Peninsula Enterprise, February 15, 1896

Reply to Officers of State Navy.

Sea -- Shellfish - Oystering : BaysideSea -- Shellfish - Oystering : Law enforcement

MR. EDITOR:

We are glad to see that our letter published through the columns of your paper relating to the recent depredations on our oyster rocks by non residents, termed "a slur" by the ever watchful and vigilant James H. Costin, has proven to be a "stir" instead of a "slur." We think that we ought to have slurred long before February 1st. If Captain Costin was doing his utmost to look after violators of the oyster law in the past, why has he been so active here of late? He reminds us of Uncle Ephraim's mule: This animal in question was exceedingly slow and hard to move, so to help Ephraim out of the difficulty, one day a bystander suggested that a little benzine be applied to the back of the mule. The bystander was requested to make the experiment, which he did. The effect was magical. The mule started off at such a rapid pace that Uncle Ephraim was unable to overtake him. In almost hopeless despair the old "nigger" turned to the stranger and said, "Mister ef you put some of dat stuff on may back I'll never ketch dat mule." The police boats have been so active of late, that we oystermen will be obliged to get Capt. C. to slur us, in order that we may keep up with his movements.

Capt. Costin calls us "soreheads," and says that we "have nothing else better to do." We agree with him that we can find nothing better to do than oversee the men we hire and to see that our money is not thrown away and our oysters not carried off by non residents.

We must confess that we are at a loss to conjecture what he means by the term "soreheads." If he alludes to certain parties arrested by him on September 11th, 1895, he has done those parties an unprovoked injustice. Not one of them had anything to do with the article published February 1st.

He admits that there have been violations of the oyster law this season in Pocomoke Sound, and nearly all were from Sykes Island, and they were arrested, tried and convicted.

We are glad that the public can see that the infallible Costin errs again. How about the Weaver brothers? Capt. Costin did you have them convicted as you claim? You certainly caused them a trip to the county seat.

Capt. Costin claims that the Accomac has repeatedly gone up the sound, and when Sykes Island boats would see her coming -- they would put on sail and go into Maryland, they knew they were violating the law, and to keep from being arrested would flee into Maryland waters for a place of refuge.

Capt. Costin, did you ever arrest a Sykes Island man that was trying to flee from your immaculate justice? We are obliged to infer, that the real violators escaped into Maryland waters and you did not follow them. We find then, the public must take your guess work for facts, or else clear the fleeing parties upon the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Captain Costin, did you not say while at Byrd's rock, on the morning of the 11th of September, 1895, in the hearing of oystermen that you intended to go up the sound to examine oysters, and that you intended to arrest every man you found with one shell or one oyster under two and one half inches in length? It can be proven that you did make the statement. Now every man who knows anything about the oyster industry, knows that every oysterman was subject to an arrest, though he was honestly endeavoring to carry out the cull law.

Since Capt. C. has denounced Sykes Island men as a set of violators and convicts, the controversy may develop some unpleasant things on the part of Accomac's "efficient" captain.

Now as to dates: How does your infallible log correspond with the date of September 26th, 1895, Capt. Costin? On that day sixteen non resident boats, every boat manned by two oystermen tonged on the Ledge rocks, some of them all day and all of them until late in the afternoon, and one of the first to quit the rocks had not less than 12 bushels in 12 X 16 -- 192 bushels at 40 cents -- $76.80. This little sum was the loss to the State by non-resident tongmen on the above date from a single rock. On October 18th, 1895, on the Dog fish rock there were a still greater number of depredators. When it is necessary our affidavits will be cheerfully forthcoming. Capt. Costin claims that on January 5th, 1896, every creek was frozen over. The creeks to the windward were open and boats dredged on the above date mentioned.

Capt. Costin denies that there was dredging in the sound on January 9th, 1896, and claims that he cruised up as far as the sand bar and there encountered heavy ice, and that there was no boat of any description in the sound on that day. There was no ice in the middle of the sound after leaving the leeward shores or bars for two miles, at least no ice to bother dredging on the Dog fish rock, and in the forenoon there was a breeze sufficient to dredge with.

Capt. Costin claims that on January 19th, 1896, "the Accomac worked Tangier Sound." We believe him. We are informed by a resident of Tangier that the little steamer was in the Cod, and her gallant captain paying his respects to one of Tangier's fair ones, therefore the captain may be somewhat excused if he did sacrifice his duty on leap year's altar. However, there was dredging in the Pocomoke all the same. In regard to January 23d, which was a typographical error -- it was intended for January 22d, and all that we claimed for that date is correct.

Capt. Costin claims that there was no dredging on January 24th, 1896, in Pocomoke. We are prepared to prove there was dredging on that date, and we were close enough to see them take the dredge, and the affidavits from reliable parties as the captains of Accomac and Pocomoke, will be forwarded if necessary.

Mr. Editor, we will not impose upon your kindness any further at present. Thanking you for your kindness,

"SORE-HEADS."Sykes, Va., Feb. 10, '96.

Oyster Bill in the Interest of Mr. Ellinger and Non-Residents.

