\ A
N
18:
mee Ui
Q ;
I )
he

anda: |
2 a
RID I) 2
$

J

State of Connecticut
PUBLIC DOCUMENT—SPECIAL

heb ON |

OF THE

INVESTIGATION

mPeOYSTER PROPERTIES

OF THE STATE.

BY THE

iow eo+. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION »

AS A

Special Commission appointed by the General Assembly of 1909,
Special Law 486.

REPORT PRESENTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1901,

_. HARTFORD
PUBLISHED BY THE STATE

TgIo

PUBLICATION

APPROVED BY

THE BOARD OF CONTROL.

THE TUTTLE, MOREHOUSE & TAYLOR COMPANY

+

oO A oa A AT igh! GP Gras

| “Tugrreanvon’ _ TAT

ae of selene lle SA -
YY ABM aecA “SJARAAZO IAT
Eis h et

MOITAS| jaueg 36 0AR408 arf
; REXAEOT wich date hte

yy
a
))
x
Ss
\
= .

State of Cannerticut.

viccmn wen BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND OYSTER

Treasurer.

Thomas D. Bradstreet, INVESTIGATION COMMISSION,

Comptroller.

William H. Corbin,
Tax Commissioner.

HartrorpD, December 28, 1910.

To the Members of the General Assembly:

The State Board of Equalization, which was appointed by the
General Assembly of 1909 under Special Law No. 486 as a com-
mission to investigate the oyster properties of the State, submits
the following report:

Before giving in detail an outline of the methods of its inves-
tigation, it seems desirable *to present a brief history of the
development of the oyster industry in Connectictit so that the
members of the General Assembly who are not familiar with
the subject may be sufficiently informed before considering the
detailed statément of the Board, and its recommendations for
definite changes in the existing statutes.

HISTORY OF THE OYSTER INDUSTRY IN
CONNECTICUT.

The historical sketch given herewith is practically that which
was prepared by Mr. James P. Bogart, formerly engineer of the
Connecticut Shell-Fish Commission, and published in the fifth
annual report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the year

1889.

“The rivers of Connecticut have been productive of natural
growth oysters from time immemorial. Cultivation of oysters in
the harbors began about 1845, and deep water planting in the
Sound about 1870. To-day nearly all the legally available ground
for oyster planting in the rivers, harbors, and bays has been desig-
nated, or deeded to private ownership, and in addition we have
a great system of more or less productive deep water oyster
farms stretching for miles from the shores and extending in an
almost unbroken line from Greenwich to Branford, an air-line

Hard Ground . . - Pes
LONG ISLAND SOUND
OYSTER GROUNDS sok Ground. .. .
STATE OFCONNECTICUT
1910

Accompanying the report to
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

OF THE BoArp of EQUALIZATION
AS A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE
Tue OYSTER PROPERTIES OF THE STATE

Pe al

|
|
|
|
|

ie a Rome

ay, ies ity
et ps ®
ri Uy : ; iy “
Tn Oe ae typ iait hin, a
Ay .
*
‘ 7
i
~ -
;
Al
t
1
4s
4
oi 7
: .
.
t ‘ ; ’ .
z ‘

HISTORY OF OYSTER INDUSTRY.

distance of forty-five miles, and again off Guilford and Madison,
a distance of seven miles. These submerged farms are covered
by thirty to seventy feet of water.

THE FIRST VESTED RIGHTS.

“Connecticut was the first State to grant vested rights in
oyster ground and the unrestricted enjoyment thereof. The
growth of her industry justifies the policy pursued. Legislation
which assured this policy was slow and not always attended with
good feeling. In 1842 it became lawful thereafter for the owner
or owners of any land in this State, wherein there may be salt
water, creeks, or inlets, to dam, gate, or lock the said creek or
inlet, for his or their use, for an oyster pond for the growing of
oysters therein. But this privilege might only be obtained under
conditions which rendered it almost certain to prevent any person
from enjoying a benefit from the provisions of the law.

THE PRIVILEGE OF TRANSPLANTING.

“Tn 1845 it was made lawful for any inhabitant of this State,
under certain limitations and restrictions, to lay down or plant in
any of its navigable waters, any oysters brought from any place
beyond the limits of the State. In 1846 the provisions of the act
relative to the laying down of oysters were extended so as to cover
any oysters brought from any place within the limits of the State.

A STATE RESIDENCE REQUIRED.

“In 1848 it was made unlawiul for any person who is not
at the time an actual inhabitant or resident of this State, and
who has not been for six months next preceding an actual
inhabitant or resident as aforesaid, to take, rake, or gather any
oysters, either on his own account or benefit, or on account or
benefit of any employer, in any of the rivers, bays, or waters
of this State on board of any canoe, flat, scow, skiff, boat, or
vessel.

THE TWO-ACRE LAW.

“Tn 1855 the law known as the two-acre law was passed. It
provided that towns might appoint a committee not exceeding
five in number, who may, if the public interest requires, designate
to any person desiring to plant oysters an area not exceeding two
acres in extent. The law provided that if any man got more than
two acres for speculation or by assigning his rights for profit he
should forfeit and pay for each offense the sum of fifty dollars.
Limited areas of ground had been in use for some years prior
to 1855, and the law provided that occupants should be allowed
to retain these grounds on their compliance with the law within
a fixed time.

HISTORY OF OYSTER INDUSTRY.

“At the time of the passage of the two-acre law the present
ideas as to extensive cultivation did not prevail. Indeed, it was
thought that two acres was all that one man could attend to.
For ten years after the passage of the law the cultivation of oyster
ground was confined to the rivers and harbors of the State, and
areas inside of the Norwalk Islands. In 1865 offshore planting
in twenty to twenty-five feet of water, at low water, began between
Fish Island and Norwalk Islands. In 1870 planting offshore in
thirty feet and over began outside of the Norwalk Islands, and
was followed a few years later by deep water planting outside of
New Haven Harbor.

“Tn 1864 the property in the claims set out in accordance with
the provisions of the acts of 1855 and 1864, was made liable to
assessment and taxation in the towns where such claims were
situated, in the same manner as other property.

ESTABLISHING A STATE COMMISSION.

“The influx of capital into the industry and the demand for
greater security of tenure led in 1881 to the passage of an act
establishing a State Commission for the designation of oyster
grounds. The execution of the provisions of the act was
entrusted to a board of commissioners of shell-fisheries. In 1889
radical changes were made in the law regulating the offshore
fisheries.

CONTESTS AT THE CAPITOL.

“No mention has been made of the contests waged at the
Capitol relative to the use of steam, and the final adoption of
laws which make it lawful for a man to dredge with steam on his
private property, between the hours of sunrise and sunset, but
make it unlawful to dredge with steam on the natural beds. All
legislation affecting oyster interests has been vigorously con-
tested. Many laws were enacted to meet individual necessities.
Some of these would have been admirable if the designation of
oyster grounds from the outset had been regulated by methods
which would have insured to the owners accurate town records
respecting the location of their grounds.

STATE MAP WORK.

“For preliminary map work, the State has used three methods
of procedure in dealing with the offshore town designations of
oyster grounds. 1. Grounds that had not been occupied, but hav-
ing records that were capable of being construed, were placed on
the state maps in accordance with the construction that best
satisfied the general intent. 2. Grounds that were occupied, and
the positions of which were indeterminate by record, or capable

HISTORY OF OYSTER INDUSTRY.

of holding many positions by record, were mapped in accordance
with the understandings of the claimants, thus keeping the
claimants apart till legal adjustments of their rights could be
effected. 3. Grounds occupied or unoccupied, having records free
from inherent discord, were mapped in strict conformity with said
records. Prior to 1881, planters would oftentimes, with the con-
sent of the town oyster ground committee, experiment on ground
for several years before taking out designation papers.

“The maps and records made by the State Shell-Fish Com-.

mission are calculated to stand the tests that they are liable to
be subjected to. At the outset, the cooperation of the United
States Coast and Geodetic Survey was secured. An outfit of
instruments and tools adequate for the work was bought. Proper
signal stations were built on the hills and along the coast, as far
east as the Connecticut River, and these, together with the light-
houses, church spires, and numerous other suitable objects, were
accurately located by a bold system of triangulation work, thus
securing the truth as a base from which to start the map work.
The corners of offshore lots were marked by buoys of cedar spars
or scantling, say thirt y feet in length, anchored by stones weighing
one to two, pounds.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE OYSTER.

“Oysters are male and female at spawning time, but at no
other time; the male appears at the proper season in numbers
equal to the female, whose possible eggs are estimated at sixty
millions. But the waste is very great. Unless fertilization is
immediate, the sea water destroys the eggs and the compar-
atively few that reach embryonic stage and swim about at the
surface of the water for a day or two, are decimated by fish, per-
haps by the jelly-like young of the star, while cold rains and
winds are equally destructive. The surviving embryo descends
and fastens itself to any smooth clean surface by exuding a
cement, and is then called ‘spat. But its danger, though much
reduced, is still great; crabs, carnivorous gasteropods, and various
fish eat it, and such a multitude settle in the same vicinity, that
when they grow they crowd each other to death. Few survive
to feed on alge and to make their shells of the carbonate of lime.
If they have adhered to a soft bottom they grow fast but long
and thin, ‘shanghais’ they are called, and are, as soon as cir-
cumstances permit, transplanted; if they settle upon hard and
gravelly bed they enlarge more slowly, but in a round and hand-
some way. After two years they are knocked apart and trans-
planted. Another year brings them to the ‘culls’ stage, or they
are sold as seed; the fourth finds them, in the language of the
market, ‘boxes’ and the fifth ‘extras.’ All this while they have
been suffering from star-fish, the drills, the winkles, storms,

HISTORY OF OYSTER INDUSTRY. 7

and mud. Ina short time a whole colony will be wiped out by the
insidious ‘five fingers’ in his insatiable search for food.

CULTIVATION.

“The system of Sound planting, or more properly deep water
oyster farming, is quite complicated. It began in 1865 in water
twenty to twenty-five feet in depth, between Fish Island and
Norwalk Islands. In 1870 the planting began outside of the
Norwalk Islands and a few years later off New Haven Harbor.
The planting consists in the strewing of three or four hundred
bushels of oyster shells, and thirty to forty bushels of mature
oysters to the acre, in order that they may settle on suitable
bottom. This is done in the months of July and August. The
planting of the old oysters is often omitted when adjoining beds
are likely to furnish spat for the new bed or in the case of
renewal of an old bed. Experiments have been made with crushed
blue stone. Gravel has also been sown. The spat will adhere
to anything that is clean; even old rubber boots have been dredged
up with a thriving colony attached. If there is no spat, the
shells or other material must be dredged up to be dried on the
docks for use the following season. If permitted to remain under
water they become slimy and therefore useless. After the beds
are prepared the planter is kept busy watching for the star-fish
and dredging for them; he is also stirring up his beds at the
proper times. Then comes the dredging and the sale of seed
oysters, the sales for market and for export with the attendant
opening, if the planter indulges in the shucking trade. The~
successful planters are at work the year round, for it is in this as
in other occupations—to well-directed industry nothing is denied.

“Cultivation has been extended to bottoms which have been
thought unfit owing to softness or other causes. This has neces-
sitated the devising of dredges of peculiar construction to meet
special cases, and the acquirement of great skill in their use. If
such were not the case, many crops would not be gathered. Sev-
eral kinds of dredges have been patented which are expressly
designed to catch star-fish. Some of these catch only star-fish and
other light animals, and do not disturb the oysters.”

An oyster grower, who has been in the oyster business more
than forty years and his father before him, has given the fol-
lowing statement of the methods and conditions based on his
recollection and experience:

EARLY METHODS.

“The oyster cultivation previous to 1870 was almost entirely
inside of what is now the line between town and State. There
were some grounds in what are now state waters, of New Haven,

EARLY METHODS AND EXPERIMENTS.

south of the Old Lighthouse, and some off Greenwich. The
principal places in Connecticut up to that time, where oysters
were planted, were New Haven, Bridgeport, Norwalk, Darien,
Stamford, and Greenwich. Large quantities of southern oysters
were brought in schooners and planted at New Haven each spring
to be used through the summer and early fall. The oysters were
taken up in small boats with oyster tongs, or oyster rakes, and
by hand dredges. They were towed by sailboats to Fair Haven,
where they were opened and shipped in small kegs all over the
country. South Norwalk shipped mostly to New York in barrels
the oysters that were raised near Greenwich, Stamford, Darien,
and the Norwalk Islands. In the seventies a trade started up
in England for the American oyster. There was a small demand
at first, but it gradually increased until as high as 160,000 barrels
were shipped in a season. The oysters were sent there in the
spring and laid down on beds to be used through the summer
months when their native oysters were not allowed to be sold.
But as the American oysters were laid down in shallow water near
some of the large cities where they would be exposed at low tide,
the Board of Health finally prohibited the use of these beds, as
being dangerous to health, thus cutting down the importing of
the American oysters from 160,000 barrels to about 20,000 barrels.
‘As but few beds could be found where oysters were not exposed
to the danger of losing them by storms, a large opening for
Connecticut oysters was cut ofi.

EXPERIMENTS.

“The first steamer built for the oyster trade was in 1877
at South Norwalk, and in a few years there was quite a number
which made it possible to cultivate oysters in the deep waters
of Long Island Sound. When the first grounds were taken up
in the Sound under the state law which we have now, the oyster-
men were allowed five years to give the ground a trial, and if
found to be unfit for oyster cultivation, they could deed back to
the State at any time inside of the five years such grounds. The
State would then refund the meney less ten cents per acre, which
went for cost of surveying the grounds in the first place. That
was, as may be seen, in the nature of an experiment, as thou-
sands of acres were found unfit for oyster cultivation, and the
oystermen were out thousands of dollars by the experiment.

“As it takes from four to five years to mature oysters, the
dangers from storms which bury them so that they are smothered
in the sand or mud as the case may be, from star-fish and
drills which destroy millions of young oysters every season, are
much greater than to the farmer’s crop, which matures
every year. The farmer has the advantage of being able to walk
over his land every day, whereas the oysterman can only go over

INSPECTION TRIP. 9

his grounds and try them with dredges here and there. In this
way it is quite easy to miss a body of star-fish on a long piece
of ground. The drills are so small that not much can be done to
catch them, except to keep the grounds well dredged with ie
netting inside the dredge.

“The principal outlet for our oysters to-day is in bulk, opened
and shipped all through the West, even to the Pacific coast.
Large quantities are shipped in the shells as far west as St. Louis
and Chicago, and some even farther west.”

INSPECTION TRIP.

On September 30, 1909, the Board of Equalization and Gov-
ernor Weeks went to Bridgeport, and met the members of the
Shell-Fish Commission and Mr. Perry, the clerk, and accom-
panied them on their annual tour of inspection of the oyster beds
of the State. The Board’s trip extended west as far as Stam-
ford with a landing at night at New Haven.

Opportunity was given to inspect the more important of the
natural beds, together with the nature of the bottom and product
of a large number of the grounds held under state franchises.
Captain A. W. Halsey, who had charge of the boat, extended
every possible courtesy and used every endeavor and opportunity
to explain in detail the practical features of the oyster-growing-
business. The steam dredge was continuously used for the pur-
poses of showing the different kinds of bottom, oysters in all
stages of growth, together with the oyster enemies, the winkle,
drill, and star-fish. The dangers to the industry which arise
from storms, varying depth of water, sand bars, depredations,
and government dredging were also pointed out. The method
of hardening muddy ground by depositing on the same sand or
other hardening substances, and the process of shelling the
ground for the purpose of catching the spawn for the annual
set, if any, were also explained.

A similar trip was taken September 22, IQI10.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S OPINION.

As the powers of the Board in making the investigations
were questioned, the following opinion was received from
Attorney-General Holcomb relative to the same:

a Ke)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S OPINION.

Hartrorp, Sept. 14, 1909.
Hon. Witt1aAm H. Corsin,

Tax Commissioner.
Sir:—I have received your letter reading as follows:

‘Enclosed herewith find copy of the resolution appointing the
Board of Equalization as a special commission to investigate
the oyster properties in this State. Will you kindly give said
Board your opinion relative to its powers in connection with the
oyster lands under the jurisdiction of the State and leased per-
petually to individuals?

‘Does said board have power to inquire into the annual pro-
duct taken from such oyster lands by individuals and corporations
who hold perpetual franchise of such lands which are under
the State’s jurisdiction?

‘If said Board has not the power to inquire into the pro-
duction, revenue, and protection of such lands as stated in the
first part of section 1, would it have the power to secure infor-
mation relative to the revenue and prodtction in connection with
the taxation of such properties owned by individuals, etc., as pro-
vided for in the latter part of section I?

“Would the power to produce papers, books, etc., as provided
for in section 2, include the power to secure information relative
to the annual production and revenue received from oyster lands
by individuals and corporations?’

The resolution referred to is No. 486 of the Special Laws of
T9090, entitled :

“Authorizing the Governor to appoint a Commission to investi-
gate the taxation of Oyster Properties,”

and reads as follows:

RESOLVED BY THIS ASSEMBLY :

Sec. 1. That the State Board of Equalization be and is hereby
appointed a commission to investigate the oyster properties owned
by the State, the production thereof, the revenue received there-
from, trespasses committed thereon, the protection provided there-
for, and all things pertaining to the general care and management
thereof, and the matter of the valuation and taxation of such
properties in this State owned by individuals, firms, and cor-
porations, which commission shall report its finding and recom-
mendations thereon to the next session of the General Assembly.

Sec. 2. Said commission is hereby authorized to compel,
by subpoena and capias issued by any member of said commission
or other proper authority, the attendance of any person before it
as a witness, and to administer oaths and to cause the production
of anv papers, books, or maps necessary for the purposes herein
provided for, and to punish for contempt to the same extent as
justices of the peace in criminal cases.

Sec. 3. The sum of three thousand dollars, or so much
thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated to be paid out
of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the
actual expenses incurred by the said commission in performing
the duties herein required.

Sec. 4. Said Board of Equalization shall have and exercise
with reference to said oyster grounds, the power of a board of

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S OPINION.

relief, and such powers shall not be exercised by the Shell-Fish
Commission until the rising of the General Assembly at the ro11
session thereof. And any person claiming to be aggrieved by any
order of said Board of Equalization in the exercise of its powers
as a board of relief may appeal to the superior court, in the same
manner as appeals now lie from the board of relief.

The State has exclusive jurisdiction over the territory covered
by the waters of Long Island Sound and its tributaries bounded
north by lines drawn between certain designated points along the
Connecticut shore, westerly and southerly by the State of New
York, and easterly by the State of Rhode Island. (General
Statutes, Sec. 3213.)

A portion of this territory consists of what are cailed “natural
oyster beds” which are designated in Sec. 3114 of the General
Statutes, which I understand to be territory where oysters and
clams are self-propagating to an extent which makes the gathering
of them profitable. The Shell-Fish Commissioners are authorized
to grant licenses to persons to collect oysters and clams on these
natural beds for a term expiring on the next succeeding twentieth
day of July (Sec. 3234, General Statutes, as amended by Chap.
132, Public Acts of 1907). There are statutory provisions for
the protection of these natural beds, to prevent persons trespassing
thereon, and regulating the method of gathering oysters from
said beds by those holding such licenses.

The balance of said territory, or a certain portion thereof, is
adapted to the profitable cultivation of shell-fish by planting and
cultivation. As to this territory the Shell-Fish Commissioners
are empowered in the manner and under the conditions provided
by statute, in the name and on behalf of the State, to grant by
written instruments, for the purpose of planting and cultivating
shell-fish, perpetual franchises in undesignated portions of said
territory, to qualified applicants therefor. (Sec. 3215, General
Statutes as amended by chapter 66, Public Acts of 1907.)

Such lands so granted are taxable against the owners of said
franchises in the manner provided in Sec. 3226, 3227, and 3228 of
the General Statutes, as amended by chapter 148 of the Public
Acts of 1907.

On January 6, 1909, Governor Woodruff presented a com-
munication to the General Assembly calling attention to the
undervaluation and taxation of the properties covered by these
franchises, and suggesting the appointment of a committee to
investigate the subject, and to report what action, if any, the
State ought to take regarding it. Subsequently the late Governor
Lilley presented a communication to the General Assembly recom-
mending that a commission be appointed to investigate and report
upon the taxation of such properties.

In response to these recommendations the resolution above
quoted was adopted, and in section 1 thereof, the Board of Equali-

It

12

INFORMATION FROM PRIVATE GROWERS.

zation was appointed as such commission, and was _ therein
empowered to investigate the valuation and taxation of the pro-
perties in which perpetual franchises have been granted to, and
which are owned by individuals, firms, or corporations.

To make such investigation effective section 2 of the resolution
authorizes the commission to issue subpoena and capias, and to
compel the production of any papers, books, or maps necessary
for the purposes mentioned in section I.

It is probable that the properties covered by these franchises
are not of uniform value per acre. Some sections of the territory
are doubtless more productive than others. The value of the
several properties depends upon their productiveness. The finan-
cial returns which the several properties yield to the owners is a
very important element in determining the value thereof. In this
State the rule of valuation for taxation is the true and just value
of any property.

In my opinion your commission is fully empowered by said
resolution to ascertain the production and revenues derived from
the properties covered by these franchises, and to compel any
information by witnesses, books, or papers which will enable you
to determine what is the true and just value of all properties
mentioned in section I of said resolution.

Respectfully submitted,
M. H. HOLCOMB, Attorney-General.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM PRIVATE

GROWERS.

To secure specific information relative to the total and cul-
tivatable acreage, character of the ground, and approximate
production of each lot, held under perpetual franchise from the
State, the following letter and blank was sent to each holder of

such ground:

HartForD, October 7, 1909.

Dear Sir:—Pursuant to a resolution passed by the General
Assembly of 1909, entitled a “Commission to Investigate the
Taxation of Oyster Properties,’ Special Laws No. 486, enclosed
herewith find blank requesting certain information relative to
oyster properties in this State owned by you.

You are respectfully requested to make complete return of
all such properties, answering in detail the question on the blank.
If the amount of your holdings requires the use of additional
blanks, the same will be sent on request. The information given
will not be made public.

The return, made in proper form, and duly sworn to, should
be sent to the Tax Commissioner on or before October 30, 1900.

The careful filling out of the entire blank in the form indi-
cated, will greatly facilitate the work of investigation, and will

INFORMATION FROM PRIVATE GROWERS.

result in your convenience by making it unnecessary to summon
you before the Commission in person.

Your truly,

FREEMAN F. PATTEN,
THOMAS D. BRADSTREET,
WILLIAM H. CORBIN,
Board of Equalization and Oyster
Investigation Commission.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Return to the State Board of Equalization

OYSTER, EROPERTIES

CCLILT TOR TIS TG NE ee OTS SO aa es eek Sheet No

HOTU 1 OLN ey ays ine TO hed , Conn.

Request for this information authorized in

SPECIAL LAWS NO. 486, SESSION OF 1go09.

Section 1. That the state board of equalization be and is
hereby appointed a commission to investigate the oyster properties
owned by the state, the production thereof, the revenue received
therefrom, trespasses committed thereon, the protection provided
therefor, and all things pertaining to the general care and manage-
ment thereof, and the matter of the valuation and taxation of such
properties in this state owned by individuals, firms and corpora-
tions, which commission shall report its findings and recom-
mendations thereon to the next session of the general assembly.

Sec. 2. Said commission is hereby authorized to compel,
by subpoena or capias issued by any member of said commission
or other proper authority, the attendance of any person before
it as a witness, and to administer oaths and to cause the pro-
duction of any papers, books, or maps necessary for the purposes
herein provided for, and to punish for contempt to the same extent
as justices of the peace may in criminal cases.

Sec. 3. The sum of three thousand dollars or so much thereof
as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated to be paid out of any
money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the actual
expenses incurred by the said commission in performing the duties
herein required.

Sec. 4. Said board of equalization shall have and exercise,
with reference to said oyster grounds, the powers of a board of
relief, and such powers shall not be exercised by the shell-fish
commission until the rising of the general assembly at the Io1r
session thereof. Any person claiming to be aggrieved by any
order of said board of equalization in the exercise of its powers
as a board of relief may appeal to the superior court, in the same
manner as appeals now lie from the board of relief.

EXPLANATORY NOTES.

Contents of this blank will not be made public. :
Cultivatable means capable of cultivation and not necessarily
at present under cultivation.

LS

14

INFORMATION FROM PRIVATE GROWERS.

Arrange the lots in groups as covered by mortgages.

The figures as to bushels may be estimates of the manager,
if precise information is not available.

i Individual owners must personally sign and make oath to each
sheet.

If ground is owned by a ccrporation, the president, manager,
or other duly authorized official sufficiently familiar with the
details should fill out the blank.

Under “Value per acre” give amount you would be willing
to sell for, or fair market value, not at forced sale.

Under “Character of bottom” state whether hard, medium,
sticky, or mud.

In giving age of stock, state whether one, two, three, or four
years old, etc., or new set, as the case may be.

Lots in Quinnipiac River section:
Tomlinsons Bridge to Ferry Street Bridge, west side, desig-
nate QO. R. A, with number.
North from Tomlinsons Bridge, east side, designate Q. R. B.
with number.
Ferry Street Bridge to Grand Avenue Bridge, west side, desig-
nate Q. R. C., with number.
North of Grand Avenue Bridge, west side, designate Q. R. D.,
with number.
Lots in the West River section:
North of Kimberly Avenue Bridge, New Haven, designate
W. R. A., with number.
South of Kimberly Avenue Bridge, New Haven, designate
W. R. B., with number.
North of Kimberly Avenue Bridge, Orange, designate
W. R. C., with number.
South of Kimberly Avenue Bridge, Orange, designate W.R.D.,
with number.

Explanations and remarks are invited and may be written on
the back of this sheet.

Oyster properties of....... 5 ION Oia goooc Conn. Sheet No.....

Oysters sold or transferred to other

re @yaters beds oursidene State in the te
: S ast five years. aracter
Cultivat- 4 at 1 y eames
able. % present 10909 to aactothien
o &0 on beds. date. 1908 1907 1906 1905 comments
3 0 on the
5 3 3 i 3 i i 6 f nature of
w 72) n wn wn wn
ene ec ee
Soe 28 ; ; 3 3 3 )
Seite ch syo $ bo Z om 3 &» 3S & 2 w 3 bm
HHAAs Poe A < oa Bid a aa aA
$ 6

Does your system of bookkeeping include a separate account

Do you keep an account of the number of bushels produced by
ore, Gia rere THOie "CANS: Ore THRO SoodeddsasobocadaboouooccesabueK

eeceeec eee ee oe ese ee oe eee soe eee ore eee esos eee ee ee eee oe

Signature and title of person who makes the return.

Date, POOL OSES ess is en ee 1909.

STATISTICS FROM PRIVATE GROWERS. 15

State of Connecticut ’ ae
Countyote.. (2. SPE aie ole oy ;

Personally appeared the above named and made oath to the
truth of the above statement by him subscribed and of the matters
therein contained according to the best of his knowledge, infor-
mation, and belief.

5 yer el sudnoseosedessuognie NOMA TEIN.

The Board of Equalization desires to give the matter careful
study and consideration, and to that end would respectfully request
suggestions on the following subjects:

Protection:
Trespass:
Contamination :

Changes in the laws relative to any phase of the oyster
industry :

Reports giving the desired information in proper form
were received promptly from many of the oyster growers,
including some of the larger growers, but several failed to con-
form to the Board’s request. Many reports were received
which were not complete and apparently not made in good faith.
After considerable correspondence with some of the largest
oyster growers the reports requested were finally secured from
all but one.

While the questions were all answered, the bushel figures
given by certain growers in their report were not even approxi-
mately in amount those which the same had used in booklets and
published statements for advertising purposes.

STATISTICS FROM THE REPORTS OF THE
PRIVATE GROWERS.

Reports were received from two hundred forty-seven
owners of oyster ground franchises in state jurisdiction. The
total acreage of ground held under such franchises was reported
to be 70,855.17 acres. The portion of this acreage reported to
be sufficiently hard to be cultivatable was 24,707.08 acres. One
hundred forty-four growers stated that they had no oysters on
their beds at that time. One hundred and three growers
reported as having on their beds at that time 2,492,355 bushels,
an average of 24,198 bushels for each grower.

The largest amount reported as being at that time on the
beds by any one grower was 345,000 bushels, and he was not the
owner of the largest acreage of oyster ground. Six others
reported as having over 100,000 bushels upon their beds at that

16 STATISTICS FROM PRIVATE GROWERS.

time, as follows: 333,000; 290,000; 200,000; 184,507; 170,000;
and 119,000. These six growers are not the owners of the
largest amount of acreage. | ,

The total amount of bushels which was reported as having
been transferred to other beds outside of the State or sold during
the past five years was as follows:

TLOOS Ho sNes Lance koshaeaep eas 767,883 bushels.
TOOG 00S Se ae 1,197,350 bushels.
TOOT, |) Meat Ge eee 1,363,642 bushels.
OOS aoa Uae 2 976,668 bushels.
TOOQ A Sosa tO REPORT 1,588,809 bushels.

The total number of bushels of oysters thus sold or trans-
ferred from Connecticut beds during the past five years was
5,894,352 bushels. These figures, however, do not approxi-
mately equal the published claims that have been made by indi-
vidual oyster growers in conducting their industries, and the
Board is forced to believe do not equal by a large amount the
correct totals.

