ts

ee

ne,

DISCUSSION

i se Campbell Oyster Culture Bill
_ PRICE OYSTER PLAN

Conservation of Natural Oyster Bars

ALONG WITH

~

Oyster Culture on Barren Bottoms

ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE CAMPBELL-PRICE BiLu.

ist. Stringent regulations protecting the 215,852 acres of nat-
“ural oyster bars reserved for the sole use of oystermen by the
Maryland Oyster Survey. -
2d. Provisions for increasing revenues through encouraging
the leasing of barren oyster bottoms by granting certain privileges
to oyster planters necessary for the profitable cultivation of
oysters. =
3d. Conservation and restoration of natural oyster bars
through reshelling and cultivation by providing for the equal
division of the revenue received from oyster planting between a
‘Special Road Fund” and a ‘‘ Fund for the Conservation of Nat-

ural Oyster Bars.”

Z Published by the
MARYLAND SHELL FISH COMMISSION
February, 1942.

Cee Te ee a ee

cP eS

~~ OF 4

‘oR 4

aoe 2S

S
a"

:
~
a
“

DISCUSSION

OF THE

Campbell Oyster Culture Bill

AS AMENDED BY THE

PRICE OYSTER PLAN

PROVIDING FOR

Conservation of Natural Oyster Bars

ALONG WITH

Oyster Culture on Barren Bottoms

ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE CAMPBELL-PRICE BILL.

Ist. Stringent regulations protecting the 215,852 acres of nat-
ural oyster bars reserved for the sole use of oystermen by the
Maryland Oyster Survey.

2d. Provisions for increasing revenues through encouraging
the leasing of barren oyster bottoms by granting certain privileges
to oyster planters necessary for the profitable cultivation of
oysters.

3d. Conservation and restoration of natural oyster bars
through reshelling and cultivation by providing for the equal
division of the revenue received from oyster planting between a
‘*Special Road Fund” and a ‘‘ Fund for the Conservation of Nat-
ural Oyster Bars.”

Published by the
MARYLAND SHELL FISH COMMISSION
February, 1932.

CONTENTS.

Analysis and Index to the Campbell-Price Bill
Present Status of the “ Maryland Oyster Question ”

The Campbell-Price Bill
Discussion of—
Protection of natural oyster bars
Taking oysters from leased bottoms
Reduction of rentals :
Conservation of natural oyster bars
Division of revenue from leased bottoms
Increased areas opened for leasing Re
Collection of fines and rentals for unlawful use of
barren bottoms

Notes relating to the Development of the Oyster Resources
of Maryland :
Cross Reference
Notes

Extracts from printed interviews or public addresses of
Governor Goldsborough, Senator Campbell, Senator
Price, Senator Goslin, Senator Milbourne and a
reprint of a clipping from the Easton Star-Democrat

~I

47

FL, 2. 3/2 fir

ANALYSIS OF

OYSTER CULTURE LAW

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

CAMPBELL-PRICK AMENDA-
TORY BILL OF 1912.

HAMAN
OF 1906 AND

Haman Law, Campbell-Price Bill, Section of
1906. 1912. Bill.
Areas. | Areas.
Ten acres permitted| Thirty acres permitted to be
to be leased by individ-| leased by individuals in county }
uals in county waters;| waters; one hundred acres in Tan- 98
one hundred acres else-| gier Sound; five hundred acres 100
where. elsewhere. 110
Rentals. Rentals.
$1 to $5 per acre in| $1 per acre to April 1, 1918, and
sliding scale beginning! then $1 to $5 per acre in sliding
at date of lease. seale. Provision that a report is
to be made to next Legislature on
advisability of establishing some
method of assessing rentals ac-
cording to the value of bottoms. | 98
Period of Priority of | Period of Priority of Rights to Lease.
Rights to Lease. Riparian owners 30 days; oys-
Riparian owners four | termen 30 days.
months; oystermen six 100
months. 102
Cultivating and Taking Cultivating and Taking Oysters.
Oysters. Practical methods permitted for |
No practical method | taking and cultivating oysters on |
of cultivating or taking | leased oyster farms on week days
oysters allowed plant-| between sunrise and sunset from
ers on the leased oyster | September 15th to June 15th of the |
farms. following year, but notice of such |
| intention must be given police offi- |
| cials after close of dredging season. | 112
Protection of Natural | Protection of Natural Oyster Bars. |
Oyster Bars. Penalties and protective meas- |
No adequate provi-| ures are:
sion. lst. House of Correction three
months to one year.
2d. Forfeiture of boat and tackle, |
| or fine of $100 to $500.
| 3d. Denied the right to take out |
license for three years after convic- |
| tion. |
| 4th. Notice must be given to
| police officials by planters taking 112
|oysters after close of dredging | 112A
116

| season.
i

4

Haman Law, Campbell-Price Bill, Section of
1906. 1912. Bill.

!

Collection of Fines and | Collection of Fines and Rentals for

Rentals for Untawful Unlawful Use of Barren Bottoms.
Use of Barren Penalty of $50 for each offence.
Bottoms.
No adequate provi- 105
sion. 115A
Division of Revenue. Division of Revenue.
All to ‘Special Road| Divided equally between a ‘*Spe-
Fund.” cial Road Fund” and a ‘‘ Fund for
the Conservation of Natural Oyster
Bars.” 118
Conservation and Re- Conservation and Reshelling of 119A
shelling of Natural Natural Oyster Bars. 119B
Oyster Bars. Provision for use of ‘Fund for 119
No provision, Conservation of Natural Oyster 119D
Bars”’ in reshelling and restocking 119 E
Natural Oyster Bars. 119 F

5

PRESENT STATUS OF THE “MARYLAND OYSTER
QUESTON.”

Natural Oyster Bars: Jn compliance with the provisions of
the Haman Oyster Culture Law, the Maryland Shell Fish Com-
mission in co-operation with the United States Coast and
Geodetic Survey and the United States Bureau of Fisheries has
surveyed, charted and legally defined 215,852 acres of natural
oyster bars which are reserved for all time for the sole use of
Oystermen.

Leasable Bottoms: The Maryland Oyster Survey, although
carried on primarily for the purpose of suryeying public
natural oyster bars, also developed the fact that the State of
Maryland,—outside of the 215,852 acres of public oyster bars
reserved for oystermen—owns 300,000 acres of barren bottoms
where oysters do not now grow but on which experts and practical
oystermen say oysters can be made to grow.

Conservation of Natural Oyster Bars: The history of the
growth and decline of the industry of taking oysters from the
natural oyster bars of Maryland shows that these bars produced
an average of 12,000,000 bushels during the fifteen years of
1873-88, and that now by reason of a lack of remedial legislation
providing for the practical conservation of these vast oyster
resources, these same natural oyster bars only produce 4,000,000
bushels.

Expenses of Protecting Natural Oyster Bars: The State of
Maryland has for years been compelled to make direct appro-
priations aggregating at this date over $100,000 in excess of
oyster revenues that could be utilized for the expenses of the
State Fishery Force in protecting the Natural Oyster Bars.
In view of the preceding fact, it is not reasonable to sup-
pose that the Governor and the Legislature will consent to make
additional direct appropriations of the $25,000 that ought to

6

be expended annually for the purpose of restoring the natural
oyster bars of the State.

Revenue from Leasing: Experts say that fully 100,000
acres of the so-called barren bottoms of Maryland are of
the best order for the cultivation of oysters; and that with
reasonable and practical oyster culture laws such as are in
force in all progressive oyster culture states, these 100,000 acres
will yield the Slate a large revenue in the near future.

Campbell-Price Bill: In consequence of the facts stated it is
now proposed in the Campbell-Price Bill to provide for the
Conservation of Natural Oyster Bars along with Oyster Culture
on Barren Bottoms by :

Ist. Stringent regulations protecting the 215,852
acres of natural oyster bars reserved for the sole use
of oystermen by the Maryland Oyster Survey.

2d. Provision for increasing revenues through en-
couraging the leasing of barren oyster bottoms by
granting certain privileges to oyster planters neces-
sary for the profitable cultivation of oysters.

3d. Conservation and restoration of natural oyster
bars through reshelling and cultivation by providing
for the equal division of the revenue received from
oyster planting between a ‘Special Road Fund” and
a “Fund for the Conservation of Natural Oyster
Bars.”

Maryland Oyster Controversy: Those actively interested in
the oyster question of Maryland seem to be divided into three
classes, as follows:

1st. Ovstermen and oyster packers interested in
the restoration of the 215,852 acres of natural oyster
bars reserved for the use of the public by the Mary-
land Oyster Survey.

%

2d. Oyster planters and oyster packers interested
in the development of the 300,000 acres of barren
bottoms pointed out by the Maryland Oyster Survey
as bottoms where oysters can be made to grow profit-
ably by cultivation.

3d. Those who earnestly believe with the Crothers
Oyster Commission in both the restoration of public
natural oyster bars and the cultivation of barren bot-
toms, but who feel that the better manner of accom-
plishing these objects is to so change, by new laws,
the plan of the state administration of the oyster
forces of Maryland, that an unpaid Board of Fish-
eries will take over the functions of both the Shell
Fish Commission and the State Fishery Force and
also have restricted discretionary power to carry on
the conservation and cultivation of the oyster re-
sources of Maryland by such means as they find best
suited to the interests of all concerned.

The only comment necessary on this phase of the question is
the obvious one that the Campbell-Price Bill unites the objects
of the first and second classes, and at the same time in no way
clashes with the aims of the third class.

THE CAMPBELL-PRICE BILL.

Explanation.

A discussion of each proposed amendment to the
Haman Oyster Law is boxed in lines and appears
immediately under the corresponding change in the
wording of the original law, and consequently the
text of the bill itself need not be used except for pur-
poses of technical reference.

All words added to existing oyster laws have been
typed in CAPITALS.

All words “struck out” from existing oyster laws
have been printed in (italics and enclosed in parenthesis.)

