The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-10-25

In reply to the slur in the above on the admin
istration of fisheries In this State the annual
reports of the commission OF fisheries is all the
reply necessary The surplus Of $4,000 turned
into the States treasury is pretty good indi-
cation that II the fish and oyster affairs have
not been made blooming success during the
distressed times brought by the aforesaid fana-
tics and newspapers they are surely not q bowling
failure, only TO such papers and individuals who,
like the Netos Leoder always howl at the success
of any one any measure that is for the uplift
of the State. However. the commission of f!.h.
cries are willing to rest their case with the
people and on the annual reports, showing, among
other things a restored condition and an expen.
diture of always less than the appropriation
allowed them, made to the governor and the
legislature and the people. The commission Is
not depending on the Netos Leader for approba-
ton.
This paper. after thorough reply to the
questions asked by the NeDs Leader, propounded
the following questions to that paper to use
our words verbatim. closing with this
AS We have favored the News Leader fully and
frankly, wish to ask 1t few favors:
90 Will you publish this7
go VIII you look 1t from q standpoint OF
States and peoples interest. with a view
to nagging and grumblng. a position Of censor
assuming custodianshlp of something you are
not posted on9
(3) In a conflict on the federal governments
assumption OF States rights. conflict Of
interest between the people OF Maryland and
the people of Virginia. will you honestly take
the side of Virginia against her? Now come
square, not at all, in your agitation,
Question / is answered by the Ne,os Leader
as follows Its lengthy article we have not
space to print as 1t requests, and as we have
covered the main points in the case. a full
publication OF the article is not material to pub
lie understanding OF the question"
This evasion is given, notwithstanding our
article was for information to 1t and the public
upon that papers asserting that from the Wash
ington conference nothing definite has been
given the PUBLIC Capitals ours) as to which
of these measures the Virginia representatives
will advocate" Thus, when answered and cor
nered the Bryan syndicate ever lodges. We
challenge the News Leader to print our answer
parallel with Its first article, and II 1t sees fit
TO accompany 1t with the evasive reply. If II
REFUSES 10 40 kHtb, the neglect proves several
things, among them that to the
Netos Leaders question was unanswerable by
that paper. and that they had no idea or ncli.
nation to let the people of the State know the
facts" For, had request been granted and
the article published the people would have
known the facts" So far in this matter It has
been the policy of that paper to conceal the facts
| from the public this question, as IT does on
other questions of Importance to the States in
terests
Our question 2 is answered by saying: 1--WE
shall do our best TO assume helpful, construc
tive attitude to save great industry" Whether
In this Constructive" Is really meant or not we
are unable to say. but considering the attitude
of that paper on fish and oyster questions, 1t,
faw-pickings at officials. it's dense ignorance OF
the questions we think that destructive atti
tude" would be more illustrative of It's policy
as It was on the socailed polluted" and scarce
oyster agitation.
Question 8 Is answered by saying: 1--WE shall
always uphold the lasting interest of the peopl,
OF Virginia in their fishing rights. To this enc
we shall oppose the Linth!cum bill and shall
adopt the simpler expedient--that OF urging
upon the next governor of Virginia the appoint
ment OF a competent fish commissioner.
| This gives the whole thing away. 1t IL tn,
ne plus ultra the milk In the cocoanut. Oppos,
the "Linthicum bill" when the Linthicum bill.
advocate the very thing that the Netos Leader
advocates, One of them nothing more nor les
than to kill the fishing industry in Virginia ant
beggar our tidewater section for the benefit o
the citizens OF Maryland! This, and this alto
gether was what the Washington conference wa
called for and the Hnthicum bills as frs
drawn were opposed by the Virginia represen
tatives--among them the present Ash commits
soner, whom the Netcs Ledder arrogates to 1t
self the power to put out of Office. 1t Is
great pity that the Netcs Leader had not mad
itself familiar with the provisions of the Linthi
cum bill" before coming out In opposition to |
and lining up with the commissioner OF Virgins
fisheries. However. 1t Is only further proc
of the dense ignorance that prevails in the sane
! tum of that paper. 1t Is dollars TO doughnuts
, that It's piscatorial writer is not familiar will
single provision Of the bill that he opposes
The patron is, like the Ne,os Leader, 30 dense OIL