Letter on the Oyster Question of Virginia, Part I

A LETTER.

Fox Island, Va., Jan. 1, 1894.

Dear Sir;

Among others you were so gracious to ask me to submit in writing the views I entertain on the Oyster question. In spite of the desire I feel to write to all who have honored me with this request, compliance is only possible through the aid of the printer.

I respectfully submit the following:

All problems regarded difficult repel investigation on the part of those who do not feel directly interested.

This may seem a strange representation of the attitude of our people on a very important subject, but if it should prove as true as it seems strange, the cause of their indifference may be established. It then remains to show the effect of it, to clear the ground for better and wiser action in the future. As to the cause:

1st. The oyster deposits are public property. Oystermen are the only citizens who work them, or know anything about working them. They found it to be to their interest to furnish no information on the subject.

2d. A constitutional provision permits only one form of tax to be imposed on oystermen -- a tax of 40 cents on each 100 dollars worth of oysters taken up and sold. No efficient agency exists for investigating whether the oysterman hands in proper reports. The question of any return whatever to
the Commonwealth depends almost entirely upon him. His human nature revolts, as does that of most people, against paying any tax at all.

3d. Continued indifference on the part of our citizens followed the surrender of control; in time the oysterman reached a conclusion which even the law supports, viz., undisputed use for a period of years gives title.

4th. However erroneous this conclusion is when applied to the particular case under consideration, the oysterman acted upon it. What followed?

a. Public property having been made of one of the richest bounties ever vouchsafed by nature to man, few restrictions placed upon it, and those too often resisted or evaded, a grab all or grab as much as you can scramble ensued.

b. In all scrambles, different classes and classes of different strength participate. While plenty abounded, every one gorged. After gorging had produced its effects upon the deposits, and oysters grew scarcer, up came the cry from the tonger for protection against the dredger, and the extraordinary and costly necessity to protect one set of beneficiaries against another arose. Of this necessity the police navy was born, and its chief duty ever since has been to keep the peace between them.

c. The results of reckless oyster catching once felt, never ending legislation followed, arising principally from contentions and diversity of views among oystermen. How strong these contentions and how divergent these views can best be illustrated by stating that very little of the legislation referred to ever gave general satisfaction. Meantime the cost of executing the laws exceeded the revenues derived from oystermen.

From such untoward circumstances the Oyster question came to be considered complicated.

Should the foregoing be found a correct analysis of the reason why the Oyster question is regarded complex, it may hereafter be dealt with as any other subject is which concerns the well being and prosperity of the Commonwealth.

SUBJECTS FOR LEGISLATION.

The following features of the Oyster question seem proper and important subjects for legislative action: Suppression of Dredging. Finality of the Survey. To Establish a Low-water Mark Line. The Chesapeake Border. The New Navy. Culture of Oysters in Enclosures. Use of Leased Areas. Legal Status of the Planting Industry. The Revenue. Leases to Non-Residents. The Tonger. Establishment of a Shell-fish Department.

SUPPRESSION OF DREDGING.

Gov. McKinney says in his message of Dec. 6, 1893, that we have 150,000 acres of natural bed or rock on which no dredge should be allowed. This is the keynote of any scheme which has for its object the quieting of our troubled waters. Let us try and find out why this machine shall be placed in limbo.

The machine which helps a man to produce is a blessing; reverse this order, and you have the dredge. In the hands of a dredger it is a machine which helps man to destroy; hence a curse. Let contrast buttress contrast. The dredge in the hands of a planter is a blessing; to him it is what the reaper, binder and stacker is to the farmer. In consequence of what? because the planter puts back as many or more oysters than he takes up; he covers his bottoms with cultch to which spat (floating baby-oysters) adhere and grow. He is ever producing in some form. The dredger puts nothing back; he always takes away -- his process impoverishes. Let us go into particulars.

The dredger, by his own admissions, proves that he has depleted the rock, the truth of which is attested:

1st, by a law passed (Oyster Laws of Va., 1892, Sec. 2165, p.17) some years ago at the request of dredgers, whereby they obtain licenses to work for part of a season.

2d, by depredations on tongers' rock, whereby the dredger exposes his life, liberty and property.

As to the first, the natural inference is that an oysterman wants to work the entire season; one of the first, if not the first, oyster bills, introduced at this session of our legislature was in behalf of certain tongers, for an extension of the time now allowed for working the rock. Either the dredger entered a false plea, or he tacitly admitted that he had depleted the rock. That he did not enter a false plea will be amply shown.

As to the second, does any man risk his life, liberty or property in the attempt to wrest that from another, of which he hath an abundance himself? The only inference to be drawn is, that the dredger pirated the tongers' rock because his own affords him but scanty subsistence. This is the most charitable as it is the most natural view. The dredger will hardly care to offset it by claiming that plenty does not always act as a restraint upon rapacity, and so establish a yet worse reputation for himself.