A BILL ENTITLED AN ACT TO AMEND AN ACT EN-
TITLED «AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AND PROMOTE
THE INDUSTRY OF OYSTER CULTURE IN MARY-
LAND, TO DEFINE AND MARK NATURAL OYSTER
BEDS, BARS AND ROCKS LYING UNDER THE
WATERS OF THIS STATE, TO PRESCRIBE PENAL-
TIES FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRO-
VISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND TO ADD NEW SECTIONS
TO ARTICLE 72 OF THE CODE OF PUBLIC GENERAL
LAWS, TO FOLLOW SECTION 82, AND TO BE DESIG-
NATED, RESPECTIVELY, AS SECTIONS 83, 84, 85, 86,
87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,
102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113,
114, 115, 116, 117, 118 AND 119”, BY REPEALING AND
RE-ENACTING WITH AMENDMENTS SECTIONS 98,
100, 102, 105, 110, 112, 116 AND 118 OF ARTICLE 72
OF THE CODE OF PUBLIC GENERAL LAWS
(EDITION 1994), AS ENACTED IN CHAPTER 711 OF
THE ACTS OF 1906, AND BY ADDING EIGHT NEW
SECTIONS TO SAID ARTICLE 72, ONE TO FOLLOW
SECTION 112, AND TO BE DESIGNATED AS SEC-
TION 112 A, ONE TO FOLLOW SECTION 115 AND
BE DESIGNATED AS SECTION 115 A, AND SIX
OTHERS TO FOLLOW SECTION 119 AND TO BE
DESIGNATED AS 119 A, 119 B, 119 C, 119 D, 119 EB
AND 119 F.

SECTION 1. BE 1T ENACTED BY THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, THAT SECTIONS 98,
100, 102, 105, 110, 112, 116 AND 118 OF ARTICLE 72 OF

9

THE CODE OF PUBLIC GENERAL LAWS, AS EN-
ACTED IN CHAPTER 711 OF THE ACTS OF 1906,
ENTITLED “AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AND PRO-
MOTE THE INDUSTRY OF OYSTER CULTURE IN
MARYLAND, TO DEFINE AND MARK NATURAL
OYSTER BEDS, BARS AND ROCKS LYING UNDER
THE WATERS OF THIS STATE, TO PRESCRIBE
PENALTIES FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND TO ADD NEW
SECTIONS TO ARTICLE 72 OF THE CODE OF
PUBLIC GENERAL LAWS, TO FOLLOW SECTION
82, AND TO BE DESIGNATED RESPECTIVELY AS
SECTIONS 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94,
95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 108, 104, 105, 106, 107,
LOS LOO SOS tA tS ia BSS Wo wa7, 118) and
119,” BE AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY REPEALED
AND RE-ENACTED WITH AMENDMENTS, SO AS
TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 98. After the survey provided for herein shall
have been completed, it shall be the duty of the Board of Shell
Fish Commissioners to lease, in the name of the State of Mary-
land, tracts or parcels of land beneath the waters of this State,
whether within the limits of the counties or elsewhere, in the
area to be opened for oyster culture, according to the provisions
of this act ; provided that no tract so leased, if situated within
the territorial limits of any county in this State, shall contain
less than one acre of land, and if situated in any other place, no
tract so leased shall contain less than five acres. It shall be
the duty of said board to require that the tracts so leased shall
be as nearly rectangular as is convenient. It shall be the duty
of the said board to demand from each lessee payment of the
rent each year in advance. No person shall be permitted, by
lease, assignment or in any other manner, to acquire a greater
amount of land than (ten) THIRTY acres situated within the

10

territorial limits of any of the counties, or (one) FIVE hundred
acres in any other place; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
AN INDIVIDUAL MAY ACQUIRE A TRACT NOT EX-
CEEDING ONE HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND BENEATH
THE WATERS OF TANGIER SOUND.

Discussion: The preceding amendments to exist-
ing laws indicated by words in CAPITALS pro-
vide for an increase in the maximum area which
may be leased by any one person.

The greatest possible profits from planting oys-
ters on barren bottoms of the limited acreage per-
mitted by existing laws are too small to warrant
the purchase of the necessary equipment for culti-
vation of oysters on such areas, or fo warrant the
cost of the equally necessary equipment and ser-
vices required for private police protection.

The increase in Tangier Sound is made desirable
by the fact that its waters are practically “open
waters.” This part of the amendment is made
necessary by reason of a legal interpretation
which classifies waters of Tangier Sound as being

”?

“within territorial limits.

(Section 98, continued): Leases of such lands shall be made
only to residents of Maryland. The term of such leases shall
be twenty years, and the annual rent reserved to the State shall
be one dollar per acre for each of the first two years of said
term of twenty years; two dollars per acre for the third year;
three dollars per acre for the fourth year ; four dollars per acre
for the fifth year; and five dollars per acre during the remainder
of the term; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ON ALL
LEASES WHICH HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN MADE,
OR MAY HEREAFTER BE MADE HEREUNDER, THE
ANNUAL RENT PAYABLE TO THE STATE THERE-

ey:

UNDER AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO APRIL Ist, 1918,
SHALL BE ONE DOLLAR PER ACRE, AND THE IN-
CREASE IN ANNUAL RENTALS HEREIN PROVIDED
FOR THE THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH AND SUBSE-
QUENT YEARS DURING THE TERM OF ANY LEASE
SHALL NOT SOONER BECOME EFFECTIVE THAN
FOR THE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT
YEARS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE PORTION OF THE
TERM OF SUCH LEASE SUBSEQUENT TO THE lisr
DAY OF APRIL, 1918.

Discussion: The above amendment provides for

decreased rentals to $1.00 per acre until April 1,
1918.

It is proposed in response to a strong demand
from prospective oyster planters who state they
should be given a reasonable opportunity for build-
ing up their business before being charged a rental
which they now consider prohibitive.

It is so worded that the State does not in any
way give up any existing rights to ultimately in-
crease the revenues which it can reasonably hope
to obtain from the State-owned barren oyster
bottoms.

(Section 98, Continued) If any part of the rent reserved
under such Jease shall remain unpaid for more than six months
after the same becomes due, such lease or leases may, at the
option of the Board of Shell Fish Commissioners, be declared
void, and in that event the land shall revert to the State, and
may be leased again in accordance with the provisions of this
Act. The said Board may, at the request of any lessee, if it
shall appear equitable so to do, upon cause shown in writing,
cancel his lease as to the whole ora part of the lands leased.
THE BOARD OF SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS IS
HEREBY DIRECTED TO SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE NEXT
SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND

12

PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF RENTALS
FOR LEASED BOTTOMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
VALUE OF THESE BOTTOMS FOR THE CULTIVA-
TION OF OYSTERS.

Discussion: The precediug amendment provides
for a report to be made to the next legislature on
the advisability of establishing some method of
assessing rentals according to the yalue of the
leased bottoms. It has been added in compliance

with the suggestions of certain prominent officials
who feel that while some areas may not be worth
the yearly rental of one dollar per acre that there
is much other land worth at least ten dollars per
acre.

Section 100. For a period of ( fow" months) THIRTY DAYS
after the said survey shall have been completed, or after any area
shall have been opened to leasing under the preceding sections,
citizens of Maryland, residing in any part of the State, who, at
the time of the completion of suid survey, or at the respective
times of the opening for oyster culture of the several areas, as
the case may be, may be owners of land having a water front
upon any part of the said areas so opened to oyster culture,
shall bave the exclusive right to rent any land opened to oyster
culture under the provisions of the act, adjacent to their lands.
And for an additional period of (sia mouths) THIRTY DAYS
after the expiration of the said period of (four months) THIRTY
DAYS all boatmen, residents of this State, who shall be engaged
in the business of dredging, scraping or tonging for oysters at
the time of the completion of the said survey, or at the respec-
tive times of the opening for oyster culture of the several areas,
or if said survey shall be completed, or the said areas shall be
opened to oyster culture during the closed season for dredging,
scraping or tonging, as the case may be, then the person so
engaged at the end of the last dredging, scraping or tonging

13

season shall have the like exclusive right in the order of their
respective applications, as the same may be received and opened
by the Board of Shell Fish Commissioners to rent any adjacent
lands ; provided, that in no event shall any such landowner,
boatman or any other person be permitted to rent or acquire
more than (ten) THIRTY acres, ONE HUNDRED ACRES, or
(one) FIVE hundred acres, as the case may be, dependent upon
the situation of the land which is leased or acquired ; and pro-
vided, further, that no such riparian landowner, as is mentioned
in this section, shall be entitled to rent the amount of (ten)
THIRTY acres, ONE HUNDRED ACRES, or (one) FIVE
hundred acres, as the case may be, unless the water front of
the land so owned by him, if fronting on water within the terri-
torial limits of a county, be at least two hundred yards, or if front-
ing on waters in any other place, be at least seven hundred yards.
The owners of land having a less water front than is mentioned
above shall be entitled to rent a proportionately less amount of
land, dependent upon the length of the front upon water within
county limits or elsewhere.

Discussion: The preceding amendments in rela-
tion to the period within which certain classes of
individuals have priority of rights to lease barren
bottoms will be only effective in Talbot and Dor-
chester counties which have not yet been opened
for leasing.

They are not essential amendments except in so
far as they will permit Talbot and Dorchester coun-
ties to obtain full rights of leasing before the open-
ing of the next oyster season.

The above amendments in relation to acreage
that may be leased are only necessary as a part of

similar provisions in Section 98 and discussed
under that heading.

14

Srcrton 102. When the period of (ten months), SIXTY
DAYS shall have elapsed after said survey shall have been
completed, and after the lands beneath the waters of any area
shall have been opened to leasing under Section 99 of this Act,
the Board of Shell Fish Commissioners shall endeavor to lease
the remaining portions of land so open to oyster culture under
the provisions of this Act to applicants, who shall be residents
of Maryland, in the order of their applications received and
opened by said Commissioners.

Discussion: The aboye amendment in relation
to the period within which certain classes of indi-
viduals have priority of rights to lease barren bot-
toms is only necessary as a part of a related pro-
vision in Section 100 and discussed under that
heading.

