Peninsula Enterprise, February 7, 1891
Untitled
Watermen -- Watermen's organizations
The meeting proposed for forming an "Oyster Association" at Hunting Creek, last Saturday night, and prevented by inclement weather will be held to night.
Untitled
Farmers -- Farmers' organizations
The Drummondtown Alliance meets at Temperance Hall, next Saturday. A full attendance of the members is requested.
Untitled
Infrastructure -- Commercial - Newspapers
Mr. John L. Dalby now fills the editorial chair of the Eastern Shore Herald at Eastville, and the new accession to the folds of the "Art Preservative" is extended a cordial welcome by the Enterprise.
Untitled
Fields -- Fertilizer
Mr. Wm. L. Nock, agent of Humphreys & Tilghman, will deliver two car loads of their fertilizers at Oak Hall station to-day.
Untitled
Architecture -- Historic preservation
A meeting of the Eastern Shore Historical Society will be held at Eastville, next Monday, and the occasion promises to be one of unusual interest. Our countyman, Hon. Jno. W. H. Parker, is expected to be present and deliver an address.
Untitled
Infrastructure -- Public : Churches
Rev. Father Mickle will preach at the school house hall, Wachapreague, February 9th, at 7.30 p.m. Subject, "The Incarnation;" and at the court house, Drummondtown, February 11th, at 7.30 p.m. Subject, "The Blessed Eucharist." All are cordially invited.
Untitled
Mental illnessInfrastructure -- Public - Government : Chain gang
Malinda Stran, colored, wife of Oliver Stran, a member of the chain gang some weeks ago, died near Parksley, last Sunday, from the effects of Paris green, which she administered to herself on the Friday previous. The reason for committing suicide was not given by her.
Untitled
Transportation -- Railroad - OtherSea -- Wrecking
Chincoteague.
The leading business men of the principal towns from here to Georgetown, Del., waited on the officials of the P. W. & B. R. R., a few days ago and demanded an extra passenger train. It was shown that the business of the road entitled them to it. Their demands were acceded to and an extra train is to be put on the route, to leave Franklin city, 1 p. m., at an early day.
Capt. Benj. Sharpley arrived here in his schooner, Monday, and reports that he found a valuable prize off Great Egg Harbor, on 23d ult. The schooner Calvin S. Edmonds, bound from Norfolk to New York, loaded with lumber, with no one on board, was found and taken in charge and delivered by him to tug Idelwilde, to be taken to New York.
Untitled
Infrastructure -- Commercial - Real estateInfrastructure -- Public : TownsInfrastructure -- Commercial - Insurance companies
Mappsville.
Mr. George White, flour merchant of Baltimore, recently visiting relatives in this village, shows his confidence in our continued prosperity by investing in farming lands on our county.
Our village seems to be prospering beyond any year of its existence. All trades and professions are crowded with work, and we have plenty of room for two or three more good men who understand shoemaking, cart-building, etc. The parsonage is the only building without an occupant, and it will probably be soon occupied.
The first Saturday in February, 2 p. m., is the regular meeting day for the election of officers for the ensuing year, of the Mutual Live Stock Insurance Association. All and every member is expected to be on hand, as several important measures will be introduced looking to the enlargement of the business of the company, making radical changes in the business methods and aims hitherto prevailing in the company.
COUNTY COURT PROCEEDINGS.
Moral -- Property crimeMoral -- Murder
January Term, 1891.
The jury empannelled for the trial of George Richardson for the larceny of the money of Mr. Francis T. Stockley, returned the verdict of one year in penitentiary, with a recommendation to Governor for executive clemency, in consideration of the age of the boy, his previous good character and the unusual temptation in his way to commit the theft. In pursuance of the verdict, a petition setting forth the facts, signed by every member of the jury, Judge of county court, clerk, sheriff, and Commonwealth attorney, will be taken to the Governor by Mr. U. B. Quinby, one of the attorneys of the prisoner, and application will be made for the commutation of the sentence to county jail, which will doubtless be granted and should be. It was in evidence that the boy was 15 years of age, heretofore was of exceptionally good character, had entered the store and taken money from safe both left open, was penitent as soon as he fully realized the crime and acknowledged the same.
In the case of the Commonwealth vs. Samuel Lewis, on trial for the murder of George Twyford, a verdict of murder in the second degree was rendered and term of imprisonment fixed at five years in penitentiary. A new trial has been granted him on account of error of jury in ascertaining their verdict. Ten of them being for five years in penitentiary and two of them for four years, they decided by lot the manner in which the conflicting opinions should be reconciled, by putting white and black chequers in hat and calling upon deputy sheriff to draw one, the white representing five years, the black four years. The deputy drew the white chequer -- hence the verdict. The law does not recognize verdicts arrived by chance.