Sea -- Shellfish - Oystering : LegislationSea -- Shellfish - Oystering : Planting

EDITOR ENTERPRISE:

I have before me a bill relative to the planting and taking of oysters in this State, recently introduced in the Senate by a Mr. Jones of one of the mountain counties, which by reason of exceptional favors granted in said bill to our Mr. Ellinger, of Fox Island, has become known as the "Ellinger Bill." This bill, while it seems to embody some good features, contains others repugnant to our sense of right and justice, and still others that if enacted into law will work a great hardship upon our laboring oystermen. The purpose of this communication is to inform our people generally and as soon as possible of the most salient features of the bill affecting those of them engaged in the taking and planting of oysters, in order that they might know of the impending evil, and take steps at once by petitions and meetings to protect themselves if possible from the threatened injury. No time should be lost in presenting their remonstrances at Richmond, either by delegations composed of the right sort of gentlemen, or failing in this, by petitions, addressed to the General Assembly. I am assured that the evil provisions of this bill are being fought stubbornly by the solid delegations of our two counties, and by tidewater representatives generally, but I am sorry to say that their chances of saving our people from the iniquities of this measure, are greatly lessened, if not wholly nullified by the active opposition of paid lobbyists and others.

The first section of the bill named requires that every tonger shall before he takes an oyster, register. He shall then appear on every Monday during the oyster season before the county treasurer, and pay on the value of his week's catch of oysters, the same rate of tax, as is paid to the State by taxpayers on other property, and shall in addition appear once every month before the county judge and swear to the correctness of his weekly return, or in lieu of the above, he may if he so elect, pay before he catches an oyster, to the treasurer the sum of $5.00, for the privilege of catching oysters during the season. Many of our tongers don't have the $5.00, and this bill gives them no time in which to make it. It closes the season for tonging on the 25th of March, and opens it the 1st day of September. It permits dredging, in Pocomoke Sound to those who own or plant one hundred acres or more of adjoining oyster beds. If one should own or plant less than this number of acres, he will be compelled to use tongs in taking up his oysters in competition with the much cheaper method to dredging employed by the larger planter, to his great disadvantage. It allows the tonger to take five per cent. of culls, which practically does away with the cull law that has been so much help in keeping up the yield of our rocks. It prohibits dredging entirely to all parties in exclusively Virginia waters, except to those who own over one hundred acres of planting ground. This provision, besides being unjust to planters of less than one hundred acres, practically confiscates our dredging fleet of 125 vessels worth thousands of dollars, and allows to go to waste thousands of bushels of fine oysters that can't be caught with tongs. It allows non-residents to take up any amount of land in Chesapeake bay -- all of it if they should so desire -- for planting purposes, and allows them to work their oysters in any season of the year, and by dredging or any other method. This same privilege is also given to planters in Pocomoke Sound. These non-resident or bay planters are allowed to employ anybody, whether foreigners or not, to plant and to handle their oysters. All planters in Tangier and Pocomoke sounds are denied the privilege, except Mr. Ellinger -- he alone can employ non-residents. These last named provisions are wrong in my opinion, for the reason that we have no more good planting ground in the bay or elsewhere, than our own people would soon use, provided the State could and would provide adequate protection to planters against loss by thieves and otherwise. If non-residents are allowed to take up this bay ground, it should be done only in connection with residents of the State, and in conjunction with home capital to the extent that natives should acquire and exercise a controlling interest in the business. Our own people only, should be allowed employment -- in the planting and handling of these oysters -- except that crews of men engaged on vessels used exclusively as "run boats" might be employed. Otherwise I can't see any benefit to accrue to our people or State by these concessions to non-residents -- except the few dollars of rental the State may get from them, and this will be but a poor return, in consideration of the ultimate injury this concession will do our home planters and workmen, if granted as proposed without restrictions and limitations of any sort.

It should be held in mind that the proposed privileges to non residents, if once granted, can't with justice be taken away from them. Having seeded these barren bottoms with oysters, it wouldn't be right to rob them of the fruits of their labor and expenditure. Therefore the land once granted to him would be gone forever, so far as its possession or use by our own citizens is concerned. I hold that there is not an acre of good planting ground in the bay that would not be utilized by our own capital and native planters in a short course of time, provided the State guaranteed them security of title, a fixed rental, and protection from marauders; these conditions prevailing there isn't a foot of good oyster bottom in Virginia waters that can with consideration for the future needs of her own people, be given or leased to foreigners.

I hold that it is not only the part of wisdom but the duty of the State as well, to provide for the present and future needs of its own people, before she can make grants to foreigners of any kind. "A man that doesn't provide for his own family is worse that an infidel," so the Good Book tells us. Why could not the same be said of a State that didn't provide for its own citizens first, to the exclusion if need be, of foreigners? Beyond the annual rental, not one cent of benefit will, under the proposed bill, accrue to our people or to our State, not one cent will be added to our taxable values. No provision is made for the employment of our laboring people, and the slums of the Northern cities will be raked for the cheap tramp labor that will be employed in doing the work, that might otherwise provided, be done by our own oystermen and laborers.

It seems to me that it is necessary, in order to defeat the objectionable features of the bill, that the people should hold meetings, pass resolutions protesting against them, also circulate petitions at once for signatures, and forward same immediately to Richmond. It is possible that the worst provisions of the bill may yet be defeated.

Respectfully, N. W. NOCK.

Onancock, Feb. 12, 1896.