Section 105. The relation of landlord and tenant stated in
Section 104 shall have all the incidents attaching to that rela-
tion as the same exists under the laws of Maryland, excepting
only the following particulars :

(First: The only remedy of the State for non-payment of the
rent of oyster lands shall be the strict enforcement of the provi-
sions set forth in Section 98 of this Act. Upon the non-pay-
ment of any rent for the time therein mentioned it shall be the
duty of the Board of Shell Fish Commissioners, after a written
notice of not less than ten days to the lessee, to declare the lease
vacated by stamping the word * Void” in distinet letters across
the description in the register. )

(Second) FIRST: Land leased under this act shall be used
only for the purpose of planting and cultivating oysters ;

(Third) SECOND: No right shall exist to redeem or pur-
chase any land of the State so leased ;

15

(Fourth) THIRD: Any other modification caused by the
provisions of this act.

Discussion: The above amendments are con-
nected with the proposed new Section 115 A,
which relates to the collection of rentals, and they
are discussed under that heading.

Secrion 110. No assignment or transfer of any interest
acquired by this Act shall be valid for any purpose if made
to a non-resident of this State. If any such assignment is
attempted to be made, all interest of the grantor, or assignor,
shall revert to the State as if no lease had ever been made. If
any assignment of any interest created by this act is attempted
to be made to any corporation, or joint stock company, all the
interest of the grantor or assignor shall revert to the State as if
no lease had ever been made. If any assignment or any inter-
est created by this act is attempted to be made to any person
in such a way that the assignee shall become the holder of
more than (ten) THIRTY acres, ONE HUNDRED ACRBS, or
(one) FIVE hundred acres, as the case may be, according to the
location of land leased under this Act, all interest of the
grantor or assignor, in case of such an assignment, shall
revert to the State as if no lease had been made.

Discussion; The preceding amendment is only
necessary as a part of the amendments proposed to
Section 98 for the increase in acreage of State-
owned bottoms that may be leased by one indi-

vidual, and is discussed under that heading.

Secrion 112. It shall not be necessary for any holder of
oyster land under this Act to take out any license for dredging,
scraping or topging oysters on any land so held by him; and
oysters on such land may be taken in such manner as may be

16

desired by the holder of such land, and at such times as may
be desired by the holder of such Jand, BETWEEN SUNRISE
AND SUNSET OF ANY WEEK DAY BETWEEN THE
FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER IN ANY YEAR
AND THE FIFTEENTH OF JUNE IN THE FOLLOWING
YEAR (as allowed by the existing laws of this State). IT IS,
HOWEVER, SPECIALLY PROVIDED THAT IT SHAUL
BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY HOLDER OF LAND UNDER
THIS ACT TO TAKE UP OYSTERS FROM THE LAND
SO HELD BY HIM DURING THE CLOSED SEA-~
SON FOR THE DREDGING OF OYSTERS FROM
THE NATURAL BARS OF THIS STATE, UNTIL AFTER
HE HAS GIVEN A WRITTEN NOTICE OF AT LEAST
THREE DAYS OF HIS INTENTION SO TO DO, TO
THE OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF THE NEAREST
POLICE BOAT, IN WHICH NOTICE HE SHALL NAME
THE WEEK DAY OR WEEK DAYS AND THE HOURS
BETWEEN SUNRISE AND SUNSET OF SUCH WEEK
DAY OR WEEK DAYS IN SUCH CLOSED SEASON
DURING WHICH HE MAY INTEND TO TAKE OYS-
TERS FROM SUCH LAND, AND IT SHALL BE UN-
LAWFUL FOR THE HOLDER OF ANY SUCH LAND
TO TAKE UP OYSTERS FROM THE LAND HELD BY
HIM AT ANY OTHER TIMES THAN THOSE NAMED
IN SUCH NOTICE. ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON
INDICTMENT AND CONVICTION IN ANY CIRCUIT
COURT FOR ANY COUNTY OF THIS STATE, OR IN
THE CRIMINAL COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, BE-
FORE WHICH SUCH CASE IS TRIED, SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO ALL THE PENALTIES PROVIDED IN
SEC. 24 OF THIS ARTICLE FOR TAKING OYSTERS
UNLAWFULLY WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF CER-
TAIN SECTIONS THEREIN REFERRED To.

17

Discussion: The preceding amendments permit-
ting the taking and cultivation of leased oyster

plantations on the same practical basis existing in
all the progressive oyster states which have been
increasing their oyster industries while those of
Maryland have been decreasing, are the very “‘key-
stone” of the whole Campbell-Price Bill.

To fail to enact the essential features of this
Section, is to fail to proyide that which is abso-
Intely necessary for a real oyster culture that will
actually mean anything to the oyster industry of
the State.

Such a failure to enact the essential features of
the preceding sections means further that no rey-
enue of any importance can be expected from the
lease of the immensely valuable barren oyster bot-
toms of the State, and therefore it also means that
the “Fund for the Conservation of Natural Oyster
Bars” established in other sections of the Camp-
bell-Price Bill will be ineffective, if not actually
non-existent as far as money is concerned.

This matter is of extreme importance to those
interested in the development of the oyster indus-
tries of Maryland, and consequently in support of
this contention there is quoted below a carefully
prepared statement from Dr. H. F. Moore of the
United States Bureau of Fisheries, who has a
world-wide knowledge and practical experience in
all phases of the “oyster question.”

Doctor Moore writes: ‘ As I view the case, the
amendments asked for represent the irreducible
mimimum necessary to perfect the law and make
it effective. The elimination of any part of the
amendments will be against the interests of the

SIE

18

State, oyster culture and the oyster industry as a
whole, and will seriously retard the assumption of
the position to which Maryland’s natural advan-
tages entitle her. The amendments were proposed
after careful consideration, all not absolutely essen-
tial was eliminated, and there was nothing inserted
for the purpose of trading or compromise.”

“T do not believe that your Commission can
afford to acquiesce, even under stress, to measures
which will militate against the interests entrusted
to your care. I do not understand that you even
contemplate such action, but feel that my connec-
tion with the Maryland survey makes it obligatory,
in justice to myself, to express myself frankly.
Should an unsatisfactory compromise be accom-
plished, the odium of its failure as a practical
measure must fall on all who acquiesced in its
perpetration. If the recommendations of the
Commission be rejected, the responsibility will lie
on those who opposed them, and we who have
endeavored to give the subject our best study will
be absolved.”’

The existing laws have been construed to pro-
hibit oyster planters from taking their cultivated
oysters from leased oyster beds by any means not
permitted in taking oysters from the natural oyster
bars of the same locality. Which construction of
the law should be contrasted with the facts that
the oyster planter must pay rental to the State,
must prepare the leased bottoms for planting,
must purchase and plant seed oysters, must cul-
tivate the oysters when planted, and provide pri-
vate police protection, while on the other hand the
competing oystermen using the neighboring nat-
ural oyster bars are under no such expense.

19

The preceding amendments remove certain of
these restrictions on oyster planting for certain
months of the year; and then only for week days
(not Sundays) between the times of sunrise and
sunset ; and they also stipulate that notice of such
intention must be given certain oyster police offi-
cials after the close of the dredging season.

The use of tongs for gathering oysters is a slow
and expensive method, and can be profitably em-
ployed only in case the bottom is closely stocked
with oysters ; hence lessees of oyster lots in local-
ities where dredging is prohibited are compelled
to plant their oysters so thickly upon the bottom
that the available supply of oyster food in the
water is not sufficient to provide for their proper
nourishment and growth. The numerous failures
in oyster culture which are due to such overplant-
ing can be largely avoided when the right to gather
planted oysters with a dredge has been granted.
Planters will then be able to take into account the
oyster food supply and distribute their oysters ac-
cordingly, for no matter how scatteringly oysters
may be distributed over the bottom, they can be
rapidly and economically gathered with proper
equipment.

The sudden scarcity or abundance of a food sup-
ply increases or decreases its value a correspond-
ing amount. Oysters are no exception to this rule,
and the use of economical equipment for quickly
gathering cultivated oysters from a known supply
on leased bottoms is one absolutely essential re-
quirement for profitable oyster farming. It is
partly through such profits as come from prompt
delivery of oysters at the best market price that
an oyster planter is enabled to compete with the

20

natural bar oystermen who have no extra expenses

of rental, shelling of bottoms, purchase of seed,

policing of property, and so forth.

The granting of the privileges permitted by the
proposed amendments to Section 112 are opposed
chiefly on the ground that oyster planters will take

a criminal advantage of these rights to steal oys-

ters from the natural oyster bars. As a matter of
fact, all know that the real danger is quite the re-
verse, and that an oyster planter with his vested
interests in his oysters on his leased beds has the
more to fear when it comes to “appropriating ”
oysters from the oyster-producing waters of Mary-
land. Retaliation by natural-growth oystermen
for the misuse of privileges by the oyster planter
would be only too easy. While on the other hand
there is no way by which the planter can punish
the “natural growther ” except to catch him “ red-
handed.”

However, in spite of these facts, and as a further
answer to the objections raised against the grant-
ing of the proposed privileges, there has been
added a new section (112 A) which provides ample
and effective means for conyiction and punishment
of any planter so short-sighted as to attempt steal-
ing of oysters from public oyster bars. For addi-
tional comments on this phase of the amendments
see the discussion under the heading of Section
112 A.

21

SECTION 116. In addition to other penalties herein pro-
vided, any person convicted of a violation of this act under either
of the (three) SIX preceding sections (SECTIONS 112-A to
115-A, BOTH INCLUSIVE), shall be and is hereby denied
the right to take out any license to dredge, scrape or tong for
oysters in any waters of this State for the period of three years
after said convicticn.

Discussion: The ameudments to the preced-
ing section are only made for the technical
legal reason of making its penalties applicable to
violators of the law under Section 112 and the two
following new Sections 1124 and 115 a.

Srecrion 118. The revenue arising from the operation of this
Act shall be applied in the following manner :

First: To the payment of all (salaries) expenses (surveys, out-
lays) and disbursements authorized by this Act.

Second: The balance to be paid at the end of each year into
the Treasury of the State (/eaving, however, a balance of Ten
Thousand Dollars with the Board of Shell Fish Commissioners to
be applied to the current expenses of its office for the ensung year.
All moneys so paid aforesaid into the Treasury of the State shall
be placed to the credit of a special fund called the “Special Road
Fund”), TO BE PLACED TO THE CREDIT OF, AND
DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN TWO SPECIAL FUNDS
THE FIRST TO BE KNOWN AS THE «SPECIAL ROAD
FUND,” AND THE SECOND TO BE KNOWN AS A
“FUND FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL OYS-
TER BARS.”

