Peninsula Enterprise, September 3, 1892


Fields -- Crops - Sweet potatoes : MarketsProfessionals -- Commission merchants

Messrs. A. H. G. Mears and George T. Stockley, two enterprising young men of the lower part of the county, who left some time ago for Chicago, to receive consignment of potatoes at that point during the Fall, do not find there the demand for them expected and will return home in a few days.


Transportation -- Railroad - Personal injury

Mr. James P. Martin and family had a narrow escape from serious injury at the crossing near Keller, last Thursday. No signal being given, they found the train upon them when they reached the track, with the head of their horses in touch of the cars as they passed. To save himself and family Mr. Martin had to jump from his carriage, and in doing so fell and was dragged for some distance, receiving several wounds on his head and face. His wife, child and a young lady with them also were thrown out by the shock and badly bruised and his carriage badly broken. The N. Y., P. & N. R. R. will probably be called to account for the failure to signal, and should be.


Fields -- Livestock - Horses

Mr. R. D. Hart, near Savageville, this country, sold this week his four year colt Hannis, sired by Pilot Boy, to Mr. John Hart, of Philadelphia, for $700.


Tourists and sportsmen -- Other recreation - Fairs

The Eastern Shore Agricultural Fair was a grand success in all respects this year -- fine weather, first class exhibits, fast and well contested races, large gate receipts. The number in attendance during Fair was larger than during any previous year and all the receipts were large enough to pay all indebtedness of the Association. Full particulars next issue.


Weather -- Northeast storms

The destruction to crops and other property by the late storm in the upper part of Accomac was much greater even than reported in our last issue. The corn on many farms was almost entirely destroyed and the potato patches suffered to almost as great an extent. The losses reported are: of Ralph Burrough about $500, A. C. Hart $100, Mrs. Noah Smith $100, E. T. Lang $100, James C. Lang $100, W. T. Duncan $100, Thomas Thornton $100, Abbot Chesser $100, A. S. Parks $50 and many others of smaller amounts.


Transportation -- Water - Freight


Schooner James Kelsey, John B. Whealton, Jr., captain, arrived here on the 25th, loaded with coconuts from South America, bound to New York.

Mr. Joseph V. Jester is erecting a handsome new building.


Tourists and sportsmen -- Other recreation - ResortsInfrastructure -- Public : Camp meetingsAfrican-Americans -- ReligionInfrastructure -- Public : Churches


Red Hills, our watering place, has been well patronized this season. On one day early in August the crowd was estimated at 3,000.

The late colored camp meeting at Wattsville was well attended and wound up with a free fight.

Our church is now receiving the finishing touches of the painter and is indeed an ornament to the town. That it is now, the thing of beauty it is, due to the enterprise and tireless efforts of the ladies of the town.


Infrastructure -- Public - Government : Postal service


The postoffice at this place has recently been made a money order office.

The Oyster Question.

Infrastructure -- Public - Government : Maryland-Virginia boundary

Review of the Claim of Maryland of the right of her citizens to fish in the waters of Pocomoke Sound.

According to the speeches, as reported in the Baltimore Sun, of the Maryland members of the joint Legislative Committee appointed, respectively, by the States of Md., and Va., at their meeting held in July 1892 at Old Point, perfect unanimity existed on the part of those members as to the right of the citizens of their State to fish, in common with the citizens of Va., in the Pocomoke River, and also in Pocomoke Sound.

They base their right under the Compact of 1785; stating that "the Pocomoke is embraced as one of the waters dividing Va. from Md. and in the same category as the Potomac." In the statement of their case by Senator Hayes, he says, "if Va. has the common right of oystering in the Potomac under the Compact of 1785, Md. ought to have, as Md. interprets the Compact, has the same right in the Pocomoke Sound or River." Art. 7 of this Compact is the only part of the instrument which confers a concurrent right of fishing upon the citizens of both States; and this right is expressly restricted to the waters of the river Potomac. This article provides, "the citizens of each State, respectively, shall have full property in the shores of Potomack river adjoining their lands, with all emoluments and advantages thereunto belonging, and the privilege of making and carrying out wharves and other improvements, so as not to obstruct or injure the navigation of the river; but the right of fishing in the river shall be common to and equally enjoyed by the citizens of both States. Provided, that such common right be not exercised by the citizens of the one State to the hindrance or disturbance of the fisheries on the shore of the other State; and that the citizens of neither shall have a right to fish with nets or seines on the shores of the other." This language is plain and unambiguous; and it is surprising that it should be attempted to give it a construction which would confer a right upon the citizens of both States to fish in the Pocomoke river, or the Sound, when the only waters mentioned in the article are those of the Potomac.