The information given relative to the nature of the oyster
grounds showed conclusively that a large portion of the acreage
held under the franchises consists of muddy bottom. For the
purpose of cultivation such ground is much less valuable than
the hard ground. ;

The acreage of ground which is somewhat hard, but not
entirely so, may be given as approximately 5,c00 acres. The
acreage of ground which is hard may be given as approximately
20,000 acres. The balance of the acreage may be considered to
be muddy ground, approximately 45,000 acres.

While an attempt was made to secure from the oyster
growers figures which would give some idea of the value per
acre of the oyster grounds, it was clear that the figures submitted
in the majority of cases could not be used for such purposes.
In a large number of instances they followed the previous
assessed valuations, while in cases of increase the value sub-
mitted was far from being a fair selling value of the franchises.

FRANCHISE TAXATION.

By consultation with the members of the Shell-Fish Commis-
sion, it was ascertained that in the matter of taxation, they had
been acting under practically the same rule of valuation that was
established when the Commission was created. They had been

FRANCHISE TAXATION, 17

taxing the franchises under state jurisdiction outside of the town
lines at minimum figures following the tradition that none should
be assessed at a value higher than forty dollars per acre, and
assessing a large portion at one dollar per acre.

In spite of this tradition that no franchises should be assessed
higher than forty dollars per acre, the town of Orange, in the
revaluation of the oyster ground under the jurisdiction of that
town in New Haven Harbor, placed a value of one thousand
dollars per acre upon certain grounds which had been previously
assessed by the State at forty dollars per acre. Such a revalua-
tion, however, was placed on only a small area of shoal ground
which has a particular value for growing as well as storage pur-
poses. Such a relative difference in value would not apply to
any other ground within the State’s borders.

The Board of Equalization, in view of the fact that it was
delegated by the resolution to act as a board of relief, considered
it necessary to secure, if possible, equalized valuations of all the
oyster ground franchises in the State, based as nearly as possible
on a fair selling value. It was very evident that this was proper,
and could be accomplished through experts only, for it would
demand not only knowledge of the oyster business, but a defi-
nite knowledge of the oyster ground franchises in Connecticut,
based upon business experience. Even the method of deter-
mining the valuation; by inspecting the lots and dredging the
same to reveal the character of the bottom was shown not to be
reliable, for certain hard ground is useless for oyster produc-
tion for various reasons, while other hard ground is very valu-
able. In addition, some soft and muddy ground is very well
adapted to setting, providing oysters are not left there too long,
while other soft grounds appear to be almost useless, until they
are hardened by depositing sand, shells, etc. Furthermore, a
dredge thrown on one corner of a lot might show a very valuable
bottom containing a good production of oysters, while other por-
tions might be soft mud. The time required for such inspection,
the cost, and the unsatisfactory and unreliable character of the
data to be secured made it advisable to abandon such methods
for the purpose desired. —

EXPERT VALUATION.

The only other plan was to secure the cooperation and ser-
vices of a competent and experienced expert to make the valua-

18 NEW VALUATION FOR TAXATION.

tions. The Board finally secured for such purposes Captain E.
Frank Lockwood of Cos Cob, Connecticut. He is a man of
large experience in the oyster business, which was followed by
his father and which has been continued by him for forty years
or more. He has a definite knowledge of practically all the
oyster ground in Connecticut, and has bought and sold a large
amount of such land. Captain Lockwood, recently, had sold out
his oyster business in Connecticut, and at that time he owned no
oyster ground, nor had he business affiliations with any oyster
growers. Many of the oyster growers have stated that there
could be no better selection of authority to determine the value
of Connecticut ground franchises.

Arrangements were made with Captain Lockwood to place
an acreage appraisal on all the oyster ground in the State under
private ownership, on the basis of its fair value. Mr. Fred-
erick L. Perry, the clerk of the Shell-Fish Commission, who is
designated by the statutes as the official assessor of all such
oyster lands, signified his entire willingness to follow the
appraisal made by Captain Lockwood, as accepted by the Board.
The result was that the assessed valuations of all the oyster
lands in the State’s jurisdiction as made by Mr. Perry, with the
exception of some of the harbors, were, practically, the appraisals
made by Captain Lockwood.

METHOD OF TAXATION.

These assessed valuations, as finally determined by Mr.
Perry, were graded from $5.00, as the minimum valuation per
acre, to $150.00 per acre, as the maximum, on the grounds within
the State’s jurisdiction and outside the town limits. The pre-
vious valuations for the same lots had been $1.00 and $40.00 per
acre, respectively. The valuations of the other lots under the
special franchise were graded between the minimum and maxi-
mum in accordance with their fair value as compared with other
lots. The valuations of the lots under state jurisdiction within
the town lines recently had been readjusted, many of them of
higher value up to $1,000 per acre. Very few changes were
made in such valuations at this time by Mr. Perry.

BOARD OF RELIEF.

In accordance with the resolution requiring the Board of
Equalization to act as a board of relief, the following notice was

ACTING AS BOARD OF RELIEF. 19

published in all the newspapers in towns contiguous to oyster
grounds:
NOTICE.

NOTICE is hereby given that the BOARD OF EQUALI-
ZATION, as the commission appointed to investigate oyster prop-
erties in accordance with Special Law No. 486, Session of 1909,
will meet as a BOARD OF RELIEF to consider appeals from
assessments on oyster grounds within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the State, on the Tuesday following the first Monday in
January, 1910, to wit, January fourth, in Room 60, the State
Capitol, Hartford, at 10.45 A. M.

FREEMAN F. PATTEN,
THOMAS D. BRADSTREET,
WILLIAM H. CORBIN,

Board of Equalization.

Hartford, Connecticut,

December 20, 1909.

All applicants for relief were required to fill out the follow-
ing blanks, using a separate one for each lot, unless they were of
similar nature and valuation. In each case the several lots were
designated and described on one application.

SheetiNores eee
SPAT h-OR- CONNECTICUT
IgIO

OVS TER y PROPER ETES

Application to the Board of Equalization, acting as a Board of
Relief, as provided in Special Law 486, Session of 1909.

A separate sheet should be used for each lot on which a
reduction is requested, except that all lots at the minimum
valuation may be included on one sheet.

Complaint Ole wee ce ells Oe an ee ge ee aoe ene Owner.
Location of ground:
ARON T Ns Sos Me SS aE See Dio teramiin cies Cees Wo teow seer

Total num- Acres not —
ber of acres Acres Acres not Acres actually actually culti-
in lot. cultivatable. cultivatable. cultivated. vated.
Assessed valuation : i : : Reece es Ae ae

Owner’s valuation ; ; ; : A Speen ee Geers 2

20 BOARD OF RELIEF HEARINGS.

Estimated number of bushels of oysters on

lot at present time f ; : SHINN alicia at BENGE S die Hin en +
Number of bushels caught for transfer or
sale during the past five years . AE iM AN Ween ING ee ae

CE ORCHONCEONCEOECEONCEONCHCECHCECEONCECEOECECEORCECECNCEOEOECEOEONDEONCECEOECHOECNOEOECHCONCECECEOECECNCEOEOECECECnOnCECEOnCNOn
Pann nnn nC nnn CnC nO n Cn mmm mC nC mC mmm mC in nC m ence marr ar at ir rir rary

Three hearings were held in the Supreme Court Room, at
the State Capitol, on January 4, 14, and 25, 1910. Sixty-two
individuals or corporations presented 356 applications for relief.
Forty-seven persons at the various hearings appeared before the
Board and after being put under oath were heard relative to the
claims for a reduction in valuation as set forth upon the indi-
vidual’s application. The proceedings of the hearings were
taken stenographically and are included in a record of 172 type-
written pages.

There was comparatively little opposition to the assessed
valuation of the more valuable lots, but there was great objec-
tion to the increase in valuation from $1.00 to $5.00 on the
so-called “worthless ground.” The hearings were of very great
benefit to the Board, enabling the members to become acquainted
with the oyster growers, and to secure much information rela-
tive to the nature and treatment of the ground used for the culti-
vation of oysters, with many other details of the business. In
the main, the valuations, as determined by Mr. Perry, were
approved by the Board. A few changes were made where evi-
dences of inequality in the valuation of one lot, as compared with
the similar contiguous lots, were made clear in the testimony.
The Board decided to adhere to a minimum valuation of $5.00
on a portion of the grounds. The general reasons for this action
are given on page 21 of this report.

The total assessed valuation of oyster ground under state
jurisdiction for the year 1909 was $889,412.92. The total
assessed valuation of the same oyster ground as approved by the

MINIMUM VALUATION OF OYSTER GROUNDS. 21

Board of Equalization, as a board of relief, for the year 1909
was $1,804,362.59. The amount of the tax to be received from
the 15-mill tax on the two lists are, 1908 $11,892.62; 1909
$26,141.58, not including that payable to the towns.

It is shown, herewith, that the amount to be received from
taxes on the oyster franchise in the State’s jurisdiction has been
increased $14,248.96 over that of the previous year. After very
careful deliberation the Board of Equalization is of the opinion
that the assessed valuations per acre, which have been given to
the different lots held under the special franchise as shown on
the maps which accompany this report, represent a fair equalized
valuation of such franchises.

MINIMUM VALUATION OF OYSTER GROUNDS.

Oyster ground in Connecticut is held under what is known
as the perpetual franchise system. An applicant is obliged to
sign an application (see page 103) in which he states that he
“wishes and INTENDS TO USE said ground for PLANTING AND
CULTIVATING SHELL-FISH.”

The next step in the procedure is the making of a grant (see
page 104) in which the Commissioners grant the grounds covered
by the application, giving detailed description of the same, and
in which the statements in the application are found to be true
and the ground granted in accordance with such statements, and
the fact is again expressed in the grant as in the application,
that the applicant wishes and intends to use said ground for
planting and cultivating shell-fish. In the grant there is also
the proviso that the grantee or holder of said ground “shall
actually use and occupy the same for the purposes named in good
faith within five years from the date of the grant.” This latter
provision is in accordance with the provisions of section 3219
of the General Statutes, in which it is expressly provided that
upon petition to the superior court, the Commissioners may cause
grounds not used and occupied in good faith to revert to the
State.

Manifestly all applications which have been granted have been
upon the express understanding, that the grounds covered thereby
should be occupied for the purpose of planting and cultivating
Shell-fish. If they are so occupied, or have been, and the char-

22 MINIMUM VALUATION OF OYSTER GROUNDS.

acter of the ground is such as to make future occupation reason-
ably probable, then a minimum valuation, for instance, of $5.00
an acre, is not unreasonable; for if ground is of any value what-
ever for the purposes of oyster culture, it must be worth that
figure, which would mean under the rate of taxation now in
force only seven and one-half cents per acre per annum in the
way of a tax.

If, as some parties contend, the ground is of no value what-
ever, and cannot be made valuable except by the outlay of
money, in the way of hardening said ground by depositing
thereon sand or other hardening material, then the statement
in the application that the applicant wished and intended to use
said ground for planting and cultivating shell-fish was mislead-
ing, for the wish and intention were so vague (unless indeed the
applicant could show that he had made arrangements definitely
for having material placed on the ground) as to be a mere con-
tingency and not a wish or an intent at all.

Grounds which are known to be black mud, for instance, and
which have always been of that character, and which in all human
probability will never be anything different except by artificial
hardening, of course, cannot be termed reasonably suitable for
planting and cultivating shell-fish, and any one taking up and
holding for years such grounds under such a grant as has been
referred to, cannot be said to be acting in good faith.

The amount of revenue which the State of Connecticut derives
from grounds of this character, as compared with the total, is
insignificant, and the question must present itself whether or
not the taxation of this ground at a sufficient figure to test
the good faith of the former applicant and present holder is
desirable.

If a person holding for instance several thousands of acres
of such grounds should say that he intended to harden them,
the carrying out of any such intention would be a manifest
impossibility, as there is not sufficient amount of material avail-
able for this purpose to harden any considerable amount in any
given territory.

Growers can tell how much they have hardened, but none
have ever claimed to have improved any great amount; indeed the
representations have always been that growers had all the ground
they needed without hardening any more.

PUBLIC HEARINGS. 23

PUBLIC HEARINGS.

Following the meetings of the Board when acting as a board
of relief, public hearings were held on February 18, 1910, in
Bridgeport; March 18, in South Norwalk; April 8, in New
Haven, pursuant to the following notice.

HartrorpD, Conn.

The State Board of Equalization, acting as a Commission
to investigate the oyster properties, will hold a public hearing
at Bridgeport, etc., to which it invites owners of oyster properties
and natural growthers in this State to be present, to give their
views relative to the conditions prevailing in the protection and
taxation of such properties; to the production thereof, and
the revenue therefrom; the present policy of the State towards
the same and desirable changes therein.

Very truly yours,

Board oF EQUALIZATION AND OYSTER
INVESTIGATION COMMISSION.

A copy of this notice was sent to every holder of ground
under franchise, and to every natural growther in the State.
There was a very good attendance at all the meetings. The dis-
cussion of the oyster industry in its relation to the State was
free and frank, and participated in by nearly all the leading
private growers, and a goodly number of the natural growthers.

The attitude of these men toward the Board, both in their
manner and remarks, was very cordial, and they freely answered
all questions. They expressed-themselves as being ready and
perfectly willing to pay any fair tax to the State, which was
equally and equitably determined, taking into consideration the
expense of experimentization and the vicissitudes of the business.
They emphasized particularly, however, their right to certain
definite protection from the State in return for the taxes paid.
They ask for judicial interpretation or additional legislation
which will prevent depredations and encroachments upon their
rights, and also immediate and practical legislative action, which
will begin the purification of the polluted rivers, harbors, and
coastal waters, which are so well adapted to the oyster industry.

While the business has grown from its first beginnings to a
large volume, it is actually and seriously endangered at the pres-
ent time because of the continued and increased contamination

24 PECULIARITIES OF THE CONNECTICUT OYSTER INDUSTRY.

of oyster beds by sewage and the waste product of factories.
The growers maintain that this condition should be improved,
not only to safeguard the present business, but to develop it
to much larger proportions, which would result in an increase
in the amount of oysters grown and in the value of the franchises,
and a consequent development of the taxable property on shore.
In addition such action would prevent the extermination of fish
and other sea food which cannot live in the polluted waters, and
finally, they claim, that the continuation of such contamination
is.a positive menace to the health of the rapidly growing popula-
tion which lives along the shores of the Sound.

As stated by one large oyster grower “the matter of increased
taxation is a mere bagatelle in its relation to the oyster industry,
as compared to the great question of the removal of the causes
of contamination which so seriously menace the use of a large
amount of ground of very great adaptability to oyster culture.”

PECULIARITIES OF THE CONNECTICUT OYSTER
INDUSTRY.

There are certain peculiar conditions connected with the
growing of oysters in Connecticut waters. Originally there was a
moderate supply of oysters on the natural beds which seemed to
be sufficient for the small demand. When an increased supply
was necessary the growers commenced the cultivation of oysters
on land secured under the franchise law. This industry, which
began a little before 1880, has continued with large increase in
developments, many vicissitudes, and many remarkable successes
until the present day.

Originally the seed was grown and the oysters were matured
in Connecticut waters. After a while, however, it became evi-
dent, because of certain unexpected experiences, that the oysters
grew more satisfactorily and reached a better condition for mar-
ket if transferred to oyster grounds in Rhode Island or on the
Long Island Shores. The violent storms and accompanying
gales on the open Sound, occasionally, caused great loss of
oysters, but the principal reasons for the transfer to other
grounds was, as stated above, because of the appearance of a
green color in the oysters. This is supposed to be caused by a
vegetable substance, although some oystermen claim it is caused

PECULIARITIES OF THE CONNECTICUT OYSTER INDUSTRY. 25

by the contamination of the waters by shore industries. In any
event, the green appearance makes the oysters less desirable for
market and forces the growers to transfer them to other grounds
for maturing. While it is not claimed that the green color makes
the oysters unhealthful, the trade will not buy them. As one
consumer said, “Don’t send me another green oyster, send me
some ripe ones.”

In addition, the transfer from one locality to another seems
to hasten the development and to produce a more attractive oyster
in every way for the market. The result is that a very large
portion of the cultivated oyster grounds in Connecticut are used
for raising seed and for growing oysters for two or three years
prior to the transfer. There are certain firms, however, who
have continued to leave the oysters in Connecticut waters up to
the time of catching for opening purposes. This happens at
Stony Creek, New Haven, and possibly other places west of
those points where the green color is not evident.

Further, the contamination of the streams and harbors by
sewage and waste from factories has made it absolutely neces-
sary to transfer oysters from many beds to purer waters before
they are opened. The Connecticut waters are very uncertain in
producing a set as compared with those in some other states, and
on some parts of the oyster grounds in this State there has not
been a set for several years.

In spite, however, of the above uncertainties it is well known
that seed oysters from Connecticut grounds are the most desir-
able of all in the estimation of the scientific oyster growers.
This oyster seed, if properly transferred to suitable waters, pro-
duces the best oysters in size, appearance, and taste, and they
command a good price throughout the country. Practically all
the celebrated Blue Point ovsters are grown from Connecticut
seed. Nearly all the oysters opened or shucked in this State are
oysters that were originally started in Connecticut waters, from
Connecticut seed, transferred to Long Island or Rhode Island
for a varying period of several months, and brought back again
to the Connecticut opening houses to be shucked and shipped to
different parts of the country.

All the above facts should be taken into consideration in com-
paring Connecticut conditions, both as to production and revenue
with those of any other state.

26 COMPARISON WITH RHODE ISLAND.

COMPARISON WITH RHODE ISLAND.

Considerable has been said in Connecticut public prints rela-
tive to the oyster grounds of Connecticut as compared with those
of Rhode Island, both in their productivity, and the revenue
derived therefrom. Investigation by this Board has convinced
it that the conditions in the two states are quite different.

In Connecticut, there are 31,060 acres which are cultivated
and which vary in value from $15.00 to $150.00 per acre. Of
these there are 489 acres assessed at $150.00 per acre; 3,754 acres
at $100.00 per acre; 5,458 acres at $75.00; 5,264 acres at $50.00;
7,434 acres at $25.00; 8,661 acres at S10.00. There are also
38,679 acres of ground not cultivated because of mud or other
reasons. The Connecticut grounds vary greatly in their value
on account of their location, nature of the bottom, depth of water,
freedom from contamination, and general productivity. Con-
necticut has followed the policy of selling a perpetual franchise
on these oyster grounds.

Rhode Island has not adopted the policy of selling franchises,
but has retained the ownership of all their oyster grounds, and
has leased certain of the same for a period not less than five nor
more than ten years, subject to renewal at the expiration of said
period. The total ground thus leased in Rhode Island under
such conditions January I, 1910, was 16,814.7 acres. For all
such ground where the water is of the depth of less than 12 feet
at average low water, the annual rental is $10 per acre. For all
grounds where the water is of the depth of at least 12 feet, at the
average at low water, the annual rental is not less than $5.00 per
acre. The leased ground is divided as follows: 5,561.9 acres at
$10.00 per acre, yielding an annual rental of $55,619, and
11,252.8 acres that is leased at $5.00 per acre, or an annual rental
of $56,264, making a total of $111,883 per annum which Rhode
Island thus receives. Compared with the revenue from Connect-
icut this is certainly a large sum. Rhode Island is able to secure
this revenue for the following reasons; the use of the leasing
system instead of private ownership; the uniform good quality
and fertility of the grounds; the peculiar nature of the Narra-
gansett Bay waters, due possibly to the amount of fresh water
which flows into the Bay, thereby decreasing the salty and other-
wise disagreeable condition pertaining to oyster cultivation in

COMPARISON WITH RHODE ISLAND. 27

less favored waters; entire absence of any green appearance; the
protection afforded by the Bay; the removal of contaminating
substances and the strict laws against pollution of streams and
harbors; and the convenient depth of the water for cultiva-
tion. Nearly all these desirable qualities are lacking in Connect-
icut waters, and it is impossible, therefore, to compare the two
industries on the same basis in considering the revenue derived
therefrom.

The oyster growers who lease the Rhode Island grounds have
no investment which is represented by the grounds themselves.
They incur no expense on account of experimental hardening and
consequently they are not obliged to make an annual interest
charge against the investment, their total expense being the rental
fee. The comparative cost of the best ground in Connecticut
which may be similar to the best ground in Rhode Island would
be represented on an assessed valuation of $150.00 per acre by
the interest on the investment at 5 per cent., which would amount
to $7.50, plus the tax at a rate of 1%4 per cent., amounting to $2.25,
or a total annual charge of $9.75 per acre as against the total
charge of $10.00 in Rhode Island. The land assessed at $100.00
on a similar computation would show fixed charges of $6.50 per
acre, and the land assessed at $75.00 would show fixed charges
of $4.87 per acre, which would be comparatively lower than the
land leased for $5.00 per acre in Rhode Island. All land
assessed at a less figure than $75.00 per acre would bear fixed
charges considerably less than the annual minimum Rhode Island
rental, but such land is supposed to be much less desirable in
every particular.

The preceding statement is made not so much for the purpose
of confirming the assessed valuations adopted by the Board as to
show a definite comparison of the conditions and charges in the
two states.

The Connecticut Shell-Fish Commission in their report for
the year ending September, 1901, made the following statement
relative to receipts from Rhode Island oyster grounds as com-
pared with those in Connecticut:

“The sudden rise in the receipts of Rhode Island from these
sources was contemporaneous with the appreciation by Connecti-
cut growers of the fact that the advantages of maturing seed
oysters for the market in Narragansett Bay were very great, and

28 COMPARISON WITH RHODE ISLAND.

that they could make money by transferring their young oysters
from their Connecticut beds to Rhode Island waters, notwithstand-
ing the expense of the transfer and the high charges in that state
for the use of the grounds.

“No intelligent man need be told that Connecticut planters
of long experience in the business would not have made this
change and incurred this extra expense and trouble had there been
like inducements at home. But Connecticut has no such facilities
to offer. Were it possible for Connecticut growers to mature
their seed oysters at home in the same time as in Narragansett
Bay, they would gladly pay the same price to Connecticut for the
privilege and save themselves the expense of the long haul and
transfer. But Connecticut has no grounds located as are those
of Rhode Island and so favorable for the rapid development of
the young oyster to a marketable state. While Connecticut
matures the best oysters in the world, Rhode Island can mature
them quicker.

“How long these favorable conditions will last on the Rhode
Island oyster grounds it is impossible to judge at present. But
be that as it may, the whole matter resolves itself into the fact
that Rhode Island offers inducements now which Connecticut does
not and cannot, and for which Connecticut growers are willing to
pay the increased price.

“From the general situation of the grounds in the two states
those in Rhode Island may be likened to the small but valuable
‘garden spot, while the Connecticut grounds represent the broad
‘farm lands’ with the mixture of ‘good, bad, and indifferent’
of the average agricultural district.”

OYSTER SET.

The Connecticut waters have not been so reliable in produc-
ing an oyster set as those of Rhode Island and some other states.
No data available to the public have been collated to show the
conditions and causes which prevent the regularity of set.

The following table, which has been prepared from the
reports of the Shell-Fish Commission, gives a fair idea of the
occurrence of the set during the years since 1888:

1888 No set 1895 Set.
SSO Meet 1896 “
1890 Set. 1897 “
18901 “ 1898 No set.
1892 “ 1899 Set.
1893 _“ LOOOW a

&é

1804 1901 No set.

OYSTER SET. 29

1902 No set. 1907 Set almost a failure.

TOOSi I (in 1908 Fair set, but not of good vitality.
1904 Very good and general set. 1909 Fair set.

1905 Scattering and uneven. 1910 No general set.

1906 Set almost a failure.

Sufficient tests should be made and reports received every
summer relative to temperature of water and other possible
influences to make it clear, under what conditions a good set is
secured, and under what conditions there is no set. In the years
when there is no set the oyster growers are obliged to rely for
their marketing product upon oysters of other years, thus mak-
ing seed from previous sets fill the demand for the market. This
requires, in some cases, the sale of smaller oysters than would
~ have been marketed under ordinary conditions.

FUTURE DISPOSITION OF CONNECTICUT OYSTER
GROUND.

The Board is convinced that the present system of allotting
oyster ground in the State’s jurisdiction under a perpetual fran-
chise is entirely antagonistic to the interests of the State. As
stated previously, Connecticut is the only state which permits
such a disposition to be made. Our nearest neighbor, Rhode
Island, has shown conclusively the wisdom which she employed
in adopting a leasing system and the resulting advantage to the
State. It has enabled her to share in the prosperous development
of the oyster industry which is carried on in Narragansett Bay.

This is shown by the following statement of the gross
receipts received by Rhode Island for rents of oyster grounds
since 1864, when the office of the Commissioners of Shell-
Fisheries was established:

TIEN OVAL Weal ay AR RI aR ate er $ 61.00
TSO ee Petes) aieserece oe arto h tee 1,508.50
TOYZ eas Gea RE RICH NN RE PIERRE 6,045.25
TOO ER PT Oy Se SRE 8,049.00
LOOMS oestrus ae ay cS 13,558.40
TOOTH ers eeonEesdoseds ccs 25,707.38
ROO AM Ponies cles ci ava aise atedevenerenanayts 45,252.58
LOO 7M eres vais ees legals aielaysatanerks 85,321.13

THONG) WS, elo clo eheM eat eee aeaiprs cits crn os 111,883.00 (Estimated)

30 FUTURE LEASING SYSTEM.

In Connecticut, many thousands of acres of what is now very
valuable oyster ground has been secured under perpetual fran-
chises from the State by the payment of one dollar per acre.
These franchises may be sold, and are transferred in practically
the same manner as real property. In addition, many other acres
of ground, which were taken up on the payment of one dollar per
acre by private owners, have not been improved nor developed
for the very reason that the owners of these franchises were too
much occupied with the development of other acreage.

The result has been that a considerable amount of such land
held as a part of a large acreage by private owners is practically
in the same condition as when it was first taken up.

If, however, some of this land could have been leased to
others interested in the oyster industry, or who were anxious to go
into the business, it might have been possible to have secured a
scientific development and cultivation of such land, which would
have increased its value both to the State and to the individual.
The Board definitely recommends that the law be so amended that
all land in the State’s jurisdiction outside the town lines, which is
not already allotted to private owners, and all land which shali be
given up by those now holding the same under franchises, shall
in the future be given out under a new application on a lease
basis for a term of from five to ten years, with the option of
renewal subject to a definite annual rental payment, and to be
under the control and direction of the Shell-Fish Commissioners.

OYSTER POLICE.

At the session of 1895 a law was passed authorizing the Com-
missioners to appoint five or more persons to act as oyster police.
The expense has been approximately three thousand dollars per
year, and the policing has been done by districts, there being six,
reaching from Branford to Greenwich. The amounts allotted to
each district vary in accordance with the assessed value of the
oyster ground; the largest amount being for the New Haven
district, the second largest for Bridgeport.

In no case is the oyster police wholly compensated by the
State, and, in all the districts but one, they are individuals in the
employ of private growers or bodies of private growers and are
paid principally by them, and do the work for the State as an

OYSTER POLICE. 31

incident. In fact while the men are nominally in the employ of
the State, in all cases but one the men’s names are suggested by
the employer, who pays the principal sum, and is a member of a
committee of growers in that district. The appointments are
made solely on such recommendations.

This system is merely a form of private watching and it
would be fully as effective if the Commissioners were empowered
to vest these private watchmen with police powers and then to
turn over the money directly to the man in each district by whom
the watchman is principally compensated. Such a system is not
effective and is nothing more or less than a waste of the State’s
money. The objections to this method are many. The most that
is claimed for it is that the police constitute a sort of scarecrow,
but if there are those who desire to steal oysters or commit other
offences against the sheil-fish laws, it is obvious that all they
need to do is to do the job in pairs—one man to watch the police
and the other to steal the oysters, and then get together after-
wards and “divide the swag.”

In no case is it possible for the oyster police to properly cover
his district with any facilities that are afforded him by the State.
For example, in the district of New Haven, which pays $75.00
per month for oyster police, it would be physically impossible for
the man on duty to sail over all the ground which he is supposed
to police in one night providing he had fair wind all the time.
There is power on his boat, but the engine is so small that it is
of little use except possibly to get him home in case the boat is
becalmed. .

If the State is to do effective oyster policing, boats should be
provided capable of covering the territory in each case, and if
this were done it would require a sum larger in amount than is
received from taxes on all shell-fish grounds, to say nothing
about the expense of salaries, maintenance, etc.

The system that the Board seriously recommends as a substi-
tute is to repeal the law providing state police and to provide a
bounty large enough to make it an object for any boat which
- happens to be on the Sound to do oyster police work.

INSPECTORS OF MUD DUMPING.

There is a provision in the statutes that persons or corpora-
tions dredging mud or refuse material by boat from any harbor

32 INSPECTORS OF MUD DUMPING. |

in this State wherein or south of which oyster grounds are
located and designated, shall notify the Commissioners of their
intention to dump material, and that the Commissioners shall
designate suitable places where the material may be so dumped
and shall appoint inspectors to accompany the boat. This pro-
vision does not apply to any work authorized to be done by the
United States government.