22

Discussion: The preceding amendments provide
for the Conservation of Natural Oyster Bars
through reshelling and restocking by establishing
a fund for that purpose equal to one-half of the
net revenue received from the leasing of oyster
plantations on barren bottoms.

The omitted portions of Section 118 of the
existing law are no longer necessary as the Mary-
land Oyster Survey is now complete, and no fur-
ther money is required for that purpose.

In connection with these amendments, it is per-
tinent to state that it is estimated the revenue which
will be received from leasing of barren bottoms
within the next five years will net at least $50,000
a year, and that ultimately the revenue from this
source should reach some hundreds of thousands
of dollars annually. PROVIDED, THAT LAWS
PERMITTING OYSTER PLANTING ON A
PRACTICAL BASIS SUCH AS EXIST IN
PROGRESSIVE OYSTER CULTURE STATES
BE ENACTED BY THE MARYLAND LEG-
ISLATURE.

SEC, 2. AND BE IT ENACTED, THAT THE FOL-
LOWING SECTION BE AND IT IS HEREBY ADDED
TO ARTICLE 72 OF THE CODE OF PUBLIC GENERAL
LAWS, TITLE “OYSTERS”, TO FOLLOW SECTION
112, AND TO BE DESIGNATED AS SECTION 112-A:

SECTION 112 A. ANY PERSON WHO, BEING A
LESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT,
SHALL DREDGE OR OTHERWISE TAKE OYSTERS
FROM ANY OF THE NATURAL BEDS OR BARS IN
THE WATERS OF THIS STATE, IN VIOLATION OF
ANY OF THE LAWS OF THIS STATE, SHALL BE
DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON
INDICTMENT AND CONVICTION IN ANY CIRCUIT

23

COURT FOR ANY COUNTY OF THIS STATE, OR IN
THE CRIMINAL COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, BE-
FORE WHICH SUCH CASE IS TRIED, SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO ALL THE PENALTIES PROVIDED IN
SECTION 24 OF THIS ARTICLE FOR TAKING
OYSTERS UNLAWFULLY WITHIN THE PROVISIONS
OF CERTAIN SECTIONS THEREIN REFERRED TO.

Discussion: The preceding amendments provide
for the punishment of any lessee of oyster bottoms
who is foolish enough to violate the laws of the
state by dredging oysters from natural oyster bars.

It is held by opponents to oyster culture in
Maryland that the government of the State of
Maryland is unable to protect itself against the
assumed criminal oyster planters, and therefore
the preceding amendment would not be effective.

Such an assumption that oyster planters are
criminals and that the State of Maryland has not
the power to protect herself against such erim-
inals is unreasonable, a slander on the people of
Maryland, and on the administration of the goy-
ernment of Maryland, and it is unbelievable that
such an assumption will be permanently accepted
as a truth by the law-abiding people of Maryland.

As a matter of fact, two honest police officials
located on shore with telescopes and a speed motor
boat nearby, could easily capture any criminal
oyster planter violating the laws of the State.
And the conviction of one or two such planters,
with the attending disgrace of criminal punish-
ment and the penalties provided for under the
preceding section would go far towards creating a
public sentiment and fear that would protect the

public oyster bars from such marauders.

24

Section 24 referred to in the preceding section 112 A is as
follows :

(1894, ch. 380, sec. 23.)

24. ANY MASTER OR PERSON IN CHARGE OF ANY
VESSEL WHO SHALL VIOLATE ANY OF THE PRO-
VISIONS OF THE PRECEDING SECTIONS FROM 19
TO 21 INCLUSIVE BY TAKING OYSTERS UNLAW-
FULLY SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MIS-

DEMEANOR AND UPON INDICTMENT AND CONVIC- .

TION IN ANY CIRCUIT COURT IN THIS STATE, OR
IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF BALTIMORE, BEFORE
WHICH SUCH CASE IS TRIED, SHALL BE SENT-
ENCED TO THE HOUSE OF CORRECTION FOR A
TERM NOT LESS THAN THREE MONTHS NOR MORE
THAN ONE YEAR AND THE BOAT OR VESSEL USED
IN SUCH VIOLATION, TOGETHER WITH THE
PAPERS, FURNITURE AND TACKLE ON BOARD OF
SAID BOAT OR VESSEL AT THE TIME OF SAID
VIOLATION SHALL BE FORFEITED, BUT SHALL BE
RELEASED UPON THE PAYMENT OF NOT LESS
THAN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS NOR MORE THAN
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND COSTS AND EX-
PENSES FOR EACH AND EVERY VIOLATION OF
THE PRECEDING SECTIONS, IN THE DISCRETION
OF THE COURT.

SEC. 3. AND BE IT ENACTED, THAT THE EOL-
LOWING SECTION BE AND IT -IS HEREBY ADDED
TO ARTICLE 72 OF THE CODE OF PUBLIC GENERAL
LAWS, TITLE “OYSTERS”, TO FOLLOW SECTION
115 AND TO BE DESIGNATED AS SECTION 115 A:

25

SECTION 115 A. It SHALL BE UNLAWFUL EOR
ANY PERSON OTHER THAN A LESSEE UNDER THIS
ACT, OR FOR ANY LESSEE UNDER THIS ACT, WHILE
HE SHALL BE IN DEFAULT IN PAYMENT ON RENT,
TO APPROPRIATE TO HIMSELF FOR ANY PURPOSE
ANY OF THE BARREN BOTTOMS UNDER THE WATERS
OF THIS STATE WHICH ARE, BY THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT, SUBJECT TO LEASE, OR TO USE ANY
SUCH BARREN BOTTOMS IN ANY WAY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF BEDDING, PLANTING OR CULTIVATING
OYSTERS, AND ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY: OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON
INDICTMENT AND CONVICTION IN ANY CIRCUIT
COURT FOR ANY COUNTY IN THIS STATE, OR IN
THE CRIMINAL COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, BE-
FORE WHICH SUCH CASE IS TRIED, SHALL BE
FINED THE SUM OF FIFTY DOLLARS FOR EACH
VIOLATION THEREOF. EACH DAY DURING WHICH
OR IN WHICH ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED BY
THIS SECTION MAY BE PERFORMED SHALL CON-
STITUTE A SEPARATE VIOLATION OF ITS PRO-
VISIONS. IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
STATE'S ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY HAVING
JURISDICTION, OR OF BALTIMORE CITY AT THE
REQUES! OF THE BOARD OF SHELL FISH COM-
MISSIONERS, TO PROSECUTE ANY ONE VIOLATING
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION. THE NET
PROCEEDS OF FINES COLLECTED UNDER THIS
SECTION SHALL BE APPLIED AS FOLLOWS: ONE-
HALF OF THE SAME SHALL BE PAID TO THE
INFORMER, IF ANY, AND THE REMAINDER SHALL
BE APPLIED ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 118 OF THIS ARTICLE.

26

Discussion: The preceding section together with
section 105 as amended provide for the collection
of rentals for use of State owned oyster bottoms,
be they leased or otherwise appropriated without
a lease.

From the standpoint of the State there is one
serious defect in the law as originally enacted,
whereby it has been found to be impossible to col-
lect the rents due for the use of lots leased from
the State for the purpose of oyster culture or to
prevent individuals from appropriating and using
oyster lands for oyster-planting operations without
having first leased them from the State.

A very considerable number of lots are now held
and used for oyster-plauting purposes by planters
who pay no rent to the State. Some of these lots
have been surveyed, records have been made of
the surveys, and leases have been issued to the
holders, but others are being held and used with-
out any formality having been entered into be-
tween the holders and the State.

The State, having expended a considerable sum
of money in perfecting the conditions under which
oyster culture may be successfully carried on,
should now take the necessary steps to prohibit the
use of ground for oyster culture by persons who
do not hold leases to the ground or who are delin-
quent in the payment of rent.

27

SECTION 4. AND BH IT ENACTED, THAT THE
FOLLOWING SIX SECTIONS BE AND THEY ARE
HEREBY ADDED TO ARTICLE 72 OF THE CODE OF
PUBLIC GENERAL LAWS, TITLE “OYSTERS,” TO
FOLLOW SECTION 119, AND TO BE DESIGNATED AS
SECTIONS 119 A, 119 B, 119 C, 119 D, 119 EK AND 119 F:

Note: The following six sections relate to the
“Price Oyster Plan” for the “Conservation of
Natural Oyster Bars,” and are diseussed in that
part of this publication immediately following Sec-
tion 119 F.

SECTION 119 A. IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
BOARD OF SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS TO TAKE
SUCH MEASURES AS IN ITS JUDGMENT SHALL
SEEM BEST CALCULATED TO INCREASE THE PRO-
DUCTIVITY OF ANY PART OF THE NATURAL OYS-
TER BARS DEFINED AS SUCH BY RECORDS AND
CHARTS FILED WITH THE COURTS OF THIS STATE;
AND THE EXPENSE OF SO DOING SHALL BE PAID
OUT OF THE «FUND FOR THE CONSERVATION OF
NATURAL OYSTER BARS,” UPON REQUISITION
MADE BY THE BOARD OF SHELL FISH COMMIS-
SIONERS, ENDORSED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF
THE STATE.

SECTION 119 B. ANY NATURAL OYSTER BAR OR
BARS, OR PARTS OF BAR OR BARS, WHICH THE
BOARD OF SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS MAY
DESIGNATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING CULTL
VATED AND RESTORED MAY BE EXEMPTED BY
THE BOARD OF SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS
FROM ALL RIGHTS OF TAKING OYSTERS IN ANY

28

MANNER BY ANY PERSON WHATSOEVER FOR A
PERIOD TO BE SPECIFIED IN A NOTICE OF SUCH
INTENTION TO BE PUBLISHED IN LOCAL PAPERS
THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO SUCH ACTION; PROVIDED
THAT SAID PUBLISHED NOTICE SHALL BECOME
VOID AND OF NO EFFECT AT ANY TIME DURING
THE PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE PUB-
LICATION OF SAID NOTICE BY THE FILING OF A
PETITION WITH THE BOARD OF SHELL FISH COM- .
MISSIONERS SIGNED BY TWENTY-FIVE LICENSED
OYSTERMEN ENTITLED TO TAKE OYSTERS FROM
THE BARS OR PARTS OF BARS DESIGNATED BY
THE SAID NOTICE.