But it is claimed that Art. 7 should be read in connection with Art. 8, and being so read, that the connection on the part of Md. for the concurrent right to fish in Pocomoke river will be sustained. Art. 8 reads, "All laws and regulations which may be necessary for the preservation of fish, or for the performance of quarantine in the river Potomack, or for preserving and keeping open the channel and navigation thereof [of the Potomack], or of the river Pocomoke, within the limits of Va., by preventing the throwing out ballast, or giving any other obstruction thereto, shall be made with the mutual consent and approbation of both States." This Art. provides, first, that all laws necessary for the preservation of fish in the Potomac, the common right of fishing in which was reserved to both States by Art. 7, shall be made with the mutual consent and approbation of both States; secondly, that regulations for the performance of quarantines in the Potomac, or of the river Pocomoke, within the limits of Va., by preventing the throwing out ballast, or giving any other obstruction thereto, shall be enacted concurrently be both States. The sole reference to the Pocomoke in this Art. for joint legislation on the part of both States, is for keeping open its channel and preserving the navigation of so much of it as was within the limits of Va. Not the first word is found in the whole Art. as to any right of fishing in the Pocomoke. By no correct rules of grammatical construction placed on the phraseology used in this Art. can a right be claimed on the part of Md. citizens to fish in the waters of the Pocomoke.

But the Md. members of the joint-committee refer to the decision of to Va. Court of Appeals in the case of Hendricks vs. the Commonwealth:, 75 Va. Reports, 934, as having settled by adjudication the concurrent right of the citizens of Md. to fish in the Pocomoke. It is true that in announcing the opinion of the Court in that case, Anderson, J., said, by Art. 8 of the Compact of 1785, "all laws and regulations, which may be necessary for the PRESERVATION OF FISH" in the river Potomac or THE RIVER Pocomoke, within THE LIMITS OF VA., "shall be made with the mutual consent and approbation of both States." But with all due deference to this high tribunal, it is contended that the construction placed by it on Art. 8 is erroneous, and was given without due consideration. No question arose in that case requiring an adjudication of any right in that part of the Pocomoke river which was within limit of Va. But two questions were before the Court for decision; the one, whether a demurrer to an indictment containing two counts, being general, and not to each count thereof, if either count is good, it was properly overruled, -- and the other, whether a citizen of Md. is liable to prosecution and conviction in a Va. court, notwithstanding Art. 10 of the Compact of 1785, for the violation of a statute of Va. relating to fishing in the Potomac river, which statute was enacted with the consent and approbation of the State of Md. So much of the opinion of the Court as relates to the right of fishery in the Pocomoke river, a right not raised before the Court at the time, is merely an OBITER DICTUM, and not binding authority on the State or on individuals.

However, Md. in 1872, through her Boundary Commissioners, in the Statement on their part of the claims of Md. submitted to the Va. Commissioners, gave her construction of the Compact of 1785. On page 68 of their Statement will be found the following: "It is remarkable, too, that in the Compact of 1785, while conceding that the right of fishing in the Potomac river shall be common to and equally enjoyed by the citizens of both States, Md. omitted to secure, by express terms, reciprocal rights in the Pocomoke river." This statement was signed by all of the Md. Commissioners, Messrs. Isaac D. Jones and Levin L. Waters, of Somerset county, and Mr. William J. Aydellott, of Worcester County, Md. It is surprising that this admission as to the true construction of the Compact of 1785 should have been made by the representatives of Md., if it would have borne a different one, because the same claim of a concurrent right of citizens of Md. to fish in the Pocomoke river was then urged; and still more surprising that after uniting in this statement of Md.'s case in 1872, Commissioner Waters, now Senator Waters and a Md. member of the joint Legislative Committee, should in July 1892 join in a construction of the Compact which insists that by its provisions Md. citizens acquired an express right of fishing in the waters of Pocomoke river within the limits of Va.

[To be Continued.]

To Whom it May Concern.

Professionals -- Commission merchants

EDITOR OF ENTERPRISE: -- Please insert these letters in your next issue.


Onancock, Aug. 27,1892

Mr. W. P. Custis,

Dear Sir: -- I feel it due you to explain my position to you as regards your recent communication to me. Your reputation in this community for fair dealing is much above the average, and when we made our charges against the "ring" of commission men we did not include you, for we did not think you belonged to such a ring. As to the "lie," we refer you to G. G. Joynes whom we have heard say that you lied about the probable loss of $1,000 by the use of baskets. Others have heard him say so also. About the returns of 50 cents less Prof. Joynes claims to hold account sales showing same. We trust you will not think hard of us for speaking plainly. Hoping to hear from you by Thursday in answer to Joynes' charge, I remain


Onancock, Va., Accomac Review.

ONANCOCK, VA., Aug 28th, 1892. Mr. W. P. Custis,

My Dear Sir: I was told by a friend this morning, that one Charles Stengle in answer to a letter from you wherein he had accused you of lying, that he, (Stengle), to justify himself that said to you in letter that he could prove it by me, or something to that effect.

I desire to say to you that he was in no way authorized to use my name. He alone is responsible for what has been said or done. I have never known you to lie and have never intimated to any one that you had lied or would lie under any circumstances.

