Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1902-08-22

are lett ploddlng IN the ruts.
Keep 10 the van-morally, spirit
ually and intellectually-and the
world moves with you, not ahead of
you.
| MOUNTAINS OUT OF MOLE HILLS.
After two weeks lapse-time
sufficient to investigate all minor
polnts-the Warsaw NeUs last week
In its leading editorial of nearly a
column enters into very captions
criticisms on recent editorial in the
CITIZEN, about the tits on fish and
oyster laws during the special session
of the late Legislature. The editor
ial in the CITIZEN was written by
our editor, who was present during
the day on which the fight came
up in the House of Delegates. The
Ne'os' writer has woefully failed in
putting the CITIZEN in bad light
SO far as the general purposes and
results of that days work by legisla-
tors on fish and oysters are con-
cerned. Our contemporaries writer
or decentralization there are the
best of grounds for supposing to be
member of the House of Dele.
gates-has succeeded, however, in
raising some fair technical objections
on exceedingly minor points that
his position gave him command Of,
preceding and subsequent to the
day of the big fight.
1t is not true that we spoke of
S20S3 of the Code of 1887 as if it
were law originally enacted on
March 2Sth, 1902, for at the outset
in Mr. Cromwell's bill we refer to
S2OS3, and the allusion to the stat
ute of March 2Sth, 1902, is in every
way regular, as any amendment that
passes becomes a statute. On the
other hand, the Ners falls into error
when it states that Mr.. Cromwell's
bill is the only amendment to that
statute of the Code. There are sew
eral of them, nearly every Legisla-
ture subsequent to 1887 having
taken a whack at it.
Says the Ne'cs: The mistake of
substituting the words "waters of
this State" in lieu of "rivers of this
State" which would have made
serious difference, was only typo
error. In writing our
comment we had the bill before us,
and the fact that it was typograph-
lcal error, as declared by the Me,cs' ,
writer, gives faint grounds for that
papers effort to make us appear '
egregiousIy wrong. To become ac- l
luainted with this fact was within
he privilege of a member of the
House of Delegates, but hardly &C.
corded one on days visit.
Now, as to Mr.. Jordan's Baylor /,
Inc oyster bill. There were several =
BESIDES Mr.. Baker that took up the i
udgel against Mr.. Jordan's wide
pen measure, but in not mentioning
hem we had no purpose to dis
cunt their efforts. We spoke of Mr.. t
'ardwell, an upland member, as e
aving turned the tide, and this
redit was accorded him on all sizes 81
nd congratulations were showered . =
pom him by various gentlemen, to c
'hich We were eye witnesses. 1t
AS more largely due to him than to d
ny other that Mr.. Jordan's bill was >
efeated. In this matter is to be =;
'und the only error in the CITIZEN
'ticle, and that is but "a technical
ne, and simply in the way of .,
ating it as our editor understood C
ne progress of the fight while upon Ii
he floor. We stated that Mr.. Jor- W
an bill was passed, then reconsid- "
ed upon Mr.. Cardwelps appeal and
len voted down. We take it that ia
e Neacs' writer puts it in the ca
'oper language when he says, in ~ ~
distance, the House upon voting vo
fused to recommit Mr.. Jordon's it
bstitute (Which is usually presage is
victory and finally refused to
IS his substitute and then passed
r. Matthews bill.
The facts AID the public will bear 70
out that we are no more in error ha
an we stated at the outset and to
liie we are as careful as other con-
nporaries who set up no claims to fol
'allibility in guarding against fro
'se 'little" errors they can hardly ma
justice be termed "misleading WI WI
ors," as the Nescs' writer seems to "a
light in stylipp them -.