SECTION 119 C. FOR THE PURPOSE OF PER-
FORMING THE DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THE BOARD
OF SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS BY SECTIONS
119 A AND 119 B, THEY MAY EMPLOY A SUPERIN-
TENDENT OF NATURAL OYSTER BARS, OR -DESIG-
NATE ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BOARD OF
SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS TO ACT AS SUCH,
AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF SUCH SUPERIN-
TENDENT, UNDER DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF
SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS, TO GIVE PERSONAL
SUPERVISION TO THE WORK OF CULTIVATING AND
RESTORING THE NATURAL OYSTER BARS DESIG-
NATED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY THE ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS.

SECTION 119 D. THE BOARD OF SHELL FISH COM-
MISSIONERS, IN ADDITION TO TAKING SUCH MEAS-
URES OF CONSERVATION OF NATURAL OYSTER
BARS AS IN ITS JUDGMENT SEEMS ADVISABLE,
SHALL PURCHASE FROM THE LOWEST RESPONSI-
BLE BIDDER, SHELLS OR OYSTERS AT SUCH

29

PLACES AND IN SUCH QUANTITIES AS MAY BE
NEEDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTORING THE
NATURAL OYSTER BARS, AND IN INVITING PRO-
POSALS FOR SUCH SHELLS OR OYSTERS THEY
MAY PRESCRIBE THAT THE SHELLS OR OYSTERS
SHALL BE DELIVERED AT A CONVENIENT PLACE
FOR SHIPMENT, OR THEY MAY REQUIRE THAT
THE SAID SHELLS OR OYSTERS BE DELIVERED
AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE SELLERS THEREOF
ON SUCH PARTICULAR NATURAL OYSTER BARS,
OR PARTS OF BARS, AS THE BOARD OF SHELL
FISH COMMISSIONERS MAY BE ENGAGED IN CUL-
TIVATING AND RESTORING, AND THE BOARD OF
SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS SHALL HAVE THE
POWER TO CAUSE SUCH SHELLS OR OYSTERS TO
BE PROPERLY DISTRIBUTED ON THE DESIGNATED
NATURAL OYSTER BARS, OR PARTS OF BARS UN-
DER THE DIRECTION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
OF NATURAL OYSTER BARS.

SECTION 119K. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIS-—
CHARGING THE DUTIES IMPOSED UPON IT BY
THE FOUR PRECEDING SECTIONS OF THIS ACT,
THE BOARD OF SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS
SHALL HAVE THE SAME CONTROL AND DIREC-
TION AND BE TO THE SAME EXTENT OVER THE
STATE FISHERY FORCE, AS IS GIVEN TO SAID
BOARD OF SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS BY SEC-
TION 97 OF THIS ARTICLE.

SECTION 119F. THE SAID BOARD OF SHELL
FISH COMMISSIONERS SHALL IN NO CASE CON-
TRACT ANY OBLIGATION OR INCUR ANY INDEBT-
EDNESS FOR THE RESTORING AND RE-SHELLING
OF NATURAL OYSTER BARS IN EXCESS OF MONEY
AT THE TIME OF THE INCURRING OF SAID OBLI-

30

GATION OR CONTRACTING OF SAID DEBT, IN THE
STATE TREASURY TO THE CREDIT OF THE “FUND
FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURAL OYSTER BARS.”

Discussion: The preceding six new sections
1194 to 119¥F inelusive, provide in accordance
with the ‘Price Oyster Plan” for conservation
and restoration of the 215,852 acres of natural
oyster bars reserved for the sole use of oystermen
by the Maryland Oyster Survey. The money for
this purpose to be obtained through revenues that
will be received from the leasing of oyster planta-
tions on barren bottoms as soon as laws are passed
by the Maryland Legislature permitting oyster cul-
hue on the same practical basis existing in those
progressive oyster culture states which are now
rapidly taking avay the better part of the oyster
trade once held by Maryland.

The history of the growth and decline of the
industry of taking oysters from the natural cyster
bars of Maryland shows that these oyster bars
produced an average of 12,000,000 bushels during
the fifteen years of 1875-88, and that now by rea-

son of a lack of remedial legislation providing for

the practical conservation of these vast oyster
resources these same oyster bars only produce
4,000,000 bushels.

Stating the preceding paragraph in another way,
the oystermen of Maryland haye been permitted to
so rob themselves since the fifteen years ending in
1888, that it is conservatively estimated on the
basis of present prices that they have made useless
over thirty million dollars of thei own oyster prop-
erties.

31

In the face of these facts the need of the conser-
vation of the natural oyster bars of Maryland can
not be honestly questioned, or can it be open to
doubt in the face of other facts stated in other
parts of this pamphlet that the leasing of oyster
plantations on barren bottoms will provide the
necessary revenue for this purpose, provided oyster

laws are passed by the Maryland Legislature per-
mitting oyster cultwre on the same practical basis
existing in progressive oyster culture States which
have increased their production of oysters by
8,000,000 bushels during the same period in which
the production of oysters in Maryland was decreased
by the same amouni.

SECTION 5. AND BE IT ENACTED, THIS ACT
SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF ITS
PASSAGE, AND THAT ALL ACTS, OR PORTIONS OF
ACTS, INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, SHALL BE AND
THE SAME ARE HEREBY REPEALED.

82

NOTES RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT
AND CONSERVATION OF THE OYSTER
RESOURCES OF MARYLAND.

(Cross-References to Notes. )

Advance of oyster industries in other States.
Notes: 4, 9, 12, 21, 22, 23.

Area that may be leased.
Notes: 14, 31, 34, 37.

Barren bottoms available for oyster planting under practical
oyster culture laws.
Notes: 10, 15, 21, 34, 37.
Benefits of oyster culture and conservation to oystermen.
Notes: 8, 17, 21, 23, 28, 36.

Conditions for oyster culture in Maryland different from other
States.
Notes: 4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 21, 22, 26, 35.
Connecticut.
Notes: 7, 9, 16, 21.
Conservation of natural oyster bars.
Notes: 8, 13, 19, 23, 28, 29, 30, 38.
Corporations can not engage in oyster culture.
Notes: 14, 33, 34.
Danger of monopoly from oyster culture.
Notes: 14, 31, 34, 37.

3d

Danger of monopoly from dredging under existing laws.

Note: 37.
Decline of Maryland’s oyster industries.
Notes: 13, 23, 28, 29, 38.

Destruction of the natural oyster bars.
Notes: 8, 13, 26, 28, 29, 30, 38.

Essentials for success in oyster culture in Maryland.
Note: 15.

Expenses of the Maryland Shell Fish Commission.
Note: 39.

Expenses of the State Fishery Force.
Notes: 19, 30. .

Glut of oysters.
Notes: 23, 35, 36.

Greatness of the oyster industry of the United States.
Notes: 3, 25.

Growth of oyster industries of United States while those of
Maryland have decreased.
Notes: 9, 13, 21, 28, 35.
History of the growth and decline of Maryland’s oyster indus-
tries.
Notes : 8, 13, 38.
Is oyster culture a theory ?
Notes: 4, 9, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 35.
Kellogg on the oyster in polities.
Note: 26.
Loss due to a lack of remedial legislation.
Notes: 1, 8, 10, 19, 23, 26, 28, 29, 38.

Maryland Oyster Survey.
Notes: 2, 6, 10, 11, 27, 39.

34

Maryland’s rank as an oyster producing State.
Notes: 3, 18, 21, 26, 38.
Natural oyster bars irrevocably reserved for the oystermen of

Maryland.
Notes: 2, 6, 11, 21, 27.

New York.
Notes: 9, 18.

Non-residents.
Notes: 14, 82.

Opportunity for individual oystermen to become oyster planters.
Note: 17.
Oyster legislation.
Notes: 1, 10, 15, 26.
Quantity of cultivated oysters in the United States.
Notes : 12, 23, 35, 38.
Rhode Island.
Notes: 5, 24.

Revenue to State government from oyster planting.
Notes: 5, 24, 39.

Starfish and other enemies to oyster culture.
Note: 7.

Total production of oysters in the United States.
Notes: 3; 12523) 25:

Virginia.
Notes: 4, 22.

Value of cultivated oysters in the United States.
Notes: 12, 18, 23, 35.

Will oyster culture reduce prices?
Note: 36.

35

NOTES RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
OYSTER RESOURCES OF MARYLAND.

1. The aim of future oyster legislation in Maryland should
be to develop her vast oyster resources, and then to so manage
them that they will produce a large revenue for the benefit of
the entire State. For more than thirty years all oyster legis-
lation has been directed toward preventing the destruction of
natural oyster bars, but this legislation has done nothing more
than to retard this destruction. And now greatly to the discredit
of Maryland’s administrative capacity, her oyster industries
have not only degenerated to one-fifth of their known possibili-
ties but they have also become an expense to the State instead
of a source-of great revenue.

2. The State and Federal governments combined have
expended over two hundred thousand dollars and over five
years of time in surveying the more than two hundred thou-
sand acres of the natural oyster bars of Maryland so that they
could be accurately charted for the purpose of irrevocably
reserving them for the sole use of oystermen.

3. It is estimated that im 1910-11 the total production of
oysters in the United States was 35,000,000 bushels and that
Maryland only supplied one-tenth of this total.

4. Just on the other side of the imaginary Maryland-Vir-
ginia boundary line in the county of Accomac, in the State of
Virginia, there are thousands of acres of oyster bottoms under
cultivation as contrasted with tens of acres in the adjacent
county of Somerset in the State of Maryland.

5. In Rhode Island one oyster planter alone pays the gov-
ernment of that State $27,000 each year for the rental of
4,700 acres of barren bottoms where oysters never grew before
they were cultivated.

36

6. The Haman Oyster Culture Law provided that an accu-
rate survey of the natural oyster bars should be made, and its
provisions for this purpose have proyen to be most practical
and satisfactory. Asa result of this survey 215,852 acres of
natural oyster bars have been charted and reserved for the sole
uso of oystermen. This area greatly exceeds any estimate
made previous to the survey. And this fact should convince
all fair-minded oystermen that the State has no thought of sac-
rificing their interests for the benefit of oyster planters.

