of Governor Herbert R. O'Conor 275

themselves, one way or the other, on this question. In voting on the referred
law of 1939, setting up a separate agency for the handling of the commercial
fisheries, 147, 602 voted against the measure and 57, 220 voted in favor of it.
The proposed legislation was, therefore, defeated by a majority of 90, 382.

This is the first expression of its kind in the history of our State. I am
gratified that steps were taken to have the people express themselves. As a
result of the discussion and proposals which have been in the forefront during
the past two years, it is no exaggeration to say that more attention is focused
on this subject now than ever before. I venture the opinion that we will have
made ten years progress in two years if we follow up the decision of the people
by bringing about a satisfactory program.

I interpret the vote to mean a sizeable majority of our citizens prefer an
unified, coordinated Conservation program. Certainly the legislation adopted
at the last session aimed toward a separate handling of Conservation questions.
The people decisively rejected that measure and it seems entirely logical to
conclude that the reason they rejected the measure was that they preferred a
unification in the State's regulation of these related questions.

But lest it be thought that this proposal bodes ill for the tidewater sec-
tion, let me emphasize this point. Even greater consideration can be given
the commercial fisheries under a well-planned set-up linking together the
various subjects than is now the case. It will be admitted that at the present
time the State is giving earnest attention to the rights and opportunities of
those fine citizens of our State whose livelihood depends upon the seafood
industry. We want to continue that effort. But we want to do even more
and, while retaining all the present measures for their benefit, it is intended
to give even wider recognition to them. Two vital factors present themselves
in shaping the State's policy toward the commercial fisheries.

One is that it is desirable to increase the output and to improve the
quality because the seafood product is good to eat and is beneficial to the
human system. But an even more important fact is that a large portion of
our population depends for its livelihood on this industry. Therefore, what-
ever is done to benefit such a sizeable number of citizens is of benefit to the
entire State. Again I say that, in any program which is advocated before the
next General Assembly, those interested from the tidewater section will be
given all the consideration and recognition they now enjoy and more.

Thus far I have used the term "Conservation" in referring to the question
at issue. It happens that that term is understood by too many of our people
to be confined to the handling of the tidewater questions, particularly that
relating to the oyster., Thus it is that far-reaching questions, including re-
forestration, mining, stream pollution, soil and shore erosion are not thought
of by some people when we use the word "Conservation. "

It might be wise to change the title in any comprehensive program that
is proposed. Actually what we are working upon are our State resources. You
might consider the advisability of attempting to change the popular concept
of this question by designating a new governing body as a State Resources
Commission.

Let it be understood that, in striving to reach the ultimate goal which
is the advancement of the State's interest for the benefit of all our people,
there is no ulterior question or petty politics involved. The guiding considera-
tion is not to take away any authority or to unseat any administrator simply