Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1909-05-28
CURLETT vs.. BARBER; THE NEWS
VS.. THE CiTlZEN.-0lD SORES.

county. and confession of accuaintanct
with "sueh tactics resorted to misrep-
resent facts in order to deceive voters"
the editorial scribbler in the Northern
Neck News unbosoms his own evil pro
pensity. The writer of the Farnhau
letter is prominent resident and vote,
in Farnham; and his letter and signature
can be seen at our Office by any reputable
caller. We do not feel called upon.
however. to crafty political enemies
and carpists by publishing his name.
As to the Warsaw News account of
Mr.. Curlett's meeting on court day. and
that papers recent plea that it has ''had
occasion to affirm the absolute correct
ness, as well as the fairness, of the re-
port, and had he (Curlett) been mis-
quoted in SO important particular il is
fair to assume that he would have been
quick to call attention over his own
signature to any injustice done him..
we have only to say, first, that we are
Informed that Mr.. Morgan, the nominal
editor, admitted he was not present dur
ing all of the discussion. Second. Mr..
Curlett called Mr.. Morgan up over
phone and stated that the account was
unfair, and asked if he (Curlett) would
be allowed to correct it over his sigma
ture- The answer was that he could do
so If he would pay for the article. 1t ia
a settled policy that every local paper.
and even the big dailies, will give
hearing free to anyone believing him.
self misrepresented by an editor or EN-.
ployee of the paper.
The same issue Of the News that con-
tains the foregoing passages we have
quoted, also contains temperate but ill
informed views of Mr.. Barber on the
Commission of Fisheries bill. This
matter was tir .shed out more than a
year ago, but the bile of the News man
and few others will not down. In
positive error. their spleen towards the
present Commissioner will not permit
courage enough to admit the error. or
even stop croaking. We do not care 20
rehash this matter. but, once for sill.
will now give them some facts that can
not be gainsaid and which will lead
other and less prejudiced minds to see it
Alright. The old Board of Fisheries act
was exceedingly imperfect ESQ admitted
by Senator LeCato, the patron, on the
fioor of the Senate. but willing to take
what he could get at that time). 1t had
not been materially amended in ten
years. In the first place the name or
the powers did not comport with the
dignity of an Office which is the most
important of any to Tidewater Virginia.
In the next place there were three vital
defects, viz:
% It-provided for no annual an
preparation with which to carry on the
work. This was left to the mercy of
the Finance Committee of each General
Assembly. and was more or less a foot
ball. Oyster protection might be held
up at the within or neglect of legislature.
~ Oyster inspectors were not made
accountable to the Board in all their
Official acts; but could do or undo GER
tain things at their pleasure.
(9 The Board was not n department
OF government, any of its officials being
liable to personal prosecution when
executing the laws.
There were many minor defects. but
the foregoing three were sufficient to
impress every man but one (Mr. Evans)
IN the two houses OF legislation that the
law needed amending. All save the
gentleman from Middlesex approved of
the change of name, an increased appro-
priation and every other feature OF the
bill There was dissent by few only
on the amount of annual appropriation
and the salaries of the Chairman and
Secretary. None but Mr.. Evans on
posed an increase to some extent. The
dissenting lone gentleman's personal
animosity was early discerned, and even
western. members refused to be parties
to Withholding money needed to operate
our great water industry.
The House Committee recommended
500, 600 annually for the work. and
s.. 500 salary for the Chairman. Senator
Walker thought s45. 900 enough appro-
priation, and the Board advised accep-
lance Chairman Lee requested the
committee not to make his salary
%, 500. and they put it at 81, 500. Sena-
'or Walker recommended I,5OO Tor
$1,000, we don't just now recall. The
Conference Committee left it at 50. 800
This ia the record in q nutshell. The
I'D act had to provide for salaries: the
lew one must do the same. In draft
ng the bill the salary was left in blank. i
o be adjusted by the Committees. Mr.. i
zee appeared before these committees 7
nd said that he would fill out his term I
placed at one dollar, one thousand or C
en- thousand year. Against any in
rease there was but one voice in lao e
iembers of the two houses. Outside 4
came from a whipper-snap- h
er writer in local paper and a few
ersonal and political enemies of the h
hartman. :,
AS to the constitutionality of the {
lcrease, not voice was raised on the
DOR of either house; and as good law
ers as IN the State We're there. The
fhce Is not one created by the Consti-
ition, nor Is 1T elective, by people or 7
gisiature. 1t was not necessary to c,
lange the name in order to increase
'iaries. This could have been done by !,
simple amendment to the old act. and y
ouid have been easy. The salary :
iestion was never pressing one, and :,
this had been the only desire n x,o,ia u