Peninsula Enterprise, March 1, 1890

Important Letter on the Oyster Question.

Sea -- Shellfish - Oystering : Legislation

To the Editor of the Dispatch:

As a reader of your daily and of so many communications upon the oyster question, which seems to be worrying our legislators so much, especially those above tidewater, who, still to say, make up the majority of the committees to whom such questions are properly referred; and believing that the one economic question now before the General Assembly is of so much importance, affecting so many people whose livelihood depends solely upon the oyster industry and to an equal degree indirectly affecting the revenue of our State, is my excuse for asking a place in your valuable paper for this communication. In all that has been said upon the subject no one has called especial attention to the indirect advantages and revenues the State derives from the oyster industry, and who seem simply to look no further than the actual amount of dollars collected under our oyster-laws. I will first suggest that if they examine the Auditor's office they will learn that a large surplus from our old oyster navy now remains to the credit of the oyster fund, or at least has been turned into our Treasury. They will find that from the years 1865 to 1883, inclusive, the receipts from the oyster tax over disbursements were over $206,000, so that the small deficit during the past fiscal year should not alarm our friends from other sections of the State. They should also remember the many thousands of dollars the State gets indirectly from the industry. Some lands [illegible] now readily sell for from one to two hundred dollars per acre, and scarcely worth five, would not sell at the latter price for purely agricultural purposes should this industry be destroyed or not be properly protected. Flourishing towns and villages have grown up, whose sole success and prosperity depend upon this business. Notably I may mention Chincoteague Island, whose growth and prosperity is scarcely surpassed by any other part of the State, and certainly by no other part of our county; also, Franklin City and Greenbackville, two other notable instances. I can also call to mind a narrow strip of land lying between two rivers, not more than one mile in width by two in length in which is located fifteen stores of general merchandise and some doing a large business, whose entire trade is from the oystermen, which, or course, pay their proportion of revenue to the State -- destroy this industry and two would suffice for the needs of the inhabitants, who would or could remain. These people know no other occupation and necessity would compel them to leave the State and seek other fields where they could gain support for their families. Many of our farmers who do not live directly upon tidewater find a ready and remunerative market for all they grow, without the intervention of middlemen, freight charges, or commissions among the oystermen, and, I may add, it indirectly enhances the value of their farms also. The taxable values of this county would be largely destroyed should this industry be injured, and the State would lose many thousands of dollars in revenue. It is scarcely necessary to mention the boats and other necessary implements of their trade add directly to the revenues of the State. The State should certainly enforce all her laws, even if it costs something so to do, and why, I ask, should the oyster laws be an exception? And to enforce them there must be

AN OYSTER NAVY.

Have we not heard much recently about the large criminal expenses of the State. In some counties, it is said, the criminal expenses exceed the revenues. Would the State be excusable in not enforcing her laws in those counties, even if it costs something to do so? Collecting a tax for the privilege of taking oysters is of recent origin, while the desire to protect the natural beds dates back many years. Even so long ago as January, 1811, a law was enacted in regard to the mode of taking oysters, looking to their protection, saying 'there shall not be used any drag, scoop, rake, or other instrument except tongs.' But, as Senator Stubbs well says, 'our people do claim protection and admit the fact that they must and will pay taxes,' and I may add will gladly and willingly do so. The present law if properly amended would not only be self-sustaining, but would leave a direct revenue for the State. I have read much in past years upon the subject, that has been written by Professor Brooks, Lieutenant Winslow, and other scientists about the natural history, artificial propagation, oyster-farming, &c., and while I think if our laws could be amended so as to encourage especially oyster farming and make it a safe investment for those who would engage in it that it would add largely to our revenues and to the supply also, yet I think we of Tidewater from daily observation and association with those directly engaged in the business must know something about the wants and necessities of oystermen and the laws that should regulate the same. True, there is a clause in our constitution which says "no tax shall be imposed on any of the citizens of this State for the privilege of catching or taking oysters from their natural beds with tongs in the waters thereof." &c., which has prevented a proper tax being placed upon that mode of taking oysters. What are known as 'patent tongs' are now being largely used by the dredgers, who have heretofore paid the greater part of the revenue, and if some mode is not devised at this session of our Legislature to tax them, there will be a much larger deficit the next fiscal year. Probably the boats could be taxed according to length.

ALL TAXES.

should be paid annually and dredgers allowed to take oysters with ordinary tongs under their dredging license, in consideration of the large proportion they pay. The tax for the privilege of taking oysters by dredging should not be increased, as all now recognize that they (the dredgers) pay even more than their just share of the revenues. The number of inspections should be largely reduced, and with it the commission they receive. More protection could be given -- which is greatly desired -- without any additional expense, by [illegible] the amounts now paid for protection. The penalty for illegal dredging should be made simply a fine collectable before a justice, would add much to the revenue, instead of being an expense to the State, as now. The tax upon planting-grounds should be increased. The laws should be more strictly enforced, especially with those who attempt to work without license. No oysters under a certain size should be allowed to be taken from the natural beds, except perhaps, for one month in the spring, and then only for planting purposes within the State. Other suggestions could be made, but this article is already too long. One, however, I would add: Instead of our present board, whose duties upon other subjects, are many and varied and who would kindly, I imagine, like to be relieved from this one. None being from Tidewater, and of course not familiar with the wants of the oystermen and the changes in the laws that should be made from time to time. A commission or board from Tidewater to manage the navy, unpaid except actual expenses, could in their reports to the Governor or General Assembly give many valuable suggestions as to such changes in the laws, as they thought would add to the efficiency of the navy, increase the revenues, and prevent the depletion of our natural beds. A suggestion has been made, or a resolution offered I think, to rent the beds at one dollar per acre. Such a proposition is absurd to those familiar with the question. Many natural beds here are worth hundreds of dollars per acre and would readily be taken up by capitalists at that price, but in a very short time our oysters would be gone, the State cease to receive revenue, and thousands of families driven form the State for want of employment. I hope Senator Stubbs will continue to fight it out on his line if it takes all winter, for much depends upon the wisdom with which the General Assembly deals with the question, not alone to the State, but to our party. All our oystermen here are white, and while they are not Democrats for revenue it is a question of life and death with them and their families, and any inimical legislation would certainly injure the party enacting it.

Yours Respectfully,

FRANK FLETCHER.

Accomac County, Va.