and
presumptious as be was black and
ugly aud Judge Underwood, of the
United States District Court, who is
rememb bered chiefly because of his
unsuccessful eudeavors to hang
JEFF. Davis on sour-spple tree " or
any other tree that might be at hand
An account of this convention would
be still interesting reading, although
the story has been often told.
Up to this time there WAS q statu'
tory tax of FIVE dollars on all persons
who desired to take oysters from the
natural rocks, aud this tax produced
a large revenue, and was not unduly
burdensome to the legitimate tong
man. There were many tongmen IN
Tidewater then. Desiring to gather
these into the Republican fold, it was
thought if the tonger's tax was
abrog.ted it would be help to this
end, and so Article 10, section 2,that
is now sought to be repealed, became
an important part Of the new Consti'
tuition, and prohibited further tax
on tongs.
This section has been thorn in
the side of all General Assemblies
since its adoption. 1t is q difficult
thing, and as expensive as it is diff
cult, to guard the natural oyster
rocks, especially those that are in
Chesapeake Bay, and sufficient tax
to do this guarding could not be
raised after the ratification OF the
new Constitution, aud so the oyster
police boats had to be taken off, and
the oyster rocks became a commons
for resident and nonresident alike,
for the dredger as well. as the tong.
man, and the close seasons were
largely disregarded in the absence Of
oyster police. The dredgers became
more bold aud defiant, their vessels
went heavily armed, and they raw
aged rocks and private beds almost
at will. We we'll remember the high
handed doings of /" Admiral" " Jim
Sksggs and his raking feet, and Gov.
Csmeron's expedition with the Nor.
folk militia, for his suppression, and
the clsmor of the tongmen after
this to be protected, in which many
of them expressed a willingness
to be reasonably taxed to pay for
this special protection, but there was
Article 10, section 2, which prsctic..
ally tied the hands of the General
Assembly, and prevented it. Not
withstanding this, the General AS
sembly has tried most faithfully to
give the tongmen the protection
asked for, and it mas taken about ali
the oyster revenue to do thisj some
years it has taken more.
A repeal of Article 10, section 2,
will allow the State to levy direct
tongers' tax. Before the new Con-
stitution was adopted the annual tax
for the privilege of taking oysters
from the natural rock, as before
stated, was So This did not apply
to tongmen who worked only on
planted oysters. How should the IF.
teen thousand tongmen in Tidewster
regard the proposition to repeal Ar
ticle 10, section 2l For thirty years
they have worked under it paying
little or no oyster taxes : The natural
rocks cover a wide area, and being
very far apart, it has been found that
the effort to tax the oysters that are