No authority is given these inspectors, and they simply ride
up and down on the boats with no power to interfere, if an
attempt were made to dump otherwise than in accordance with
the instructions. It is a little difficult to see how they are sup-
posed to earn their $2.50 per day, except in cases where they
would be convenient witnesses in disputes as to an alleged dump.

In case of dumping hard material on oyster beds, the owner
of the beds employs and pays his own inspector, and it is only
when the material goes to the public dumping ground, and the
work is not authorized by the United States government, that
these inspectors are employed and paid by the State. This
expenditure cannot be justified. The amount appropriated is
$250 per year, but the amount actually expended has never been
less than $400 per year, and in some years has been as high as
$1,600. This expenditure, it should be remembered, is for the
employment of individuals who are vested with no authority
whatever by the statute and who can do nothing except report
any injury done to private individuals. It has never been claimed
that the State had any interest whatever in the matter.

It is perfectly obvious that these inspectors ought to be
appointed by the State and vested with the same authority that
United States dumping inspectors have under the federal
statutes, and that they should be paid by the parties doing the
work. The most convenient method probably would be that of
having the expense of the inspection included in the original con-
tract and paid by the contractor as part of the job in each case.

The following table shows the cost of dumping inspectors
since 1886:

1886 $387.50 1891 $ 67.50
1887 440.78 1892 612.50
1888 532.50 1893-94 2,090.69
1889 465.85 1895 205.00

1890 932.50 1896 797.44

BUOYING. 33

1897 $1,195.01 1904 $ 318.67
1808 404.40 1905 1,685.07
1899 1,314.61 1906 1,209.51
1900 403.60 1907 426.84
IQOI 303.84 1908 418.70
1902 37.50 1909 740.00
1903 807.80 1910 601.70

Total, $16,400.41

~’

The Board definitely recommends the amendment of the
statute relative to dumping so that the expense of the inspectors
shall be paid by the contractors.

BUOYING.

It is provided by statute that certain natural beds, four in
number, shall be buoyed by the State. There is also a provision
that the Commissioners shall not expend for that purpose a sum
exceeding one-half the amount received for licenses during the
preceding year. Inasmuch as specific amounts have been appro-
priated for buoying the beds, and as the amounts specified in the
statute would be ridiculously small in many instances to do the
work properly, it has always been assumed that the Legislature,
by appropriating a specific sum, repealed by implication the
language in the statute referred to. The amount which is
expended is substantially $1,200 per year. This amount has
increased about $200 annually in the last few years on account
of the increase in the cost of buoys and in the charges for the use
of steamer, etc. ;

The only persons who are benefited by buoying the natural
beds are the owners of private ground adjoining. It is obvious
that if they kept up their buoys in accordance with the statute
which provides that each owner shall buoy his corners, and these
private buoys were accurately set, it would be unnecessary for the
State to maintain another line of buoys exactly in the same
places. It is hard to see any reasonable justification for this
great expense by the State, when it is considered that the money
is taken from general taxation and, as has been said, benefits only
such owners as happen to hold ground adjoining the natural bed.

The expense for buoying and inspecting the natural beds has
been more than double the amount received for licenses from the

34 BUOYING.

natural growthers since the license system was established. The
amount thus received for licenses is the only revenue received by
the State from the immensely valuable property called the
“natural beds,’ and to spend the whole of this sum for buoying,
leaving no revenue to the State from this source, is a system
which cannot be defended, to say nothing of expending as much
more from the small amount derived from taxes.

The license fees were raised during the season of 1907 and it
was thought that the amount received would be large enough so
that no deficit would occur on this account, and that has been
true in the years when there has been a set on the beds, but
during the present year the amount received for licenses has been
only about $700, which is but a little more than one-half enough
to provide the expense of buoying.

The buoying cannot be effectively done for any less amount
than is now expended for this purpose, and the question is
whether the State shall maintain the present system or do away
with the buoying altogether.

The cost of buoying since 1895 has been as follows:

1895 $ 390.85 1903 $ 633.40
1896 570.83 1904 696.20
1897 861.24 1905 1,001.24
18098 703.34 1906 895.05
1899 1,876.42 1907 032.50
1900 1,134.85 1908 1,104.45
IQOI 1,545.99 1909 1,116.70
1902 957.86 1910 1,237.30

Total, $15,658.22
The receipts from licenses during the same period have been
$11,179.00, showing a deficit on the cost of buoying alone of

$3,479.22.
The Board definitely recommends the repeal of the law

requiring buoys to be set at the expense of the State.

PROVISIONS GOVERNING OWNERSHIP AND
TAXATION OF OYSTER PROPERTIES
IN DIFFERENT STATES.
A digest of the laws of the oyster-producing states which

shows their methods of taxation of oyster ground, and, in many
instances, of the oysters themselves, is given herewith.

METHODS OF TAXATION. 35

It will be seen that Connecticut is the only state that has
granted a perpetual franchise ownership of oyster ground. In all
the others any rights to the use of the ground are based upon
a leasing system, instead of on that of absolute ownership.
Several states require a definite bushel tax in addition to the
annual payment under the lease.

CONNECTICUT.
Method of Taxation.

Fifteen-mill tax on the assessed valuation of the oyster
ground franchise owned by planters. Natural growthers
required to have a boat license, which is $5.00 for a boat
under 5 tons, and $1.50 for each additional ton when a boat
exceeds five tons.

DELAWARE.
Method of Taxation.

Tonnage rate on boats of over nine tons is $2.50 per ton;
entitles individuals to use of 50 acres. Tax on 50 acres is
$25.00 in addition to tonnage tax. Less than 9 tons $2.50
per ton, with 25 acres, on which a tax of $15.00 per year is
paid.

Individuals are entitled to use of land so long as tax
and tonnage rate is paid.

EEORIDA.

No statute taxing oyster lands.

LOUISIANA.
Method of Taxation.

Privilege tax 3c per bbl. Canning license, varying from
$10.00 to $100.00 according to number of steam boxes used,
shuckers employed, or amount of oysters handled. License
for boats from $10.00 to $25.00; also a tonnage license of
50c in addition. Land leased for $1.00 per acre annually.

MAINE.

No taxation of oyster property.

MARYLAND.
Method of Taxation.

Leases to citizens of State only, at rate of not less than
: $1.00 per acre. Limit of leases 20 years. $1.00 per acre for
2 years; $2.00 for 3d year; $3.00 for 4th year; $4.00 for 5th
year; $5.00 per year for balance of 20 years. In addition to

the above there is a bushel tax on oysters bought and sold.

36 METHODS OF TAXATION.

MASSACHUSETTS.
Method of Taxation.

No special laws relative to taxation of oyster lands. .
Probably would be taxed under general laws applicable to
_ taxation of other property.

NEW JERSEY.
Method of Taxation.

Leases to citizens of State only at rate of not less than
25c per acre. The lowest rate is $.50 and in one district
$1.00. Grounds are leased for catching seed at rate of $3.00
per acre per annum. In one district there is a boat license,
or tonnage tax, ranging from $5.00 to $50.00, rated $2.50 per
ton.

NEW YORK.

Method of Taxation.

Flat tax by the acre upon all shell-fish lands (with
some exceptions) of 25c per acre, except where taxed through
ordinary channels by the towns, in addition to an annual
rental of not less than $2.00 per acre. In certain towns,
leased to highest bidder at auction.

NORTH CAROLINA.

Method of Taxation.
Subject to lease by the year. Rental of $1.00 per acre
annually.

IJELO IDS, USILyeUNED),

Method of Taxation.

No special tax on oyster lands. Land leased to planters.
Neither land nor oysters are taxed by the State. Oysters
are personal property and might be taxed as such, but no
case is known of such action. $10.00 per acre where water
is less than 12 ft., and $5.co per acre where water is over
12 ft., annually.

AE DOAS:

Method of Taxation.

Rental system, but no direct taxation. 3I5c per acre for
part of year; 25c per acre for next four years, and 75c after-
wards. 2c per bbl. for oysters taken from either public or
private beds, and a license system.

METHODS OF TAXATION. 37

VIRGINIA.

Method of Taxation.
Ground leased at an annual rental of $1.00 per acre.

EARLY TAXATION.

The taxation of the oyster properties has been a live issue,
apparently, since the creation of the Connecticut Board of
Shell-Fish Commissioners in 1881. The following extracts from
different reports of the Commission show their opinions of the
difficulties and uncertainties of the present method of taxing the
oyster franchises based on the value of land from one to twenty
fathoms under water.

EXTRACT FROM FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SHELL-
FISH COMMISSIONERS.

January Session 1882.

RECOMMENDING A METHOD OF TAXATION.

Another class of oystermen advised that a tax shall be raised
in the form of a license to be paid by every one cultivating state
beds, proportionate to the size of the beds. Another class recom-
mended a tax upon the annual product of the beds. A paper
signed by 123 oystermen of Norwalk, presented to the Com-
missioners, recommends that all the lands should be subject to a
reasonable pro rata tax.

Many other suggestions have been made; but after weighing,
carefully, everything brought to their attention, the Commis-
sioners have reached the conclusion that there is no good reason
for departing from the usual methods of the State in laying and
collecting a tax not only upon the grounds but also upon the
oysters growing thereon. An oyster farm is analogous to a
cattle farm. By law, the land of the latter is taxed on its assessed
value, and so are the cattle, young and old, and they are taxed
every year. No one questions the propriety of the tax, and the
Commissioners see no reason why oyster grounds and the oysters
that feed thereon, young and old, should not be taxed in like
manner.

They respectfully submit, therefore, that the grounds under
state control and the products of the grounds should be
assessed annually, and a tax laid on the assessed value should
be made payable on the first day of October in each year; values
to be ascertained from sworn lists subject to investigation and
revision when deemed necessary. Every owner should be
required to deliver his list to some proper officer on or before

38 EARLY TAXATION.

some day to be determined, and on failure so to do the said
officer should be authorized to make up such list as he may be
able, on which a double rate of tax should be levied.

EXTRACT FROM SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SHELL-
FISH COMMISSIONERS.

1883.
THE FIRST TAXING YEAR.

There is another important fact which bears upon this sub-
ject, one to which the Commissioners feel constrained to call
particular attention: By law all owners are required to file with
the Commissioners a statement, wnder oath, wherein they shall
give, not only the number of acres owned by them, but also
the value thereof per acre. With many honorable exceptions,
the valuations of cultivated grounds have been set in the lists
at ridiculously small figures. A reasonable estimate would,
unquestionably, increase these figures tenfold. A comparison
of the lists with each other is conclusive of these under-valua-
tions. Adjacent lots, of like character and condition in every
respect, are valued, one, five, ten, or fifteen times more than the
other, and this simply because one owner has a better moral
sense than another. Some men deem it commendable to deceive
the tax gatherer. They do not seem to realize the fact that in
doing so they commit perjury and rob the State. So great were
the differences in the valuation of grounds given in the lists, the
Commissioners were compelled to perform a great amount of
labor before they could approximate to reasonable equalization
of values; and in doing this the figures were largely increased,
and yet not without great misgiving in many cases that the
increased valuation was not as high as it ought to be. The
novelty of the work making an entire new list without any
previous list for a guide, and the difficulty experienced in pro-
curing information except from parties directly or indirectly
interested, forced the Commissioners to place the estimates below,
rather than above, the true valuation.

The plea, so often heard, that the oyster industry of the
State is in its infancy and should, consequently, be lightly taxed,
is more plausible than sound. It is true the industry is in its
infancy, but the infant has had a gigantic development and
growth, and is fully able to bear its fair share of public burdens.
The pioneers of deep water planting have been so long and so con-
spicuously successful that their business must be regarded as
established. The many who have more recently embarked in the
business have doubtless been prompted so to do by the reasonable
prospect of a like success. In view of the cheapness of grounds,
and the moderate cost of cultivating, the net profits must be con-
sidered large. It is admitted that there are risks in the business, and

EARLY TAXATION. 39

that serious losses sometimes arise from storms, noxious animals,
and other causes; but the chances of profit are not thereby
materially diminished. In the long run the results are quite as
gratifying as are those of the best mercantile or manufacturing
industries. This is corroborated by the experience of those who
have been longest in the business in this State, and also of most
of the Rhode Island cultivators. The grocer or butcher just
starting in a business where he has invested his capital, it may
be his all, would not think of asking any reduction or exemption
from tax, because his business was in its infancy. He knows that
whatever property he owns is subject to taxation, regardless of
the risks attendant upon its investment. And so it is with the
oyster growers; there is no valid reason why property should
not be fairly appraised and a fair tax raised thereon. Judging
from the lists which have been presented for this year’s taxes,
it is believed that a better view of this subject begins to prevail
among the oystermen.

EXTRACT FROM FOURTH REPORT OF THE SHELL-FISH
COMMISSIONERS.

1885.
DIFFICULTIES OF ASSESSMENT.

In making the valuation of oyster grounds the Commissioners
believe that not a lot has been overestimated. It is difficult for
the uninitiated to appreciate the obstacles that must be overcome
before reaching a just conclusion about the value of any sub-
marine lot.

Could the waters covering a lot be made to recede, and lay
bare the bottom so that one might observe its true suitableness
for the cultivation of oysters, their work then would not be half
done. The depth of water, the various currents that flow over
the ground, the quantity of food likely to be found there for the
growing stock, its exposure to the attacks of stars and other
marine enemies—all these elements are necessary to the for-
mation of a correct estimate of value.

Their estimates of value have generally been received with
approval, and the taxes based thereon have been promptly paid
by the great majority of owners. There were some complaints
which were presented, not only to the Commissioners personally,
but also through the public press, with considerable acrimony;
but the Commissioners did not deem it necessary to defend a
work which commended itself to all impartial men. Persons who
purchase more ground than they can cultivate, who hold large
areas for speculative purposes, ought not to be relieved of their
fair burden of tax because they reap no immediate benefit from
their holdings. And yet this is the class of men, generally, who

40

EXTRACT FROM THE SEVENTH REPORT OF THE SHELL-

EARLY TAXATION.

have been loudest in their complaints. When compared with the
valuations of oyster grounds in town jurisdiction and the tax
laid thereon by town officers, the state tax laid by the Com-
missioners seems trifling.

FISH COMMISSIONERS.
October 31, 1887.
FUTILE OBJECTIONS OF LARGE OWNERS.

The State passed the tax law and made it one of the duties
of the Commissioner to execute it. If it is a vicious law, change
it; but it cannot be changed by attacking the Commissioners.
Wipe the Commissioners out, and the law yet stands and must
be enforced. Repeal the law, and it takes from the Commis-
sioners only a small part of their duties, and that the most
disagreeable part.

The promoter of this movement has 10,000 acres and upwards
of oyster ground. With his two steamers he cannot cultivate
thoroughly more than 500 acres. If he attempts more, he cannot
keep it clean from stars. This he has attempted, and he has
suffered like the rest. If his broad acres were divided up and
held by other parties who would be glad to cultivate them, they
would pay a higher tax to the State; and what is of equally great
importance, would not be, as they now are, beds for unlimited
star breeding.

It is this failure to cultivate large holdings that makes this
tax seem so burdensome to owners. Let them sell off some of
these good grounds that they hold for speculative purposes, and
they will have more money and not feel the trifling tax the
State lays on them.

This tax, as we have seen, averages about eleven cents an
acre through the State. Is there any land above water in the

State taxed so low as this? Now, if oyster ground is worth ~

holding at all, if it is worth cultivating at all by these dissatisfied
holders, surely eleven cents an acre can add nothing worth con-
sidering to the burden of cultivation. A dozen good oysters
would pay the tax on each acre.

The Commissioners present the facts: It is for the State
to say whether or not any tax shall be raised on the grounds,
what it shall be, and how it shall be ascertained. The present
system is full of uncertainty, perplexity, and difficulty. The
appraisal of any property on shore is facilitated by inspection.
It has a reputed value among those who are in its neighborhood,
and a fair approximation may be secured without serious effort.
But these oyster lots are out of sight—in some instances twenty
fathoms under water. The man who knows their value best is
the owner, and he is not inclined to tell about it. Indeed, the

NEW METHOD OF TAXATION. BAS

greater number of oystermen fail to put a valuation on their list
at all. The Commissioners have some general facts bearing on
the question of value, obtained in various ways, but with the
best knowledge they can obtain they sometimes err in their esti-
mate, getting it either too high. or too low.

It is not strange, therefore, that they have made mistakes
of this character. They will always be made under such a
system of taxation.

NEW METHOD OF TAXING OYSTER FRANCHISES.

The present system of collecting revenue from the oyster
ground in this State is calculated to breed injustice. No prop-
erty is harder to value than an oyster franchise. Of course, the
property on the ground is not taxed, and many different elements
enter into and may control the value of the ground for purposes
of oyster culture. Theoretical considerations are of no con-
sequence. The fact that the bottom is hard and apparently suit-
able for purposes of shell-fish culture has nothing to do with the
practical side of the case. There are thousands of acres of
hard bottom in this State where it has been proved over and
over again that oysters cannot live and thrive. The fact then is_
that only by experiment can the value of a piece of ground for
purposes of oyster culture be determined. The experimenter
is the owner. It is not for his interest to disclose the value of
his property to the assessor. The only other means of ascer-
taining this fact is hearsay evidence, pure and simple. The clerk
of the Shell-Fish Commission, who is the assessor, is not a prac-
tical oysterman and never has been, and no person who has been
the official assessor during the history of the oyster law has
ever claimed to have any practical knowledge of the value of
the property upon which he has placed a valuation, nor any
information except what has come to him either from the owner
himself or from other persons whose opinions may or may not
be of value.

Complaint has been made that the assessments have been
unjust in some cases. The wonder is that these complaints have
been as few as they have been. The tribunal which then takes
up the matter is the Shell-Fish Commission acting as a board
of relief, and here again no one with any practical knowledge, or
claiming to have any such knowledge, sits in judgment on this

42 NEW METHOD OF TAXATION.

question. The only testimony that is advanced in nine cases out
of ten is the testimony of interested witnesses who would be
more than human if they did not studiously seek to make it
appear that the valuation is excessive.

To apply the same rule of valuation to property out of sight,
which no one has an opportunity to examine except the owner
of it, conditions as to which are unknown and must be unknown
because of the fact that it would cost more to examine into them
than the tax would amount to, is little short of ridiculous. This
law seems to have been based on the taxation law as applied
to real property, but any one can see that the conditions are
totally diverse. In the case of real property it is in sight of every
man. It has a known selling value ascertained either by the
selling price of the property itself or other property similarly
situated. In the case of oyster ground, however, it is a signifi-
cant fact that very little of the best ground has changed hands
since the oyster law was passed in 1881, and in the few cases
where transfers have been made no one has known anything
about the actual selling price excepting the parties interested.
There is obviously no analogy between real property on shore and
oyster franchises located many feet under water, so far as plac-
ing the valuation upon them by taxing authorities is concerned.

NEW TAXING RECOMMENDATIONS.

The question then is, can any better system be devised? The
answer is, yes. The Louisiana system has been in successful use
there for many years and is in all respects more logical and fairer,
both to the owner and to the state (see law, page 89). This plan
with some modifications is seriously recommended as follows:

1. Place a flat valuation on all ground under state jurisdic-
tion of say $10 per acre.

2. Place a productivity tax of two or three cents a bushel
upon all seed or other oysters taken from any grounds in this
State for sale, or for the purpose of removing the same out of
the State.

3. Require a daily report to be made by the captain or per-
son in charge of every boat or vessel engaged in dredging
oysters—this report to be made directly to the Shell-Fish Com-
mission and without inspection by the owner or manager of the

NEW METHOD OF TAXATION. 43

property from which the product is taken; also another report
to be made quarterly by the owner of the ground to the Com-
mission covering the same field.

4. Appoint a proper number of State Inspectors, say three,
who have the right to go upon any oyster boat at any time and
examine and measure the contents, and to go on property of any
oysterman on shore for the purpose of making proper investiga-
tion of the accuracy of the reports handed in.

It might be necessary to provide for other details, but in
the main it seems that this plan would be fair to all concerned,
in that it would do away with all questions as to valuation of
grounds. The real test as to such valuation is productivity. If
ground produces well, it ought to be made to pay accordingly to
the State. If it produces nothing, then it would have to pay
nothing except the fifteen mills on a valuation of $10 as specified,
and, of course, if the ground produced nothing, the owner might
release it to the State in accordance with the present law practice.

It may be said that very much of the ground now being held
is, and always has been, held in violation of the terms of the
original grants, because no use of it for purposes of oyster cul-
ture has ever been made by the owner. The ground has been
held, apparently, to enable the owner to make large claims as
to the amount of his acreage for purposes of advertising. It
may be said, however, that if ground is of any use whatever
for purposes of oyster culture it must be worth the $10 an acre
per year. This would require the owner to pay to the State only
fifteen cents each year per acre on ground so held.

The proposed law would be automatic in its operation. There
would be no assessor nor board of relief. The owner would
pay nothing (except the fifteen cents an acre), if the ground
produced nothing. If the ground produced little, he would
pay little. If it produced much, he would pay and would
doubtless be willing to pay in proportion. The claim is often
made before the board of relief that no set has been secured
for a certain number of years and that there has been nothing
taken from the ground except old oysters, and that the
value of the franchise. for that particular year has been cor-
respondingly low. These claims would adjust themselves under
the proposed law, and it is difficult to see how any injustice could
be done to anyone. Of course, it ought to be provided that the

44 NATURAL OYSTER BEDS.

reports should not be made public as to detail and, so as to prevent
one dealer from prying into the affairs of another, they should
be kept from public scrutiny.

NATURAL OYSTER BEDS.

The statutes provide that certain so-called natural oyster
grounds shall be designated and reserved for the use and benefit
of all persons, residents of this State, who shall take out an
annual license in accordance with section 3234 of the General
Statutes. -

The payment required for such license shall be $2 for every
vessel or boat under five tons, and for a vessel or boat exceeding
five tons, fifty cents for each additional ton, subject to conditions
relative to size of boat, weight of dredge, power, etc., also
owner’s length of residence in the State.

There are nine such natural beds designated in Section 3214
of the General Statutes as follows:

Cormell Reef Natural Bed, 15 acres; Portchester Bed, 218
acres; Great Captains Island Natural Bed, 152 acres; Field
Point Natural Bed, 84 acres; Greenwich Point Natural Bed,
403 acres; Fairfield Bar and Fairfield Natural Beds, 1,237 acres;
Bridgeport Natural Bed, 334 acres; Stratford Natural Bed,
3,055 acres; Roton Point and Fish Island Natural Beds, 307
acres. The total acreage being’ 5,805 acres.

Of the beds mentioned above only the last four are buoyed
by the State, and are, therefore, the only ones that are worked
to any considerable extent. Originally all these beds were very
productive, but the effect of continual use and their present con-
dition is well described by Mr. B. Frank Wood, late Superin-
tendent of the Bureau of Marine Fisheries of the State of New
York, who is entirely familiar with all the oyster grounds in
Long Island Sound. He says: ;

“It is no secret that the natural shell-fish lands under public
waters of the State have been scraped and raked into a condition

of almost entire depletion, until very few traces can be found of

beds which could under the statutory definition be said to be of
natural growth. This disappearance of natural growth shell-
fish is not strange or wonderful, for it must be remembered that
men, while giving nothing back and doing nothing to destroy the
enemies of the shell-fish, have raked entire bays and arms of the
sea bare of their product, thus destroying the balance of nature

by use of the most radical means for the annihilation of oysters
and clams.

.

NATURAL OYSTER BEDS.

“Natural forces are no doubt sufficient to conserve and even
guarantee natural conditions, but when to the attacks of star-
fish, borer, periwinkle, and other enemies of the shell-fish are
added the sweeping raids of the all-consuming fisherman, there
is certainly little left for the mollusc but extinction.

“Tt must be understood that as soon as oysters are found,
numbers of fishermen crowd to the locality, and the shell-fish,
before they are as large as a one-cent piece, are raked up and
sold as seed. A few weeks or even days may’ suffice to
deplete entirely the locality of oysters. That the shell-fish prod-
uct under such destructive manipulation was in imminent danger
of being practically wiped out, and that oysters might soon be
obtainable only as a luxury for the rich, was years ago appreciated
by those who have given the subject attention, and in consequence
the existing system of state control was inaugurated. Under the
new system of granting or leasing lands to individual planters,
lands under water are granted at a fixed price or rental.

“The planters are encouraged to make every effort and adopt
every improvement which may be expected to increase the quan-
tity and improve the quality of the product. Millions of dollars

Fare invested in the industry. The arch enemy of the oyster and
the bane of every planter, the star-fish, is successfully combated;
other enemies are effectively dealt with, and numerous unfavor-
able conditions are met and overcome. Appliances have been
improved, and the types of vessels used in the business are
constantly bettered.

“Under the local natural bed system, efficient means of
destroying the enemies of the shell-fish, involving the use of
steamers, was out of the question. Under the present system
of state control, the planters may obtain sufficient lands, employ
capital to advantage, combat the natural enemies of the shell-fish,
and have the benefit of proper surveys and boundaries, the lines
being accurately fixed and easily relocated when necessary.

“There is, unfortunately, in some of the towns and villages
upon our coast an unprogressive element composed of those who
prefer to reap where they have not sown; who rely upon what
they term their ‘natural rights’ to rake where they may choose in
the public waters. They deplete, but do not build up! They
think because it may be possible to go out upon the waters for
a few hours in the twenty-four (when the tide serves) and dig
a half peck of shell-fish, that it is sufficient reason why such
lands should not be leased by the State to private planters. It
might as well be said that it is wrong for the Government to
grant homestead farms to settlers because a few blackberries
might be plucked upon the lands by any who cared to look
for them.

“Though there is an increasing demand for shell-fish, there
has been a tendency in many quarters to adopt measures for
limiting the supply. For instance, there has been legislation by
means of which close seasons have been established, or the size
of the shell-fish that may be taken limited, etc., the idea apparently
being to conserve the supply. But would it not be better to
increase the supply by encouraging the planters to cultivate the
many thousands of acres in the State available for this purpose?
The objection to granting leases in certain localities has been
made that at one time (however remote) natural beds of oysters
existed, and that perhaps, if the grounds were allowed to remain
idle they might be revivified and the natural growthers again
have an opportunity to gather the product. If this reasoning

45

46 REPORTS OF NATURAL GROWTHERS.

were good, it is still true that the exhaustive methods of work-
ing which in time past denuded the lands would, if used again,
produce a similar result.”

The actual condition, therefore, of the Connecticut natural
beds is that only four out of the nine are considered to be of
sufficient importance to buoy, and of these only a small part of
the acreage is now productive. The continuation of the present
method of use would soon result, undoubtedly, in complete
impoverishment of these beds.

On the other hand a change in the policy by the State towards
these beds and the adoption of the leasing system will give an
opportunity for the development of these natural oyster-produc-
ing areas, following the scientific method used by the private
owners, until they would become the largest producing and most
valuable oyster grounds in Long Island Sound.

There is an oysterman’s story to the effect that one man
offered $60,000 per year as an annual rental for one of the more
prolific of the natural beds for a term of five years. While this
may be an exaggeration, nevertheless it is an indication of the
appreciation of the possibilities of the development of such
ground by those sufficiently skillful and experienced to bring
it about.

INFORMATION FROM NATURAL GROWTHERS.

In order to secure some approximate information relative
to the business of the natural growthers, the following blank
was sent to all such persons in the State.

To be returned to the Tax Commissioner, Hartford, Conn., on
or before October I, I9Io.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Return to the State Board of Equalization.
NATURAL OYSTER GROWTHERS.

FRE GIT NOE eye MNES GEE cc ao IRE Tee ARORA ORL UAT a

Request for this information authorized in

SPECIAL LAWS NO. 486, SESSION OF 1909.

Section 1. That the state board of equalization be and is
hereby appointed a commission to investigate the oyster properties
owned by the state, the production thereof, the revenue received

REPORTS OF NATURAL GROWTHERS. 47

therefrom, trespasses committed thereon, the protection pro-
vided therefor, and all things pertaining to the general care and
management thereof, and the matter of the valuation and taxation
of such properties in this state owned by individuals, firms, and
corporations, which commission shall report its findings and
recommendations thereon to the next session of the general
assembly.

Sec. 2. Said commission is hereby authorized to compel, by
subpoena or capias issued by any member of said commission or
other proper authority, the attendance of any person before it as
a witness, and to administer oaths and to cause the production
of any papers, books, or maps necessary for the purposes herein
provided for, and to punish for contempt to the Sa extent as
justices of the peace may in criminal cases. * * *

1. Number of years you have worked under license, ........
ZENO UTMpPLESEMts Ag Cun mkarnas ta sivel vers aalsraicara cvsimters siatsiel ora cesteveuene
Gute Othermbusinessseiby amy mec ceeiacnsciemoe serie wate ue eau
4. Names of beds worked each year, ................-..---
FaeeNames) andmniimlbersObsbOatSes sincitn ce cease oetoe ace

er

(Oy) IDYoy SHOE: Giana AyOLbe [KOEKKSD “soucsonoeusouodomouacdeedoacac
7. Average number of days you have worked on natural beds
GEVOY (Seth ny, In RS eh ce orc RO Oe OHO aG SOS Tao O Cane

8 Estimated total number of bushels you have taken off
duginguihenasteiverycaLcmenn mare er ccoineeeiar ces

go. Average price received per bushel, ....................--
Io. poree of product sold to buyers who lived outside the
IAT. Conoco ciea Dabs Odom Coo LoGs bo como oO Duo AaDOodad de

Ce

State of Connecticut
Gounty sobs wees was e el Uke Ae Tas
Ss.