In case of Commonwealth vs. Henry Watson and Louis Savage, colored; tried for entering a store in night time with intent to commit larceny, jury returned verdicts of five years in penitentiary in each case, and they have been sentenced accordingly.
Untitled
Sea -- Shellfish - Oystering : LegislationSea -- Shellfish - Oystering : PlantingInfrastructure -- Commercial - Real estate
MR. EDITOR:
We have seen in the columns of your paper the article copied from the Richmond Dispatch, of Capt. O. A. Browne, headed "Our Oyster Beds," have noted the views of the gentleman on the subject in regard to this important question to us, and beg leave to differ with him. Our views are as opposite as the Poles, and the ends thereof, as antagonistic as life and death. In the first place, we are opposed to the sale of oysters lands to private individuals, corporation and monied monopolies. It is a bad precedent and will very soon bring us to grief. We are not opposed to the present laws, provided it is rigidly enforced by the men commissioned to do so. We are aware that the State has tried in vain to replenish her treasury from time to time by levying a tax on the oyster industry, and has failed directly. But we propose to show that indirectly it has been a fair success. We will go back to 1865, when, as Mr. B. states, oysters were plentiful and markets good. Our citizens then were obliged to pay a tax to the State for the privilage of taking oysters, while foreign dredge boats came in to reap the rich harvest that nature had been preparing during the four years of sectional war. The State received nothing at the hands of these foreign violators, there being no police boats to enforce the laws, nor to stay the tide of the wholesale devastation of her oyster beds, consequently the wealth taken from our State was carried away to enrich oystermen of some other State. Yet in spite of all this, our oyster beds were not destroyed, but simply raked bare. In 1874, there was a Navy placed upon the waters of the Chesapeake and its tributaries for the protection of oysters, but the legislation was inadequate to the emergency and failure in a financial sense to the State was the result, owing in a very large degree to the unlimited privileges of the dredging vessels and the wanton waste of young oysters. From 1874 to 1881 were the gloomiest days our people have ever seen, and in all probability will ever see again, unless the State should deprive then of their rocks and flats which is the sole source of their support. In 1881 and 1882 the rocks of Pocomoke and Tangier sounds were covered with young spat, and this was protected by an enactment of the legislature, approved March 4th, 1884, and since then our rocks have been steadily increasing in value, until to-day they have surpassed our most sanguine expectations. Indeed they are in a better and a healthier condition than they have been for 35 years.
We will take for instance the 6th District, embracing Sykes Island and Messongo Neck, inhabited by people who get their livelihood solely out of the waters of Pocomoke Sound, and adjacent waters, numbering about 200 oystermen. Their boat property worth now $40,000, 15 years ago was not worth one-third of this amount; land 15 years ago which could be purchased for from $5 to $29 per acre, to-day is worth from $100 to $300 per acre, and other property in the same proportion, upon which valuation our people pay taxes to this Commonwealth.
Does it not seem clear to any reasonable and unbiased mind that the oyster industry is paying indirectly to the State its pro rata of tax? We feel confident that the lawmakers of this State will consider the matter fully before they act, and when they do act it shall be characterized by wisdom and forethought.
We don't ask the State to appropriate any funds for the protection of the oyster beds, other that that paid by oystermen in the shape of licenses, etc., for that specific purpose. And if the revenue thus derived is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the protecting force, then we are willing to pay more taxes to make it sufficient.
We are not anarchists as we have been called, but freemen contending for our rights and privileges, which guarantee to us peace and plenty. We would be less than men, yes, entirely unworthy the name freemen, of we did not raise our voice in denouncing a proposed measure so detrimental to our best interests.
No. Mr. Editor, we cannot remain silent while the forgers are preparing a chain with which to shackle our hands and then pass us over to a set of monied masters, slaves for all time.
Mr. B. would hold out the idea, that our oyster law is a failure, and that the oyster industry is dead or dying, but he cannot persuade us to believe it in the face of fact, that there has been more money realized from the waters of Pocomoke Sound by citizens of Accomack for the past two oyster seasons than ever before in the same length of time. Consequently we do not feel the necessity of following the example of Connecticut. All we require is an amendment to the present law so as to require oysters to be culled on the rocks, and the shells and unmarketable oysters be thrown back on the bottoms were they were spawned, and the industry will take care of itself.
