Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1908-12-04
LEE ABLE and CONSCIENTIOUS
PUBLIC SERVANT
Delegate ". W. Old, Jr., Tells Why
OYSTER Legislation Was MOI
Passed.
EVERY EFFORT MADE TO ENACT
Laws
Aoie Defense OF Head of Board of
Fisheries by Distinguished Nor.
folk Man.
Portsmouth Star. Nov. 27l

Portsmouth Star Nov. 27)
This section, which is princina,,,
Interested in legislation affecting tn
oyster and fisheries interests of tn
state, has watched with considerable
interest the newspaper controvers,
IN richmond, in which some very causti
criticism OF the Board of Fisheries ha
been INDUCED in.
Delegate w. w. Old, jr., of Norfolk
mas written to the Richmond Times
dispatch, which has been especial,
active in its attack on the board. ;
letter defending the course of Mr.. w
mcdonald Lee, chairman of the Boarc
Oh FISHERIES, which will be read will
much interest here. Mr.. Old writes a,
follows:
Editor OF the Times-Dispatch:
oiR-As a~memher of the House com.
mittee on the Chesapeake and it's trim.
taries during the last session of the
General Assembly of Virginia, | will
undertake to answer briefly the question
propounded by you to Mr.. w. MELON
ala Lee as to why no oyster legislation
was enacted by the said General AS
sembly.
On January 81, 1908, upon the reouest
OF the Board of Fisheries. | introduced
IN the House a bill providing for the
codification of the oystsr laws of Vir-
gina, and containing many material
amendments, which bill, when printed
contained ninety-eight pages. This bill
nad been drawn with much care by Mr..
Lee and those associated with him. and
the oyster laws of other States wers
considered in its preparation.
Inc House committee on the Chesa-
peaKe and its tributaries met day after
day and night after night for the mr.
pose of considering this bill, but. owing
10 the many Investigations. necessitatinr
the appearance of members of the com
mittee at other meetings, the shortness
Oh the session, the multitude of bills on
the calendar, each one of which was
considered by its patron to be imnor-
tant, and opposition to certain port;o,s
OF the bill itself by certain members :,
failed of passage in the House. but in
all probability, by lack of time. A
similar bill was introduced in the Senate
by Senator Keezell. Mr.. Lee worked IN
season and out of season in it's behalf
ana It's passage would have made the
present laws more effective, would have
given the board better facilities for on
forcing them, and would, no doubt. have
remedied many of the evils which vour
paper now claims exist. Should not Mr.
Lee under these circumstances, be COM
mended for his untiring efforts rather
than censured for the nonpassage of the
bill itself?
This now brings me to the bill CHANG
ing the name of the Board of Fisheries
to the Commission of Fisheries. provid-
ing for fund for carrying out the pur-
poses OF the act, outlining the duties
and powers of the commission and in
cldentally increasing the salaries of GER
tam members of the board. This bill.
after full and careful consideration in
committee and on the floor, passed the
house by vote of So to 8, and The
report of the conference committee was
adopted by the House by vote of 63
TO z, and by the Senate by vote of
q TO D. These votes in themselves
ought to be conclusive evidence of the
fact that the bill was meritorious one
And any thoughtful person, in examin-
ng the oyster codiication bill, ninety
eight pages long, making changes in
he existing laws, and the Commission
IF Fisheries bill, only four pages lone.
recognized to be of merit, can easily
understand why the latter became q
aw and the former failed of passage.
And 1T is only fair for me to state that
Mr.. Lee told me again and again, and.
10 doubt, other members of the com
nittee also, to use every effort to have
PASSED the codification bill, even though
" so doing the Commission of Fisheries
I'LL failed of passage.
AND his every action, so far as I OH
erved. proved his sincerity in making
his statement.
l would also like to call attention to
1. b. $50, directing the Board of Fish
RES to rearrange the lines of the
'aylor survey in Warwick county: the
esoiution introduced by Mr.. Feather
ton, of Campbell county, providing for
he appointment of commission to
,ake an investigation of the States
lterest in and relative to the fish and
yster industries, and the Potomac river
i'll, ali of which had his approval and
lpport.
1t is my intention in writing this
,tter, and l do so voluntarily, to give
Mr.. Lee the credit he deserves: and
sincerely hope that this statement of
acts, which can easily be verified bv =
her members of the committee. will ,
'nvince you that Mr.. Lee did do his Y
est to have enacted oyster legislation
by those who examined the v
lis themselves to be wise, proper and n
'cessary. Yours very truly,
WILLIAM w. OLD, JR.
Norfolk, Va, Nov. %, 1908. 81