Personally appeared the above-named and made oath to the
truth of the above statement by him subscribed and of the matters
therein contained according to the best of his knowledge, infor-
mation and belief.

a ateel a niaeey hes AM date Steaua one acre Bekele ane Notary Public.

Explanations may be written on the back of this sheet; also,
remarks relative to protection, trespass, contamination, and
changes in the laws relative to any phase of the oyster industry.

Answers were received from sixty-six natural growthers
and the totals, averages and deductions from the different
answers are as follows:

Average number of years in the business ........ 9.13
PANVET A Chal G Clue ee bohccl apa R HeRse TIN ANIN t Pepa 45.3
Number admitting to have other business ........ 17
Number claiming to have no other business ...... 49

Number ownimesone: bodtysssescene cae eseee cons ae 54

48 REPORTS OF NATURAL GROWTHERS.

Number owning two boats ................+.000- 9
Numberlownine tliree boats) een aeernree cee anne 4
Number owning no boats .............. ad de bbe aiod 7

The number of days spent working on the ground ranged
from 15 to 250, with an average of 98 days.

The total number of bushels taken off in one year by any
one person ranged from 180 to 4,000, or a total of 51,888 bushels,
being an average of 1,058.9 bushels to each person.

The total number of. bushels of oysters taken from the
ground in five years was given as 247,655, or an average of
4,953-1 bushels for each person, during five years.

The prices received per bushel for sale of the oysters ranged
from 25 cents to 75 cents, or an average of 53.2 cents per bushel.

The receipts per year, per person, were reported to be from
$32.50 to an alleged $2,550.00, a total of $26,557.05, or an
average of $603.56 to each person.

Of all the oysters taken from the natural beds those report-
ing showed an average of 51.8 per cent. of the total as being
sold to parties outside of the State. Ten of the natural growthers
claimed to plant the whole or part of the seed which they caught.

The reports summarized above represented only about a
quarter of all the natural growthers whose names are listed by the
Shell-Fish Commissioners. It is probable that these are the most
successful persons engaged in this industry, and that if the other
three-fourths could have reported they would have shown small
results in every way, and would have reduced the averages and
receipts, as given above, to a large extent. ‘This is a definite
indication of the comparative small benefit of natural beds to
a large number of natural growthers.

The industry itself is certainly somewhat of a gamble and,
as such, lures many persons to take out a license, in the hope that
they will be lucky and draw a prize, but while a few are able
to make a good day’s wages, a very large number, probably,
would be much better off to continue at some definite employment
which would bring them at least $2 per day.

The leasing of ground in small areas will give an opportunity
for those of the natural growthers who are really oystermen
to engage in the business for themselves; cultivate the ground;
produce a satisfactory product and derive a very much larger
financial benefit than under the present conditions.

LEASING THE NATURAL BEDS. 49

PROPOSED LEASING SYSTEM OF THE
NATURAL BEDS.

This Board recommends, therefore, that the natural beds
within the territory described in section 3214 of the General
Statutes be abolished, and such territory be leased to citizens of
the State under the following conditions:

Term of lease should not exceed ten years, with the privilege
of renewal for another period of ten years. No lease should be
made to any one person, individually, or any one person con-
nected with or in the employment of any firm or corporation,
for more than twenty-five acres. Preference should be given
in granting leases, to those persons who for the past five years,
consecutively, have held their licenses to work on the natural beds
and who live in the locality bordering on such beds. It should
be provided that no lease should be transferred or assigned, and
in the event of death or termination the lease should be sur-
rendered. It would seem that an annual rental of $1 per acre
in addition to a productivity tax of at least two cents per bushel
would be an entirely reasonable and fair return.

There is no question that if such a method were adopted it
would raise to a productive state a large amount of ground for
oyster culture. It would give an opportunity for increased profits
to a large number of persons, with a corresponding increase in
revenue to the State for the charges received from such natural
beds.

The yearly revenue derived from licenses to work the natural
beds and the expense for buoying and inspecting the same since
1895 are given as follows in the Shell-Fish Commissioners’
reports:

Receipts Expenses
1895 $695.50 $ 490.85
1896 860.50 970.83
1897 12.00 1,261.24
1898 860.00 1,103.34
1899 702.00 2,270.42
1900 934.00 1,534.85
1901 547.00 1,045.99
1902 255.50 1,357.86
1903 83.50 1,033.40
1904 676.00 1,096.20

1905 778.00 1,401.24

50 LEASING THE NATURAL BEDS.

Receipts Expenses
1906 $ 551.50 $1,345.05
1907 1,265.00 1,532.50
1908 1,300.50 1,704.45
1909 1,002.00 1,710.70
IQIO 650.00 1,037.30
Torats, $11,170.00 $22,608.22

This shows an average yearly income of $698.68; an aver-
age yearly expense of $1,413.01; a total net loss for sixteen (16)
years of $11,429.22, and an average yearly loss of $713.80.

The leasing of such ground at $1 per acre would theoretically
yield $5,000, annually, and a productivity tax of two cents per
bushel on an annual catch of only 200,000 bushels would increase
this revenue from a net yearly loss of $713.89 to a yearly gain
of $9,000. In a comparatively short time this income would be
materially changed by the very much larger production which
the natural beds would yield under private cultivation.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY.

The first public attention throughout the country was drawn
to the polluted conditions of many oysters which were being sold
in interstate commerce, by the publication in October, 1909, of
the now renowned Food Inspection Decision No. 110, by the
Bureau of Chemistry, under the direction of Dr. Harvey W.
Wiley.

There is given herewith a statement by Dr. George W. Stiles
of the Bureau of Chemistry, which is a part of a paper which
he has prepared relative to the investigation of oysters shipped
from various states together with his recommendations for over-
coming the evils connected therewith. Dr. Stiles has personally
visited many of the oyster-opening houses in Connecticut. He is
known to a large number of our oyster growers. His statement
of the case has a special bearing on the oyster industry in
Connecticut.

THE BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF SHUCKED AND
SHEMEROMS iS:
By Georce W. Stites, M.D., PH.D.
Bacteriological Chemist Bureau of Chemistry.
U. S. Department of Agriculture.

During the last quarter of a century rapid developments have
taken place along all lines of sanitary science, and nowhere is

FEDERAL BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY.

this progress more noticeable and striking than in the realm of
food bacteriology.

Since the passage of the Pure Food and Drugs Acts in 1905,
the need of bacteriology as applied to sanitation has been amply
demonstrated. This is particularly true in connection with the
production, care, and handling of all kinds of food material,
both in their raw and finished state.

The subject of the possibility of oysters and other shell-fish
becoming contaminated with sewage-polluted water was one of
the first problems to receive consideration after the passage of
the Food Law. At the solicitation of a committee representing
the North American Oyster Growers and Dealers Association,
Dr. H. W. Wiley, Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, arranged to
have the necessary investigation made to study the whole oyster
situation. Various phases of the industry were taken up and
systematically considered in detail. The writer was instructed
to take up the industry from the standpoint of the bacteriologist.

The difficulty causing the greatest annoyance to the Oyster
Growers and Dealers Association in the beginning was the moot
question as to the best manner of shipping oysters. After the
completion of exhaustive experiments, carried on under different
commercial conditions, and representing various sections of the
oyster-producing territory, the conclusions and results of these
investigations, together with public hearings with practical oyster-
men, were condensed and issued October 15, 1909, in the form
of F. I. D: No: 110.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Office of the Secretary.
Board of Food and Drug Inspection
FOOD INSPECTION DECISION IIo.

SHELL-FISH.

The Department has investigated the preparation and ship-
ment of oysters, clams, and other shell-fish. A public hearing on
this subject was held by the Board of Food and Drug Inspection
on May 20, 1909. At this hearing, growers, packers, dealers, and
the public were afforded an opportunity to be heard.

It is unlawful to ship or to sell in interstate commerce oysters
or other shell-fish taken from insanitary or polluted beds. The
pollution of oysters with sewage can readily be detected by bac-
teriological examination, and such polluted oysters or other shell-
fish are adulterated under section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act of
June 30, 1906, in that they contain an added “poisonous or other
added deleterious ingredient which may render such article
injurious to health.”

Such articles are likewise adulterated under section 7, in the
case of foods, because they consist “in whole or in part of a filthy,
decomposed, or putrid animal or vegetable substance.”

It is unlawful to ship or sell in interstate commerce oysters
ot other shell-fish which have become polluted because of packing

51

52

FEDERAL BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY.

under insanitary conditions or being placed in unclean receptacles.
In order to prevent pollution during the packing or shipment of
oysters, it is necessary to give proper attention to the sanitary
condition of the establishment in which they are packed and to
use only receptacles which have been thoroughly cleansed as soon
as emptied. In order to prevent the possibility of contamination,
it is desirable that such containers be sterilized before using.

It is unlawful to ship or sell in interstate commerce oysters
or other shell-fish which have been subjected to “floating” or
“drinking” in brackish water, or water containing less salt than
that in which they are grown. Such food is adulterated under
section 7 of the law because a substance “has been mixed and
packed with it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its
quality or strength.” There can be no objection to “drinking”
shell-fish in unpolluted water of the same salt content as that
from which they have been removed. Attention is called, how-
ever, to the dangers resulting from “drinking” shell-fish near
polluted fresh water streams and near other sources of pollution.

it is unlawful to ship or sell in interstate commerce shucked
oysters to which water has been added, either directly or in the
form of melted ice. Such food is adulterated under section 7
of the act because a “substance has been mixed and packed with
it so as to reduce or lower or injuriously affect its quality or
strength,” and also because a “substance has been substituted
wholly or in part for the article.”

The packing of shell-fish with ice in contact may lead to the
absorption by the oyster of a portion of the water formed by the
melting ice, thus leading to the adulteration of the oysters with
water.

Only unpolluted cold or iced water should be employed in
washing shucked shell-fish, and the washing, including chilling,
should not continue longer than the minimum time necessary
for cleaning and chilling.

In view of the fact that the shipping season has begun and
shippers will require several months to provide themselves with
suitable containers for the shipment of shell-fish out of contact
with ice, no prosecutions will be recommended prior to May 1,
1910, for the shipment or sale in interstate commerce of oysters
or other shell-fish because of the addition of water caused solely
by shipment in contact with ice.

aly) Wig ULI
F, L. DUNLAP,
GEO. P. McCABE,
Board of Food and Drug Inspection.
Approved:

W. M. HAYS, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.

Washington, D. C., October 14, 1900.

From the sanitary point of view the ruling of the Food and
Drug Inspection Board makes it unlawful to ship or sell in inter-
state commerce oysters or other shell-fish taken from polluted
beds. This order also made it unlawful to sell or ship in inter-
state commerce oysters or other shell-fish which have become
polluted because of packing under insanitary conditions or being
placed in unclean receptacles.. It was further considered unlawful
to ship or sell in interstate commerce shucked oysters to which

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE W. STILES.

water has been added, either directly or in the form of melted
ice. Food Inspection Decision No. 121, an amendment to F. I. D.
IIO, was issued June 4, 1910, as follows:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Office of the Secretary
FOOD INSPECTION DECISION I2I.

THE FLOATING OF SHELL-FISH.
(Amendment to F. I. D. rio.)

Considerable evidence has been submitted to the Department
since the issuance of Food Inspection Decision I10 on the prac-
tice of floating or drinking oysters in water of less saline con-
tent than that in which they were grown to maturity.

Full consideration has been given to all the hearings and to
the briefs, and other information submitted subsequent to the
hearings, and the Board is of the opinion that it is not improper
to drink oysters in water of a saline content equal to that in
which oysters will grow to maturity. If, however, oysters are
floated in water of a less saline content than that in which oysters

will properly mature, the packages containing such oysters must,

be very clearly and legibly labeled “Floated Oysters,” otherwise
they will be considered adulterated under section 7 of the law.

Particular attention should be paid by the growers and
handlers of oysters to the character of the water in which the
oysters are brought to maturity or floated. Where such waters
are polluted it will invariably follow that the oysters will also
partake of this pollution and subsequent washing of the oysters,
or even floating in water which is not polluted is likely not to
cleanse them of this pollution.

Oysters found in interstate commerce in a polluted condition
because of the character of the water in which they are grown
or floated are adulterated under the Food and Drugs Act.

EF. Ls DUNLAP,
GEO. P. McCABE,
Board of Food and Drug Inspection.
Approved:

JAMES WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., May 14, I9Io.

Having finished our shipping experiments, and concluding
that shucked oysters should be no longer shipped or sold with ice
in contact, our attention was directed to the more serious aspect,
viz: the possibilities of shell-fish pollution from sewage polluted
water.

The combined oyster investigations have covered the oyster
seasons of 1908, 19090, and. Io1o0, and the writer has personally
gone out over the oyster layings, collected samples of water and
shell-fish for examination, and at the same time made a careful
sanitary inspection of each locality visited. Our investigations
have extended from Maine along the Atlantic Coast to the gulf
of Mexico. Approximately one thousand samples of oysters,
quahaugs, soft clams, and sea water have been collected and

53

54

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE W. STILES.

examined bacteriologically during these three years of investi-
gations. These samples represent the product during every step
from source of production to consumer.

The contamination of oysters may be explained from any
one or more of the following sources:

(a) Contaminated grounds.

(b) Polluted water in which they are floated.

(c) Insanitary shucking houses.

(d) Washing with impure water and contaminated ice.
(e) Unclean methods of handling, packing, and shipping.

(a) Vast areas of valuable oyster grounds are admirably
located for oyster culture all along the Atlantic Coast. Years ago
no difficulty was experienced from pollution by sewage, however
the conditions have now changed. Many localities where oysters
grow are dangerously polluted, and the extent and seriousness of
this pollution will continue to increase as long as man is content
to discharge his waste promiscuously into our natural bodies of
water. Sewage is the greatest enemy to the progress of the
oyster industry. The practical solution of this problem resolves
itself into one of two things, either the shell-fish must be removed
from the polluted water, or else the untreated sewage must not
be allowed to flow into the water over shell-fish layings.

(b) Oysters grown on grounds free from contamination will
become infected if floated in sewage polluted water. Many of
the recorded epidemics of disease resulting from eating con-
taminated oysters were caused by oysters which had been pre-
viously floated in sewage-polluted water. As ordinarily practiced,
the process of floating in water of a questionable purity should
be prohibited.

(c) The ordinary oyster shucking establishment is an
extremely insanitary place. There are a few modernly con-
structed buildings, however, fully equipped with sterilizing facil-
ities and proper methods of carrying on such a business where
sanitary measures are enforced. Oyster houses should be built
and so arranged as to be kept free from cobwebs, dust, filth, etc.

(d) Shucked oysters should be washed with pure water
and ice. Contamination may result from this source alone.
Natural ice frozen from polluted water will contaminate oysters
if placed in the water for washing purposes.

(e) Unclean methods of handling, packing and shipping
oysters may result in contamination of the product, even though
free from pollution at the beds. All utensils, tubs and other con-
tainers used by oystermen should be efficiently cleansed and
sterilized by the use of live steam or boiling water. Oysters pro-

duced and handled under clean conditions, and properly refrig-

erated, will remain in good condition for several days.

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE W. STILES. 55

CONCLUSIONS.

(1) Shucked oysters, as ordinarily found on the market,
contain more bacteria per given volume of liquor than oysters
opened directly from the shell under clean conditions.

(2) The bacterial content of opened market oysters may
include numerous B. coli and streptococci. Each of these organ-
isms is not only evidence of fecal contamination, but to my mind
when present in such large numbers as indicated in table No. 3,
their toxines may cause gastro-intestinal derangement of a serious
nature if consumed raw by susceptible individuals.

(3) Oysters may be grown on pure grounds and remain in
good condition while in the shell, but, because of unclean methods
of shucking and handling they may be subsequently contaminated
and rendered unfit for food.

(4) There is no assurance that shucked market oysters are
always cooked before consumption. They may be served raw on
an old shell, in the form of cocktails, on plates, or otherwise.

(5) Oysters intended for human consumption -should be
grown in water free from pollution, and the greatest care should
be exercised to keep such a product in a clean and wholesome
condition until consumed.

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.

The strict requirements of the Department of Agriculture
as defined in Food Inspection Decision No. 110, relative to the
floating or drinking of oysters to be sold in interstate commerce,
or the maturing of the same in polluted waters, in the opinion
of the Board required special consideration in its connection with
the Connecticut oyster industry.

A large number of the oyster growers had expressed them-
selves as being very desirous of conforming strictly to the
federal regulations. While it is apparent that certain of the
river and harbor waters are largely polluted by sewage, it is a
well-known fact that a large area of the Connecticut oyster
ground is absolutely free from any contamination, and perfectly
proper to be used in the oyster industry. It is not fair to the
reputable oyster growers to assume that all the waters covering
oyster lands in Connecticut are polluted, neither is it fair to the
public to assume that all oysters grown or taken from Connecticut
waters are absolutely free from contamination. It seemed to
the Board very necessary, therefore, both in the interest of the
honest oyster growers, as well as to the public, to have official

56 STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.

é
determination by proper and competent authority of the condi-
tion of the various harbor and coastal waters in proximity to
the oyster grounds.

The proper body to make such investigations, which would be
received with confidence by all concerned, is the State Board of
Health. The Board decided to request it to make such an investi-
gation and to that end addressed to it the following letter in
April, 1910:

April 13, I9to.
Tue Honoras_te State Board oF HEALTH,
Capitol,
Hartford, Conn.
Gentlemen:

The pure food and drug committee of the Department of
Agriculture at Washington have made certain rulings relative
to oysters shipped in interstate trade, which seriously affect the
oyster industry in this State.

These rulings prohibit the shipment of oysters that are
gathered from waters that are polluted by sewage contamination.
They also prohibit the drinking of oysters in such waters, and
prescribe that if floated, it shall be done in water of the same
salt content in which they are grown.

While this committee is explicit in their prohibitions, they
are not at all definite in their suggestions as to how these alleged
dangers may be overcome; nor do they give any definite standard
of purity which the water must be in order to be used for the
growing of oysters. Neither do they state definitely the stand-
ard of salt content which is acceptable.

The Board of Equalization, acting as a special commission
for the investigation of oyster properties of this State, under
Chapter 486 of the Special Acts of 1900, has held public hearings
in Bridgeport, South Norwalk and New Haven, and has dis-
cussed freely with the oyster planters the rulings of this com-
mittee, together with the serious difficulties which almost menace
their industry on account of the contamination of the rivers and
harbors by sewage, and the waste products of manufactories.

At a meeting of the Board of Equalization, held yesterday,

I was instructed to request your honorable body to make analyses,
as soon as possible, of samples of streams, and harbor waters
near New Haven, Bridgeport, Norwalk, and possibly other points
along the coast, also analyses of oysters floated in those waters,
and, in addition, to secure similar data relative to waters and
oysters in other sections of the so-called oyster grounds, so that
there may be an official statement as to what waters are satis-
factory for the growth and floating of oysters in this State.

The oyster planters have assured this Commission that if such
official information can be secured, they will use their endeavors

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH. 7

to adapt themselves to present conditions until further relief can
be secured.

The Board also requests that you suggest, at your conveni-
ence, legislation which would be sufficiently practical, so that it
could be enforced, to remove as much as possible the sewage
contamination which exists at present, and to prevent further con-
tamination in the future.

The Board asks that action be taken at your next meeting on
our request for the official analyses of the waters, for it is very
desirable that definite information relative to this matter be
secured as soon as possible.

Yours very truly,
WM. H. CORBIN, Tax Commissioner.

Early in December the following letter was received giving
action of the Board and the results of the investigations which
were made in New Haven Harbor:

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.

December I0, 1910.
BoarD OF EQUALIZATION AND OySTER INVESTIGATION COMMISSION,
Hartford, Conn.
Gentlemen:

In response to your request contained in letter of April 13,
from Mr. Wm. H. Corbin, Tax Commissioner, that the State
Board of Health would make analyses of the harbor waters and
streams near New Haven, Bridgeport, Norwalk and other points
along the coast, also analyses of oysters floated in those waters,
the board at its quarterly meeting in April appointed a committee
consisting of Dr. A. J. Wolff, Mr. T. H. McKenzie, Professor
H. W. Conn, Bacteriologist, and the Secretary to consider the
matter and report to the Board at a special meeting to be held as
soon as the Committee was ready to report.

This committee held several sessions and at a special meeting
of the Board held in June reported that this investigation was one
that ought to be taken up by the State Board of Health, and
recommended that it be done.

The Board accepted the report and recommendation of the
committee and authorized our chemist, Mr. James A. Newlands,
and Mr. George C. Ham, Civil Engineer, to undertake the work
of investigation. It was decided, owing to the magnitude of the
work and the limited resources at our disposal, that the work,
for the present summer.be confined to New Haven Harbor.

The work as authorized was carried on from June until
October and at a special meeting held December 8, Mr. Newlands
and Mr. Ham made a report to the Board of their summer’s work.

58 SANITARY INVESTIGATION OF NEW HAVEN HARBOR.

This report, while not regarded as complete, was accepted as a
report of progress, and in accordance with a vote passed at this
meeting, I herewith transmit to you a copy of said report.

Very truly yours,
JOSEPH H. TOWNSEND, Secretary.

The report in full is given on page 109. The work of investi-
gation in New Haven Harbor occupied the time of Mr. Newlands
and Mr. Ham nearly all summer.

Observations and experiments were made at various stages
of high and low water with different air currents. ‘The per-
centage of land water to sea water was also determined. The
direction of the flow of each one of the main sewers was deter-
mined. Analyses were made of the waters of the harbors and
rivers, at various depths, and also of the oyster liquor. Out of
the total area of over 2,000 acres of private oyster grounds in
New Haven Harbor 1506 acres showed definite evidences of the
presence of sewage pollution which should not be used for grow-
ing market oysters and 579 acres in addition would require
further investigation before any definite statement can be made.
Probably the contiguous natural beds are as much contaminated.

POLLUTED GROUNDS.

Oyster culture is carried on in Connecticut on a large scale
and with an intelligence and enterprise not exceeded by that
shown in any other state. It has become such a great and impor-
tant industry that it should be wisely fostered by the State. It
uses so much capital, it employs so many persons, it produces
such large quantities of a food product which is so much sought
for and widely consumed, that the promotion and protection of
the industry should be encouraged and aided. The State should
free it from any unjust suspicion and safeguard it from being
a public danger by adopting measures for protecting the oyster
grounds from sewage contamination. That the harbors along the
coast, where oysters are grown, are seriously polluted by sewers
discharging at points which have been taken because most con-
venient without any regard to the development of local nuisances,
or the dangers to persons eating oysters from such grounds, is
shown by the recent investigation in New Haven Harbor made
by the State Board of Health. During the examination of oyster

POLLUTED GROUNDS. 59

beds in all localities where the beds were infected it was found
that the infection was due to sewage, and there are many other
oyster beds in this State so located that with the growth of the
adjacent towns the sewage, unless proper precautions are taken,
will destroy the commercial value of such beds. Aside from the
pollution of our oyster beds the indiscriminate discharge of crude
sewage into our streams and harbors is no doubt a potent factor
in the spread of communicable diseases and is a source of com-
plaint from the owners of shore property.

The problems connected with sewage disposal are very com-
plex and vary with the conditions of the case under considera-
tion, as a method which may be applicable at one point will be
totally unfit for another. Many of the sewerage systems of the
State have been built without any adequate conception of what
the plant was expected to do, or what should be done, and are,
therefore, inefficient.

Another problem relating to public water supplies is always
apparent, whether it is more economical to thoroughly purify
sewage, Or more economical to purify the water which may be
polluted by such sewage. These are problems which cannot be
determined, ordinarily, by the city or town involved and it seems
too often to be the attitude of cities to think, if they can get their
sewage from their city, that it is immaterial what happens to
some other town.

All these considerations make it apparent that the matter
of sewage disposal should be placed in the hands of some cen-
tral body properly equipped with the necessary machinery
for dealing with the subject, efficiently, fairly and economically,
and the Board believes, as this is preéminently a question of
public health, this control should be placed with the State Board
of Health.

Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Kansas, Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio, Indiana and Vermont have given their state boards
of health quite definite powers in the regulation of sewage dis-
posal and the protection of water supplies, and their example
might well be followed.

The examination of the water outside of New Haven Harbor
to the south of the Breakwater showed the same to be sufficiently
free from colon bacilli to be entirely satisfactory for both grow-
ing and maturing oysters for interstate trade. It is not fair to

60 POLLUTED GROUNDS.

the owners of this ground to include the sweeping assertion that
their ground is unfit for oyster cultivation as being near New
Haven.

There should be some state authority, preferably the State
Board of Health, to certify to the condition of all oyster grounds
that are above reproach, and also to prevent the sale, in the vari-
ous towns of the State, of oysters taken from polluted waters.
The Board of Health of New Haven has such a regulation, but
there is no prohibition against shipping such oysters which are shut
out of New Haven to any other town in the State. (Page 99.)

The Board definitely recommends that the State Board of
Health be specifically empowered to continue the investigation
of the condition of the harbors and coastal waters of this State,
which are in proximity to oyster-producing grounds, including
the natural oyster beds.

It is recommended further that the Board be authorized to
give certificates attesting to the purity of whatever grounds
are satisfactory for the maturing of oysters for the market.
Certificates should be withheld from all other oyster grounds,
in fact the State Board of Health should forbid taking oysters
from polluted beds for the market, as is prohibited in Rhode
Island and other states.

OPENING HOUSES.

The Board inspected a number of the buildings in different
localities in the State where oysters were opened. This visit
was made during Thanksgiving week of this year, at the time
when there is the largest demand for oysters. An opportunity
was thus given to inspect the method of operation, and the con-
ditions of the work rooms at the time of their greatest use. In
some of the houses men and women are employed, and in others
colored men, most of whom have worked as “shuckers” in Mary-
land and Virginia.

The following description has been given of this work:

“The method used in opening the shell is known as ‘breaking’
or ‘cracking.’ The shucker stands or sits before a stout bench,
which may be a long table partitioned off into working spaces
for each one, and before whom the oysters are piled. Imme-
diately under his hand is a block of wood into which is inserted

OPENING HOUSES. 61

an upright piece of iron called the ‘cracking iron.’ The shucker
is also provided with a double-headed hammer and a stiff, sharp
knife on a round wooden handle. On the left hand is worn a
rough woolen, rubber, or leathern half-mitten known as a ‘cot’
to protect the skin. He seizes an oyster with the left hand with
the hinge in the palm, it is placed upon the cracking iron and
with one blow of the hammer the ‘bill’ or growing edge of the
shell is broken off. In the fracture thus made the strong knife
is pushed back until it cuts off the muscle attachment. The meat
is then tossed into the receptable which stands ready, and the
shells are dropped through a hole in the bench to a barrel or
tub placed underneath. The oysters as fast as opened are flung
into a tin receptable called the ‘measure’ holding a gallon or
more. Much of the oyster liquor also goes in with the meat and
when the measure is filled it is taken to the foreman and poured
into the ‘skimmer,’ the shucker receiving in exchange a brass
check entitling him to a definite payment for each quart. In some
cases the liquor is strained. If the liquor is strained out, only
about two-thirds of the measure would be filled. As soon as the
oysters are opened they are placed in the flat pan called the
‘skimmer’ while they are drained from their accompanying
liquor. They are then put into a large colander with perforated
sides, where a stream of water is turned upon them and they
are stirred about until washed clean. They are then put into
a tin receptacle for shipment.”

During all this process the meats of the oysters are liable
to be contaminated or polluted by contact with dirty hands, foul
receptacles, and impure water. In view of the fact that these
oyster meats are often eaten raw, just as received from the dealer,
all of the above is a very serious matter. Since the advent of
the disclosures made by Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, chief of the
Bureau of Chemistry, as the result of inspection of oysters
shipped in interstate trade, attention has been called to the cause
of contamination and very great improvement has been made in
handling the product before shipment. Dr. Wiley’s jurisdiction,
however, applies only to interstate commerce and there is no
ban whatever on intertown shipment within the State.

The visit of the Board to the oyster opening houses showed
quite a large diversity in the methods and care of handling the
oyster meats. In some houses the opening took place in old

62 OPENING HOUSES.

wooden buildings with dusty rafters, wooden floors and benches,
many of them in a dirty condition with the wood saturated with
the oyster liquor. In these houses there was no uniformity in
the use of proper aprons and hand coverings to prevent contact
with soiled clothes and hands. Hot water and steam for cleans-
ing and sterilizing were not in evidence. The general lack of
cleanliness which was quite apparent gave the impression that
there should be some form of inspection which would require
more cleanly conditions in handling this food product, which may
be eaten without sufficient cooking, to destroy any harmful germs.

