The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1906-02-08
FREDERICKSBURG, va, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1906
ABOUT PROPOSED LEGISLATION
The Tatllsr Discusses Oyster Laws.
To The Free Lance


To The Free Lance:
The bill offered 10y Mr. Row. oi Acco-
mae pro'idiug Tor a penilentiary term
for the essees of oyster grounds who en-
large their holdings 10y unlawlully chang
ing the boundary lines Oi such holdings
may seem harsh measure. but the
practice Of acquiring additional acres OF
valuable property 10y such means has he-
come widespread Go " here Won will.
you hear the complaint that the planters
are holding more acres than they pay
for. la nearly every instance where the
State Board OF Fisheries have had the
lines OF the Baylor Survey reiterated il
has found that the planters have en-
croached upon the publicoystergrouuls.
and in some eases have Tor years eui 'ycd
the privileges for which they paid Moth
ing TO the State.
Whenever any person, official or otter
wise. appropriates To his own u>e th'
funds Of the State. 10 l. called emheZZle-
ment or theft, and the offender gur~ ~
the peutentary for a long term Oiyears.
but when the citizen lenses one hundrd
acres of oyster bottom from the State
for an hundred dollars per annum. aud
that citizen, 10y the simple Xp,dIcnt oi
moving a few stakes. takes poss s-iOn OF
another hundred acres for which he pays
nothing, what shall il becalled? lie hnS
appropriated that hundred acres of the
States assets 10 his own personal Use
and is deprIyng the State of an hundred
dollars annual revenue from the suue.
What happens when such one H.
caught with the goods?
Look over the records OF the Board OF
Fisheries. and il viii be seen that IN
most instances instead Of being punished
the depredator Is allowed "a number OF
months to remove the oysters hc claims
To have planted ON the bottom 10 which
he had not right and for which he pays
nothing. after having had the benefit OF
it for years, 10 some cases
Suppose the same party had been de-
terted in Tpropiiatiug an hundpd 81 J.
lars in cash each year from the revenues
Of the STATE?
The Legislature of two years ago pas
ed a bin providing "a way for re
locating the lines Of the Baylor Survey
when in dispute l'pOu the pe'iiiun ol
ten or more persons re-suryey may b.
had and the lines marked permanently,
provided the said petitioners give suiti-
cient bond 10 cover al the costs oi sur
vey. II in the opinion OF the Board of
Fisheries the said survey WAS unnecrs-
sary. In ease the Board considered the
re-suryey necessary, the expense arr 10
be paid by the State.
Ii would seem reasonable that in ease
the planter be guilty ofencroachIng upon
and appropfiating the publ oyster
grounds that be should be compelled 10
pay the costs of the re-survey 10 least,
not 10 say anything about being punish
ed for his misdeeds.
As the ease stands at pres MT, the
planter can IN few hours, by merely
pushing a few stakes into the bottom.
! acquire hundreds oi acres. in some eases,
and free Of all cost. and ii h. is charged
withit be need only to refer the kickers
to the Board Of Fisheries, knowing that
if in the opinion of that body he has
taken more than he is entitled 20. that
the said Board will cheeriully allow him
! from ak TO eighteen months T. scrape
| the bottom bare, and he furthermore
| knows that it will not cost him acOpper.
A rigorous law, thoroughly enforced,
will show a system Of graft in the oyster
planting business without a parallel IN
the State. and would open the eyes oi
the public to the thousands Of dollars
that 90 into private pockets, instead
Of the treasury OF the Commonwealth.
The Tattler.