I will see this man Stengle as soon as he comes to town in reference to his right to use my name in any such charge against you, and write you the particulars.

After you made statement in the paper against my "Baskets," I answered in the same paper. You doubtless read it. That was all I said or had to say.

Yours truly,

G. G. Joynes.


Professionals -- Commission merchantsInfrastructure -- Commercial - Newspapers

"Rowdies, rascals, thieves" are some of the appellations applied to the Baltimore commission merchants in late issues of the Weekly Review, published at Onancock. The charges are grave ones and with no evidence in our possession to prove them, we decline to accept the invitation of the editor of the Review, "to stand up" and assist him in defaming and blackguarding -- not one, but every commission merchant of that city, In our knowledge, there is nothing to justify us in saying, that they are "a ring of thieves" and we cannot accept the unsupported statements of the editor of the Review in proof thereof, for the reason, that his allegations are made with a reckless disregard of the facts necessary to sustain them. Taking for instance the commission firms against which the editor of the Review has made specific charges, viz: T. H. Kepner & Co., Barnet Bond's Son and W. P. Custis & Co., we submit that the reputation of business men was never assailed on more flimsy pretexts. The refutation of the charges against Custis & Co., can be seen in letter published by us to-day -- the firm of Barnet Bond's Son, we are advised by Mr. Miller, the agent of Pritchard & Co., (from whom the editor of the Review obtained the information upon which he based his charges) that he had never since his arrival at Tasley received from said firm a communication of any kind or character whatever -- and the same Mr. Miller advises us, that the telegrams published by T. H. Kepner & Co., in ENTERPRISE of last week, are the only ones that have passed between them this season and Kepner & Co., and he could not have offered Miller therefore potatoes for $2.25 per barrel, when he was here to pay $3, with the view of depreciating their value and injuring the farmers of the Eastern Shore. If however, the editor of the Review has in his possession facts which sustain charges against any commission merchant, then it is his duty to produce them and we will join hands with him to fight in the interests of the people. But the rumors upon which he has fed and which seems to satisfy him, do not suffice for us. Nor do we believe the farmers of the Eastern Shore expect or desire us to vilify and abuse any man or set of men because mere rumors are in circulation reflecting upon them -- and we believe that they will do us justice to say, that during the ten years we have published the ENTERPRISE, that we have always espoused their cause and stood up for their rights. And we have to say in this connection that the columns of the ENTERPRISE are open as they have always been to expose any wrong perpetrated against them by commission merchants or anyone else. The vague rumors which the editor of the Review accepts as sufficient, however, will not satisfy us. Information based upon truth is the kind we have endeavored to furnish our readers in the past, and we cannot be swerved from our course in that direction even to tickle the fancy of those who stand ever ready to damn the commission merchants. We do not wish to be understood as saying, however, that we approve all the acts of the commission merchants. They have their share of the faults which human flesh is heir to, they are like the rest of mankind and some of them do not deserve and should not receive the patronage of the people. But this we will say, that, the advertisement of no commission merchant can have a place in our paper, whom we do not believe to be responsible, and the name of any commission merchants now appearing therein will be promptly expunged upon reasonable information of his irresponsibility and crookedness, and as proof thereof, we submit, that the advertisements of several commission merchants have been declined by us, because we did not believe the interests of farmers would be safe in their hands. In conclusion, we repel with contempt the insinuation of the editor of the Review that the patronage we receive from the commission merchants in any way checks our freedom of speech, but submit that the want of that patronage may account for the venom and spleen and all uncharitableness which has characterized his attack upon them. He solicited the advertisements of every commission merchants, we are advised, whom he has vilified and abused and failing to get them, his tirade against them as a ring of thieves, is the result of threat then made and recently put into execution.

Death of Hon. T. H. Bayly Browne.

Transportation -- Railroad - CorporateProfessionals -- Lawyers

Hon. T. H. Bayly Browne died at his home at Accomac C. H., last Saturday, after a long illness, aged 49 years. He was elected attorney for the Commonwealth in early life, was a member of Congress from the 1st district for two terms and was the attorney for the N. Y. P. & N. R. R., at the time of his death. He was a man of popular manners, had many sincere friends, and his early death is generally regretted throughout the county. His wife and three children survive him. After funeral services held over him on Monday, at St. James Episcopal Church, conducted by Rev. Mr. Atkinson, he was interred in the family burying ground at Mount Custis.


Infrastructure -- Public : Cemeteries

The Onancock Cemetery Company under their charter, having laid off and permanently enclosed their cemetery, near Onancock, are prepared to offer the public burial lots, in whole lots, half, or quarter section, at moderate prices. Plat of the cemetery can be seen at the office of the secretary, Onancock, Va., to whom application for lots should be made: W. T. Wise, Secretary.

July 1st, 1892.

Peninsula Enterprise
Accomac Court House
September 3, 1892