On the other hand, oyster opening houses situated elsewhere
in the State seemed to be entirely satisfactory in their appearance,
in the remarkable cleanliness and in the evident care in handling
the product. The construction of the buildings and the renewed
white paint made it impossible for a large amount of dirt to be
in evidence. The floors were of cement and were frequently
washed. The shell oysters were conveyed to the shuckers by the
gravity system, coming from large overhead storage bins. After
shucking, the shells were dropped through a hole in the bench
and in some cases were removed by an endless belt which
obviated the possibility of dust and dirt from the handling of
baskets. A large amount of pure water was in evidence in its
use for cleaning the meats and sorting them into the various
commercial sizes.

In these houses the shuckers were uniformly dressed in long
white aprons and the hands were well covered. Strainers were
used as receptacles and the shuckers were paid by solid measure.
The general impression from inspecting such an opening house
was one which inspired confidence in the use of oysters as a food
product and if known by users would certainly increase the
demand for and sale of such oysters. If certain oyster-growing
firms consider it advisable and even necessary to conduct their
business along such lines of cleanliness and sanitation, it is clearly
evident that such precautions are desirable, both from the stand-
point of the producer and the consumer.

In the opinion of the Board there should be a state law which
requires the State Board of Health or its agents to inspect, as
frequently as it may determine, all the opening houses in the
State, and secure a proper and uniform method of opening,
handling, and cleaning oysters that are sold for trade, either

OPENING HOUSES. 63

within or without the State of Connecticut. Such a require-
ment would be of great benefit by creating an increased confi-
dence in the oyster as a food product and would make it known
throughout the country that all oysters opened in Connecticut
were uncontaminated by deleterious substances, and could be
used very freely by all consumers. All reasonable oyster growers
would welcome such inspection and the others should be made
to conform. The increased business which would result would
more than cover any additional expense which would be required
to maintain the standard which would be imposed by the Board of
Health.

In such inspection it is recommended that the “score card
system” be used similar to that employed by the Government
in the inspection’ of dairies by the Agricultural Department as
shown on page 92 and that the definite method to follow closely
be that of Rhode Island’s, see page 94.

The requirements for cleanliness should be something like
those required in Rhode Island or Virginia, given on pages 95
and 100.

CONFERENCES.
National Association of Shell-Fish Commissioners.

By appointment of Governor Weeks, the Tax Commissioner,
as the special representative of Connecticut, attended the second
annual convention of the National Association of Shell-Fish Com-
missioners, at Mobile, Ala., on April 19, 20, and 21, 1910. Mem-
bers of the Shell-Fish Commissions and other delegates from all
the oyster-growing states were present.

Very instructive papers were read, as follows:

“Oyster and Clam Culture in the North American States,”
by Mr. B. Frank Wood, Supt., Bureau of Marine Fisheries,
New York.

“Oyster Culture in the Gulf States,’ by Mr. J. A. Joullian,
Secretary Oyster Commission of Alabama.

“Some Sanitary Considerations in Connection with the Treat-
ment of Oysters,’ by Dr. W. D. Bigelow, Bureau of Chemistry,
Washington, D. C.

“The Cultivation of the Oyster in North Carolina,’ by Dr.
J. H. Pratt, State Geologist of North Carolina.

“Scientific Experiments in Oyster Culture,’ by Dr. Julius
Nelson, Biologist of the New Jersey Bureau of Shell-Fisheries.

64 CONFERENCES.

An illustrated lecture on “The Oyster,’ by Mr. Swepson
Earle, Hydrographic Engineer for Maryland Shell-Fish Com-
mission.

A Symposium—topic, “How may the Public Oyster Lands
of a State be Best Administered for the Greatest Good of the
Whole State?” by Samuel F. Bowden, Shell-Fisheries Commis-
sioner of Rhode Island; Charles Wythe, Hydrographic Engi-
neer, Forest, Fish and Game Commission, New York; and Wil-
liam H. Corbin, Tax Commissioner of Connecticut.

Many practical suggestions were received from the papers
and discussions of the subjects, which have been of great help
to the Board in formulating its conclusions, which are presented
in this report.

The following resolutions were unanimously adopted:

Wuereas, The Shell-Fish Industry of the United States
has the possibility of being one of the most important in the
country both commercially and as a food-producing agent; and

Wuereas, The National Association of Shell-Fish Com-
missioners recognizes the paramount importance of insuring
public confidence in the purity and healthfulness of the shell-
fish supply; and

Wuereas, There has developed in the United States during
recent years a marked tendency to improve the sanitary con-
ditions attending the cultivation, handling, shipment and sale of
oysters and other shell-fish;

Be it Resotvep, that the Association expresses its grati-
fication at the steps that have been taken to this end by federal
and state authorities and by many firms and individuals interested
in the Shell-Fish business, and

Be it ReEso.veD, that the Association, hereby goes on
record as being in hearty accord with the efforts of the Federal
Department of Agriculture to insure to the general public an
absolute standard of purity in all oysters and other Shell-Fish
used in interstate trade and in the steps taken by that Depart-
ment in the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act; and

Be it ResoLtveD FurTHER, that this Association, through
the delegates representing the Shell-Fish Authorities of
the different states, use its influence for the removal from all
streams and coastal waters of sources of pollution which may be
prejudicial to human health or to the development of shell-fish.

By unanimous rising vote, Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, Chief of
the United States Bureau of Chemistry, was elected an honorary
member of the Association.

CONFERENCES. 65

ANNUAL MEETING OF THE OYSTER GROWERS AND
DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA.

By vote of the Board of Equalization, the Tax Commissioner
attended the second annual meeting of the Oyster Growers and
Dealers’ Association of North America, at Norfolk, Va., May
17 and 18, I9gIo.

There was a large attendance, probably over three hundred,
from all the oyster-producing states in the country, also many
jobbers and dealers from the interior states.

The following papers were read:

Address—“The National Pure Food Law as Applied to
Oysters,” by Dr. G. W. Stiles, Bureau of Chemistry, Washington,
Dele

Address—‘‘The National Pure Food Law from the Stand-
point of a Practical Oysterman,’ by Mr. Fred S. Beardsley,
Manager of the Stratford Oyster Company, Stratford, Conn.

Address—‘A Commonsense View of the Pure Food Situa-
tion as between the Scientist and the Oysterman,’ by Dr. Her-
bert D. Pease, Bacteriologist of the Lederle Laboratories, for-
merly on New York Board of Health, New York City.

Address—‘‘Scientific Oyster Culture and the Need of Public
Education Respecting the Oyster Industry,” by Dr. H. F. Moore,
oyster expert of the Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D. C.

In addition, many matters were discussed and a large num-
ber of questions asked based on suggestions inspired by the
- several papers.

The meeting was very emphatic in the sentiment that the
pollution of streams and harbors should be prevented by the
state eMiraNeS: Ackerly,1ot Northport, N. Y., stated that land
under public waters is the property of the owner by legislative
authority, and the municipality has no right to invade the private
rights of the individual by the deposit of sewage there. He
stated that there were two leading court cases on the pollution
of streams. .

State of Missouri, St.. Louis vs. Illinois, 200 U. S.,
pp. 496. »

Huffmire vs. Brooklyn, 162 N. Y., pp. 584.

New York Court of Appeals, 175 N. Y., pp. 346,
Sammons vs. Gloversville.

66 CONFERENCES.

The latter case applied specifically to oysters. A number of cases
in state and circuit courts have been tried, with decisions that
contamination must be stopped.

Mr. Beardsley’s paper was an energetic statement of the
application of the federal requirements from the standpoint of a
practical oysterman. He claimed that the standards of purity
and salt content should be definitely established, and that the
prohibition of floating in water of a less content than the water
in which the oysters were grown was unreasonable. The entire
paper was very interesting and practical and has been published
in full by the Bridgeport Standard.

Dr. Pease read a very interesting paper treating particularly
the alleged dangers from the use of oysters. He said that it
was positively known that infected oysters had produced typhoid
fever. His paper gave very valuable suggestions for the use
of the State Board of Health.

He stated that neither colon bacilli nor typhoid bacilli grew
in oysters, although they can exist there. Greater danger exists
from contamination of a single house near an oyster bed than
from a large volume of sewage which flows over the ground ina
large volume of water. There would be very few cases of infec-
tion by typhoid pollution if oysters were taken directly from the
growing grounds and delivered to the consumer. Nearly all
cases of infection have come from oysters that have been trans-
ferred to other waters and floated, and then delivered. Each
state should have definite results of bacteriological study and
sanitary survey.

No case had been found where there had been any infection
of oysters which had not been floated in other waters than those
in which they were grown. Great care should be taken in the
discharge of any sewage by oyster boats while working on the
beds. The colon bacillus is always present in the digestive tracts —
of human beings. This is not necessarily, however, productive
of disease, but may possibly be.

The general public is not yet greatly interested in the proper
disposal of sewage, or the contamination of oyster beds, and
should be educated along these lines.

Dr. H. F. Moore’s paper was a very interesting discussion of
the production of oysters, giving very valuable suggestions as
to methods and details of the oyster industry.

CONFERENCES. 67

The resolutions unanimously adopted at this convention were
as follows:

Wuereas, An unfounded prejudice has heretofore existed in
the minds of some of the public against the healthfulness of the
oyster, which has had a tendency to curtail its use as a desirable
article of food, and

Wuereas, The Federal Department of Agriculture, under the
leadership of Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, has adopted rules to insure
a high standard of purity in the production and distribution of
oysters for consumption in all parts of the country. Be it, there-
fore,

RESOLVED, That the Oyster Growers and Dealers Associa-
tion of North America, in convention assembled, desires to go on
record as favoring any and all definite and reasonable measures
that may be adopted by the federal or any state authority to
secure the conduct of the business on absolutely sanitary lines—
and this association further pledges itself to do anything in its
power to produce and distribute only oysters which are wholesome
and absolutely safe for the use of any or all people of this great
country, and to codperate with all national and state officials to
guarantee such results. And be it further

REsoLveD, That this body respectfully suggests to the pure
food authorities of the various states, for the sake of the benefits
to be derived through uniform ruling, that they base the inter-
pretation of all state pure food laws, as same pertain to the oyster
business, upon the provisions decided upon by the National
Department of Agriculture as outlined in Pure Food Decision
No. 110. And be it further

ProvipeD, That the Secretary of this association be instructed
to file copies of these resolutions with the health commissioners
of every state and with the National Board of Food and Drug
Inspection.

DR. HARVEY W. WILEY.

On the way to Mobile the Tax Commissioner had an inter-
view with Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, Chief of the Bureau of Chem-
istry, at Washington, relative to order F. I. D. No. 110 of the
Agricultural Department, regarding the growing of oysters in
polluted waters and the practice of floating oysters.

He stated that while certain oyster dealers claim that the
practice of “floating” or “drinking” oysters is necessary to
cleanse them from impurities, the real purpose is to bloat them
by floating in fresher water than that in which they were grown.
The process of endosmosis then takes place and the oyster
becomes bloated or enlarged.

68 DR. HARVEY W. WILEY.

While the claim is made that the floated oyster is desired by
the trade, Dr. Wiley is of the opinion that it would not be so
if the trade only knew the taste and appearance of the natural
oyster. While the former is white, bloated, and tasteless, the
latter is a little yellow in color, salty, and tasty in the natural
size, and when familiar with it, is more acceptable to the general
public.

Dr. Wiley stated that pure food always means larger busi--
ness to the producer, and the same result would be evident as soon
as the oyster growers adapted themselves to the new regulations
of the agricultural department regarding oysters shipped in
interstate trade.

He stated that oysters grow better in the fresher waters,
and also in waters that are contaminated, as there seems to be
more diatoms on which to feed. An oyster, however, will clear
itself of any impurities in a comparatively short time, and it is
perfectly proper to grow seed oysters in any polluted waters, if
the oysters are transferred to other oyster grounds where the
water is uncontaminated. In this pure water they will free them-
selves entirely from all impurities in one or two months. If any
floating is to be done, it should be in the waters over these beds,
which may be a little less salty and freer from impurities.

He stated that the food and drugs act used the expression,
“Anything that may be injurious to the health,’ and there is
no doubt but colon bacilli are injurious to the health, whether
or not they contain typhoid germs.

He stated that it is very desirable that the State Board of
Health have jurisdiction over a certain part of the oyster indus-
try, so that they may make examinations of all waters in which
oysters are grown and also insist upon a proper standard of
cleanliness in the oyster-opening houses, and in all the implements
and receptacles used in the industry. It was stated that the
standard of purity of waters, in which oysters are matured for
shipment, should not be less than the standard required in drink-
ing water.

Dr. Wiley stated that he and the other chemists of the
Bureau would be very willing to cooperate with the authorities
of Connecticut in an endeavor to remove all cause of suspicion
in connection with the Connecticut oyster industry. He stated
further that some oysters which were sent to him, as having been

SCIENTIFIC OYSTER GROWING. 69

grown and matured on certain Connecticut oyster ground, were
the nicest he had ever eaten, and his friends confirmed this opinion.

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF OYSTER
GROWING.

Because of the importance of the industry at present and its
future possibilities, together with the amount of revenue to be
derived therefrom, the State of Connecticut is under obligations
to the oyster industry of the State not only to require all reason-
able precautions to prevent contamination of harbor and coastal
waters, but in addition to provide some means for the scientific
investigation of the proper conditions to secure the best possible
results in the growth of oysters in Connecticut waters, similar
to the investigations carried on for the benefit of the agricultural
interests. Such information relative to the cause of the green
color, the failure of sets, best methods for securing proper
growth, effective means of exterminating enemies, etc., should be
available for the benefit of all those engaged in the oyster indus-
try, and should not be confined to the individual planters, as the
possible result of their own experience. Several of the coast
states have made considerable progress along these lines, and
much definite benefit to the oyster industry has resulted through
such scientific investigations.

The Board was of the opinion that the Connecticut Agricul-
tural Experiment Station in New Haven, under the direction of
Dr. E. H. Jenkins, would be best fitted for such investigation on
account of its location and equipment. The matter was taken up
with Dr. Jenkins, and the following letter relative thereto was
received from him:

THE CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION.
New Haven, Conn., December 12, 1910.
W. H. Corsin, Tax Commissioner,
State Capitol, Hartford, Conn.
My dear Mr. Corbin:—

I have been considering the subject of oyster investigation
which you suggested to me the other night. Such _ biological
work is, of course, quite out of the direct line of our present
work, and yet, with suitable provision for it, ave could arrange
to have it done at this station; but on thinking the matter over,
it occurred to me that the work could be much more conveniently
and thoroughly done by the biological department of the Sheffield
Scientific School. I understand that arrangements are now being

completed for a marine laboratory, at least the land has been
already purchased.

7° MARINE LABORATORY.

Professor Verrill and others who have been in that depart-
ment of Yale have done an immense amount of work in the study
of marine life and my own feeling is that no other institution or
agency in the State has anything like the facilities which Yale
affords, nor can the necessary knowledge for the work be as
conveniently supplied elsewhere. I, therefore, took the liberty
this morning of calling up my friend, Director R. H. Chittenden,
of the School, and suggested the matter to him. He told me
that it appealed to him as a kind of work which would be emi-
nently appropriate for their marine laboratory and he would
very much like to be in communication with you, personally,
on the subject. If, therefore, this suggestion seems to you worth
following, will you kindly communicate with him directly? Of
course, if you prefer to have the Station engaged in it, I shall be
glad to meet you for further conference.

Very truly yours,
Ee EE NIGENS!

As suggested by Dr. Jenkins, a conference was held with
Director Chittenden of the Sheffield Scientific School. He
expressed his interest in the plan and his confidence that definite
benefit to the oyster industry would result by such action with a
small expenditure of money. He announced that the Sheffield
Scientific School expects in time to have a well-equipped marine
laboratory at Savin Rock, where facilities for the work needed
to be done in such an investigation would be provided. In the
meantime the present laboratory may be used. He stated that
the expense of such work for the State would be very small when
carried on in connection with the regular work of the marine
laboratory.

At the request of the Board he later submitted the following
statement prepared by Professor Wesley R. Coe, professor of
biology at the Sheffield Scientific School, relative to the field of
investigation which might be covered:

It is now more than a half century since the cultivation of
oysters by artificial methods has been successfully practiced in the
waters of the State, and although the industry has grown to com-
paratively vast proportions its success has been due to a com-
bination of good judgment and skillful management on the part
of the planters, accompanied with the most favorable natural
conditions, rather than to any considerable encouragement on the
part of the State or national government.

And although.there is every reason to be proud of the repu-
tation which Long Island Sound has acquired, as one of the
foremost oyster-growing localities of the world, the experience
of other Atlantic states and other countries, particularly of
France, renders it practically certain that the remarkably favor-

SCIENTIFIC OYSTER GROWING.

able natural conditions for the growth of the oyster are but
incompletely utilized. With the present ever-increasing demand
for bivalves of the best quality and guaranteed purity, the State
of Connecticut should no longer delay the fullest possible develop-
ment of the wonderful natural resources of her shell-fisheries.

Other countries and other States where the natural con-
ditions for oyster growing are far less favorable than here have
long since awakened to the advantages to be derived from a
scientific investigation into the biological conditions under which
the oyster grows, and have profited enormously in so doing. And
while the results of those studies are freely at the disposal of
our own oyster growers, yet it must be constantly borne in mind,
that although the same oyster may be grown either in Chesapeake
Bay or Long Island Sound, the conditions which surround it,
especially as regards food and natural enemies, are very different
in the two localities. .

It may thus happen that a method of culture successful in
one region may result in failure if practiced elsewhere. Hence
it will not be safe for our planters to follow blindly the course
of culture and protection which has been found satisfactory in
Maryland, or New York, or Rhode Island.

The oyster grower knows that a difference of a few days
in the time when the shells are laid down for the reception of the
spat may make a profound difference in the set of young oysters.
For the best spawning period of the oyster in one locality lasts
but for a few days—perhaps two weeks—and the free-swimming
young, after remaining from one to two days at the surface of the
water, are forced to settle to the bottom, where they invariably
perish unless they are able to attach themselves to some hard
surface suitable for their reception. To supply suitable materials
for the attachment of these young oysters, the planters commonly
cover the bottom of their leased areas with the shells which
remain from the oysters opened the previous season. Sometimes
the set of young oysters on these shells is successful and some-
times not, and this in spite of the fact that the water was teeming
with spawn in the breeding season. The supply of spawn is
always sufficiently abundant when mature oysters are growing in
the immediate vicinity, for a single female oyster may discharge
several millions of eggs. Why, then, the failure of the spawn to
set ?

Recent investigations have shown that the dead shells when
spread for the reception of the spawn quickly, sometimes even
in the course of a few days, become covered with a slimy deposit
of such a nature as to prevent the attachment of the young oyster.
Hence the importance of knowing with certainty the average
time of spawning for each locality, for if the shells are spread too
early the set may fail and if spread too late may be insufficient.

7s

72

MARINE LABORATORY.

Then again, take the natural enemies of the oyster. Less than
one egg in a million succeeds in developing into a mature oyster.
What, besides the lack of sufficient material to receive the spat
when the spawn settles to the bottom, causes such wholesale
destruction of these creatures? Are changes in the temperature
of the water responsible? Or salinity? Or scarcity of food? Or
over-crowding? Or smothering by accumulations of mud? Or
are there many other animals which, naturally feed on the growing
oyster? We may answer that all these agencies, and doubtless
others play their parts, and the further development of the oyster
industry of the State must depend in large measure on the deter-
mination of means by which this destruction may be to some
extent mitigated.

Given normal conditions, a small fraction of one per cent. of
the free-swimming embryos will escape such enemies and other
destructive agencies, as they encounter in this stage of their
existence, and will succeed in establishing themselves upon suit-
able objects and begin to grow. As the young oyster increases
in size other enemies appear on every hand; fish, molluscs, and
star-fish await it. The few which escape may grow for a year
or two, or more, and then fall a prey to the ravages of drill or
star-fish. Of the enemies of the fully grown oyster the star-fish
is by far the deadliest, and the planter knows that his oyster bed
can be saved only by his continual vigilance.

Nowhere in the world is the star-fish so destructive to the
oyster as in Long Island Sound and Narragansett Bay. Any
discoveries that could abate this nuisance would be worth more to
the oyster-growing interests of the State than the cost of a fully
equipped biological station for a century.

It is not expected that any such complete success will come
from the establishment of such a station, any more than the agri-
cultural interests of the State expect that the San José scale or
the potato beetle will be exterminated by the state entomologist,
but it is a well-demonstrated fact that the money expended on
insect investigations is returned tenfold to people of the State,
and that without such investigations successful agriculture would
hardly be possible.

And while far-reaching discoveries are not promised in the
contemplated biological station, it is expected that investigations
of value will be made. Information regarding any of the follow-
ing topics can hardly fail to be of service:

(a) The possibility of considerably extending the
present limits of the oyster beds both by experimentation with
new areas and by artificial means such as the use of sand,
shells, brush, tile, or by changing somewhat the topography
of the bottom, make certain hitherto unsuitable areas avail-
able.

SCIENTIFIC OYSTER GROWING. 73

(b) By determining accurately the height of the spawn-
ing season in several localities during a series of years.

(c) By improved methods of collecting spat for plant-
ing in different localities.

(d) In utilizing the sewage-polluted areas of harbors,
teeming with food for the young oysters, to be subsequently
transplanted to the pure waters of the Sound.

(e) In determining, bacteriologically, what areas are
polluted and hence unfitted for market oysters.

(f) In recommending sanitary precautions which will
tend to inspire public confidence in the healthfulness and
safety of this most delicious food, at present so commonly
looked upon with suspicion and by many refused altogether
unless cooked.

(g) Ina biological study of the food supply of various
localities both for oysters and clams.

(h) In investigating the enemies and other destructive
agencies of the spawn, spat, and young oyster.

(i) Ina biological study of the drill and other molluscan
enemies.

(j) In a biological study of the star-fish, and the utili-
zation of means for holding it in check.

These are but a portion -of the problems which would
naturally be undertaken by such a biological station during a
series of years. The results are certain to be a value far in
excess of the small outlay necessary for its maintenance, for
accurate information on a single one of the topics, suggested
above, would enable the oyster planter to take advantage of
opportunities for economy and profit of which he is now deprived
because the conditions are unknown.

No less certain to yield profitable returns are investigations
regarding the culture of the two species of clams, which should
become a much more important industry than is at present the
case.

And finally, there is no other locality in the State so favor-
able for the prosecution of these studies as New Haven, situated
as it is in the very center of the coast, the seat of our greatest
oyster-growing system, and with the extensive laboratory facili-
ties and libraries of Yale available for biological and bacterio-
logical studies. Already the Sheffield Scientific School has secured
a plot of land at Savin Rock favorably situated for such a
station for which plans have been in progress for several years.

The state of New Jersey has conducted such research work
for several years under the direction of Dr. Julius Nelson, pro-
fessor of biology at Rutgers College, and has obtained very
satisfactory results. The act providing for the same is as
follows:

14 SCIENTIFIC OYSTER GROWING.

An act to amend an act entitled “An act to provide for the
scientific investigation of oyster propagation,” approved
March twenty-first, one thousand nine hundred and one.

Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the
State of New Jersey:

1. The director of the New Jersey Agricultural College
Experiment Station at New Brunswick is hereby authorized to
establish and to maintain one or more stations for the scientific
investigation of oyster propagation and other ostreacultural prob-
lems, said station or stations to be situated at some point or
points in the oyster-growing sections of this state; to procure
a boat or boats adapted to the prosecution of the aforementioned
research work; to have the same equipped with suitable apparatus ;
to engage such expert or experts and the services of such other
persons as may be needed in the maintenance of the ostreacul-
tural studies so undertaken, and to transmit, annually, to the
governor a full and detailed report of the scientific operations
under this act in the reports of the agricultural college experi-
ment stations; the amount authorized to be expended under the
provisions of this act shall not exceed the sum of twelve hundred
dollars in any one year; provided, that no moneys shall be drawn
from the state treasury for the purpose of this act until the same .
shall have been specifically appropriated according to law.

. 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

The Board recommends that a portion of the money now
spent for oyster police, inspectors of dumping, and buoying the
natural beds be appropriated for the conduct of a scientific
investigation of oyster propagation, under the direction of
Director R. H. Chittenden of the Sheffield Scientific School; the
results of which ought to be very advantageous to the oyster
industry in general in its returns to the State and to the different
individuals engaged in the business in the profits accruing to
themselves.

It is recommended that an appropriation of eight hundred
dollars per annum be made for such work.’

NONRESIDENT HOLDINGS OF OYSTER FRANCHISES

Section 3215, of the General Statutes, as amended by Chapter
66 of Public Acts of 1907, provides:

Said commissioners shall also be empowered, in the name
and behalf of the state, to grant by written instruments, for the
purpose of planting and cultivating shell-fish, perpetual franchises
in such undesignated grounds within said area as are not and for
ten years have not been natural clam or oyster beds, whenever
application in writing is made to them through their clerk by any

NONRESIDENT HOLDINGS. 75

person or persons who have resided in the state not less than one

year next preceding the date of said application, or by any joint

stock company or corporation organized under the laws of this

state, all the stockholders of which are citizens of this state.
(The italics are used for emphasis.)

This statute was apparently the outcome of a requirement
made in 1848, that any person who had not been an actual inhabi-
tant or resident for six months next preceding, should not take,
rake, or gather any oysters in any of the rivers, bays, or waters
of this State. Such restrictions were continued when definite
franchise grants were made to private owners. Now that a large
number of the oyster properties are owned by corporations, the
specific requirement of the statute, that all the stockholders must
be citizens of this State, is almost impossible to carry out.

The General Assembly of 1907 passed the following bill,
validating the designation of shell-fish grounds:

All designations heretofore made by the Shell-Fish Com-
missioners to any persons, including nonresidents, of grounds
for the purpose of planting and cultivating shell-fish, and all

transfers of such grounds to any person or corporation, ‘including
nonresidents, are hereby validated and confirmed.

As stated in the report of the Shell-Fish Commissioners, a
measure similar in its character to the above was passed by the
New York legislature, whereby all Connecticut holders of shell-
fish grounds in Suffolk County, N. Y., were confirmed in their
titles up to that date, and as there were then large interests in
both states held by nonresidents, a thing technically contrary
to the laws of both states, these enactments remove any. cloud
resting upon such titles up to that time and validate and confirm
such valuable holdings. Since 1907 other transfers have been
made by owners of Connecticut franchises to nonresidents and
such procedure is absolutely certain to take place in the detail of
such business transactions.

The restriction, which requires the oyster franchises of
Connecticut to be held only by residents of this State, or cor-
porations organized in this State, is continually being violated,
and will require further validating acts to legalize. In addition,
if it could be enforced, it would limit the business operations and
developments of the oyster properties, would hamper the growth
of the industry both offshore and on shore, and keep down the
amount of property which would be rightly taxable in the State.

76 FEDERAL BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

This Board has recommended that the natural oyster
_ grounds be leased only to Connecticut citizens, which seems very
desirable, but the Board sees no reason for continuing the statute
which requires the oyster franchises to be held by residents of
this State. The Board, therefore, definitely recommends that
that part of Section 3215 of the general statutes which makes
this requirement be amended, so that the transfer of oyster
franchises by the owners thereof be not restricted.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

The Bureau of Fisheries of Washington, under the direction
of the Department of Commerce and Labor, has been collating
statistics of the oyster industry in New England for the fiscal
year 1910. The work in Connecticut was commenced the latter
part of September. At the request of the Board, the Com-
missioner of Fisheries, Mr. George M. Bowers, assigned an
additional man to hasten the work of securing the statistics in
Connecticut so that the figures might be available for this report.

It will be noticed that the totals secured by. the statisticians
under the direction of the Bureau of Fisheries, relative to the
number of bushels of oysters taken from the private beds, very
largely exceed those submitted to the Board in the different
individual reports of the Connecticut oyster growers.

The information thus given is very important, and the thanks
of the Board and of the State are due the Bureau. of Fisheries
for its cooperation and courtesy in furnishing the information
relative to the Connecticut oyster industry.

The data submitted are as follows:

STATISTICS OF BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

77

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,

BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

STATISTICS OF THE OYSTER INDUSTRY OF CONNECTICUT FOR THE YEAR

ENDING JUNE 30, IgIoO.

Persons employed : Number.
Onjvesselspnishineeeyscuic ani jiveie sera eels seraiole 657
Onivesselsitransportings +) secs s cee eee 22
In!shorelorneboathtisheniesse sea al eee eens 535
ShOresmenteeie auras oe oot eteehsvanin aoe dane aaron 1,489

TG teall eure cher cscs cheteiat ci thay ache eels: sala st avoveraiacseleys 2,703

Vessels, boats, apparatus, etc.

