218 



THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



which could not by possibility proceed lo fulfil- 

 ment. And the men who submitted to accept the 

 appointments, under such discouraging circum- 

 stances, (independent of subjecting ihcmselves to 

 the ridicule and contempt ofsuch as Mr. Strother,) 

 have already made, and are prepared to make sa- 

 crifices for the public good, of which Mr. Strother 

 probably has no conception of the possibility. 



Mr. Strother further charged, (without the least 

 foundation of fact,) that the Board "informed us 

 that they had turned their attention to the geology 

 of the state;" and in a subsequent speech he 

 charges as given to the encouragement of agri- 

 culture, all the Jarge sum that has been thrown 

 away on the geological survey of the state. He 

 cannot think much worse of the manner of that 

 expenditure and its results than we do ; but it is 

 utterly unfounded to charge it to agriculture. It 

 has been emphatically a job— such as legislative 

 bodice are easily persuaded by plausible and sell- 

 interested lobby members ^to allow for private 

 benefit, under pretences of subserving the public 

 good — and which, (the geological survey,) has 

 been of not the slightest benefit to agriculture, 

 and very little to any other public interest. Mr. 

 Strother is welcome to refuse even to give the 

 present estimated expenditure of ^500 a-year to 

 aid agricultural improvement ; but we protest 

 against his claiming that some ^40,000 have 

 been already applied to that object, because so 

 much has been spent in the costly humbug termed 

 a geological survey. If given to that bottomless 

 pit, the James River canal, it would have been 

 more profitably expended. 



Mr. Crutchfield informs us that a Board of 

 Agriculture formerly existed in this state, with 

 John Taylor of Caroline at its head, and which, 

 proving worthless, was suffered to go down. And 

 Mr. Kincheloe adds to this newly discovered piece 

 of history of agriculture in Virginia, that in the 

 few years it continued in worthless (and since 

 forgotten) existence, this Board cost, in pay and 

 mileage of its members, some ^50,000 to the peo- 

 ple " before their eyes were opened." No correc- 

 tion or reply was offered to these statements, by 

 any member, and therefore we presume that they 

 were admitted as true. It is, however, the first 

 intimation that we have had of such occurrences ; 

 and however hazardous it may be to assert a nega- 

 tive, and to deny the existence of legislative acts 

 affirmed by legislators in debate, we will presume 

 to express our confident belief that there is not one 

 word of truth in the whole statement — (hat there 

 never has been before a Board of Agriculture es- 

 tablished by the state — and of course that John 

 Taylor was not at its head— and that no such cost 

 as $50,000, nor any other cost, was caused by any 

 such establishment. Though not much conversant 



with laws or legislative proceedings, and therefore 

 we may well be ignorant of many such matters, 

 we remember some facts which we presume 

 served for the entire material of which this old 

 and forgotten "Board of Agriculture" was manu- 

 factured. There was once in existence an Agri- 

 cultural Society of Virginia, over which John 

 Taylor presided — which society asked and was 

 refused legislative aid and bounty, for the im- 

 provement of agriculture. These facts, we infer, 

 are the true original "something as black as a 

 crow," which became " the three black crows," 

 thrown up by Mr. Crutchfield and Mr. Kincheloe 

 before the House of Delegates. 



The results of all the labors and efforts of the 

 Board_ of Agriculture may indeed prove to be as 

 worthless, and their procedure as profitless to agri- 

 culture, and even as contemplible, as Mr. Strother 

 has endeavored to make out. But whether so or 

 otherwise, the Board, or its working members, 

 will not the less have labored much more than 

 is to be recompensed by " their pay." The full 

 payment for the session of six working days, and 

 travelling expenses, of the member who writes 

 these comments, amounted (as understood from 

 the law, for it has not been drawn,) to §22. 

 And he is very confident that he has performed 

 more labor than did most of the members of the 

 legislature in six weeks of their session — and that 

 his labors were as little directed by the considera- 

 tion of the per diem allowance as those of any 

 member of the legislature, whether voting for or 

 against the repeal of the 90 days' limitation or 

 "starvation law," of the late session. — Ed. F. R. 



SHAD FISHERIES. 



From tlie Philadelphia Ledger. 



In your paper of the 31st March, you remark 

 that "a large number of fishermen left the city 

 yesterday Ibr fishing, with shore nets. Shad may 

 be expected in abundance, and the price greatly 

 reduced. They are not allowed to fish for them 

 (shad) but with gill nets, till the 1st of April." 



In this latter clause you are in error. The laws 

 for regulating the shad fisheries do not specify the 

 time to begin operations with either description of 

 seines, but do fix the period at which they shall 

 cease, viz., on the 5th day ol' June. 



The gill seines are, at this early stage of the 

 season, fishing below where the Delaware and 

 Pennsylvania line strikes the shore, and are of 

 course out ol the concurrent jurisdiction of Penn- 

 sylvania and New Jersey, and not amenable to 

 the laws regulating their respective fisheries. 



Il is by thus assembling in the lower part of our 

 river, (o the number of several hundred nets, va- 

 rying in length from fifty to near three hundred 

 fathoms each, stretched directly across, and drift- 

 ing with the current, breaking up and dispersing 

 the shoals of shad, and confining them to the salt 

 or brackish water, where they are compelled to 