7. In Connecticut and many other oyster-culture States the
oyster planters have to expend large sums of money in protect-
ing their oysters against destruction by star fish and other ene-
mies of oysters. In Maryland the oysters are practically
free of such enemies, and this one thing alone gives the oyster
planters of Maryland a great advantage over many of their
competitors in other States.

8. The oystermen of Maryland have so robbed themselves
since 1884, that it is conservatively estimated on the basis of
present prices that they have made useless over thirty million dol-
lars worth of their own oyster properties and at the same time
prevented for all those years the development of other oyster
properties of fully equal value.

9. By oyster culture methods Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New York, New Jersey and Delaware have greatly increased
both the quantity and the value of their oysters, while on the
other hand during the same period Maryland has greatly decreased
both the quantity and the value of her oysters.

10. The Maryland Oyster Survey has shown that, in addition
to 215,852 acres of natural oyster bars, the State of Maryland
owns and absolutely controls 800,000 acres of bottoms which
can produce oysters but which are now barren. And it has been
clearly demonstrated that the Haman Oyster Culture Law in

37

its present form fails to provide the unecessary foundation
required for the practical development of oyster culture on these
300,000 acres of the state-owned oyster bottoms.

11. The State and Federal governments combined have
published and filed with the courts of Maryland over two thou-
sand printed pages of technical records, and forty-four large
charts, for the sole purpose of defining and securing to the
oystermen of Maryland all their ancient rights of free fishery
on over two hundred thousand acres of public oyster bars.

12. In 1908 forty-four per cent of all oysters produced in
the United States were cultivated oysters, and their value was
sixty-five per cent. of the total.

13. Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and
Virginia have greatly increased their production of oysters
while Maryland has decreased her production of oysters from
Jifteen million of bushel in 1884-85 to three and one-half million
of bushels in 1910-11.

14. If the Haman Oyster Culture Law is amended as pro-
posed by the Campbell-Price Bill, it will still say that “ no cor-
poration, or joint stock company, shall be permitted to lease or
take up, or to ucquire by assignment, or otherwise, any lands
of the State for oyster planting or cultivation ;” that the “term
of all leases shall be twenty years ;” that ‘leases shall be made
only to residents of Maryland ;”’ and that ‘no person shall be
permitted, by lease, assigument, or in any manner, to acquire a
greater amount of land than thirty acres situated within terri-
torial Jimits of the counties, or five hundred acres in any other
place.”

15. Maryland has stopped short of offering sufficient induce-
ments to her citizens to cultivate oysters on barren bottoms.

38

She has withheld certain rights and privileges which are recog-
nized by all progressive oyster States as being absolutely
essential to success in oyster planting operations, and it is
folly to expect, and wrong to urge Maryland’s citizens, to
lease any portion of her 300,000 acres of state-owned barren
oyster bottoms until her laws are so amended as to provide
the rights and privileges demonstrated to be essential to sue-
cess in culture of oysters on bottoms where oysters do not
now grow.

16. One oyster culturist in Connecticut plants over five hun-
dred thousand bushels of clean shells each year to catch
‘oyster spat” for seed, while in Maryland nature provides
each year many hundreds of thousands of bushels of seed
oysters which are killed each year by freshets, and are thus
wasted unless illegally taken up for steaming or selling to
oyster planters of Connecticut, Virginia and other States.

17. Oyster planting not only benefits the oyster planter but
also benefits the oystermen in many ways, as for example:
establishing brands for oysters that increase the reputation
and value of all oysters of the State including those taken from
the natural oyster bars; increasing the number of “spat”
likely to “set” on the natural oyster bars; increasing the
demand and consequently the price of small oysters only fit for
planting ; supplying opportunities for employment in cultivation
of oyster farms during closed season; increasing the demand
and consequently the price of shells; and in addition to these
benefits the Maryland oyster culture laws furnish every oppor-
tunity for the individual oysterman to become an oyster planter.

18. In 1908 Maryland produced two and one-fifth times as
many bushels of oysters as New York, yet in the same year
New York received fourteen per cent. more money for her
oysters than did Maryland.

39.

19. The people of the whole State of Maryland are now
paying the oyster police officials of Maryland nearly fifty thou-
sand dollars each year for the purpose of protecting the ancient
privileges of oystermen to state-owned oyster properties that
experts say will some day pay a net income of ten per cent. on
over one hundred million of dollars; and this, too, in the face
of the fact that these properties have been so depleted by these
same oystermen that they do not now pay the oystermen more
than ten per cent. on twenty million of dollars.

20. The last edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica states
that not over seven per cent. of all European oysters are gath-
ered from natural oyster bars.

21. Nature only provided Connecticut with one thirty-sey-
enth of the area of natural oyster bars she gave to Maryland,
and yet in 1908 through cultivation of her oyster resources, the
value of the oysters sold by Connecticut was fourteen per cent.
greater than the value of oysters sold the same year by
Maryland.

22. A report of the U. S. Census Bureau states that in 1908
the leased areas of Virginia contributed fifty-seven per cent. of
the value of all her oysters.

23. Oystermen of other states have managed their oyster
resources so as to mmerease the total production of the United
States by about ten million of bushels during the last twenty-
five years while Maryland’s oystermen during the same period
have so managed their oyster resources as to decrease the pro-
duction of oysters in Maryland by the same fen million of
bushels of oysters; and the question is, who lost and who
gained the money paid for those ten million bushels ?

24. In the small State of Rhode Island, the net oyster rev-
enue received from 19,000 acres of leased bottoms formerly
barren of oysters is over one hundred thousand dollars each
year.

40

25. Kellogg says in his book on Shell Fish Industries :
“Our attention is often called in a deprecating manner to the
enthusiastic admiration of many Americans for big things
possessed by their country.” ‘But possibly it will do no
harm to make the statement for the benefit of such enthusias-
tic Americans, that nowhere do oysters grow so rapidly,
nowhere are they so abundant, nowhere may they be so easily
cultivated, and nowhere is the oyster area of such vast extent
as on our shores.” ‘In truth, here is very much the largest
thing of its kind in the world.”

26. Kellogg says in his book on Shell Fish Industries :
“Of late years it has everywhere become the habit to refer to
the upper Chesapeake as the dead goose that laid golden eggs.
When modern oyster laws are being demanded in other states,
Maryland is exhibited as the horrible example of faulty legis-
lation on the oyster industry.”

‘©An American from any other part of the country knows
without being told that such a state of affairs is probably to be
explained by what is the fact in this case—that the Maryland
oyster is deeply involved in politics.”

27. In Maryland the State and Federal governments com-
bined have made over one hundred and eighty thousand sound-
ings and chain readings covering a distance of over three thou-
sand miles ; have examined the oysters on the bottom at eleven
thousand oyster investigation stations ; and have permanently
secured the location of this information by establishing eleven
hundred triangulation landmarks on shore marked by monnu-
ments weighing a total of two hundred thousand pounds; all
for the purpose of determining and defining for all time the
boundaries of the more than two hundred thousand acres of
natural oyster bars reserved for the sole use of oystermen by
the terms of the Haman Oyster Culture Law.

41

28. During the fifteen years of 1873 to 1888 nature gave the
oystermen of Maryland an average of twelve million bushels of
oysters for each of these fifteen years, and yet in the face of
this fifteen years’ demonstration of the capacity of the waters of
Maryland to produce oysters, nature only gave the oystermen of
Maryland some three and a-half million of bushels of oysters
in the season of 1910-11.

29. The United States Census Bureau states that “the value
of the oyster products of Maryland decreased twenty-three per
cent. during the eleven years from 1897 to 1905, which con.
trasts sharply with an increase of forty-seven per cent. in the
aggregate value of all other fishery products in that State dur-
ing the same period.”

30. The State of Maryland now expends thousands of dol-
lars each year to keep oyster dredgers from robbing the oyster
tongers, and to keep both the tongers and dredgers from rob-
bing themselves by taking half-grown oysters.

ol. If any one oyster planter in Maryland should lease the
maximum of five hundred acres permitted by the Haman Oys-
ter Culture Law as amended by the Campbell-Price Bill, and if
this five hundred acres was made to produce the average amount
of oysters taken from a similar area of Maryland’s natural oyster
bars, this oyster planter would only increase the output of
oysters in Maryland by one four-hundredth part.

Or stating it more broadly and accurately this oyster planter
under the conditions described would only increase the total
output of oysters in the United States by one part in four
thousand.

This indicates very clearly that neither a monopoly or a glut
in oysters is likely to result from oyster planting under the
rigid restrictions provided by the Haman Law as it is pro-
posed to amend it by the Campbell-Price Bill.

42

32. Section 110 of the amended Haman Oyster Culture Law
says: ‘No assignment or transfer of any interest acquired by
this Act shall be valid for any purpose if made to a non-resi-
dent of this State.”

33. Section 110 of the amended Haman Oyster Culture Law
says: ‘If any assignment of any interest created by this Act
is attempted to be made to any corporation or joint stock com-
pany, all the interest of the grantor or assignor shall revert to
the State as if no lease had ever been made.”

34. Section 110 of the amended Haman Oyster Culture Law
says: “If any assignment of any interest created by this Act
is attempted to be made to any person in such a way that the
assignee shall become the holder of more than thirty acres, one
hundred acres, or flve hundred acres as the case may be,
according to the location of the land leased under this Act,
all interest of the grantor or assignor, in case of such assign-
ment, shali revert to the State as if no lease had been made.”

35. In Maryland it is said that if oyster culture is not a
theory that it will cause an over production of oysters which
will reduce their price, and that it is not more oysters that are
needed in Maryland but higher prices ; yet it is estimated that
in the season of 1910-11, Maryland only supplied one-tenth of
all the oysters produced in the United States, and it is known
that Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and
Delaware haye through oyster culture methods increased both
the quantity and price of their oysters ; while on the other
hand during the same period Maryland has greatly decreased
both the quantity and the price of her oysters.