It should be borne in mind that not very long ago dredging was entirely prohibited. Whatever reasons existed for its suppression then, exist with intensified force now, ample evidence of which shall be offered.

During the month of November, 1893, I was aboard the U. S. Fish Commission Steamer Fish Hawk at a time when four dredgings were taken from California Rock in the Tangier Sound. The work was done under the supervision of the officers. Care and precision, which always characterize the labors of these able men, were exercised to obtain the best results. Out of these four dredgings a little more than a half bushel of oysters were obtained; the rest were shells and debris. California Rock, erstwhile one of the best of the Dominion's deposits, was found exhausted.

There is no question of the labor involved in the suppression of dredging. Crews of vessels were formerly made up of
Virginians. Our people shun this service now. At present it is made up of tramps, and laborers enticed from distant points through misrepresentations. Oystermen with whom I have spoken claim that the rocks pay so poorly that dredgers are forced to hire the cheapest labor. Such evidence sustains other furnished, that the dredger has depleted the rock. In this connection a statement made by Gov. McKinney in his able message of Dec., 1891, challenges attention. It shows that in 1888 there were 8831 tongers and about 400 dredgers operating on our rock; every tonger a citizen; nearly every dredger, excepting captain and perhaps mate, aliens and too often degraded.

No unfair advantage should be taken. Let us hear on what grounds the dredger asks for a continuation of the privileges he has abused. He claims

1st, that a large amount of vessel property would be made valueless if dredging were suppressed.

2d, that the Commonwealth cannot afford the loss of revenue derived from him.

3rd, that it would be wanton to deprive him of rock which can only be worked with the dredge, asserting that no other use can be made of it.

As to the 1st; in 1891, I planted 50,000 bushels of oyster shells; gave the contract for loading, freighting and planting to three dredger captains; 37 men and three dredging vessels were employed in the work. When it was completed it was my pleasure to learn that from the captains that every one engaged had done well. In this way and in many others dredging vessels will be employed. Let no one be misled by the plea that vessels engaged in dredging are unfitted for other service. New fields await them and doubtless better pay.

As to the 2d, that the Commonwealth cannot afford the loss of revenue derived from dredgers: this plea is disposed of quickly; the principal reason for the existence of the police navy is the predatory character of dredgers; the extra cost they entail would, I believe, exceed the sum total of the
revenue derived from them. If to this the cost of litigation they force on our courts were added, it would show a still larger balance against them.

As to the 3d, that it were wanton to deprive them of rock which can only be worked with the dredge, claiming that no other use can be made of it. No other use made of it, forsooth! Compared with the importance of the oyster, the seal sinks into insignificance and yet we have the spectacle of the two mightiest nations on earth arbitrating on a question which involves nothing if not how to protect -- to preserve -- the seal. The natural rock is the breeding ground of the oyster. Destroy it and you destroy the oyster. Heaven permits man to destroy species, but outraged nature refuses to procreate what man makes extinct.

A striking illustration of the destructive power of the dredger is found in the gutting of the rocks of the Pocomoke Sound some ten years or more ago. So complete was their rapacity that the tongers, whose rock it was, were forced to leave their homes in a body to seek a living in the Potomac fisheries. How widespread the dredgers' devastation is may be seen from the following correspondence:

Fox Island, Va., December 30, 1893.

Dear Sir:

You are aware that I have always entertained the highest opinion of the advantages of Crisfield arising from her being located in the center of the oyster deposits. While these deposits were rich, the prosperity of your town was phenomenal. I am extremely sorry to hear of the depression of business with you now, and am credibly informed by some of your best citizens that it is caused by the exhaustion of the oyster rocks which once furnished you with an abundant supply. This agrees with the observations I have made from time to time.

We of Virginia cannot permit you to catch oysters in our waters, but by wise regulation of our deposits we can preserve them. Whatever prosperity results from this prudent course you and your employees can share with us, by buying and
handling our products, many of our deposits being nearer to you than to any other market.

The same agencies which destroyed your oyster beds are destroying ours; these may be arrested by placing before the Legislature of Virginia such data as is embodied in the set of questions addressed to you. You will find most of the answers followed by "Yes" or "No." Please strike out the "Yes" or "No" as your answers may be affirmative or negative. This form is adopted to save you as much trouble as possible. If you desire to furnish more information, it will be appreciated.

Please give me permission to use any information you may give me for the purpose already stated. After you have answered questions addressed, please sign your name and address and mail to me. Thanking you in advance for any trouble you may take in this matter, I remain, truly yours, (signed) WILLIAM ELLINGER. To Long, Coulbourn and Co., Oyster Packers, Crisfield, Md.

Crisfield, Md., January 1, 1894

Mr. William Ellinger, Fox Island, Va.

