Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1910-04-01
Friday, April 1, 1910
SOME DISTORTED VIEWS.


Some OF our more orless valued
exchanges are eternally harpine
on sticking to the constitution
when it suits their purpose total
back ON that document. II
would be all right if they did not
distort the verbiage or. interpre.
tation to suit their ends. Most
fragrant abuse and interpreta-
ton of it is made particularly
Z when broaching the oyster sub
ject.
We firmly adhere to the letter
and spirit of the constitution
where it says that the nataral
beds, rocks and shoals shall be
held for the benefit of the people
OF the State. In fact. we 90
further; we would say that they
should be held for the public
tonger S use. This we believe to
be in keeping with the spirit of
the constitution. while hardly
with the letter OF it-for the
letter would say that all the
people of the State should derive
equal benefit, and this might be
interpreted as giving power to
lease the rocks and distribute the
returns by means of the State
Golfers. But we could never ac-
cept this Interpretation, no more
than we could that every foot of
water bottom should be held
open in order to include every
little foot of detached oyster
knoll there may be, known or
unknown.
This brings lis to the constitu-
tionality of the Baylor Survey.
since some opponent of wise ad.
mlnistratiOn and legislation are
harping on the unconstitutional
lty OF the now famed James river
bill, which oyster officials have
been urging for many years, and
the Northampton Times holds
this sane view of the matter:
Z Do all the natural oyster beds" of
the Statecom within the Baylor Sur
vey? If they do not, then the survey
rs myth, and has no force or effect.
The Baylor Survey. which
prescibes certain lines as natural
rocks, - is as much unconstitutional as
any other survey made for the same
purpose. 1t would seem, also, that
the renting of shoals for the planting
of shells for the purpose of propaga-
ting seed oysters would be unconstitu-
tonai- The Baylor Survey,
or any other prescribed survey for the
purpose Of protecting the natural oys-
ter rocks of the State, in our opinion.
should cover all sections where nat
ural oyster bed actually exists or is in
the course of formation, and this would
be an impossible task.
Others may have thought
along this line, but our Cape
Charles contemporary was the
first to make public question as
so the unconstitutionality of the
BaylorSurvey. This work, which
some legislators and public es-
pousers so DANGEROUSLY defend
now was. violently attacked bS
many OF the same when first pro-
posed. Today they profess fo1
it involability. We defend it,
and where practical, and not
mythical, should be permanently
marked and, preserved wide
Fisheries reports for three years).
Where mythical-as in the James.
where it has never really existed
or been marked, nor could be
permanently marked or main
talned-it should be established
with sane and feasible boundar-
les, embracing all; or approx
mately all, of the producing
rocks, and be well guarded.
In this way not only would the
valuable rocks be made perma-
nently secure but could be en-
riched and made doubly produc-
tive. 1t would be just as consti-
tutional as the. original BAYLOR
Survey-which all will agree never
embraced all the rocks-and in a
few years would be worshipped
as is now the Survey that we
have on charts but in few places
marked in the waters. 1t is no
argument to say that it could be
marked, for the original runningl
cost fifty thousand dollars and |
the State refused to provide
further funds for the heavy ex-
pense OF marking.