36. The real answers to the statement that “au increase in
the production of oysters in Maryland will mean a loss to the
oyster industries of the State by reason of low prices due to a
‘glut’ of oysters,” are as follows :

43

Ist. Oyster culture is the only method by which a periodical
“ olut’’ of oysters can be prevented. This fact is borne out
by the history of oyster culture in all real oyster culture states.
On reflection the reasons for this truth are many. One of them
is the fact that the storage of marketable oysters on private
oyster plantations is automatically increased through self-inter-
est of the oyster planters when the prices of oysters are low,
and likewise for similar reasons the quantity of marketable
oysters on private oyster beds is decreased when the prices are
high, thus maintaining a steady supply and the best market
prices such as are paid for oysters in Connecticut, Rhode
Island, New York, New Jersey and Delaware.

2nd. Another reason is that the demand for oyster and other
fish foods of all sorts is inereasing throughout the world by
reason of growth of population and better facilities of travs-
portation while the production of oysters in Marylind is
decreasing ; and incidentaily in this connection it should be
noted that other oyster culture states, unlike Maryland, believe
that they can make more money by supplying this demand
than they can by raising prices through restricting the produc-
tion.

drd. In fact, when it is remembered that Maryland only pro-
duces one-tenth of all the oysters of the United States, which
oysters are of even less relative value, any attempt cf Maryland
to inerease prices through monopoly of oysters is not only a
hopeless undertaking but is also a policy that means an annual
net loss to the industries of Maryland of one to three millions
dollars each year.

37. It is stated that 500 acres of bottoms in the exposed
open waters of Chesapeake Bay is too great for any one man to
lease for purposes of oyster culture because it would mean a
monopoly. Yet it is a fact that if one firm in Maryland should

44

happen to own only one per cent. of all the dredging boats of Mary-
land that this one firm would receive an amount of oysters from
the free public natural oyster bars of Maryland equivalent to
the production of 500 to 1,000 acres of these natural oyster
bars.

No one who is familiar with the existing conditions dominat-
ing the oyster controversy in Maryland can doubt, that if one
firm does not now own or control five to ten per cent. of the
dredging boats of Maryland, that such a firm is likely to
become a reality in the near future, and it ought to be known >
that such ownership or control of ten per cent. of the dredge
boats of Maryland would mean that these owners would
receive a quantity of oysters from the free public natural
oyster bars of Maryland equivalent to the average production
of 5,000 to 10,000 acres of natural oyster bars of a far better
character than can be leased by an oyster planter.

However, even the control of the product of 10,000 acres of
natural oyster bars would not constitute a dredging monopoly,
because this would only mean that this assumed firm of oyster
packers or dredgers owning the assumed dredging boats con-
trolled something Jess than one-twenty-fifth of the production
of oysters in Maryland, and that would mean in the final
analysis that this one firm would only control one two hun-
dred and fiftieth part of the total oyster production of the
United States.

If the preceding statement of what may happen in Maryland
under existing conditions of the oyster industry of that State,
is contrasted with the fact that no oyster planter in Maryland
is permitted by the Campbell-Price Bill to lease an area which
will produce more than one four-thousandth part of the pro-
duction of oysters in the United States, it becomes evident that
there need be no fear of an oyster planter monopolist who is
confined to 500 acres of barren bottom, which he must coyer
with shells, must plant with seed oysters, must cultivate, must
protect against thieves, and for which he must pay the State
an annual rent of $500.

45

38. The history of the rise and fall of the production of
oysters in Maryland is most instructive in showing the hope-
lessness of expecting that unaided nature will again restore
Maryland to its rank as the greatest oyster state of the
country.

Commencing with 1850, we find the quantity of oysters pro-
~ duced in that year was about 1,000,000 bushels ; twenty years
later in 1870 it was 10,000,000 bushels ; in another five years
in 1875 it reached 14,000,000 bushels; and in the year 1885
its marvelous growth attained its highest point of 15,000,000
bushels.

From 1885 to 1888, the production of oysters in Maryland
declined to 10,000,000 bushels, the last date marking the end
of a fifteen year period in which the natural oyster bars
yielded to the oystermen of Maryland an average of 12,000,000
bushels a year. In 1897 the quantity of oysters produced by
Maryland was something less than 6,000,000 bushels, and in
1910-11 it is conservatively estimated that the natural oyster
bars of Maryland only yielded 4,000,000 bushels.

Accepting the figures as stated, the decline of Maryland's
oyster industries since 1885 is represented at this date by a
loss of 10,000,000 bushels of oysters each year.

The statistics from which the preceding facts were obtained
are the best that are available and there is no more reason to
suppose that the actual decline in the production of oysters in
Maryland was less than has been stated than there is reason to
assume that it was greater. But nevertheless, assuming that the
figures of 15,000,000 in 1885 were too great by twenty-five per
cent., and we still have nearly 12,000,000 bushels which is the
same as the average given for the fifteen consecutive years of
1873 to 1888. And also assuming that the figure for 1910-11
is twenty-five per cent. in error, but in the opposite direction,

46

which is giving the ‘‘doubter” twenty-five per cent. leeway in
his favor at both ends of the argument, and we still have only
5,000,000 bushels for the quantity of oysters now produced in
Maryland.

These figures and facts speak for themselves, and it is only
saying what is obvious, when we state that the 215,852 acres
of natural oyster bars of Maryland should be looked after, not
only in some manner different from that which has been
applied in recent years but that also they should be restored to.
their former productivity of 12,000,000 bushels a year which
we know they can and will yield under practical laws of conser-
vation and restoration such as is provided by the ‘ Price

Oyster Plan.”

39. The Maryland Oyster Survey has cost the State and
Federal governments combined more than two hundred thou-
sand dollars.

This survey is now completed and the expenses of the work
will have entirely ceased by June 30th of this year.

From now on the cost of the administration of the Maryland
Shell Fish Commission should not exceed $7,000 a year, an
amount that will undoubtedly be more than coyered the first
year by revenue received from the leasing of oyster plantations.

The second year the reveuue should be doubled, and within
ten years there is no reason to suppose that it will be less than
$100,000 annually and constantly growing larger. Provided
that the amendments to the Haman Oyster Qulture Law of 1906
contained in the Campbell-Price Bill are enacted by the General
Assembly of Maryland.

47

EXTRACTS FROM PRINTED INTERVIEWS OR PUBLIC
ADDRESSES OF GOVERNOR GOLDSBOROUGH,
SENATOR PRICE, SENATOR CAMPBELL,
SENATOR GOSLIN, SENATOR MIL-
BOURNE, AND A REPRINT OF A
CLIPPING FROM THE EASTON
STAR-DEMOCRAT.

Extract From ADDRESS OF GOVERNOR GOLDSBOROUGH BEFORE
A CONEERENCE OF THOSE INTERESTED IN THE OysTER I[nDUs-

TRY CALLED BY Him to Meer ar ANNAPOLIS ON FEBRUARY

2, 1912.

(From the Baltimore NEWS of Feb. 2, 1912).

Governor Goldsborough opened the meeting with a short
address, in which he said that the oyster industry in Maryland
wis languishing and that something should be done to improve
conditions. As he came from an oyster-producing county,
whatever measure of success he had met with was due to the
oystermen, and therefore their welfare was dear to his heart.

Favors OYSTER CULTURE.

He said the needs of the tongers and the dredgers were the
greatest and should be looked after by the State. He declared
that he thought oyster culture desirable, but that it should not
be accomplished at the expense of the men who for genera-
tions haye earned their livelihood on the water.

He thought that the interests of those engaged in the various
branches of the industry ought not to clash.

The Governor expressed the view that if any revenue is
derived from the leasing of the barren bottoms not more than
half should go to the roads, as is now provided, but that
half should be devoted to a system of replenishing the natural
beds and bars. He thought it wise to put the shells on the bars
to improve the quality and the quantity of the product. He
declared the oyster question the greatest problem now before
the people of the State.

48

THe “Prick Oyster PiLan’’ as DEVELOPED BY AN INTER-

VIEW WITH SENATOR PRICE.
(From the Baltimore SUN of Jan. 31, 1912.)

Senator Price, of Wicomico. the President of the Senate, is
always interested in oyster legislation, representing as he does
a large number of people engaged in taking and dealing in
oysters. Besides this he is a Marylander and an actiye and
successful business man, and is anxious to aid in any legisla-
tion which will upbuild the State, add to its wealth and give
profitable employment to the people. Discussing the Campbell
Oyster Planting Bill today, Senator Price said:

“The decreasing productiveness of the oyster bars of the
Chesapeake and the increasing difficulty that the oystermen
have in making a living warns the Legislature that something
must be done to revise the great oyster industry of the State.
I am advised that the annual catch of oysters has declined from
something like 15,000,000 bushels a year down to 38,500,000.
That means that a great number of people who formerly made
their living by tonging. dredging and in the packing houses
have been forced out of the business and have had to seek other
employment, and that those who are still engaged in taking
oysters do not make as good a living as they formerly did.

How Benerirs May Bre Siarep.

“Still a large number of our people remain in the business
of taking oysters, and I think that the mistake that has been
made in the bills for oyster planting that have come before the
Tegislature is that the tongers and dredgers haye not been
sufficiently considered. They have felt that their rights were
ruthlessly invaded. Perhaps they were mistaken, but that is
the way they have felt, and I, for one, cannot blame them. In
my judgment it is absolutely essential to the complete success
of the planting industry to have the assent and good will of
the oystering people. Tow can this be attained?

‘By making them share in the benefits of the planting law.
This can be done in two. ways:

“First, by applying at least balf of the revenues from the
leased bottoms to shelling the natural beds for the benefit of
tongmen and dredgers.

“Second. by offering every inducement to the oystermen to
engage in planting, This latter I understand is contemplated
in the Campbell bill. This bill reduces the rentals for a number
of years to $1 an acre per annum and gives oystermen prefer-
ence over others in leasing grounds.

49

Woutp Make Bars PRODUCTIVE.

“It is pretty certain that, if oyster shells were liberally scat-
tered on the natural bars as clutch, those bars would soon
become as productive as ever. Many of the bars have been
scraped so clean that there is nothing for the spat to catch to,
and the result is that most of them are greatly depleted, and
some of them are now regarded as barren bottoms. It has
long been the desire of the oyster people to restore these bars
- to their former productiveness, but they have never been able
to accomplish it. In 1910 a law was enacted providing for
reshelling the natural beds, and a tax was levied upon oysters
to provide funds. That tax was declared invalid by the courts
and nothing could be done.

