Newpapers: Oyster Dispute, 1929: Gloucester Co., VA 

Contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Matt Harris (Zoobug64@aol.com) Nov 2007 [brackets, line breaks mine] 

************************************************ 
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
************************************************ 

Gloucester Co., VAGenWeb Archives, Newspaper Articles 
     Decision in Oyster Dispute Deferred, 19 Sep 1929 

Decision Deferred 
 On Tongers' Case 
  Against Planters 
              ____ 
Judge Groner Takes Plea in Fed- 
  eral Court For Temporary 
      Injunction Under 
        Consideration 
              ____ 
Refuses To Act Unless 
 Great Damage Is Shown 
              ____ 
Statutory Court of Three Jus- 
 tices Will be Called to 
      Pass Upon Petition. 
              ____ 
  Norfolk, Sep. 19.-(AP)- Federal Judge D. Lawrence Groner today deferred 
action on a petition for a temporary restraining order asked for by the 
Gloucester Seafood Workers' Association against seven Gloucester oyster 
planters and state and county officials to restrain them from carrying out a 
ruling of the state commission of fisheries and an injunction granted by the 
circuit court of Gloucester county in the York river oyster controversy. 
  The ruling provided that the planters be allowed two years in which to 
remove the planted oysters from public rocks, and the injunction restrained 
public tongers from taking oysters in the area. 
  Judge Groner heard evidence on the decision and announced that he would give 
the matter serious consideration and render a decision as soon as possible.  
He also announced that he will call a statutory court, composed of himself and 
another district judge and a judge from the United States circuit court of 
appeals, to sit on the tongers' petition for an interlocutory injunction 
against the defendants in the tongers' suit.  The defendants are as follows: 
          The Defendants 
  Harry R. Houston, commissioner of fisheries; C. H. Muze, state oyster 
inspector; D. D. White, sheriff of York county; T. E. Hall, sheriff of 
Gloucester county, and T. J. Blake, H. Paul Blake, J. C. Tillage, C. A. 
Tillage, T. J. Tillage and J. H. Jordan, oyster planters in the waters of the 
York river near Gloucester Point. 
  Lester Parsons, Norfolk attorney, presented the petition to Judge Groner. 
  A former petition filed a week ago and the one drawn by Mr. Parsons, just 
retained in the oyster fight, substituted. 
  The former petition merely named five of the planters as defendants. 
  The petition declares that the ruling of the state commission of fisheries 
and the Gloucester injunction are in violation of the fourteenth amendment to 
the Constitution of the United tates, [sic] and asks the court to declare them 
unconstitutional. 
          Jurisdiction Questioned 
  When the matter first came before Judge Groner, he raised a question as to 
the jurisdiction of the federal court in the case and then said if he decided 
the court has jurisdiction he would not grant the restraining order unless 
shown that great and irreparable damage might result unless this was done. 
  Mr. Parsons then stated that the planters already has boats in the oyster 
grounds and that they were removing oysters in large quantities each day. 
  J. A. Jenkins, Peter Rowe and C. J. Minor, Gloucester tongers, then were 
called as witnesses and each testified that planters' boats were busy tonging 
oysters in the disputed area. 
  Judge Groner announced that he was unwilling to pass on the petition without 
more careful study of the situation and he said he wished to read the bill 
filed in the case and go over the testimony taken before giving a decision. 
  However, he said he would call the statutory court to pass on the question. 
          Must Notify Governor 
  Under the federal law in such a proceeding, Governor Harry F. Byrd and 
Attorney General John R. Saunders must be notified of the action, and the 
defendants have a specified amount of time in which to air the complaint. 
  He also said that it would clarify matters if the planters would cease 
tonging operations in the disputed area until the court could pass on the 
cases.  Counsel for the planters offered nothing along this line, however, and 
they are expected to continue tonging oysters unless the temporary restraining 
order is granted. 
  C. S. Smith, Jr., of Gloucester, and Channing M. Hall of Williamsburg, 
attorneys for the tongers in the long litigation in the state courts in the 
dispute over the question, were present in court but had nothiong to say.  It 
is understood they will take no active part in the new fight inthe [sic] 
federal court, due to an agreement between themselves and counsel for the 
planters to abide by the ruling of the state courts. 
  The petition filed today was drafted by Mr. Parsons, and alleges that for 
about 30 years the complaintants have been deprived of their rights in the 
disputed area, because of planters being allowed to have control when the 
tongers had a right to take natural oysters from the natural rocks. 
  Mr. Parsons stated there is no question raised in the present action as to 
the decision of the state supreme court but that the tongers claimed a right 
to the oysters under the fourteenth amendment. 
  hTe [sic] defense attorneys claimed that the tongers had no property rights 
in the area, but a privilege, controlled by state law, and that the state law 
gave the planters two years in which to remove their oysters. 
          ____________ 

"Daily Press," Newport News, Virginia 
Vol. XXXIV, No. 220, Sep. 20, 1929. 
Page 1 

[BLAKE, GRONER, HALL, HOUSTON, JENKINS, MINOR, MUZE, PARSONS, ROWE, SMITH, 
 TILLAGE]