Peninsula Enterprise, June 21, 1884
Untitled
Transportation -- Water - Freight
According to latest advices a steamer of the Old Dominion Steamship Company, will put on the line from the Eastern Shore to New York next, and will be at Smith's and the Saw Mill wharves Thursday, and at Thomas's wharf Friday.
Untitled
fields -- Crops - White potatoes : MarketsTransportation -- Water - Freight
Capt. Syd J. Russell will have his schooner at the wharves on Folly Creek next Thursday and Friday, for the purpose of receiving shipments of round potatoes to New York.
Untitled
Transportation -- Water - Strandings
The schooner Janie T. Lewis commanded by Capt. John E. Mears was capsized in Matchapungo Creek, last Sunday, and two of her crew barely escaped losing their lives. The accident will cost the owners about a hundred dollars for repairs.
Untitled
Architecture -- CourthousesTransportation -- Water - SteamboatsInfrastructure -- Commercial - Commercial construction
Chincoteague.
Your Mappsville correspondent in your June 7th issue, calls up a matter especially interesting, not only to Mappsville, but to every section of our prosperous county, the location of our court-house. No one who has made himself familiar with the condition of the valuable archives of our county, (no censure, intended for our efficient clerks,) will question the necessity of the new buildings, but many are agitated over their location. The voice of the county should be heard on so vital a question, one that interests the coming as well as the present generation. Yes "let there be a stay of proceedings," at least until each district can act through its representative. Give us a central location or give us a division of the county.
The steamer Widgeon has gone to Norfolk for repairs. The sloop Lizzie Jane, Capt. Jack Whealton, master, takes the Widgeon's place in her absence.
Mr. J. T. Kenney's business having increased so much he has decided to enlarge his store house at an early day.
The Oyster Question.
Sea -- Shellfish - Oystering : SeasideSea -- Shellfish - Oystering : Legislation
MR. EDITOR: My attention has been called to a communication in your paper of the 7th inst. by your "special correspondent" from Chincoteague in which he says "our oyster planters are much agitated over the new oyster law, and are swearing vengeance against the law makers that would sanction the passage of an act to prevent them during certain months from handling the oysters that they have paid for and on which they pay a tax." If "your special correspondent" will carefully read the new oyster law, and compare it with the old, he will learn that there is not one word added to the new law in regard to planted oysters, or the time of taking them; and that the only change made as to the time is in the 13th section, which does not apply to the counties of Accomack and Northampton. One other change was also made, by universal demand, because of its abuse, what was known as the two bushel law, was left out in the new law. I will quote the 13th section of the new law, which is the only part of the law that relates to the restricted time for taking oysters. "Hereafter it shall not be lawful for any person to take or catch oysters in the waters of this Commonwealth with tongs, or in any way, from the 15th day of May to the 1st day of September, nor shall it be lawful for any person to buy, sell or catch oysters in the waters of the Commonwealth during the first fifteen days of May for any other purpose than for planting within the waters of the Commonwealth, or for the use of said oystermen in his own family provided, however, that nothing in this section relating to the restricted trade in oysters during the first fifteen days in September and the first fifteen days in May, shall apply to the residents of the State who are actually engaged in the catching and planting of oysters on the eastern side of the counties of Accomack and Northampton." Can anyone gather from this that any additional prohibition has been placed upon the oyster interests of the sea side, save the repeal of the two bushel law? which was universally asked for, its abuse leading to many of the violations of the old law, and of course is not referred to by your "special correspondent." Where then does the trouble exist? If in the new law, certainly it did in the old, and no such complaint was ever made about the old law, or it might have been corrected. Let the sins be visited upon those who committed them, but I do not believe that any such trouble exists, as that part of the law was intended to refer to natural beds or rocks, and not to planted oysters, where the planter pays rent to the State for the planting ground, and his oysters are as much his personal property as any other property he may possess. Certainly such legislation was never intended, however, it may be construed. We tried to look after the interests of the sea side as evidenced by the 13th section of the new law, yet not one word of advice or suggestion came to us from that section in regard to the oyster law during its pendency in the legislature, and your "special correspondent," as well as others interested, must have known that a new law was for the long time under consideration. We do not claim to be immaculate, or know all the wants of the people intuitively or innately, hence we wished advice from all.
Very respectively yours,
FRANK FLETCHER,
Jenkin's Bridge, Va., June 14th, 1884.