Dear Sir: Enclosed please find answers to your six questions which fully cover the conditions of our oyster industry in this State as a whole.

Wishing you the Compliments of the season,

We are, yours very respectfully,

Long, Coulbourn and Co.

Questions:

1st. How many persons, all kinds and classes included, were employed in Crisfield in the oyster industry when oysters were abundant?

Answer. 3000 would be a low estimate.

2d. How many are now employed?

Answer: 1000 on less than one-half time.

3d. Is the difference in the number employed caused by the exhaustion of the oyster deposits which once furnished Crisfield with her supply?

Answer. Yes

4th. Has this exhaustion been caused by reckless dredging?

Answer. Yes.

5th. Do your favor the suppression of dredging?

Yes.

6th. Would, in your opinion, the suppression of dredging restore the impaired prosperity of Crisfield?

Answer. Yes.

In the nature of things there can be no agency employed to control the quantity of oysters the dredger may take. The nearest approach to control is the closed season. This essential safeguard is notoriously disregarded.

The taking of oysters is a scramble in which conscience plays no part, and really cannot. The dredger who permits the restraints of conscience or intelligence finds himself outstripped by his colleague who acts entirely on principles of rapacity.

The system is at fault. His human nature accommodates itself to the system.

The equipment of the dredger demands notice. Surprise is felt that our police boats are defied and resisted. A dredging vessel manned by from 8 to 12 reckless men, armed when occasion demands, presents a formidable resisting power. The records of our courts show that they have made use of it. There is another field in which these free-lances use a more insidious power. The records of our courts reflect this detestable evil. It is called preponderance of evidence. Here is a sample of a case of the kind, furnished by an intelligent and reliable attorney of Accomac Co.: "On the 11th of October, 1893, Capt. Charles P. Finney, who is oyster inspector for the 7th District of Accomack Co. on board of a tugboat sailed up on two vessels near the mouth of
Onancock Creek, and caught them in the very act of dredging, of course during the prohibited season. The captain of one of the vessels was A. V. Somers, and he had with him two men, his crew, F. Toppin and J. Killman. These parties were arrested and brought before a magistrate, and although Capt. Finney testified that he was close enough to these vessels to read their names, one of which was the "Escort" and that there could be no shadow of a doubt as to their guilt, yet, by a tremendous preponderance of evidence, they established an alibi, and in consequence were acquitted." Than Capt. Finney few more reliable men exist in Accomac Co. In this connection it may also be stated that the same attorney sent me a report, by request, of all oyster causes tried at Accomac C. H. from January term, 1892, to October term, 1893, both inclusive. Not one tonger was involved in these causes. In every one a dredger. We see the dredger burning the candle of our substance at both ends, one end being the rock, the other the extra cost of police duty and court expenses.

There is another form of dredging known as scraping. It is light or feather-weight oyster slugging, done in a smaller boat, with a smaller dredge, and occupies from 2 to 5 men. This is a most dangerous class. Their draught permits operations in shoal waters outside, and in creeks and coves. Considering their numbers and their opportunities, they are as destructive and even more predatory than the class operating larger boats. During the summer, the oysters' breeding season, when nature demands that the rock shall be undisturbed, this class is particularly active. They adopt every disguise, the favorite one that of a crabber.

It should be borne in mind that the crabber is equipped with a dredge which takes up everything that comes in its way, crabs, oysters, terrapin. It differs from the dredgers' machine only in size and weight. When dredging is suppressed no loophole should be left open for this kind of dredging. Crabs can be caught with nets. The tongers of my section have suffered much at the hands of the so-called crabbers.

The effect of a decision rendered in a U. S. court practically nullifies the law of confiscation of vessels captured for violation of the oyster law. Liens and other evidences of debt (believed too often to be fraudulent) are presented, which reduce their selling value to so low a point that the Commonwealth realizes little or nothing from their sale. The worst feature of all is, that they are bought in by friends for the violators from whom they were captured. If the penalty of confiscation cannot be enforced, heavier fines and longer terms of imprisonment may take the laugh out of the sleeve of this class of law-defiers.

The dredge is essential to the planter having 100 acres or more. One planter should be permitted to dredge for another, but only on written application, in duplicate, one of which should be sent to the Shell-fish Commissioner, the other retained by the planter who does the dredging. The planter should not be allowed to use a dredge elsewhere than on his own bottoms, or on those of another planter. To use it anywhere else should be made a felony. A bond of $5000 should be exacted from the planter using a dredge, forfeitable for violation of the law.

That system of laws which will protect public and private property best, which will be executed without fear or favor, will promote the interests of the tonger and planter.

No pleasure can be derived from portraying a fellow man in a degrading aspect. The faults of the dredger grow out of a system for which our people are responsible to the extent of their acquiescence in it. Of this evil it may be said, the dredge is the cause, the dredger the effect.