Wiessells fishin ore aveicterstonalatsfayets lavnloyeler st cteve erat avoreys 161

Net tonnage..... Reh aunt ny aits capes aicliavelvetayaloreuay sa fol ates 3,863
Messelisstramspontim orcs mratwielae/aivciiatcieltcieerte 8

INetitonmalmenniys vaala sea yarie stoi cfaterurers( arate otal 412
ES OATS Ae eee Nene eta cre Us yall a Ts Sane aes 554
Apparatus—vessel fisheries

DRE ARES PN set fyavcievara sy sis) aveverecere eva; syaue cfere-sliolsy + 638

INTO SY retslne eee ces tatota oes sis! seein eke eeherereiele isl eie HT
Apparatus—shore fisheries :

DRED SES We rareichc cis clals wena iss e ales sickaye alors ois IgI

Mongsemalessietcsy. mile cieiiaclaccaecstaenieliclers 468

UO DIS eee Cpe eeal rt cals cvethies sto te raur aie 2
SHOKeEMpPrOPENbys sae ne ees weve meow aC ete einteense eres

POCA eierctela cyarebersrevaicia svalecererere ote A die eisicveveiereleisy is Stare ulats

Private oyster grounds owned : Te:
SHAS EMOWINGIS esos dandoucogoococnoDOOb hoe acres 74,151.85
TUGiD ENONNCI. ooseiIgoodedob ove sueadde Sor Sr 5,027.00

Private oyster grounds under culture:
Statehoroundsseacweeecice cane lassieheckachs acres 25,292.65
Mowniioroun dss ser aen airccmonemee ete. Gee es 1,978.60
Elantedidurinoythebyeaniee sic cies cae “. 5,955.05

Materials planted during the year:

Se edvoysters my ania dams oi teleroiciots etehee bushels 219,923
Ovstenishellsy tiation aasrsteele cles erro + 3,186,001
Grave lets qe eee ne cree tans ici cubic yards 215,490

EPO tall RR cara wewen rey ay eno, eas REN ee enone

Products from private areas:

MianketvOxStens vapors isis) sielereraion bushels 1,324,225
SEEMKOVSEEKS)Wereaeniuaisteisisiniane dele Bal ler As AZ

Products from public areas:

MBL OMS 5 odeosoessucocauuneses bushels 25,790
SeedHoystersimmmicrcrieias. ee cicicle nce ee a 167,513
Oy sterishelllis meaty srs cere alle newer He 112,300

FO TaN P Ne eas ayes cir fa tan ails cellar nce Neue lateyaleare Pan 3,384, 300

Oysters on private areas at the end of the year
bushels 3,784,175

| Products of the wholesale trade:

Market oysters sold in the shell ....... bushels 512,379
Oysters soldjopencdansennasasceeeaoe gallons 1,082,960
Seed oysters sold or transferred to.
Other States meeenen nec ain Ghi ere hice Nae bushels 932,958
Oyster shellisisold iene decaeacia sere mH 470,050
ECO Une aia eect CS ve ALES MRS aes erg Hard Nalars eaves Ay eevee

Notre.—The above value for private oyster grounds is the assessed value.

ee eee eee
ee eee coe
see ee eee

Se a ed

se ee ewe

eee eens

403,160
$1,183,719

$1,759,968
109,734

see eee e

$107,889
234,895
2,656

$345,450

$801,790
975,266

24,270
84,168
7,265

$1,892,759
$1, 856,285

$ 382,437
1,168, 761

511,139
26,282

$2,088,619

The value of oysters on the beds at the end of the year includes that of stakes,

buoys and marks.
A large proportion of the oysters opened are from other states.

78

RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES AS SHOWN IN SHELL-FIsH Com-

RECEIPTS FROM TAXATION.

COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL TABLES.

MISSIONERS REPORT FOR IgIOo.

1908-1909.
Receipts.
Waxescollected ee eerdcr dee $11,892.62
INatumal bedwiicensess: emt ari. se 1,002.00
Boy Greil Wana ne ie EAE te $12,894.62

Certain Expenses.

Buoying, natunalbedsa... sss): $1,116.70
Oysters police cg. Meee Gee 2,753.00
Inspecting: natural) beds.) . 225.7. 600.00
Miran imicd ae einai oupeaine 740.00

GD fe EN OIE rae MA I can GSD $5,209.70

Available} balance ne. aces eee $7,684.92

1909-1910.
Receipts.

Taxes collected cues oe nae $26,141.58
Naturaliibed#icensessa. . 6c .4s eee 650.00

A Reo eee Rare sae MARC AT eel $26,791.58

Certain Expenses.

Buoying natural beds........... $1,237.30
Oyster apolicesay earn oS Kd) JAsOCELOO
Imspectine naturnal\ibeds. 14) 4-4. 600.00
Mud dumpinie iy @ia Sah ie aan ey 601.70
MO tal: ANNALER Menai Oey. $5,245.00

Available balance....... POs Nep $21,546.58

79

TAXATION.

FROM

ESTIMATED RECEIPTS

ooo ‘111¢ HciO Go O ound 60 0-0 D 6 000m 0-00 [v10 J, i

OGOr OR sy ae ee ‘nq sad ‘of @ ‘nq 000‘ooz
‘punois [vinjeu worz xv} AWAVYONPOIg

SON 2 es ie as a aioe 19d 1¢ @ sarov ooS ‘ry

‘uIN}o1I BSvVI] Spoq [vIN}JeN

000‘P es nq 1ad ‘oz @ ‘nq 000‘ooz
unons [vinjeu wiory xvq APATIONpOIg

00S ‘b 1; == g10v) ted 1@) saroe cosh
‘uIN}JOI ISvd] Spoq [vIN}eN

OUOKO0 Ie nq tad ‘oz @) ‘nq c00‘o00‘E
‘punois ojvAtid woiy xv} AWANONPOIg

COW Onin ee "+9108 19d ‘oS1 @ sa19v o00‘oL

*xB] osIyouRIy [enuuy
‘7aysng o squas & fo xD,

‘SHIYHHSIA AO NVANNA AHL AM GHHSINANA SOILSILVIS
NO GaSvd NOILVXVL dO WHLSAS MUN AAGNN SLdIWOdaA GALVWILSH

COOLOU se ns ‘nq tad ‘of @ ‘nq o00‘o00‘E
‘punois oyeatid wior1y xv} AWANONpOIg

ooS ‘ort *:*****-970¥ 19d ‘091 @ sa19e 000 ‘ol
*x¥} osIyoUuRvIy [BuUUY

‘qaysng v sjuas € fo xv7
000998 epyerme (ao fe ute 6b e-temts: 5.0 09 : OC p-O Ou.0 6 [v0 [

KONG), ea eect nq 19d ‘of @ ‘nq o00‘ooz
‘punoLs jeinyeu wo1y xv} AWANONpOIg

OOM eee ee aioe rad 1¢ @ sa1oe 00S ‘b
‘uInjo1 9SvIT Speq [vinjeN

COC Si yecee es re ‘nq 19d ‘of @ ‘nq oo0‘ooS ‘1
‘punois ojvAtid wor xe} AyATONpOIg

ooS‘or# “"°*"+---or108 10d ‘oS1 @ sara coool

*xB] OSTYOUvIT [enUUY
‘joysng w squas E fo xvZ

000 ‘6bd S)leriehisizulic elves 0100 0 0 6-0 G010 U 0060 [v10
OOO sP a ‘ nq tad ‘oz @ ‘nq o00‘o0z
‘punois [vinjeu wory xv} AyAONpOIg
(lo 2 a eS "+++ 9108 19d 1¢ @ sore 00S ‘v
‘UIN}9I ISVOT Spoq [eINJVNy
O00 (Ole ss ‘nq rod ‘oz @ ‘nq ooo‘ooS ‘rt

‘puno1s 9}eAtId woz xv} AWAIONPOIg
OO TEOT Re ‘910v 19d ‘oS1 @ sasoe o00‘ol
‘xe] OSTyOUBIy [enUUY

‘Jaysng v sjuas € {0 XVI

‘NOILVZITVQOd AO GUVOd AHL OL SLUOdAY
NO GuSvd NOILVXVL dO WHLSAS MUN SAHCNN) SLdIYOUaA CALVWILSA

80 SHELL-FISH COMMISSION AND MAPS.

SHELL-FISH COMMISSION.

So long as the present system of taxation is continued,
which requires the clerk of the Shell-Fish Commission to act
as an assessor and the members of the Commission as a board
of relief, it is undoubtedly desirable that it consist of three mem-
bers. Investigations of the Board have demonstrated the very
great advantage of a practical knowledge of the oyster business
in considering any subjects relative thereto. This advantage
would apply as well to the Shell-Fish Commission as to the
Board. Considering, therefore, the many matters which must be
considered by the Shell-Fish Commissioners, which require a
technical knowledge of the oyster industry, it seems to the Board
very desirable that one of the three members be a practical oyster-
man, as is required in several states. Such a person should have
had at least ten years’ experience in growing oysters in this
State. Such a recommendation is hereby definitely made.

If, however, the method of taxation should be changed to
that recommended by the Board, a commission of three members
would be no longer necessary. In that event, the Board recom-
mends that the law be changed to provide for a single-headed
commission and that all references relative to disputed boundaries
be submitted to the superior court for adjudication. Such action
would enable an increased salary to be paid to the Commissioner,
as an executive officer, would permit greater demands on his .
time for the work required, would focus responsibility, and prob-
ably would result in more definite supervision.

MAPS.

The maps that accompany this report ought to be self-
explanatory. Briefly, however, the purpose of the first is to
show the location of all oyster franchise ground under the
State’s jurisdiction outside the town lines occupied under pri-
vate ownership at the present time, also the location of the
natural beds. On the same map there is shown in colors the
approximate location of the hard ground, also the so-called soft
or muddy ground.

The maps in the folder, the tracings of which are used by
the courtesy of the Shell-Fish Commission, show the per acre
assessed valuation of the different lots, varying from five dollars

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR ASSISTANCE. 81

to one hundred fifty dollars per acre. The purpose of this
is to show the assessed valuations of the different contiguous
lots, and to give an opportunity for criticism and for suggestions,
so that inequalities may be overcome in the future, if the present
system of taxation is to be continued.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

The Board wishes to express its appreciation of the courte-
ous and helpful attitude of the different members of the Shell-
Fish Commission.

The Chairman, Mr. George C. Waldo, who has filled that
position continuously since 1893, and who has been a member
of the Commission since 1889, has been of particular assistance
in giving the Board the benefit of his long experience in, and
definite knowledge of, the oyster industry.

The Board is under great obligations to Mr. Frederick L.
Perry, the clerk of the Shell-Fish Commission, for his accurate
legal knowledge of the many technical features connected with
the Connecticut system of granting and taxing oyster franchises ;
for his fair and unprejudiced attitude towards all questions
involved; for his manifest desire to enable the Board to secure
all the necessary information on any phase of the oyster industry,
and finally for the time given in attending many meetings with
the Board and its separate members, all of which, with the valu-
able counsel mentioned above, has been given without any charge
whatever for his services.

Captain William A. Lewis, the Inspector of natural beds,
has rendered the Board definite services in giving it important
information relative to the nature and use of the natural beds.

It would have been almost impossible for the Board to have
acquired sufficient knowledge of the many details of the oyster
industry in so short a time without such aid as was given by
Captain E. Frank Lockwood. The Board received the benefit
of his wide experience, his practical knowledge of relative values,
_ and his complete familiarity with every detail of the business.

All the members of the State Board of Health, and particu-
larly its president, Dr. Edward K. Root, and its secretary, Dr.
Joseph H. Townsend, have been very willing to cooperate with
the Board in securing information relative to polluted grounds.

82 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

Mr. James A. Newlands, the chemist, has been of particular
assistance in working out the data which are included in the
very enlightening and satisfactory report of the condition of
New Haven Harbor given elsewhere. This work was under-
taken by vote of the State Board of Health without any specific
appropriation for the same, and the results attained show con-
clusively the value of such an investigation. The finding is a
very important part of this report and the codperation which
brought it about has been particularly appreciated by the Board
of Equalization.

A large number of the oyster growers have been very help-
ful in furnishing specific information relative to the many details
and methods employed in the conduct of their business. The
completion of this report in its practical suggestions would have
been impossible without such assistance.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

The different recommendations have been fully discussed
and the reasons given therefor in other parts of the report. For
convenience, however, they are herewith summarized and refer-
ence given to the page of the report containing the general
discussion.

It is recommended:

1. That the law which provides for the granting of grounds
under the perpetual franchise system be amended to provide for
the leasing of such ground under State jurisdiction, which is
not already allotted to private owners, together with all land which
shall revert to the State from those holding the same under
franchises. (Page 30.)

2. That the law providing for the policing of the oyster
ground by the State be repealed, and a statute enacted which
will provide a liberal bounty for the detection and conviction
of any one stealing oysters or committing other offences against
the shell-fish laws. (Page 31.)

3. That the statute relative to mud or refuse dumping be
amended so that the expenses of the inspectors shall be paid
by the contractors. (Page 32.)

4. That the law requiring buoys to be set at the expense
Oli wae Staves le cepeaileck (lage 22,))

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS. 83

5. . That the law taxing the oyster franchises be amended
to provide for a minimum valuation of ten dollars per acre on
all ground held under such franchises at the present tax rate
of fifteen mills, and in addition a productivity tax of two or
three cents per bushel upon all seed or other oysters taken from
such groufids in this State for sale, or for the purpose of removal
out of the State. The act also should provide for confidential
reports by the producers and a proper system of state inspection
of the same, all to be under the direction and supervision of
the Shell-Fish Commissioners, also that the provisions of the
law providing for present assessor and board of relief be repealed.
(Page 42.)

6. That the natural beds, as described in the general stat-
utes, be abolished and such territory leased to citizens of the
State for a definite term of years subject to renewal, at an annual
rental of one dollar per acre in addition to a productivity tax
of two or three cents per bushel. (Page 49.)

7. That laws be enacted which will prevent contamination
through new sources by sewage and other disease-breeding wastes
of harbors, rivers and coastal waters of the State, and further
provisions be enacted which will require within a reasonable
number of years the entire removal of such harmful substances
from the waters of the State. (Page 58.)

8. That the State Board of Health be authorized and
required to make a sanitary investigation of the harbor and
coastal waters of the State where oysters are grown, and to give
certificates attesting the purity of all grounds which are proper
for maturing market oysters and to withhold certificates from
all other oyster grounds, and to forbid the sale in any towns in
this State of oysters taken from beds which are not certified to
be satisfactory. (Page 60.)

g. That the State Board of Health by its agents be author-
ized and required to inspect, at varying intervals, the opening
houses in the State, employing the score card system similar to
that used in Rhode Island, and to secure proper sanitary sur-
- roundings and conditions in all such houses and in any pro-
cesses connected with the. work of opening and shipping oysters.
(Page 62.)

ro. That an appropriation of eight hundred dollars per
annum be made for the conduct of a scientific investigation of

84 RECAPITULATION.

oyster growing in Connecticut waters by the Marine Laboratory
of the Sheffield Scientific School. (Page 609:)

11. That Section 2215 of the General Statutes be amended
to permit the transfer of perpetual franchises of oyster grounds
to any nonresident person or persons, or to any nonresident joint
stock company or corporation. (Page 75.) i

12. That one member of the Shell-Fish Commission shall
be a practical oysterman who has had at least ten years’ experi-
ence in the growing of oysters in this State. (Page 8o.)

° RECAPITULATION.

The oyster business has grown from a small beginning to
one of large magnitude. This has been brought about by the
persistent energy of the oyster growers, who by artificial devel-
opment have made the most of certain natural opportunities.
Those engaged in the industry are fine types of successful men,
reasonable, businesslike, and fair, and yet always working for
the advancement of their vocation.

The oyster industry in the long run is as satisfactory as,
and not much more hazardous than, that of raising tobacco, or
conducting a manufacturing plant with the uncertainties of tariff
and other legislation.

The government regulations requiring certain sanitary pre-
cautions in interstate shipments cannot be considered other than
reasonable, and for the protection of the consumer. It is certain
also that their rigid enforcement will increase the public confi-
dence in the product. And once it is realized that oysters grown
under sanitary surroundings can be delivered to any part of the
United States in proper condition for use, the demand for this
cheap and palatable food will increase to such an extent that
it will be necessary to very largely develop its productive capacity
to provide a sufficient supply.

While at the public hearings which the Board held last
spring the oyster growers complained that the publicity given
by the Department of Agriculture to certain alleged dangers in
the use of oysters as a food would arouse suspicion and would
seriously interfere with a successful business, the actual facts
during the fall season are that the demand for oysters has been
even greater than in previous years. This actually shows the

RECAPITULATION. 85

good results of such publicity by the increased confidence which
the sanitary requirements of the federal government have given
to the consumers of this food product.

- Practically all the recommendations, which the Board is mak-
ing, have been discussed in detail with different oyster growers.
They have at various times, in conversation with the different
members of the Board, admitted that the suggested changes would
be desirable. They have even conceded that the present system
of taxation is almost impossible to carry out with any degree of
equality, and that the proposed plan of a minimum franchise tax,
with a production tax in addition, would be fairer, in requiring
only a reasonable tax whenever a poor condition of the business
exists and increased return to the State whenever conditions are
more productive. A large number of the oyster growers have
definitely expressed themselves as being perfectly willing to pay
a reasonable tax, if the State would do its part in taking steps
to remove the contamination of the harbors and coastal waters,
and would provide reasonable means for an investigation of the
best methods of oyster growing similar to those carried on by
other states and similar to those conducted for other industries
in this State. .

The duty of investigating the oyster properties and business
was imposed upon the Board unsought. The General Assembly
of 1909 apparently wished that specific information relative to
the subject be secured and presented to the General Assembly
of 1911. In formulating the report the Board has had in mind
the fact that very few people have any clear idea of the nature
or development of the oyster industry. The purpose has been,
therefore, to provide sufficient information so that the Committee
on Shell-Fisheries and other interested members of the General
Assembly will be able to secure a fair and definite knowledge
of the entire subject.

As stated previously, the Board has discussed the recom-
mendations, which it is making, with the oyster planters suffi-
ciently to know that they are reasonable, desirable and practical.
If enacted into laws they will be for the real good of the oyster
industry, will bring about economies, and will insure an increased
revenue to the State. Any active opposition to their enactment
by the oyster growers would appear to be shortsighted.

86 RECAPITULATION.

The Board does not feel in any way responsible for the
enactment into laws of its recommendations. The members of the
Board, individually, will be very willing to answer any questions
relative to the details of the report, to confer with the members
of the Committee on Shell-Fisheries, or to give any supplemental
information that the General Assembly may desire, and that it is
possible to secure. They will not, however, attempt to lobby any
measures through the legislature, nor try to persuade any of the
members to favor any particular recommendation, for the Board
considers that it has done its duty in presenting its findings to the
General Assembly, as required, and that its responsibility ceases
therewith.

Respectfully submitted,

Aen,
7
Treasurer,

Ph

Comptroller,

Tax Commissioner,

THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.

VARIOUS LAWS

REGULATIONS AND BLANK FORMS

RELATIVE TO THE

OYSTER INDUSTRY

FROM THE OYSTER LAW OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

Section 9. Be it further enacted, etc., That from and after
the passage of this Act the rentals on all leased water bottoms and
natural reefs made in conformity with the provisions of this
Act, shall not be less than one dollar (1.00) per acre or any frac-
tion of an acre per year on all soft and hard bottoms and depleted
reefs and not less than five dollars ($5.00) per acre or any frac-
tion of an acre per year for all natural reefs, said amount to be
determined by the Board after the Chief Surveyor has reported
on same as provided herein. The rate named by the Board for
such leases shall be conclusive and final.

Sec. 11. Be it further enacted, etc., That each packer, canner,
commission man, dealer, firm, or corporation, shall keep a record
of all oysters purchased by himself or themselves, with the names
of the parties from whom purchased, the quantity, and the date.
They shall also keep an itemized account of all oysters fished by
themselves and by all boats controlled by them and shall exhibit
said account at all times to the Board of Commissioners for the
Protection of Birds, Game and Fish, or any of its authorized
employees. On the first day of each month said packer, canner,
commission man, dealer, firm, or corporation, shall make a return
under oath, to said Board as to the number of barrels purchased
and caught during the preceding month, and a tax of three (3)
cents per barrel on each and every barrel of oysters canned,
packed or gathered from the leased water bottoms and reefs,
either for sale or consumption, shall be levied thereon by said
Board.

Inspectors of said Board are authorized to enter upon any
boat, or to enter any building other than a domicile, where oysters
are carried or stored and to inspect such oysters at all times.

In all operations of the Board, the standard measurement of
the barrel referred to herein shall be three and seventy-three one-
hundredths (3.73) cubic feet, which approximately represents the
cubic contents of three (3) bushels, or one barrel.

(It is authoritively stated that a barrel of Connecticut oysters
in the shell will open up about three times more meats than a
barrel of Louisiana oysters.)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.
AN ACT IN AMENDMENT OF AND IN ADDITION TO CHAPTER 200 OF THE GENERAL

LAWS, ENTITLED “OF THE PROTECTION OF THE SHELL-FISHERIES IN
THE PUBLIC WATERS OF THIS STATE.”

It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows:

Section 1. Chapter 206 of the General Laws, entitled “Of
the protection of the shell-fisheries in the public waters of this
state,” is hereby amended to read as follows:

990

STATE OF LOUISIANA.

Section 1. No person shall deposit in, or allow to escape into,
or shall cause or permit to be deposited in, or allowed to escape
into, any of the public waters of this state, any substance which
shall in any manner injuriously affect the growth or sale of the
shell-fish in or under said waters, or which shall in any manner
affect the flavor or odor of such shell-fish so as to injuriously
affect the sale thereof, or which shall cause any injury to the pub-
lic and private fisheries of this state.

Sec. 2. Any person violating any of the provisions of this
act shall upon conviction thereof be fined not less than five
hundred dollars or more than two thousand dollars, one-half
thereof to the use of the complainant and one-half thereof to
the use of the state: Provided, that in case of conviction upon
prosecution by the commissioners of shell-fisheries, the whole or
any fine imposed shall go to the use of the state.

Sec. 3. Every person violating any of the provisions of this
act shall be liable to pay to the party injured by such violation
double the amount of damages caused thereby, to be recovered in
an action of the case in any court of competent jurisdiction. It
shall not be necessary, before bringing suit for recovery of such
damages, for a criminal prosecution to have been first instituted
for the violation of the provisions of this chapter, nor shall the
recovery of damages under this section be a bar to such criminal
prosecution.

Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the commissioners of shell-
fisheries to investigate all complaints made to them of the viola-
tion of any of the provisions of this act. For the purpose
of such investigation said commissioners may make examination
of the premises, hold public hearings, summon witnesses, and take
testimony under oath, and they shall have power to punish, by
fine or imprisonment or both, all contempt of their authority in
any hearing before them. They may employ professional or
expert services, as they may deem desirable.

Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the shell-fish commissioners
to prosecute any person in their opinion guilty of the violation
of any of the provisions of this chapter, and in all such prosecu-
tions said commissioners shall not be required to enter into any
recognizance or to give surety for costs. It shall be the duty of
the attorney-general to conduct the prosecution of all cases
brought by said commissioners under the provisions of this
chapter. Complaints may be also brought and prosecuted by any
citizen for any violation of its provisions.

Sec. 6. The expenses incurred by the commissioners of
shell-fisheries in the performance of the duties imposed upon them
by this chapter shall be paid by the general treasurer, out of any
funds in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, upon the pre-
sentation of vouchers, therefor duly certified by their chairman.

OYSTER LAWS.

Sec. 7. The commissioners of shell-fisheries shall inspect the
premises designated in section 8 of this chapter at such times
as they may deem advisable, for the purpose of determining
whether said premises are kept in a proper sanitary condition
for opening, handling, or packing shell-fish for the trade. Also
said commissioners shall inspect the methods followed on the
premises in opening, packing, or preparing shell-fish for the trade,
to determine whether such methods are proper from a sanitary
standpoint.

Sec. 8. The premises which come within the scope of this
chapter are all establishments where oysters or other shell-fish
are opened, packed, or prepared for the trade. Retail or whole-
sale markets where shell-fish are sold which purchased from the
original opening or packing houses designated in this section shall
not come within the scope of this chapter.

Sec. 9. Said commissioners shall inspect any or all the leased
oyster grounds and other shell-fish grounds within the state at
such times as they may deem advisable, to determine whether
said grounds are in a proper sanitary condition for the produc-
tion of shell-fish for consumption as food.

Sec. 10. Said commissioners may make such regulations in
regard to sanitation as they may deem advisable, from time to
time, with reference to the sanitary handling of shell-fish and
with reference to maintaining opening or packing houses in a
proper sanitary condition.

Sec. 11. Said commissioners may issue certificates from
time to time to any person whose premises or grounds are found
by them to be in a sanitary condition, setting forth that they
have examined such opening or packing house or such shell-
fish ground and that the methods followed in the preparation
of oysters or other shell-fish in such opening or packing house
are sanitary and that the grounds inspected are in proper sanitary
condition for the production of shell-fish for consumption as
food.

Sec. 12. No person shall take shell-fish from any grounds
which are not certified by said commissioners as being in a
sanitary condition, except for the purpose of transplantation. No
person shall prepare shell-fish for the trade except on premises
and by methods certified by said commissioners as being sanitary.

Sec. 13. Any person who shall violate any sanitary regu-
lation made by said commissioners, as provided for in section
10, shall be fined $20 for the first offence, and for each subsequent
offence $100 and be imprisoned not more than ninety days in jail.
Any person violating the provisions of section 12 of this chapter
shall be fined $20 for the first offence, and for each subsequent
offence $100 and be imprisoned not more than ninety days in jail.

Sec. 14. It shall be the duty of the commissioners of shell-
fisheries to prosecute any person in their opinion guilty of the

g!I

Q2

FEDERAL SCORE CARD.

violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, and in all such
prosecutions said commissioners shall not be required to enter
into any recognizance or to give surety for costs. It shall be the
duty of the attorney-general to conduct the prosecution of all
cases brought by said commissioners under the provisions of this
chapter.

Sec. 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage, excepting
the above sections numbered 12, 13, 14, which sections shall take
effect July 1, 1910, and the act numbered “Senate 136, Substitute
A,” passed at the January session, A.D. 1910, and approved April
26, A.D. 1910, and all other acts and parts of acts inconsistent
herewith are hereby repealed.

Approved April 29, 1910.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY,
DAIRY DIVISION.

SANITARY INSPECTION OF DAIRIES.

DAIRY SCORE CARD.
Adopted by the Official Dairy Instructors’ Association.

Ownenor lessee of tbarin A sia a tenet Si ae Lon sae
BP @saddressy i sesh Ae ene Wey OMe State) Pune nie: Taye

Gallonssonmilkjproducedydaily i) onan ance ee eee
Products) retailed iby, producemin eee eee eee eee oe

Soldtattiwholesale) tos -Mwilgs Ws) MU eat ticida. aid ek eee
Borjailkssup ply ot irs tau cee tse ey eran NN ay SS el eRe
Permit No. ........ Date of inspection .................. , IOL..
REWARKS 2/5 BS) ee: CESS AM CLS ARNOT HAGLER tate ths rey E74

CC i i i i CC i Ce cr re cr rc er ey
eeeeecec ove eee ee ee ee eee we ew eee eo oer eee sess ress se sees ceoeo see ser sees eens
Ce Ce i i rr rr ry
ee eee cee ee ee ee ee th ee eee ew eee ee ee eee ow see ee oes eee seo e eee eee eee ee oo
Cr cy
Ce cr ey
Ce DT
CC
CC Cc ce Cc i Cc i cc i
cee ee ee ee ee ee oe ee ee ww ww ew ew ww we eee we wo ee ee ee ee eee oe ee ee eee eee sane

CC

Inspector.

