Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1908-10-23
THE TIMES-DISPATCH
IS MISLEADING,
Colonial Beach Record

LIE people OF 1ldewater Virginia are
an honest, conscientious and hardwork-
ing people. and therefore have neither
time nor opportunity to fathom the in
tents and purposes of political contro-
versy over their principal industry-the
oysters.
The Times-Dispatch, under the guise
OF friendship to the oysterman's in
terests. prints an editorial on Friday.
October 9Th, the purport of which is to
have it understood that the State Board
of Fisheries is responsible for the scar
city of oysters in the James river this
year. In part it says:
"1twas stated by the papers published
in Newport News that the James river.
which is the most lucrative and produc-
tive spot for seed-oysters in Virginia.
was practically barren this year. These
statements have not been disproved from
any authoritative source, and in confir-
nation the Times-Dispatch printed We'd
nesday a story from an oysterman who
called at this Office to say that to his
own knowledge forty-six boats from
Gloucester county had been forced to
abandon the James river because there
were no oysters to be taken"
No effort has been made, as we are
aware of, to disproye the scarcity of
oysters in James river; nor has it been
proven exactly how they became scarce.
We do not doubt that forty-six boats
from Gloucester county had been forced
to abandon the James river because
there were no oysters there; yet, it is
oproof that the Board of Fisheries was
the cause of this scarcity. But, we do
say, II the reports are true-and we
have no grounds to disbelieve them-it
is deplorable condition, over which the
Board has no control. While admitting
this scarcity the Times-Dispatch desires
to shift the responsibility upon the Com
missioner of Fisheries because he made
certain promises. That paper further
says:
Whether the estimate of 5000 men
is numerically correct or not the Times
Dispatch does not undertake to say, but
we do allege that the oyster business is
In very bad condition in the James river
this year, and that this condition has
come about despite the large increase OF
appropriation by the State Board OF
Fisheries, or the Commission of Fisheries
as 1t Is now called, and despite the
promises of the Commissioner of Fish
cries that with an increase of appro-
priation he would promise an increase
OF revenue and an improvement of con-
ditions. Furthermore. if the proper in
formation had been given to the public
as to the true condition of the oysters
In the James river, the tongers would
not have been put to the necessary ex-
pense of painting their boats, buying
their food. and in many cases giving up
steady employment to go upon the hope
less quest of seeking oysters where none
were to be found"
To prove the weakness of the Tines
argument is the fact that q man may
promise to pay n note at certain date,
but death overtakes him before that
time; is it fair then to presume that he
could have prevented the doings of ma
ture? This argument applies to the
oyster scarcity above mentioned. The
Commissioner had no control over the
disastrous freshets. His promises may
have been in good faith, but nature
frustrated their being carried out in a
certain degree.
We are not fighting the battles of the
Commission of Fisheries. for if they
have failed to do their duty, the Times
Dispatch should have given proof of
that fact, not by figures, but by proof
of actual depredations. Argument based
on any other grounds is misleading, and
calculated to cause a distrust among
the oystermen. thereby causing them to
disregard the authority of the law. To
give the proper information as to the
exact condition of the oysters on the
bottoms of the James river, it would be
necessary for the State to make still
greater appropriations for the building
of a submarine boat with powerful
search-lights. so that the oyster can be
seen in his natural element; in other
words, the Commissioner of Fisheries
would have to be under the water as
well as above it to ''give the public the
proper information" the Times desires
the public to have.
AS we stated few weeks ago, politi-
cal .'see-sawing" is at the bottom of
the argument of charging the Commits
sioner of Fisheries for that which it is
impossible for him to overcome. Such
discussions as the Times-Dispatch' edi-
torial are calculated to bring in disrepute
all efforts on the part Of the State to
protect the oysters in its waters. The
! Commission of Fisheries have duty to
F, perform, likewise every man who catches
oysters for a living, and arguments as
: the one quoted above is calculated to
estrange the two, which is detrimental
to that which they seek to protect. The
Commissioner of Fisheries and the oys-
!, termen should work hand in hand to stop
, depredations on the natural rocks, but
if there is disposition to create jeal-
ousy between them, the planters, who
are after the natural rocks. will have
an opportunity to bring all the oyster
i laws in disrepute, and eventually s.gob-
BILE up" the rocks for their own use:
and. if We must judge the future by the
past, cause untold blood shed. Mary
land had taste of this in Synapuxent