Connecticut's industry has a capital investment of $3,322,311. Her catch of the past year amounted to $1,232,146, wages paid 1,024 laborers was $293,562 or $2.57 per employee, this includes skilled workmen also. leaving a nice little dividend to shove down into the pocket of the monopolists, of $968,584, or over 29 per cent of the money invested. This beats tariff out of sight, in making the "rich man richer and the poor man poorer," in as much as it takes the natural bottoms from the multitude and places them in the hands of a few monied rings and the State is to pronounce this state of things protection and preservation of the industry according to Mr. Browne's theory, but we fail to see it in that light, and offer this our protest in reply.
UNITED OYSTERMEN.
Untitled
Sea -- Shellfish - Oystering : LegislationSea -- Shellfish - Oystering : Planting
MR. EDITOR:
We, the oystermen of Mearsville Association, seeing in the columns of your paper, a communication of Capt. W. James Somers, saying that we endorse every line of Capt. O. A. Browne, which appeared in Enterprise of January 3d, which we bitterly disapprove, have to say in reply, that we know nothing of the Association named by Capt. Somers. The Association further declares that in their judgement, it would be starvation of the poor laboring class of the oystermen of the Commonwealth to lease or sell her "Water", and asks the oystermen of Tidewater Virginia, to carefully consider the matter.
CAPT. T. R. CHASE, Chairman.
LEWIS T. SHRIEVES, Secretary.
Mearsville, Va., January 29th, 1891.
Untitled
Sea -- Shellfish - Oystering : LegislationSea -- Shellfish - Oystering : Planting
The oyster problem still continues to engage the attention not only of the people of Accomac, but of other sections of the State and the diversity of opinion among those interested in the matter shows, that the question is not one of easy solution. An oyster law of course cannot be framed in harmony with all these views, and the differences existing between those interested in the oyster industry must be adjusted before the next meeting of our Legislature, if they would have the demands to be presented by them, entitled to the respect of that body. How to adjust is probably a question as difficult of solution, but it certainly cannot be done by bickerings among themselves. They must come together in some way, and concessions must be made between those of conflicting views and to that end a convention in which the interest of every section shall be represented, seems necessary.
NOTICE AND CITATION.
Sea -- Shellfish - Oystering : BaysideSea -- Shellfish - Oystering : Law enforcement
VIRGINIA: -- In Accomack County Court Clerk's Office, February 3rd, 1891.
The Commonwealth of Virginia Plaintiff against Pungy "J.W.Brooks" Defendant. Upon an Information.
Notice is hereby given: That James H. Fletcher, Jr., attorney for the Commonwealth in the county court of said county, did, on the 27th day of January, 1891, file in the clerk's office of the said county court, an information in the name of the Commonwealth against the pungy "J.W.Brooks:" -- alleging, that on the 5th day of January, A. D., 1891, the pungy "J.W. Brooks" was seized by the captain and crew of one of the oyster police boats of the State of Virginia as forfeited to the Commonwealth of Virginia in that the said pungy was found on the 3rd day of January, A.D., 1891, employed by William W. Dize in taking oysters with dredges within the waters of this Commonwealth and within the jurisdiction of this the said county court, the said William E. Dize not there being a resident of this the said State of Virginia; -- and praying that the said pungy "J.W. Brooks," together with her tackle, apparel, anchors, cables, sails, rigging and appurtenances and dredges be condemned as forfeited to the Commonwealth and be sold, and the proceeds of sale disposed of according to law; and that all persons concerned in interest be cited to appear to show cause why the said property should not be condemned and sold to enforce the said forfeiture.
And that, upon the filing of the said information as aforesaid, the clerk of the said court forthwith issued a warrant directed to the sheriff of the said county, commanding him to take the said property into his possession and hold the same subject to further proceedings in the cause which warrant has this day been returned with a report to the clerk in writing thereon as follows:
"By virtue of the within order I have taken the within named pungy, "J.W. Brooks," into my possession, together with her tackle, apparel, anchors, cables, rigging and appurtenances and dredges and hold the same, subject to the order of this court. The sails named in said order have been stored for safety with Buroughs & Brownley, in Norfolk, Va. I have directed these parties to hold said sails subject to my order. Jno. H. Wise, Sheriff."
Therefore all persons concerned in interest are hereby cited to appear on the first day of the February term next of the said county court, at the court house of the said county of Accomack, and show cause why the prayer of the said information and sale of said property to enforce the said forfeiture, and the proceeds of sale disposed of according to law, should not be granted.
Witness, Montcalm Oldham, Jr., clerk of the said county court, at the court-house, the 3rd day of February, A.D., 1891, and in the 115th year of the Commonwealth.
M. Oldham, Jr., C.A.C.