Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1902-07-12

Ing, JuhO Jll6 duluOr ih"J h"'S N
the best of intentions in its enact
tnent. Upon these assumptions the
bill provides that:
First fifty acres of ground must be,
and $50 acres may be applied for. L
wish to reserve comment OF this
clause for another letter. At this
time 1t is sufficient to indicate the
line of my objection. Experience de-
monstrates tn 1t the oyster industry
thrlves, as whole, better by the fnll
cultivation OF a small acreage under
many individuals, than by a large
acreage by few individuals. There
is not space for the discussion OF this
feature at this time. Second, the bill
provides that the applicant shall
have ten acres Of natural rock with
every fifty acres of ground applied
for. This clause seems so strange
that | cannot believe that the author
intended it to mean what 1t so clearly
states. do not wish to do Mr. Mat
thews an injustice, and will quote
the clause. IL is contained ia the
section providing for an appeal from
the decision of the Board Of Fisher
les, which states that the petitioners
must take oath, "alleging that ten or
more adjacent acres of natural oys-
ter beds, rock or shoals have been
included in said ground" II this
clause means anything it means that
if there are less, fraction less, than
ten acres in the fifty acre plot APP
piled for it must be granted by the
commission. The law is mandatory.
Did Mr.. Matthews realize the signih-
canoe of this clause when he insert
ed it, am charitable enough to be-
lleve that he did not. But it is the
Ilaw. Now let us see its significance.
There is estimated by competent au-
thority to be 10000 acres in the Bay
Tor Survey within the limits OF Ac-
comac County Divided by fifty the
survey contains 400 plots of ground
Multiplied by 10 we have 1000 acres
p of natural oyster rock which Mr..
Matthews is willing to give away
, And vet he declares that the bill pro
tects the natural beds. Is it any
, wonder that clear headed oystermer
have made haste to file their applica
tions for these lands? There is
-, tr 70 in every package.
The bill provides that the Board o
Fisheries shall determine whethe
such applications contain natura
rocks. The ten acre gift is not In
cluded in the section making thu
provision. Perhaps there is a looI
hole here. | do not know and VIII
= leave it to the lawyers. But thl
provisions empowering the Board o
Fisheries. seems TO me to place al
unnecessary burden on this body
> The natural rocks belonged TO TN
State in the first instance. Thel
. why should Mr.. Matthews give then
% away, and then compel the Board D!
a long and tedious process TO &c
them back againg The law certainl.
gives the applicant a title to tn
grounds which he has a right to de
=, feud before the Board, and tina
honorable body must dispossess MI
before the State can claim its OWL
This process of dispossessing appll
cants must be continued throug
n every application made, four hun
~ dred, If the petitions have been cor
fined to the minimum figure.
:, would seem to have been the sale
n and wiser plan for the State to nav
90 first designated its own Withou
claim or dictation from any indiyl(
70 ual, and then to have thrown tn
~ available lands open to the public.
80 believe that Mr.. Matthews intentlo
WAS pure and single minded in thi
7, mt this bill will not accomplish b
nurpose. The bill does provide fC
- an appeal from the. Judgment OF IL
Board. But it also provides that
case of failure the costs of the appe
- shall fall upon the petitioners.
not accuse Mr.. Matthews OF purpos
Nv planning by this provision to pr
~ vent an appeal, but, it does see
- that he has not given due consider
tiou to the burden he has thus la
no upon the petitioner. Why shou
20 the ordinary citizen be called up'
=, 70 hear the expense of defending Il
- property that already belongs TO e.
State? The expense OF such col
mission as the bill creates is an u
known quantity. A sensible LII
will hesitate before making hlms'
- responsible for such an outlay. b
- Mr.. Matthews gives the proper
away and then says to the pub
49, spirited citizen, "get it back II y
nod can" The provision is practica
,ys nulled by this clause. 1t may 4
,ok be the spirit of the bill, but &
nd criticising it as it stands. There
10 more to be said, but am weary WI
- writing and the public will be wea
rlv with reading.
"a Mr.. Matthews must be conVlnc
49, that have at least read the bill, a
[ will desist for the present.
80. In conclusion, Mr.. Editor, this
is a mistake. 1t is 80 pronounced
tho the universal voice, even by tn
- - who hope to profit by it. Mr.. NJ
1on thews comedies 1t to be mists
BIT through his friend and defender,
'ina Accomac News. If this concess
49,; had been made in reply to Cltlze
. Va letter, instead of the fat-footed
49, fence of the bill contained In q
renlv this letter would never b;