FEDERAL SCORE CARD. 93
DETAILED SCORE.
iS SCORE. SCORE,
NT. METHODS.
EQUIPME Perfect. | Allowed. Perfect. | Allowed,
cows. cows.
Eien Chae cece) eee se @ ||eeesoose Cleanliness of cows...__..-------- 8 |--------
Apparently i an Bead fea ----1 STABLES
If tested with tuberculin once
a year and no tuberculosis is Cleanliness of stables .-.-...-.- a O" [ocees
found, or if tested once in Wis Sua ER MEIN MMAR 2505 Ae :
six months ang ay reacting Cc Silarsen d ledges Forte Rees :
animals removed __..____---- Raat Sr ae
(If tested only once a year and Maogetsacd Partitions... -- on
reacting animals found and re- Stableair at milking een (sia|(akodenee
Genie ew SL Barnyard clean and well drained - 2 |--------
REG aiie: is cs eee rss 2 Removal of manure daily to field
Temperature of stable_--___-- I or proper pit --.-.-.------------ laze
Food (clean and wholesome) ---.-- BR |Naeoseors (To 50 feet from stable, r.)
IViater 8 cep ee eee yee (aeieinosis 2 |-r------ MILK ROOM.
Clean and fresh -.-...--.----- u Cleanliness of milk room _--_.._-- 3} |Sasaoss5
Convenient and abundant-_--. 1
a UTENSILS AND MILKING.
d SUAEC Care and cleanliness of utensils_ 8 |--------
Location of stable._--.-.---------- Zi rare ares Thoroughly washed and steril-
Well drained -_-_- Sra OSOS SESS a ized in live steam for 30 sane
INE UO GOR MNS Seb ee Le
TOUNGIN gS eee eeeeenas nano I (BhoraeHl washed and placed
Construction of stable_.....--.---. 45h reat an over steam et 4; thoroughly
meres sound floor and proper washed and scalded with boiling
a noheaceSaseceSeeeese 2 ay : 1 h
Smooth, tight walls and ceil- OS nee ooneashed not
WIS sea =seecescoscastossocss ct Inverted in pure air ___._-_-- 3
Proper stall, tie, and manger- rx Gleanliness Beamline Pep aer ee 3 Fé Opietee sas
Light: Four sq. ft. of glass per Clean, dry hands__..-.------ 3
OY soon pees soe e tesa tga SSS S65 Os 4. Saige: Udders washed and dried _.. 6
(Three sq. ft., 3; 2sq. ft., 2; r sq. (Udders cleaned with moist
pees ) Deduct for uneven distribu- cloth, 4; cleaned with dry cloth at
‘ ; “ki
Ventilation, Automatic system... sh alee least r5 minutes before milking, r.)
Adjustable windows. .._____- HANDLING THE MILK.
Cubic feet of space for cow: 500 to Cleanliness of attendants__-__-__. HW |isoaesons
1eforot0) LS pie A a eee ea gy |/Poeeoces Milk removed immediately from
(Less than soo feet, 2; less than Stablepmen oh ae i ee 2 |--=-----
4oo feet, 1; less than 300 feet, o; Prompt cooling (cooled immedi-
Over 1,000 feet, 0.) ately after milking each cow) _- 2 |--------
UTENSILS. Bnet Oia ee: 5 |--------
Construction and condition of Stone: Below 50° Oke Sores Peer a 3) \Iis=sncee
utensils__.._...-.---------------- YD |\z=nn<- == (5r° to 55°, 2; 56° to 60°, 1.)
Water for cleaning-.---_...-.---.- I |-------- Transportation; iced in summer __ a ||>osecaos
(Clean, convenient, and abun- (For jacket or wet blanket,
dant.) allow 2; dry blanket or covered
Small-top milking pail__-....-__... Buileesoenee wagon, 1.)
Facilities for hot water or steam__- heres ee Biss
(Should be in milk house, notin
kitchen.)
Milkicooler= = See aah sh ee 5 cal te ie
Clean milking suits___....-...__.2. Te eseoe S28
MILK ROOM.
Location of milk room ___...____-. Bitte
Free from contaminating sur-
MOLINA SS es eee I
Convenient... 15: 4 I
Construction of milk room________- PIA eens
Floor, walls, and ceiling. ____-. I
Light, ventilation, SCKEGnS se eanr:
CEE GEES WG GOS
otal Pees. es ccs | OC ea TON ee eee otal er ase oe ane oe Goji eae eee
I quUniome eee oe SeeMetHOd Si. evita cere noo Final Score.

Nore 1.—If any filthy condition is found, particularly dirty utensils, the total score shall be limited

to 49.

Nor 2.—If the water is exposed to dangerous contamination or there is evidence of the presence of
a dangerous diseasein animals or attendants, the score shall be o.

94 RHODE ISLAND INSPECTION CARD.

RHODE ISLAND COMMISSIONERS OF SHELL-FISHERIES.

INSPECTION OF OYSTER HOUSES.

Oyen ss) Nami erie i ee UC aie EE Oe SU RU Ra a) odes EA pet ie ene
Opening: HOUSE alr cess y aoa Leip eae ata 3h aes ene eae
Date vor TMS pectl Omi Masia cia erent Mic) ea Maa Oley cvs ia Aci eta arce e
NSPS CEO HL si cols RET UE ARs Dea ICE a iol d NO e
Method of transportation from beds to opening house

CC ee re

Nimib ey piss ia iacsia cuba suey ules sania Condition) UUs sco ee
Wocation Oe oats ia sea es MenMiani nat eee. Senate ora Meee Ee
Opening House. ea
IEA anU ARS ei < AAG Aes a Ua wssA Ventilation aearviee eee
Ceiling and iwallls iii iss. salelaalolata)s apeiele.cyalele ev ohst) ey epee see eee
loony) material ys anu ue cae eue Gondition eee eee
Bins.
Methoduiofoperating i grass nu cens weer ctl tia ie eeke anne
Construction Gn.- mee cae Properly wemptied are eeeee nase

GComd tito | see es Aas ee ela
Utensils.

QOaalitys hah ee Me Mae Ce a ad Conditrony Mee ee eee

Properly, swashedunn: ais. semana cmnn Jalon OMEN Gogecoocese-

Stemilizedyiaccicihrieeiciice oe cee: Flowerobten ee ra ieee

AMaY oleh Gas eR ite (COMAHeCmOYN Goboosdossoc Cleany.) Caasaaes

Fowminequenthyacleanedion delete cinesimien ere eivel te tye enn ee nena
Hot Water.

Methodioitheatinemineseesaee a aeeneer Abundant ieee eee pee
Steam.

SOURCE uote eee ae ALN Sterilizenoysmeaccm acumen
Ice.

SOURCE eM Ui ALN aU MN coi Oisallitty 6) ak Stak s aie ug ee aan

RietmiSenator sii mase npn, Conditions pce eee eae

How jirequently (cleaned) saan eae Bieta crane = eee ee
Employees.

Character. ofjemployecsie. ae Genes.) Le Eee ira tenlaiaaee aetna

@asesvonmillnessuamons vem ployeesm ae nre Kel eae

Cases of illness in families of employees ....................--
Methods of Handling.

WiserOtEeloves : le NR aN MR NUneeE Na ZA DEOTS Waa eey yer an eae

Conditionot) clothing eo Soe Ae so 2 Me a

MethodtoRiwashingwoystersiaeerneeren een eee eee

engthuetetiniel require dye ue ies stele cacy ener meer aa aie
Miethodtomcoolinevoystersi er epee tee ear nee een Eee nee
engthivefy (time require dia suai mm ite) ale Cuneta EDN ete ae iaeae

RHODE ISLAND OPENING HOUSES.

Meth Odeo tastomine TOV SEES h(i i riateas eis cra sits teisis ale ethos cae cect
Ibeiareailhy oi (ean eneep enh aera RRs tan ee I UN EN
Ixahaval out: Sali post even (CAINS), Shem ape ocoukbiinde cous cmos HODIcHoS aon
Condition Woe snes lee eke oe Properlynwasheduenenns ace
Roy encillln¢SXal) | Gch a eo in eRCNIReE RGEC SOIR IIIc Go INCI Roe Oo eaeaenone
Toilet Facilities.
Properly located mavens auc. ieee eae Cleary ye ee ge
Methodtotmsewagendisposaliyaarran er sae ian a rsei ssl cesta yas leit
Pecnhiiies, tor wasiiime Ings sosceoodoocodanoucnounbodndovogas
Hot and cold water ........ Ma welstepeercsie Clean
Instruction of employees as to cleanliness by signs or
OLMET WAS Clem erase vo na ioer eicCU Meer Nilay ulat cece ieds Baal ay ON, ua moe Le
Remarks.

PRELIMINARY SUGGESTIONS TO OWNERS OF
OYSTER HOUSES.

Office of the Commissioners of Shell-Fisheries of the State of
Rhode Island.

Location oF Oyster BeEps. For the protection of the con-
sumer it is necessary that the sale of oysters from beds which
are subject to sewage contamination be prohibited. It is without
doubt true that oysters thrive and grow rapidly in water con-
taining sewage. But because of the danger of the transmission
of diseases by sewage-grown oysters, and because no one wishes
to use as food oysters which have been exposed to sewage con-
tamination, steps have been taken to prevent the sale of such
oysters in interstate trade by the United States authorities, and
in State trade by the Commissioners of Shell-Fisheries of Rhode
Island.

Every endeavor is being made at present by both of these
authorities to prevent sewage contamination of waters in which
oysters are grown, and also to map out, as far as possible, the
location of present sewage pollution in these waters. Within a
short time it will be possible to advise the lessees of oyster
grounds whether or not their beds are free from pollution. At
the present time about all the information that can be given is
that oyster beds situated north of Conimicut and Nayatt Points
are not fit ground from which to market oysters, and the sale of
any oysters from these beds will be prohibited. The same applies
to oysters grown in Warren River above a line drawn from the
southern end of Rumstick Point to the Warren and Bristol town
line. These restrictions may be removed as soon as some of the
present sources of pollution are stopped.

FLoATING OysTERs. Oysters may be polluted, after they are
removed from the growing beds, by being held in unclean water.
Holding oysters in floats in such a way that they come in contact
with water which is contaminated with sewage will not be allowed.

95

96

RHODE ISLAND INSTRUCTIONS.

If such water is clean, and this can only be determined by analysis,
which will be made by the Commission on request, and if it is
practically as salt as the water in which the oysters are grown,
no harm can come from this practice.

CoNSTRUCTION OF THE OpeninG Houses. Opening houses
should be well lighted and well ventilated. Dark, damp houses
are injurious to the health of those employed therein and are
conducive to dirt, dampness, and decay. Light and air are two of
the very best disinfectants. Walls, bins, benches, and floor should
be so constructed that they may be flushed with water and
scrubbed clean. All accumulation of shells and fragments of
oyster meat should be scrupulously avoided, as they decay rapidly.
Cleaning should be done at least eyery day. The ceiling should
be free from cobwebs and dust. A good brushing-down once
each season, and the application of a coat of whitwash or cold-
water paint, will add much to the cleanliness and light of the
place. Dust from above is much more apt to drop into opened
oysters than that on the floor. Screens at the windows and doors
will prevent flies from bringing contamination to the opened
oysters.

Bins. If bins are used for holding the oysters before they
are opened, they should be so constructed that all of the oysters
are delivered to the openers. No beams or corners should be
left where the oysters collect. One or two old oysters from
previous fillings of the bins may contaminate a whole new lot of
oysters. The bins should be washed out thoroughly from accumu-
lations of dirt and shells between each filling. It is much better
to empty a bin of one lot of oysters before a new lot is added,
thus preventing the holding over of some oysters from one time
to another.

BENCHES. The opening-benches should be kept clean. Fre-
quent flushing and scrubbing will be necessary, preferably with
boiling water, at the places where the openers stand. Pieces of
oyster meat remaining on the benches, and oyster liquor which has
soaked into the wood, decay and contaminate new oysters which
may come in contact with them. Openers should not be allowed
to open oysters directly upon the benches, but always into proper
containers.

Urensits. All pans, measures, colanders, buckets, cans, etc.,
used for holding opened oysters should be of such construction
and material that they may be properly cleaned. The simpler the
construction, the less corners, seams and rust, the more easily
this may be done. They should be thoroughly washed with soap
and hot water, and then scalded out with boiling water or steam,
at least once every day. Water that is actually boiling will destroy
accumulations of germs. Steaming in streaming steam or steam
under pressure is even more effective. A steam chest or sterilizer
into which all utensils may be placed after washing and left in

OPENING HOUSES.

the steam for ten or fifteen minutes is the surest method of
sterilization. The same care must be employed with utensils that
come in contact with opened oysters that the dairyman takes with
his milk-cans to prevent the souring of the milk. Knives used by
the openers must be subjected to the same treatment.

Water Suppty. An abundant supply of pure water is neces-
sary in an oyster house. This must be available not only for
washing the oysters, but also for flushing the bins, benches, and
floor, and for washing the utensils. As much care must be exer-
cised in the selection of.a source of supply as is used where the
water is to be used for drinking purposes. If a well is the source
of supply it must be properly located so that it is free from all
possibility of sewage contamination.

If a town supply is used it also must be perfectly free from
suspicion. It is the intention of this Commission to make analyses
of the water supplies of the various oyster houses of the State,
and to furnish information to those interested as to the quality of
the water.

Tf a tank is used for storing the water it should be properly
covered to prevent dirt, dust, and animals from finding their way
into it. About once every month it should be drained dry and
scrubbed out, to free it from any accumulation of sediment.

Hor Water. An abundant supply of hot water is absolutely
necessary in every oyster house. This will be insisted upon by
this Commission before licenses are granted. The hot water
must be available both for washing the utensils and benches, and
also for washing the hands of the employees. A sufficient supply
cannot be obtained by heating in a vessel on a stove. It will be
necessary to install a hot-water supply in connection with the
heating plant or steam supply.

STEAM. Some arrangement must be provided so that steam
may be had abundantly for scalding out the utensils and, if possi-
ble, for a steam chest or sterilizer. Every shop needs some heat-
ing apparatus, and the simplest method would be to combine
heating, steam, and hot-water supply from the same boiler.

Ice. The source of the ice supply must be considered from
the sanitary standpoint also. Ice may contain contaminating
germs. If contaminated ice comes in contact with the oysters
during the cooling process there is danger of the oysters becoming
contaminated. The Commission will also undertake to determine
the quality of the ice supply of the various houses.

The less time oysters are in contact with ice or iced water, the
better. Cooling must be effected as rapidly as possible. The
smaller the bulk of oysters exposed to the water or ice at one
time, the more rapid and efficient the cooling. If oysters are
rapidly and thoroughly cooled as soon as opened, and then kept
at a fairly low temperature, there should be practically no increase
in the number of germs of any sort present.

97

98

RHODE ISLAND REGULATIONS.

The ice box or refrigerating room in which opened oysters
are held should be cleaned and scrubbed at frequent intervals, so
that it may be clean, sweet, and free from odors.

Empiovers. Too much stress cannot be laid upon the neces-
sity of having the hands and clothing of the employees clean.
If the oyster beds are free from pollution and the utensils
properly sterilized, practically the only other important source of
contamination is the handling of the oysters by the openers.
Every facility must be provided for them to wash their hands
every time they come to the opening-benches to begin work. If
they leave the bench for any reason except to deposit the opened
oysters at the proper place, they should again wash their hands.
They should be particularly instructed to wash their hands
thoroughly after the use of the closet. An abundant supply of
hot and cold water, soap, and clean towels should be conveniently
located, and constant verbal directions by those in charge, or
printed signs, should call attention to this important point. A
little attention to this matter would soon make clean hands a habit
with them. They must also be instructed to wear aprons, gloves,
and finger cots which are clean. It would be well for the owners
of the shops to furnish these, so that their condition as to cleanli-
ness can be properly controlled. The same process of boiling or
sterilization used for the utensils should be followed with these
articles also. Jumpers and overalls or other outer clothing worn
by the employees should be reasonably clean.

Inquiry should be made for cases of illness among the
employees or their families at frequent intervals. No man should
be allowed in the opening-house, or to have anything to do with
the handling of the oysters who has recently had any contagious
disease, or in whose family there has been such a case. The
advice of the local health officers or of this Commission may be
had in this matter. :

Tomer Facirities. Toilet facilities must be provided, but
they must be so located that there is no danger of pollution from
this source. A properly located and constructed closet on land is
much better than an open closet on the wharf. In either case the
closet must be kept clean and flies excluded from the pit. In
large houses, where many men are employed, some proper method
of sewage disposal must be installed. The Commission will
always be ready to advise as to what method they think best
adapted to any particular case.

The Commission feels that the above instructions and direc-
tions are not at all unreasonable, and that they may be carried out
without imposing any greater expense than is absolutely neces-
sary to insure a clean product. This added expense will be more
than made up by the increased market value of the product and
the increased consumption when the public knows that the oysters
are produced under sanitary regulations.

NEW HAVEN AND MASSACHUSETTS LAWS. 99

The inspector of the Commission will visit the opening-
houses from time to time to see whether the above directions are
carried out; and unless the shops conform substantially to the
above regulations, licenses will not be issued and those that are
issued will be cancelled.

(A large printed card containing the main points of the above
is required to be placed on the wall of every Rhode Island open-
ing house for the attention of the employees.)

BOARD OF HEALTH, CITY OF NEW HAVEN.
HEALTH REGULATIONS DE OYSTERS.

Section 1. The floating or fattening of oysters in the polluted
waters of New Haven harbor or in any rivers or streams opening
into said harbor, and the selling or offering for sale of oysters
contaminated by such waters, is hereby prohibited.

Sec. 2. Every person violating this regulation, on conviction,
shall forfeit or pay a penalty of not more than one hundred
dollars.

STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.
(Chap. 460)
AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE DISCHARGE OF WASTE MATERIALS INTO THE STREAMS
OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

Be it enacted, etc., as follows:

Section 1. If the commissioners on fisheries and game deter-
mine that the fisheries of any brook or stream in this common-
wealth may be of sufficient value to warrant the prohibition or
regulation of the discharge or escape of sawdust, shavings, gar-
bage, ashes, acids, sewage, dye stuffs, and other waste material
from any particular sawmill, manufacturing or mechanical plant,
or dwelling house, stable or other building, which may, directly
or indirectly, materially injure such fisheries, they may by an order
in writing to the owner or tenant of such sawmill, manufacturing
or mechanical plant, dwelling house, stable or other building, pro-
hibit or regulate the discharge or escape of sawdust, shavings,
garbage, ashes, acids, sewage, dye stuffs, and other waste material
therefrom into such brook or stream. Such order may be revoked
or modified by them at any time. Before any such order is made
said commissioners shall, after reasonable notice to all parties
in interest, give a public hearing in the county where the sawmill,
manufacturing or mechanical plant, dwelling house, stable or
other building to be affected by the order is located, at which
hearing any citizens shall have the right to be heard on the
questions to be determined by the commissioners. Upon peti-
tion of the party aggrieved by such order, filed within six months
after the date thereof, the superior court, sitting in equity, may,
after such notice as it may deem sufficient, hear all interested

I00

MASSACHUSETTS AND VIRGINIA LAWS.

parties and annul, alter or affirm the order. If such petition is
filed by the party aggrieved by said order within ten days after
the date thereof, said order shall not take effect until altered or
affirmed as aforesaid. Whoever, having so been notified, discharges
sawdust, shavings, garbage, ashes, acids, sewage, dye stuffs, and
other waste materials, or suffers or permits it to be discharged or
to escape from said plant under his control, into a brook or stream
in violation of the order of said commissioners, or of said court,
if an appeal is taken, shall be punished by a fine of not more than
twenty-five dollars for the first offence and of fifty dollars for a
second offence.

Sec. 2. Section eight of chapter ninety-one of the Revised
Laws, as amended by chapter three hundred and fifty-six of the
acts of the year nineteen hundred and six, is hereby repealed.

Sec. 3. This act shall take effect on the first day of January
in the year nineteen hundred and eleven.

Approved April 28, 19010. ave
Operative January I, IOQII.

STATE OF VIRGINIA.
DAIRY AND FOOD DIVISION.

WiLttiAmM D. SAUNDERS, Commissioner.
BENJAMIN L. PuRcELL, Deputy Commissioner.

Richmond, Va., January 19, 1910.
RULES AND REGULATIONS.

Effective on and after this date, adopted by the Dairy and
Food Commissioner and approved by the Commissioner and
Board of Agriculture and Immigration, providing for the sani-
tation of canneries, packing houses, oyster-shucking plants, fish-
packing plants, or store or market room or stall used in the
packing, storage, sale or distribution of oysters, crabs, fish,
lobsters, clams, etc. :

(1) Every building, room, shed, wharf or store used as a
cannery, packing house, oyster-shucking plant, fish-packing plant
or store or market, room or stall, selling or exposing for sale or
for distribution or storage of oysters, crabs, fish, lobsters, clams,
etc., shall be properly lighted, drained, plumbed and ventilated,
and conducted with due regard for the purity and wholesomeness
of the food therein produced, and with strict regard to the
influence of such conditions upon the health of the operatives,
employees, clerks, or other persons therein employed. ~

(2) The floors, side walls, ceilings, furniture, receptacles,
implements, and machinery of every establishment where oysters,
crabs, fish, lobsters, clams, etc., are packed, stored, sold, or dis-
tributed, shall at all times be kept in a clean, healthful, and sani-
tary condition.

VIRGINIA OYSTER REGULATIONS.

(3) The above food in the process of preparation, packing,
storing, sale, or distribution must be securely protected from flies,
dust, dirt, and as far as may be necessary, from all other foreign
or injurious contamination.

(4) All refuse, dirt, and the waste products subject to
decomposition and fermentation incident to the preparation, pack-
ing, storing, selling and distributing of food must be removed
from the premises daily.

(5) All trucks, trays, boxes, baskets, buckets, and other
receptacles, chutes, platforms, racks, tables, shelves, and all knives,
saws, cleavers and other utensils and machinery used in moving,
handling, cutting, chopping, mixing, canning, and all other process,
must be thoroughly cleaned daily by sterilization with either boil-
ing water or live steam.

(6) The clothing of operatives, employees, clerks, or other
persons must be as clean as practicable.

(7) The doors, windows and other openings of every can-
nery, oyster and fish-distributing establishment during the fly
season shall be fitted with self-closing screen doors and wire
window screens of not coarser than 14-mesh wire gauze.

(8) The sleeping place or places for persons employed in
such establishments shall be separate and apart from the room in
which food products are manufactured, packed, distributed, or
stored.

(9) No employer shall knowingly permit, require, or suffer
any person to work in a cannery, packing house, oyster-shuck-
ing plant, or store where oysters, crabs, fish, lobsters, clams, etc.,
are packed, shucked, stored, distributed, or kept for sale, who is
afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease, or with any
skin disease.

(10) Every cannery, packing house, oyster-shucking plant,
etc., shall be provided with a convenient wash room and toilet
of sanitary construction, but such toilet shall be entirely separate
and apart from any room used for the manufacture or storage of
food products.

(11) It is unlawful to take oysters or other shell-fish from
insanitary or polluted beds to ship or to sell, or offer for sale, for
human consumption.

(12) It is unlawful to ship or to sell or offer for sale
oysters or other shell-fish which have become polluted because
of packing under insanitary conditions, or being placed in unclean
receptacles. In order to prevent pollution during the packing or
shipment of oysters, it is necessary to give proper attention to
the sanitary condition of the establishment in which they are
packed and to use only-receptacles which have been thoroughly
sterilized.

(13) It is unlawful to ship or to sell or offer for sale
oysters or other shell-fish which have been subjected to “floating”

Io]

102

VIRGINIA OYSTER REGULATIONS.

or “drinking” in brackish water, or water containing less salt
than that in which they are grown. There can be no objection to
“drinking” shell-fish in unpolluted water. Attention is called,
however, to the dangers resulting from “drinking” shell-fish near
polluted fresh water streams and near other sources of pollution.

(14) It is unlawful to ship or sell, or to offer for sale
shucked oysters to which water has been added, either directly
or in the form of melted ice.

(15) The packing of shell-fish with ice in contact is
inhibited.

(16) Only unpolluted cold or iced water should be employed
in washing shucked shell-fish, and the washing,-including chilling,
should not continue longer than the minimum time necessary for
cleaning and chilling.

(17) The shipment of oysters in contact with ice is inhibited.
The floating of oysters in harbor waters or in polluted waters is
inhibited.

(18) The taking of oysters for food purposes from polluted
waters is inhibited.

(19) Suitable containers used for keeping, packing, or
transporting oysters, fish, crabs, clams, etc., should contain on
their surfaces in contact with the food product no lead, antimony,
arsenic, zinc, or copper, or any compounds thereof, or any other
poisonous or injurious substances.

If the containers are made of tin plates, they should be out-
side soldered and the tin plate in no place should contain less
than 113 milligrams of tin on a piece five (5) centimeters square
or one and eight-tenths (1.8) grains on a piece two (2) inches
square. The inner coating should be free from blisters, pin
holes, or cracks. If the tin plate is lacquered, the lacquer must
completely cover the tin service within the container, and must
yield to the contents of the container no lead, antimony, arsenic,
zinc, Or copper, or any compounds thereof, or any other poisonous
or injurious substances. :

It is recommended that retail dealers or distributors of
oysters supply themselves with suitable smooth surface ware,
free from inside seams and with oval bottoms and double tops,
preferably granite or porcelain ware to be used as dispensing
vessels. These vessels should be so arranged that they could be
kept surrounded with ice or water for refrigeration purposes.

(20) In view of the fact that the shipping season has begun
and shippers will require several months to provide themselves
with suitable containers for the shipment of shell-fish out of
contact with ice, no prosecutions will be recommended prior to
May 1, 1910, for the shipment or sale of oysters or other shell-
fish because of the addition of water caused solely by shipment
in contact with ice.

FORMS FOR FRANCHISE GRANTS.
UN Oisvictatdor tarred
APPLICATION
OF
Riee Aa tet ayaheton ais wh BP pan erie usin os
PSsbeio\, asl Ou Naeger bets the on ok
FED, os he PG Nee HRN. ORAM
I9 sc bicnugares evayete O) GLOCR si cisnySclers, Weit noon.
RODEN:
SHELL FISH COMMISSIONERS
OF THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
The Application of . a resident

of the Town of in the County of
and State of Connecticut respectfully shows: that he has resided
in said State more than one year next preceding the date of this
application; that the grounds hereinafter described are undesig-
nated grounds and are not now, and for ten years last past have
not been, natural clam or oyster beds;*and have not been desig-
nated according to the provisions of the act hereinafter described
as natural oyster, clam or mussel beds; that he wishes and intends
to use said grounds for planting and cultivating shell fish. He
therefore respectfully requests that said Commissioners, pursuant
to an act entitled “An Act establishing a State Commission for
the Designation of Oyster Grounds,’ passed by the General
Assembly of Connecticut at its January Session, 1881, will grant to
him, in the name and behalf of the State of Connecticut, a per-
petual franchise for planting and cultivating shell fish in
acres of ground, located under the waters of Long Island Sound,
between the meridian boundary lines of the town of
in the State aforesaid, and south of the coast line established by
the first section of the act aforesaid, which grounds are more
particularly bounded and described, as follows, to wit:

Dated at , Connecticut, this
day of A. D. 19

Applicant.

GRANT OF FRANCHISE.

FROM
ee) SPATE OF TCONNECTICUG:

Received for Record

at h m M., and recorded in
vol. onpage of Commissioners Records.
by

Clerk.

103

104

FORMS FOR FRANCHISE GRANTS.

resident of the State of Connecticut, pursuant to An Act entitled
an Act establishing a State Commission for the designation of
oyster beds, passed by the General Assembly at its January session,
A.D. 1881, ha made application to the Commissioners of shell fish-
eries of the State of Connecticut for a grant of a perpetual fran-
chise for planting and cultivating shell fish in the grounds herein-
after bounded and described, wherein he represent that he ha

resided in the State of Connecticut more than one year next pre-
ceding the date of said application; that the said grounds are
undesignated grounds and are not now, and for ten years last
passed have not been, natural clam or oyster beds, and have not
been designated according to the provisions of the said act as
natural oyster, clam or mussel beds; that he wish and intend

to use said grounds for planting and cultivating shell fish, which

application is dated the day of ANG IDL a ; and was
filed with the clerk of said Commissioners on the
day of A. Dit , as appears by the note placed

thereon by said clerk; and whereas, a written notice, stating the
name and residence of said applicant , the date of filing the said
application, the location, area and description of the grounds
applied for, having been posted by said clerk for twenty days in
the office of the town clerk of the town of within
the meridian boundary lines of which said grounds are located,
for all persons to file objections, if any they have, to the granting
of the grounds applied for:

AND WHEREAS, no valid objections having been made
thereto, and the area of said grounds not being, in the opinion .of
the Commissioners, of unreasonable extent, the said grounds
having been surveyed, located and delineated on the map of the
Commissioners; the actual costs of surveying and mapping said
grounds, amounting to dollars, and
the price of said grounds at one dollar per acre, amounting to

dollars, having been paid by said
applicant to the Commissioners for the benefit of the State of
Connecticut. Now, therefore

Know all men by these presents, THAT The State of Con-
necticut, acting by and through the Commissioners on_ shell
fisheries, in consideration of the premises and especially for the
sum last above mentioned, duly received from said applicant ,
hath given and granted and by these presents doth give and grant
unto the said applicant and to i legal representatives
forever a perpetual franchise for the planting and cultivation of
shell fish in the
acres of ground applied for, bounded and described as follows,
that is to say:

To have and to hold the same unto the said grantee and
legal representatives, to the only use and behoof of the said
grantee and legal representatives forever:

PROVIDED always, that said grounds have not heretofore
been designated and are not new, and for ten years last passed,
have not been natural clam or oyster beds, and have not been
designated according to the provisions of the said act as natural
oyster, clam, or mussel beds, and provided further that this grant —
shall not interfere with any established right of fishing and that
said grantee shall at once cause the said grounds to be plainly
marked by stakes, buoys, ranges or monuments, which stakes,
buoys, ranges or monuments shall be continued by the said

FORMS FOR FRANCHISE GRANTS.

grantee and legal representatives; and provided further,
that this grantee or holder of said grounds shall actually use
and occupy the same for the purposes named in good faith within
five years from the date hereof, and for no other purpose; and
provided further, that this grant is accepted by said grantee sub-
ject to all the provisions of the act aforesaid.

In Witness Whereof, the Commissioners of shell fisheries, in
behalf of the State of Connecticut, by virtue of the authority
vested in them by said act, have hereto set their hands and seals
this

Signed, Sealed and Delivered in Presence of

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ~
County or New Haven, as: New Haven, A.D.

Personally appeared,
Commissioners of Shell Fisheries of Connecticut, signers and
sealers of the foregoing instrument and severally acknowledged
the same to be their free act and deed in behalf of the State of
Connecticut and in their own behalf, before me.

105

REEOKR! LOe tie

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH

ON THE

SANITARY INVESTIGATION

OF

OVS ‘GROUNDS

IN THE

NEW HAVEN HARBOR

JAMES A. NEWLANDS anD GEORGE C. HAM

GAO)

SANITARY INVESTIGATION OF OYSTER GROUNDS
IN THE NEW HAVEN HARBOR.

