Democratic messenger. [volume] (Snow Hill, Md.) 1869-1973, 1906-02-10
A GirdIefree Oysfeman Answers Mr. Hay
man Along The Line Of Argument Used
In The Messenger ---And An Ocean City
Correspondent Tells The Advantages Of
A Canal From The Bay To The Ocean.

GIRDLETREE. FEB. 4. Replying to
Mr.. Il. Howard Humans letter in the
Sun. dated December 20. in which he
says that in Worcester county there
was opposition to his bill at first. but
that there is not the slightest trouble
now, even though we take up natural
rocks. AS well as barren bottoms. we
would like very much TO know who
gave Mr.. Haman this impression, for
such is not the case at all. There is
plenty Of trouble here. IL opposition is
what he terms trouble. There is not n
longer in Worcester who is not bitterly
opposed to his bill. and every planter,
with the exception Of a few ex-planters.
who, il seems, made failures when they
were in the business. notwithstanding
the fact that they got all Of the ground
they wanted free from taxation and
have now purchased farmland and are
farming for a livelihood. The tongers
here oppose the bill not for the same
reason that the tongers oppose il on
Chesapeake. The conditions are very
different. The Chesapeake longer OPP
poses it on the ground that it will re-
strict his privileges and favor the plant
er and that eventually the planter will
do all the business. while here the
longer is dependent on the planter for
livelihood, and therefore anything de-
trimental to the planters interests is
likewise detrimental to his own. On
the Chesapeake the natural privileges
are of some value Here the rocks are
non productive and amount to compare
lively nothing.
| We also wish to correct the state
ment made by Mr.. Hannah to the effect
that we take up natural rocks for plant
ing purposes. He has been as badly in
formed on this point as he was when
he was led to believe that there was no
opposition here to his bill. In the first
place, it il unlawful here to plant on
natural rocks, and we wouldn't plant on
them were it lawful and right. because
we have learned from observation that
oysters will not thrive as well on them
as they will on the clean bottom. Fur
thermore, should we plant on rocks it
can easily be seen that to get up our
oysters we would be compelled to take
up more or less large quantity Of
shells, which afterward would necessi-
tate extra cost and labor to separate the
oysters from the shells. II would be
impossible to rent or lease these rocks
rocks in the full sense of the word. |
have interviewed quite number of
oystermen on the subject. and have
failed to find the first one the least bit
inclined to take any.
We object to Mr.. Humans bill be-
cause it will be absolutely no good To
us, but burden added to the many we
are now carrying. We don't want any
ground for the purpose of planting shells,
because the conditions in our waters
are such that spats or spawns will not
catch and mature in sufficient quanti-
ties to make it profitable. The best
proof that can be given for this is the
fact that we are now giving our shells
to the county to put on the public roads.
The bill will be of no value to us in or.
der to secure ground for planting pur-
poses, because we can get now all the
ground we need, with more left fol
others if they desire it, equally as good
as ours. One-fourth of the ground has
never been planted, and. under present
conditions and the prospects Of the
future. never will. In former years
oysters that we planted for Is and q
cents bushel today costs US 80 cents,
when we compare the measure we gel
now with what we got then. We have
no way Of getting our plants except Il
buy them, and the probability is they
will be higher still. and in addition tC
this we have numerous risks To take.
In the first place. we have no way OF
getting our plants here except by way
Of the Atlantic Ocean, and take the
risk of losing loads by being headed of
by northeast winds, which we have don,
lots of times. When we are fortunat,
enough to get them here alive we ar,
not by any means free from care
anxiety and possibly loss. We take the
risk of freshets coming down ON then
and killing them as they did in tn,
eighties. So. when we take all of thes,
conditions into consideration conditions
over which man seems to have no con
troll it becomes a very serious question