Inpustry Musr Be Rescurp,

“Tam advised that the members of the Shellfish Commission
have said that they had information that from 20,000 to 40,000
acres of barren bottoms would be leased within 18 months
after the Campbell bill passes. This would give at the proposed
rental of $1 an acre a revenue of from $20,000 to $40,000 a
year. I believe that, if the Campbell bill were amended so as
to give half this revenue to reshelling the natural beds, it would
reconcile the oystering people to the bill by showing that their
rights and interests are being fairly considered. As for me,
I could not bring myself to vote for any oyster measure which
I did not consider beneficial and fair to the oystering people.
If the Campbell bill can be so amended as to take care of the
natural bars. I could fairly and freely support it. The time
has come when the oyster industry must be rescued from
destruction, and some one must take the bull by the horns
and do something.”

Discussing the terms of the Campbell bill, Senator Price said
he thought that, while the penalties put upon planters who
would invade natural beds with their dredges are severe,
they wight be properly made more so by making the forfeit-
ure of the oysters a part of the penalty. The sentiment in the
oystering counties, he said, is such that there would be sure
and swift punishment for such piracy, and if the dredging
privilege is allowed the natural beds would be safe.

50

Extract From sn INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR CAMPBELL EXPLAIN-
ING THE MAIN Features OF THE CAMPBELL OYSTER
CuLturE Bri Brerore 1r was AMENDED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRICE
OysTER PLAN.
(From the Baltimore SUN of Jan. 17, 1912).

Senator Campbell will tomorrow or some day soon introduce
a carefully prepared bill amending the Haman Oyster Law.
This bill is designed to give effect to the recommendations
of the Shellfish Commission. ‘The bill fixes rentals for leased
bottoms at $1 per acre until April 1, 1918. After that the rent-
als are to be $1 per acre for the first two years, and then
increasing $1 a year annually up to $5. The bill permits
oysters for seed to be taken during September in the Potomac,
above Cedar Point wharf, and in Broad Creek and Harris
Creek. Lots may be leased as Jarge as 30 acres in waters
within the bounds of a county and 500 acres in the open bay,
and an individual may lease as much as 100 acres in Tangier
Sound. The leasing of ground is restricted to residents of
Maryland. Certain preferences are granted to riparian owners
and oystermen,

Reasons For Tur Birr.

For years Senator Campbell has been interested in the
oyster question, and in 1896 he took an active part in the
passage of the Oyster Culture Law.

“Tt is my desire before I leave political life,’ he said yester-
day, “to assist in putting oyster culture on a firm basis in
Maryland. ‘To this end I have prepared a bill which is gen-
erally along the lines proposed by the Shellfish Commission
in its last report. It deviates, however, in a few particulars
from these recommendations.

“T think non-residents ought not to be allowed to become
lessees, and I have left this feature out of the bill. There
is no doubt, however, that oyster farmers should have larger
areas than they now have. and I have inserted 30 acres for
county waters—except in Tangier Sound, where an individual
may lease 100 acres—and in the open waters of the bay the
amount which may be leased has been put at 500 acres.

Extenps TimME Or $1 Renvats.

“T have also extended the time for the payment of $1 per
acre rentals to 1918, and after that the rentals will gradually
rise until the highest rental of $5 per acre is reached. The
bill provides that planters may dredge up the oysters from the
beds, no matter where the beds are situated. My bill also pro-

51

vides the penalty of a Tlouse of Correction term and the for-
feiture of the vessel for depredations on the natural beds.
With such a provision, and with the existing sentiment all
through the tidewater counties, which, very properly, would be
bitter against any person raiding the natural beds, I consider
the oystermen would be safe.

“Indeed, I regard the law as it now is as a kind of Magna
Charta for the oystermen, establishing all their ancient privi-
leges, but in its preseut shape it is of no use practically to the
planters. Maryland cannot be forever behind other States in
this matter of oyster culture. We have natural resources in
this particular which no other State possesses, and we must
now begin to develop them,

INCREASING SENTIMENT For PLANTING.

“T understand from the tidewater counties that since the
survey was made and the oystermen now know there is no
scheme on hand to deprive them of the natural beds there is
increasing sentiment in favor of planting, I have hedged the
bill around so that there can be no monopoly, and that only
individuals of moderate means will care to go into the busi-
ness, but I trust so many of them will begin business as to
make a magnificent object lesson.

“Tt has been my purpose to assist the oystermen themselves.
Such laws in other States have benefited the oystermen greatly,
and my public ambition will be satisfied if, at the end of my
term of office, I have been the means of introducing a just
system of oyster culture under which the oystermen themselves
can prosper.

“T have had the aid of the views of the tidewater people
of all classes. and I am satisfied that this bill will meet the
views of any reasonable man who wants oyster culture in any
form.”

An Extract From an Interview Wir Senator Gostin STATING
His Posrrion IN REFERENCE TO THE CAMPBELL-PRrIcE BILt.

(From the Baltimore SUN of Feb. 1, 1912).

Discussing the oyster question generally this morning, Sen-
ator Goslin, of Caroline county, said:

“Some years ago the Legislature of Maryland passed a reso-
lution requesting the co-operation of the United States Goy-
ernment in making a survey of the Chesapeake Bay bottoms.
setting apart and defining the natural beds. The stated object
of this survey was to promote the planting industry in Mary-
land. The United States Government responded generously to
this appeal, assigned competent and highly skilled officials to

52

the work and in good faith spent, I am told, more than $100,000
in complying with the request of the State. I am informed that
the survey which has just been made by the State and Federal
officials is one of the best ever made, and is valuable especially
to the oystering people in definitely marking the boundaries of
the natural beds. I thing that good faith requires us to utilize
the survey which the United States at our request helped to
make. I voted for the bill at the last session presented by the
Maryland Shellfish Commission because I was assured that it
was necessary to making oyster planting a success, and I
thought we ought for the reasons I have said to do all we
could to promote the oyster-planting industry.”

An Extract From an Interview Wire Senator MILBourne
CoMMENTING ON THE Prick OysrerR PLAN.

(From the Baltimore SUN of Feb. 1, 1912).

Senator Milbourne represents one of the largest oystering
counties in the State. Perhaps Somerset contains more men
engaged in the oystering industries than any other. He is,
therefore, deeply interested in the oyster question and keenly
solicitous for the interests of his oystering people. Discussing
the subject today Senator Milbourne said:

“T have read Senator Price’s plan for shelling the natural
bars with money coming from the rentals paid by the planters
for leased bottoms. I think that plan is fair and will go far
toward reconciling the oystering people to the planting system.
Every citizen is interested in building up the wealth of the
State; every Eastern Shoreman wants to see the oyster indus-
try promoted. It seems to me that the bay and the rivers
are big enough to provide places for planting without encroach-
ing on the natural beds. The natural beds provide a living for
a great multitude of people and they must be protected. Many
of the beds have become depleted. They have been dredged
elean and the clutch is all gone. More clutch should be provided
and Senator Price’s plan for spreading shells upon them seems
to me to be a good one and if the tongmen and dredgers can be
persuaded that their rights will be secure it will go far toward
reconciling them to the Campbell bill.

“The question of rentals seems to need some adjustment. A
flat rate does not seem to me to be equitable. I know barren
bottoms which are well worth $10 per annum per acre and
other bottoms that are not worth oyer 25 cents. A flat rate
does not seem to be right.

“The fact that years ago the natural beds produced 12,000,000
bushels of oysters,” the Senator continued, “and now produce

53

only 4,000,000 tells the story. We have the same bottoms now
that we had then and the same food to nourish the oysters.
Something is therefore wanting and it should be supplied. The
Legislature should apply the remedy. I believe that shelling
the beds is the right remedy.”

(Reprint from an article from the Haston STAR-DEMOCRAT
of February 10, 1912).

COMPLIED WITH TALBOT VIEWS.

The Campbell Oyster Bill Was Reintroduced Because of Pro-
tests From This County.

The oyster bill introduced by Senator Campbell last week has
been withdrawn and a new bill presented, owing to the vigorous
protests made by Senator Dodson for the oyster interests of
the county.

This new bill embodies the plan to devote one-half the rentals
of the oyster bottoms to shelling the natural oyster beds and
save them from depletion. It omits the section of the Camp-
bell bill setting aside certain areas from which seed oysters
might be taken, because of the objection to that provision by
the oystering people of Talbot county.

The provisions giving planters the right to take oysters from
their planted beds with dredges has been greatly modified
so as to protect absolutely under heavy penalties the natural
bars from depredation by the planters. Added to the penalty
of imprisonment in the House of Correction, contained in the
former bill, the new bill provides for imprisonment and for-
feiture of the dredge boat used,

The Senators from the oyster counties will welcome an oyster
bill that will be acceptable to their constituents and which will
end the long contention in the Legislature over planting laws.

Senators Dodson, Milbourne, Beck, Bosley and Harper are
the ones chiefly concerned. They will give the new oyster bill
careful scrutiny before deciding what to do about it. All of
them appreciate the efforts that haye been made to meet their
views and to satisfy the demands of their constituents. Per-
sons familiar with the subject anticipate a bad session for
the oystermen next year, because of the heavy ice on the flats
during extremely low tides, when many bars are exposed.

Oyster county people are much concerned about the low price
for oysters received by tongers and dredgers. They declare
that at the extravagant prices the consumers in Baltimore
and elsewhere haye to pay the oystermen they ought to get
more than they do. The Senators are talking about some plan
for better marketing.

iat ore,

; Th el ol ie cmt : dabble ‘mw thi,
a BN OM aia yn nae ane Oley
- me a ; ; ‘ n all La eu ee

a

rs , - / ys
¥ i t 1 , ay
1 yt h
i he
4 : 0 iy rs ' “9 F
in by
SQ t ’
i hae i
ae j
:
Bie }
be
: ¥
.
¥
si
aU
Tee

LbJe 12 | ;

Wie ;
Ms ee
Si

Th
an
i

; i
A hy iy
¥ ite
pie Sik " mY
oy ;
faa
M
=a)
; ;
. ’
;
:
1
, ~

ee

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

]

0 002 896 791

Leer ee
ae