Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1910-09-30
UNFAIRNESS OF
TIMES-DISPATCH.
Holds a Communication Two Days.
publishes in Obscure Place And
Next Day AssaiIs The Letter
Without Reproducing.


not fire into the mob of tongers on
James river. They took him to task
upon misinformation from the Arm
strongs, of Hampton) over some other
matters, entirely unfounded. Mr.. Lee
replied in full to the I'D, the letter
reaching Richmond Friday night. 1t
was published in Mondays paper in an
obscure corner. A day later, after fur
Their information from Hampton direc-
ton. the I'D. alludes to the letter of
the day before and jumps on Mr.. Lee,
lodging the questions at issue in the
Commissioner communication, quoting
wrong times and events, persists in
misstatements as to action with plant
ers and beating the air with vapid at
tacks. For readers who didn't see it in
the I'D, we reproduce Mr.. Lees arti-
Gle here:
To the Editor of the Times Dispatc,.:
Sir, oyster editorial of Thurs
day, which have just seen, was en-
tlrely uncalled for, because there was
no grounds for your statements or as
James river matter were concerned.
No such iudiscriminate embargo was
placed upon the planters. Less than
ten out of a hundred or more were
requested 10 suspend operations for a
few days on disputed grounds. and
all but one readily assented. This was
done last week, not six weeks ago. at
the time of the stake pulling. Further,
| the ofhcl2ls were not forced into a
truce with the tongers.
No stakes have been pulled by them
since August II, and that was done
without warming and while | was en-
gagged on the Potomac. Upon my ar
rival later, not vestige of certain
lines was left for evidence as to cor
| rectness, nor did l know what indi-
viduals had done the deed. The az
grieved planters stated that they
| would seek redress in the courts. and
| trusted this proper step would be
taken. 1t was not. While not TO be
| cOndoned, 1t was no more a case for
the State officials than would be the
case of removal by persons of a field
| fence which they claimed was en-
croaching upon the public highways.
The owner of the fence would be the
one to move in action, not the con-
stable or sheriff, until the aggrieved
private interests should have papers
| executed.
Upon reaching the scene six weeks
ago, | secured assurances that no more
! such acts should occur, and stated that
the State would proceed to define the
correct boundaries, as the law pro-
vldes and actually demands of my COM
mission. The planters at once pro-
ceeded to put back their stakes TO
suit themselves, and they are there to-
day pending determination by the
States surveyor. Not single plant
er's oysters have been deprecated upon.
Last week 500 men and score of
women assembled to again pull the
stakes and go in on the grounds, be-
cause they claimed the planters were
more aggressive than ever and were
robbing the public domain out of sea-
son ana under protection of stakes put
there, not by the officials, but by
planters, over whose location there
was grave questions. met this crowd,
and after long parleying and a proper
display of authority, changed their
determination.
arrive this Week, and that | would
request eight planters to stop work on
the debatable grounds for few DAYS.
1t was much To the interest of planters
To prevent depredations. All but one
OF the eight readily acceded. The
other refused, and as this firm was
operating dredges mot tongs), under
special permit from the commission
(see statute), this special privilege
for dredging was revoked few DAYS
ago. Dredging is a drastic and irri-
tating method of operating, and the
Legislature wisely gives the Oyster
Commission the arbitrary power To is
sue or revoke such privilege because of
the menace to public property and the
public peace.
was not forced into truce. and
was prepared to resist violation of the
the law. No overt act occurred, and
If you condemn the policy | pursued
to prevent fearful slaughter over UNI
determined rights, your sanctum
heroism is to be applauded. Had the
crowd started to- pull stakes not put
there by surveyor or officials, but by
private interests q refer to the few
aggravated cases. not all of the hun
dred or more plots that were not in
question:, had they begun pulling and
putting women and babes to the front. |
would you have opened with shrapnel
and rifles on them? Answer this, and |
tell me also, please, if the slaughter of |
fifty or more would have been more |
TO my credit than the diplomacy that |
did not tarnish the majesty of the law? |
Whether the Baylor Survey should be
broken or abolished, is not in ques-
ton. 1t is law, and my chief duty
is to see that it is not transgressei |
so long as 1t Is law. Pardon me for
asserting that just such articles as
you are writing are reprehensible, and
untlmely, when no session of the Leg
islatnre Is to be influenced, and when
at this crucial period they infiame the
masses of public workers. Such things
VIII tend TO precipitate bloodshed
quicker than anything | know. Should
II be brought on, you, Mr.. Editor, will
seek immunity. Will you also defend
my act IN public print and before the
courts for what must be fearful mas
sacre of citizens OF Virginia over
doubtful rights? By tact. and not by
"coddling. the law has been upheld,
no rights materially injured and blood
shed avoided. There is no escape from
hre when human beings are huddled
IN boats on broad waters; city MODS
can be fired into and dispersed with
small loss of life. There are buildings
and defenses for refuge, but there can
be no such scurrying or fleeing from
on the water.
Commentator of the press (outside
OF your interests) and the approval of
my superior officer, the Governor, and
has adviser, the Attorney General, may
We'll satisfy me as against the cause
you seem To have taken up for one or
Two firms whose interests were not
seriously crippled, and whose special
privileges were revoked for a few
days rs CONDUCIVE TO the greatest good
for the greatest number and The avoid
apce of Dloodshed.
You will proceed, no doubt, unip.
LerruptedlY III your prominent editorial