Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1904-01-08

De charged up to the Senator himself.
We will state here that this paper
has no desire to do Senator Martin
the sigh test injustice, and we gladly
give the Senator and bis friends the
opportunity which our columns afford
20 be set right before the people of
the Eastern Shore 30 far as the matter
under consideration, or any other, is
concerned. The CITIZEN says:
From personal observation We are glad
10 be IN a position to inform our Eastern
shore friend that the rumors on which
ne mas based bis dissertation are entirely
without foundation or facts. Rather TO
tue contrary, Mr. Jordan Is relative and
s.sunch supporter of Governor Montague
ana senator Bryant is one OF his Henrico
readers. Matthews was a montague
man and Cardwell q "Martin man"
Judge Watkins cannot be allied with
either faction. The hope of defeat for
the Jordan bill Is In the hands OF four
Martin up-country Senators. who have
promised to stand firm. III any distinc
lion were TO be drawn, and the Montague
snd Martin elements at all brought out, It
would appear stronger from the injection
OF personality of the Governor by his
own acts. Is II not time that such ru.
mors and newspaper. squibs should have
an endf Or, when made under misap-
prehensions should not corrections fol-
lowP
In letter from Senator Martin of
the 10th inst, to the editor of this
paper In regard to the above matter,
and which, though not written for
publication, we take the liberty, in
justice to the Senator, to publish in
part, he says: 1, e.a
II have been very closely occupied
with my duties here, aud know nothing
about this bill now before, the Legislature
at Richmond, except what has been
gathered from the Richmond papess.,I
can assure you that l have not endeavor-
ed to influence the vote OF single men,
Der OF the Legislature. have given 20
advice or opinion In respect to the mat
ter, and have studiouely refrsined from
doing anything that could justify my be-
ing Drawn into the controversy. /, Of
course, do not know what arguments or
suggestions may have been made by In
terested parties at Richmond as TO what.
effect the result Of this pending legisla.
tion might have upon my political
fortunes or the political fortunes of
my competitors. can only say that I
have not been party to this controversy
In any OF it's phsses, feeling that 1t was
not my responsibility, and being closely
occupied with my duties here"
ONE PLAIN WAY TO SETTLE THE oYs-
TER QUESTION.
This is the way the Norfolk Land
mark views the subject, and very, very
sensible and conservative argument
1T is. The people of Tidewater are
indeed indebted to our Norfolk con-
temporary for its fair method during
the past, as also at present, in hand
ling this difficult and intricate ques-
ton. Says the Landmarks:
In the course OF an able editorial dis
cussion of recent observations of TIE
Landmarks concerning the oyster ques-
ton, the yIReIsiA CIr:zEN, of Irving
ton, which took exception 10 some of
our propositions, has this to say in agree
ment with one OF them:
We agree fully with the The Land
marx That distractions should never be
put IA the way by the tonger OF legiti-
mate Investigation and efforts to benefit
the industry In all it's branches without
psrlislity to either. ts* Equita-
BILE laws, property executed, would pre-
serve forever the natural growth and
give 10 tongmen their usual livelihood.
IL is charged that the tongman is a
marauder and will not deal legitimalely
with his heritage, and to some extent
this is true. Iore's the pity for himself
Violations of the law are daily occurring,
and on this point the tonger stands de-
serving OF drastic censure. The only
excuse we can offer for him is that the
encroachment OF the planter upon his
domain for years has made him desper-
ate. Seeing the line stakes of the plant
er yearly going out further and further,
without law or justice. he feels that the
State Is his enemy and is shielding and
befriending the planter"
- Well, that brings as 10 q point where
we hope to obtain our contemporaries |
complete approval. Over a year ago
The Landmark wrote several earnest edi- |!
torials In which IL pointed out the fact |
that, while q complicated discussion was |
going ON about. new laws, the existing
laws were not, being enforced, and that |
the root of the difficulty was to be found |
In this very prevalent non-enforcement. |
We have been told that our agitation Of |
the subject was followed, for a time, al
least, by better enforcement of the laws. |
resulting In decided improvement In the |
oyster industry.
The present laws for the protection OF |
the oyster are, we believe, good laws. |
The Gull law, particularly, is q good one |
LIZ these laws are not carried out, how can |
we expect enforcement of new laws: At
tempts at questionable legislation push.
ed by "up-country" representatives hav.
Ing failed, the Tidewater district should /
unite In an effort to secure the strict en-.
forcement OF the laws now on the statute
books. To enforce these laws properly
It Is necessary to have honest, capable /
men for inspectors. III Il costs more to
get such men than Is now paid, let law
be passed TO pay the inspectors better.
The increase In revenue from fines col. !
lected would easily make up the differ
ence. 1t Is doubtless true that II the
awe We now have were properly enforc-
ed, there would be no oyster question In /
Virginia, and the oyster industry would /
doufish as It has not aourished for q
decade. -, AZ
LEGISLATURES DOINas.
A bill was passed amending the