Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1903-01-30
Friday, January 30. 1908.
SOME OYSTER COMMENTS.


Here are some extracts from two
papers in widely separated sections
of the State which we think are
worthy little notice:
We see the oystermen are against the
Jordan bill. We know nothing of the
merits of Mr.. Jordan's bill, but we have
never known of bill affecting oysters
that the oystermen were not against
StauntOn Meas.
The Landmark agrees fully with the
CITIZEN that the existing oyster laws
ought to be enforced; but the idea of Mr..
Jordan's measure which we get from
Delegate Whitehead, of this city, makes
us think that its enactment might be
very good thing. 1t provides, we are
told, for leasing depleted oyster-rocks to
private parties for term of years, with
the purpose of having them restored to
productivity; and it also provides for
forcing oyster pirates not only to pay
fine, but to throw back the oysters they
have Illegally taken from the beds and TO
forfeit their boats and apparatus. At
present there's no check upon the pirates
except small fine, which they can well
afford to pay II caught. They may carry
their cargo away after settling the fine
Enforce the present law, but If
1t is not effective when enforced, pass
stronger one.-NorfoN Landmark.
To the general charge of the
Stanton NeuS we might retail
ate by saying that we have never
known an unjust oyster measure,
aimed at the vital interests of a
great section of our Commonwealth,
that did not emanate from an up
country people and find encourage
ment from the poorly-informed of
that section. 1t is a notable fact that
highland Legislators and people who
come east aud learn something of the
oyster industry have their eyes opened,
aud most of them are candid enough
to confess afterwards that they were
under a misapprehension about the
status of affairs here. Like ill.in-
formed Northerners who berate con-
ditlons in the South, such oyster agi-
tation arises through ignorance on the
subject. All the legislation that has
resulted in benefit to the oyster in
dustry and increased revenue to the
State from that source emanated from
Tidewater men.
The Landmark is right in its in
formation, except in the view that
an enactment Of the Jordan measure
would be a very good thing, The
Jordan bill enacted would create a
chaotic condition of affairs in the
oyster regions. tits decidedly rabid,
and seeks to undo what cost the State
fifty-thousand dollars to do in an
effort to get the business on an in
telligible and remunerative footing
The conclusion of the Landmark is
proper one-enforce the present
law. Weare satisfied as to its efficacy.
If enforcing it does not prove it we
will not oppose more drastic meas
ures. 1t is a mistake, however, to
think that the oystermen do not re-
gard the fines; and the fines need not
be small if the inspectors so elect.
There might also be many more of
them at the same option. Neglect on
this score adds weight to the demand
that the present law be better en-
forced.
Blythe way, the term soyster pirate"
In the oyster country is applied only
to dredgers in big boats and to Mary
landers who once were Ill the habit
OF crossing our State line and OYSTER
Ing. The oyster tongman in his
canoe who does not Gull his catch is
described as roughing" oysters;
and the one who oysters without
license designated as an unlicensed
tongman. Both may be pirates in a
broad sense, but their business is on
such small scale that it is more
properly ''illegal oystering."