Connecticut State Board of Health, Hartford, Conn.:

GENTLEMEN :—The following is a report on the sanitary
investigation of the oyster grounds in the New Haven Harbor
ordered by your honorable body at the request of the Board of
Equalization and Oyster Investigation Commission.

It was the desire of this Commission that a general investi-
gation be made into the sanitary condition of the oyster grounds
along the Connecticut coast. The importance of such an
investigation was understood, but as there were no funds avail-
able for this work a committee was appointed by the Board to
determine what might.be done. At a meeting of this committee,
held in June, it was decided that the investigation of watersheds
in the State, then in progress, should be discontinued for a short
time and that the writers should undertake a preliminary investi-
gation of conditions in the New Haven Harbor.

The investigation has been divided into the following heads:

1 A study of the literature bearing upon the relation of
‘oysters to the dissemination of disease.

2 A general sanitary survey of the New Haven Harbor.

3 Laboratory investigation of the water and oysters in the
New Haven Harbor.

A STUDY OF THE LITERATURE BEARING UPON
THE RELATION OF OYSTERS TO THE
DISSEMINATION OF DISEASE.

A study of the literature reveals only a few references to
oysters as carriers of disease germs previous to 1880. In that
year Cameron, in a paper entitled “Oysters and Typhoid Fever”
read before the British Medical Association, suggested that out-
breaks of typhoid fever and cholera might be caused by eating
oysters. In 1893 Thorne-Thorne, in a report to the Local
Government Board, wrote that, in his opinion, certain cases of
cholera which had occurred that year at various inland towns in
England were due to eating contaminated oysters from beds at
Grimsby, where there had been a small cholera epidemic. Fol-
lowing the suggestions embodied in this report the English

IIO SANITARY INVESTIGATION OF NEW HAVEN HARBOR.

Government began a series of investigations which have made
many important additions to our present knowledge of the sub-
ject.

In this country in 1894 the well-known epidemic of typhoid
fever at Wesleyan University was reported by Dr. H. W. Conn
in the 17th Annual Report of this Board and as the epidemic was
shown to have been caused by oysters from the New Haven Har-
bor a brief summary of the report may be of interest. The facts
briefly are as follows: On October 12, 1894, banquets were
given by a number of the college fraternities in connection with
initiation ceremonies. Within less than a month twenty-five
cases of illness were reported among students belonging to three
of the fraternities, and of these twenty-three cases were diag-
nosed as typhoid fever. No evidence could be found to show
that the water, milk, ice, or vegetables used at the banquets had
been infected. The water was obtained from the city supply
and the other articles of food were purchased from dealers who
had also supplied many of the townspeople and some of the other
fraternities where no illness had been reported. Suspicion was
turned to raw oysters, which were served at the three fraternities
where the typhoid cases had appeared, and it was found that they
had been obtained from a local dealer. This dealer had also sup-
plied one other fraternity, but the oysters in this case were
cooked and no ill effects were reported. Inquiry regarding two
other cases of typhoid fever which occurred in the town at this
time developed the fact that both patients had eaten raw oysters
purchased from the above-mentioned dealer. Upon further
investigation it was found that this shipment of oysters had been
taken from grounds in Long Island Sound and later floated in
the Quinnipiac River a short distance from a private sewer
draining a house where there were then two cases of typhoid
fever. It was also found that a portion of the same lot of
oysters had been shipped to Amherst, Mass., where they were
served at a fraternity banquet held on the same evening as the
Wesleyan banquets, and six cases of typhoid fever developed
among those who ate oysters. The chain of evidence connecting
this epidemic with the use of contaminated oysters appears to be
complete.

Again in 1902 the famous oyster epidemics at Winchester
and Southampton, England, were proven beyond reasonable

DISSEMINATION OF DISEASE. IIl

doubt to have been caused by contaminated oysters taken from
grounds at Emsworth. Here again we have to deal with ban-
quets given in different cities where the only common source of
infection appears to have been contaminated oysters. Of the
two hundred and sixty-seven guests at these banquets one hun-
dred and eighteen were attacked with intestinal disorders and
twenty-one cases of typhoid fever developed, five of which were
fatal.

Although, as has been brought out by Mr. H. C. Rowe, in a
paper on ““The Wholesomeness of Oysters as Food,” a great many
sensational attacks have been made against oysters as carriers of
disease germs which have been based on little or no evidence,
yet the above-mentioned investigations and others, among which
might be mentioned those by Thresh 1902, Marvel 1902, and
Soper 1905, have brought out sufficient trustworthy evidence to
show that contaminated oysters must be considered as a real
factor in the dissemination of typhoid fever and other water-
borne diseases. An estimate of the extent to which such illness
is due to oysters would be impossible at the present time. The
Royal Sewage Commission after an extensive investigation on
this subject came to the following conclusion: “After carefully
considering the whole of the evidence on this point, we are satis-
fied that a considerable number of cases of enteric fever and
other illness are caused by the consumption of shell-fish which
have been exposed to sewage contamination; but in the present
state of knowledge, we do not think it possible to make an
accurate numerical statement.

“Moreover an examination of the figures which have been
placed before us as regards those towns in which the subject has
been most carefully studied shows that there may be occasional
errors. Indeed the witnesses themselves recognized that abso-
lutely accurate figures were not obtainable.

“We are far from denying that isolated cases may have been
due to contaminated shell-fish, but we must remember that the
possibility of some of them being due to other causes cannot be
altogether excluded.”

In the above-mentioned cases, where oysters have been
proven or reasonably suspected of being the cause of disease, it
has been found that the oysters in question had been floated or
grown in heavily polluted water where direct contact with spe-

112 SANITARY INVESTIGATION OF NEW HAVEN HARBOR.

cific infection could be proven or readily assumed. The Wes-
leyan epidemic is a case in point. Oysters had undoubtedly been
floated in the contaminated waters at Fair Haven for a number
of years previous to 1894 without any noticeable effect on the
health of persons eating them, but specific infection of the water
from two patients in a house nearby was followed by a serious
epidemic.

The character of the contamination and the directness with
which it is carried to the ayster are all important factors in the
part played by the oyster in the transmission of disease. Quot-
ing Houston, recorded in the Fourth Report of the Royal Sewage
Commission, “A pollution trivial in amount but specific in char-
acter is much more dangerous than contamination gross in
amount with nonspecific in nature. It is also probable that a
pollution trivial in amount but specific in character and of recent
sort, is more dangerous than a pollution gross in amount, specific
in character, but of remote kind.”

METHODS OF DETERMINING THE DANGER OF A
GIVEN POLLUTION.

No method of direct estimation of the disease value of a
given pollution has yet been devised and although the advent of
the science of bacteriology has helped much in the solution of
public health problems, it has failed, thus far, to give investi-
gators a method for determining the presence or absence of
disease germs in contaminated water or oysters except under
rare conditions. The New York Department of Health, 1908, in
a report on the “Sanitary Inspection of Shell-Fish Grounds in
New York,” reaches the conclusion that a standard based upon the
presence or absence of disease-producing conditions in shell-fish
beds and their contents is impossible at this time, and continue:
“We are forced therefore, to rely for such action as may be
advisable upon the basis of the estimation of the amount and
distribution of the sewage pollution of a general character in
relation to shell-fish beds and their contents, and to oyster drink-
ing places. Nevertheless, making such a basis for action is
fraught with no little danger, for the reason that the basis is an
artificial one; and on the one hand, it is entirely possible that
approval may be given under it to beds, drinking places and

METHOD OF DETERMINING POLLUTION. 113

indirectly to oysters and shell-fish, which may become the means
of transmitting disease; and on the other hand, it is more than
likely that beds, etc., may be condemned which are not in reality
a menace to health and will not likely become so. In fact, jus-
tice to the oyster industry on the one hand, and to the public
health on the other, demands that action on this basis shall not be
taken except after the most careful and exhaustive investigations
of an epidemiological, sanitary engineering, and_ biological
character.”

In the Fourth Report of the Royal Sewage Commission pre-
viously quoted we find the following statement: “The methods
at present available to the bacteriologist do not permit of his
detecting, except possibly in rare cases, the typhoid fever micro-
organism either in sewage largely diluted with sea water or in
shell-fish; neither do they enable him to measure, in any exact
manner, whether the micro-organisms which he takes as his
index of danger are of recent or remote intestinal origin. More-
over, there is no constant ratio between the numbers of the
organism taken as an index and the numbers of the disease-pro-
ducing organism in the typhoid intestine, in the raw sewage or
in the mixture of sewage and estuary water. Mere numbers of
B. Coli or any other particular micro-organism of sewage can-
not, therefore, be said to have anything approaching an exact
value as an indicator of the danger of disease, and we consider
that before any working bacteriological standard can be applied
further knowledge is necegsary.”

Definite evidence of sewage contamination, however, must be
considered as “potential infection,’ and in order to form .some
basis for passing upon the quality of oysters which will be fair
alike to the oyster industry and to the public health, certain
investigators have classified their results to show different
degrees of pollution, the final opinion regarding evidence of
pollution being based upon a study of these results in connection
with a careful sanitary survey of the grounds in question. In
the report of the New York Department of Health previously
-quoted, the work of Dr. A. C. Houston, the Mass. State Board
of Health, Dr. C. A. Fuller, and Dr. Geo. A. Soper have been
compared, and although there are some differences in the
methods of reporting results which make accurate comparison
difficult, the differences in the standards suggested are not so

114 SANITARY INVESTIGATION OF NEW HAVEN HARBOR.

great as might be expected. Roughly, it may be said that the
Mass. State Board and Fuller would consider positive
tests for B. Coli in one cubic centimeter of the shell liquor as
definite evidence of pollution, while Houston and Soper would
require positive tests in one-tenth of a cubic centimeter for
definite evidence. i

After a large amount of investigation the Bureau of Chem-
istry of the U. S. Department of Agriculture has decided to con-
demn oysters sold in interstate commerce which show more than
two samples out of five giving positive tests for B. Coli types of
organisms in one-tenth of a cubic centimeter of the shell liquor.
When oysters have been condemned on this standard, however,
the examinations have been supplemented with an inspection of
the beds from which the oysters were obtained, and a bacterio-
logical examination of the water bathing the oysters from these
localities.

At the annual meeting of the American Public Health
Association held in September of this year, the Committee on
“Standard Methods of Sanitary Shell-Fish Examination” gave
considerable time to a discussion of bacteriological standards, but
no definite action was taken.

The Rhode Island Shell-Fish Commission is now using the
government ruling in passing upon the oyster grounds of that
state, i.e. all oysters are condemned in which three out of five
show the presence of colon bacilli in .1 of a cubic centimeter of
shell water. Sanitary certificates are issued for all oysters that
pass this standard. Professor Gorham, under whose direction
the bacteriological investigations of the Commission are being
carried on, also holds for special study those grounds where the
sanitary survey shows that the conditions are dangerous although
the oysters may be all right, and grounds where the results of
analysis are bad although the sanitary conditions appear to be
good. For such grounds a conditional certificate is issued which
states that the oysters covered by such a conditional certificate
are in a questionable area and require further study before being
passed upon.

Too great emphasis cannot be placed upon the fact that the
adoption of a bacteriological standard which will be fair alike to
the oyster industry and to the public health must be determined
in the light of data gathered from allied lines of investigation.

METHOD OF DETERMINING POLLUTION. 115

To quote from the admirable paper by George W. Fuller on
“Shell-Fish and Typhoid Fever,’ “Epidemiology, bacteriology,
sanitary chemistry, and hydraulic engineering are called to assist
in the solution of this problem, in conjunction with those physi-
eal data*usnally called: a “sanitary suxvey-, | )7),) 74%); Do.con-
sider one aspect of the case will not do, as such evidence might
be misleading to such a degree as to do far more harm than good.
In the future the engineer will especially be obliged to consider
this question in further detail, and to coOperate in seeing to it
that various sanitary surveys and samples for analysis have due
regard for the physical side of the case, as, for example, the cur-
rents, tides, winds, relative volumes of sewage and of fresh and
salt water (tidal prisms), velocity, dilution, effect of sedimenta-
tion and scouring, temperature, relative densities of water, strati-
fication, and especially the period of time elapsing during the
passage of sewage from the outfalls to the shell-fish beds and
“drinking grounds.”

The position taken by the Rhode Island Commission in
adopting the Government ruling appears to us to be the logical
one at the present time. It has the advantage of allowing the
sale of oysters in interstate commerce from certified grounds,
will protect the public health and will help bring back the confi-
dence of the public in the use of this wholesome food, while those
grounds lying within the condemned or questionable areas may
be returned to use as rapidly as future investigations warrant
such a change.

SANITARY SURVEY OF THE NEW HAVEN
HARBOR.

The New Haven Harbor north of the breakwaters covers an
area of 11.68 sq. miles. The inner harbor, i.e. that portion of
the harbor north of a line between the “Jetty” and Fort Hale,
has an area of 3.32 sq. miles. This portion of the harbor is quite
shallow, having an average depth of about five and a half feet
and a capacity of about 523,000,000 cu. ft. at low tide and
~ 1,080,000,000 cu. ft. at high tide or a little over twice the low
tide capacity.

It was apparent that the incoming tide, entering the outer
harbor by the openings between the breakwaters and between
breakwaters and shore, would flow strongly up the main channel

116 SANITARY INVESTIGATION OF NEW HAVEN HARBOR.

and gradually spread to the shores. Also during the latter part
of the flood tide some water would flow directly from the outer
to the inner harbor over the dike, which is then submerged. The
flow of the outgoing tide would appear to be practically the
reverse of the incoming.

In order to determine whether there was any important
variation from the apparent flow or currents which would par-
ticularly affect the flow from the sewer outlets to the oyster
grounds, a number of float experitnents were made.

Both ball and spar floats were used. The ball floats con-
sisted of a six-inch, coppered, tin ball carrying a small flag on a
staff set in the top and a tin vane suspended from a ring in the
bottom by a fish line or wire to the required depth. The vanes
were twenty-inch by ten-inch tin sheets set at right angles and
held thus by four quarter-round wood mouldings. The mould-
ings projected about two inches below the vanes and were held
together by being screwed into a heavy iron nut. Above the
vanes the mouldings projected about six inches and were
fastened by a wire run through a screw-eye in each piece. The
four mouldings held the vanes firmly and the buoyancy of the
wood above and the weight of the nut below tended to keep the
vanes in a horizontal position. The bottom of the ball was
weighted sufficiently to balance the weight of the flag before the
vanes were attached. The weight of the vanes when submerged
gave a pull on the line attached to the ball of about two pounds,
which caused the ball to float nearly submerged, thus decreasing
the effect of the wind.

This form of float was easily assembled and taken down,
and as the depth of the vane could be readily altered by simply
lengthening or shortening the lines, they were found very satis-
factory.

The spar floats used were made of a wood spar, two inches
in diameter and three and a half feet long. One end was split
into quarters by two saw cuts ten inches deep and the two ten-
inch by twenty-inch tin vanes were slipped into these cuts and
fastened by staples. The spars floated about nine inches out of
water and were painted different colors for easy identification.
They also carried small flags.

The floats were started either singly or in groups of two to
four. They were followed in a launch and their location taken
about every hour, by cross ranges or with an angle mirror.

SANITARY SURVEY. 117

Thirty-three floats were started from seven different points
during the investigation and were followed from two to seven
hours. Many ran aground in the inner harbor, particularly
those whose vanes were set over three feet deep. The more
interesting results are shown on the accompanying plot No. 1.

In general the results of these float experiments indicate: Ist,
That the flow from the Boulevard sewer in the early part of the
ebb tide is southeasterly and is divided by the Shag Bank, part
going down the main channel and part following the west side
of the bank. Later, when the tide has fallen below the level of
the dike and bar, the whole flow is down the channel to a point
below Fort Hale whence most of the floats drifted easterly into
Morris Cove.

2d. Floats set at the Meadow St. sewer outfall traveled very
slowly, some not reaching the main channel in four hours on the
ebb tide.

3d. Floats from Tomlinson’s Bridge followed the general
course of the channel.

4th. The maximum velocity found in the channel was about
one mile per hour and the indications are that the distance
through which the sewage travels from the outfalls on one out-
going tide does not exceed three miles and is usually less except
for that portion which enters the main channel about mid tide.

The movement of the tides has little scouring action in the
inner harbor except over the Shag Bank, where the current is
quite rapid for a short period during each tide and the sand bar
is kept comparatively free from organic deposits.

The West, Mill, and Quinnipiac rivers entering the inner
harbor drain an area of 222 sq. miles, but these streams do not
increase the flushing action of the tides to any great extent as
the average daily run-off for the total drainage area is only
about 31,000,000 cu. ft., or about 6 per cent. of the capacity of
the inner harbor at low tide.

The Quinnipiac River or its tributaries receives raw sewage
from outfalls at Wallingford and Southington, but at Bristol and
-Meriden the sewage is treated on sand filters before it is dis-
charged into the stream. The New Haven sewerage system
serving approximately 100,000 people, or about half the popula-
tion on the harbor drainage area, discharges from seven outfalls
along the west shores of the inner harbor and the Quinnipiac

118 SANITARY INVESTIGATION OF NEW HAVEN HARBOR. /

River. There are also numerous private sewers or drains along
the shores.

The effect of this method of sewage disposal on the oyster
grounds in the inner harbor is apparent. Float experiments
confirmed by laboratory results show that at certain stages of the
tide sewage from the Boulevard sewer passes directly over the
“Shag Bank,’ on which are located the most important oyster
grounds in the inner harbor, and the time required for the
sewage to travel from the outfall to the “Shag Bank” under these
conditions is less than an hour. Certain grounds just north of
the “Shag Bank” and within a few hundred feet of the Boule-
vard sewer outfall are still in use and it may be said literally that
the oysters here are bathed in dilute sewage.

The west side of the harbor is in a very unsanitary condi-
tion. The sewers generally discharge above the low water level,
and at low tide, during the summer months, foul odors due to
the decomposition of the sewage sludge which settles on the
bottom of the harbor about the outfalls can be noticed for a
considerable distance from the shore. This is especially true of
the Meadow St. outfall, where the sewage runs over a sludge-
covered area laid bare at low tide.

Floating garbage of all kinds, boxes and barrels, and masses
of feces can be seen almost any day on the surface of the harbor
waters. During this investigation one of the writers saw five
boys bathing off an oyster-house dock a short distance north of
the Ferry St. Bridge. The boys were formed in a circle, in the
center of which was a floating mass of feces several inches in
diameter. It requires little argument to convince the most
skeptical that bathing under such conditions is unhealthful.

The outer harbor, i.e. that portion of the harbor south of
the “Jetty,” receives a small amount of drainage from private
drains at and east of Savin Rock and also along the shores of
Morris Cove and Lighthouse Point, but as will be shown by the
laboratory results, the most serious contamination comes from
the pollution in the inner harbor, which is rapidly encroaching
upon the safety of the grounds beyond the breakwaters.

LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS.

Through the courtesy of Jeremiah Smith & Sons, oyster
dealers, a room in one of their buildings at City Point, New

LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS. 119

Haven, was placed at our disposal, where a laboratory was
equipped for the examination of water and oysters. The routine
work began on June 29 and was brought to a close on Sep-
tember 30. A total of nine hundred and forty-five samples
was examined, consisting of six hundred and sixty-eight water
samples and two hundred and seventy-seven oysters. .

The laboratory work was in charge of Mr. Wm. F. Wells
during July and August and Mr. E. A. Robinson during Sep-
tember, to both of whom we are indebted for the careful manner
in which this work was completed. We are also indebted to the
New Haven oystermen who so willingly codperated with us in
the work.

During the early part of the investigation water samples
were collected from forty-seven stations indicated on the accom-
panying maps. In the inner harbor samples were taken at one
depth, usually about three feet below the surface. In the outer
harbor, where the water is deeper, samples were usually taken
at two depths, i.e. about three and fifteen feet below the surface.
The samples were collected in vacuum tubes now commonly used
for this work, lowered in a lead tube to the desired depth and
broken open.

The numbers of bacteria in the water were determined on
standard gelatin and agar at 20°C. and 37° C.,. respectively.
Jackson’s Bile medium was used as a presumptive test for B. Colt
in both water and oyster work. Confirmatory tests were not
made as the bile medium results have been shown to be a fair
index of the B. Coli content and are sufficiently accurate for pre-
liminary work of this nature. Samples of the shell liquor were
obtained by drilling through a sterilized portion of the shell near
the hinge with a sterile drill, The amount of oxygen dissolved
in the water of the inner harbor was determined at various sta-
tions and in this work the Winkler method was used.

Data regarding air currents, percentage of land water in the
harbor water, stage of tide when samples were taken, etc., have
been tabulated and placed on file in the office of the Board, as
_they would require too much space to be included in this report.
The percentage of land water to sea water was determined by
means of a salinometer devised by the New York Sewerage Com-
mission and the results calculated from a table gotten up by that
Commission.

120 SANITARY INVESTIGATION OF NEW HAVEN HARBOR.

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS.

It is not to be expected that in a preliminary investigation
covering a period of only three months enough data could
be obtained to form any definite basis for deciding within narrow
limits whether a given oyster ground is safe or dangerous.
Enough data have been obtained, however, to show that all the
grounds in the inner harbor and some of those in the outer har-
bor are very badly polluted and could not be passed by any
reasonable standard for the cultivation of market oysters. If
conditions here are representative of those to be found at other
places along the Connecticut coast, it would seem that further
investigation along these lines is of vital importance both for
the benefit of an important industry and for the protection of the
public health.

For reasons previously stated we have based our classifica-
tion of unsanitary grounds on the government ruling. Grounds
from which the oysters show a B. Coli content greater than the
limit of the government regulation, but not positive in dilutions
greater than 0.1 of a cubic centimeter, are considered as question-
able areas to be held for more careful study. A map showing the
oyster grounds thus classified has been submitted to the State
Board of Health.

In reporting the B. Coli results recorded in Table No. 1
estimates of the B. Coli content per cubic centimeter of water or
shell liquor were obtained from averages of all the samples
examined. The “Committee of the American Public Health
Association on Standard Methods of Shell-Fish Examination” has
under consideration a numerical system for recording bacterio-
logical results, but the system had not been fully decided upon
at the time of writing this report. A common system of record-
ing results is greatly needed, as the diverse methods now in use
make a comparison of the work of different investigators difficult
and in some cases impossible.

On the basis of the method used in recording our results
the government regulation would condemn grounds when the
oysters showed a greater B. Coli content than 4.6 per cubic centi-
meter of the shell water. Grounds from which oysters are taken
which show average B. Coli counts between 4.6 and Io. per cubic
centimeter are held for a more careful investigation.

TABLE OF RESULTS.

I2L1

Station. Samples
taken.
Ferry St.
Bridge 12
Tomlinson
Bridge 15
No.1 15
oe 2 15
oer 16
Buoy Io 15
No. 4 15
“6 5 17
Buoy 5 23
6 8 15
No. 6 16
ae 7 21
OLS II
“ 9A 13
“ae 9 12
OO TA II
meee 16
LO 23
BO raat II
Buoy 6 21
Aap) 17
No. 12 14
ae 13 5
USDA! 12
Buoy 4 7
No. 15 7
“16 14
SLT 14
“49 =
re 2O) Io
Buoy 2 II
No. 22 8
Buoy 1 6
No. 18 Io
ea 4
46 23 6
ae 25 2
ZO) 5
Sey 7] 10
ae 28 4
‘29 5
Mh 3O 5
“a 31 7
p32 5
33 4
a 34: 4
lige SS yeas 4

WATER.
Av. Number Bacteria! Average
Perc. c. Number
B. Coli*
37° C. eye (G, |) Leer © ©
210. 1260. 43.
gio 2650. 34.
510 1680. Rit,
375. gto. 73:
255. 835. 9.
155. 450. IO.
160. 1720. Q.
615. 1340. 74.
315. 715. 15.
205. 410. 8.
145. 485. 8.
215 740. 29.
220 260. 7.
100. 185. 9.
1Q5. 200. e7e
120 240. 10.
180. 270. oie
300 615. 9.
405. 510. 8.
815. 1690. 9.
175. 590. 6.
620 11gO. 4.
240. 120, 10.
285. I1I0O. i=
375. 1400. 4.
455. 1680. i
280. 1025. i=
300 1260. =
800. 300. ais
135. 860. I.—
375- 905. 2.
305. 560. I.—
II5. 995. I.—
255. 675. I.—
710 1340. 4.
450. 240. I.—
130 IO0O. I.—
130 465. I.—
630. 695. I.—
415. 1400. ig
370. L700, I.
185. 440. I.—
320. 130. I.—
70. 1050. I.—
485. 405. i=
535. 495. Lge
120 270. I.—

OYSTERS.
Average
ie: Number | Character of
B. Coli* | Oyster bottom.
Per c. c, Samples.
Soft.
72. | 16. Re
308. 13. s
37. ae Seaweed.
425. Te Hard.
64. 10. oh
46. 10. re
37. 10. a
255. II. ay
370. 6. stl
100. Tis Soft
10. 4. th
Bone es Hard.
6. 5. oe
10. 8. “
oe 8. ‘
ABoWit has, Hard.
I.— Be Soft.
12. Hard.
nay, 4s Be Hard.
HA es Hard.
4. 106). By
fotn lt ito: Hard.
us i Soft.
4. 3. |Mud &sand.
Be Zs Soft.
I.—| 15. Hard.
I.—] 15. oi
BE 15. 3h
I.—] To. iy
ies IO. a
ite 15. Sticky.

* Jackson’s Lactose Bile presumptive test used.
Minus sign after figure 1. indicates that the average was less than I.

122 SANITARY INVESTIGATION OF NEW HAVEN HARBOR.

A study of Map No. 2 shows that on the basis of these
classifications grounds shaded in red are definitely polluted.
The area shaded in green represents those grounds lying between
the limits of the two classifications, which should be given
further study. Oysters taken from either of these areas are
liable to be condemned if found on sale in interstate trade.

The area shaded blue represents those grounds which pass
both classifications and from which oysters may be taken for sale
in interstate trade.

In drawing lines between the different classes of grounds
the divisions had to be more or less arbitrary divisions, as we
were unable to get data in such a short period to show the condi-
tion of oyster grounds at points between the stations from which
the lines were drawn. A short series of examinations, however,
will be sufficient to supply data for changes which may be found
necessary.

According to these classifications approximately 1506 acres
of private oyster grounds show definite evidence of the presence
of sewage contamination and should not be used for growing
market oysters unless the pollution is removed.

An additional area of about 579 acres does not pass the gov-
ernment regulation, but is within the other classification limit.

It is probably true also that a considerable portion of the
natural grounds are seriously contaminated by polluted water,
which passes over the “jetty” dike as indicated by the three sets
of oyster samples examined on the last day of the investigation
from stations thirty-six, thirty-seven, and thirty-eight, but no
estimate of the polluted area could be made from these results.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.

While further work will be required in the outer harbor to
determine the effect of pollution along the shores and also the
condition of the natural grounds, we believe the results of this
investigation show in a general way the present condition of the
private beds.

In conclusion we would again call your attention to the very
dangerous condition of the oyster grounds in the inner harbor
and a portion of the outer harbor near the main channel.
Oysters showing hundreds of colon bacilli per cubic centimeter

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. 123

of shell liquor from grounds where physical evidence of sewage
contamination can be readily demonstrated are a menace to the
public health and a detriment to the oyster industry, and the use
of such grounds for raising market oysters should be prohibited
until they are made safe and satisfactory by the removal of such
pollution.

It is not within the province of this report to determine the
feasibility of removing sewage pollution from the oyster grounds
in the inner harbor, but methods can and should be adopted for
improving the present unsanitary condition of the inner harbor
and to prevent, at least, further encroachment upon the valuable
oyster grounds now in danger in the lower harbor and beyond
the breakwaters.

Respectfully submitted,

Jas. A. NEWLANDS,
Chemist State Board of Health.

Geo. C. Ham,
Sanitary Inspector.

November 30, 1910.

A Page
INCKNOW EG SINENES | os 8)5 oe TY STRAT i a ee octal se en 81-82
Attorney-General’s opinion on power of oyster commission ....... Q-12
B
Blank and letter sent to private growers ................-- APL J 12-15
Blaniksisent/to naturah erowtherswes sce eer eee eee eee eer eee 40-47
Blank sent by Shell-Fish Commissioners to applicants for oyster
EVAMEIMISES | (eee ye ci alaceu eels eieeoete ehoei eee aie Bese alage bonne 103-105
Board of Equalization appointed an Oyster Commission by
Wee caSla tune y yer seis oueimits lal aballsv uatsie ova ma ua ate Tra as agin ean 3, 10
Board of Health, New Haven, on oyster regulations ............. 99
State ye IND A Tea ICRI EU OULU RU aN XT Oa 55,58
Buoying
Naturales yok Sea UU nae yA AS eI oe ESS CR aye Cee 33-34
RECOMMIEN GAtIOMS see UL eA NG Te UC Srat pe le Lire ne a 42-44
Mabletishowangathercostiotu sane eee en ae oe BER Rt ie He 34
Bureau of Chemistry
Decisions concerning oyster-condemnation ..................-- 114
Bureau of Pishentessederaliey enn ennines alley ace asta nan oh Aue 77-80
Comparative tinancialytablessseeaeeee ee eee ee eee Lee ee 78
Mablesshowang (statistics) fOr) year TOTO; ese. se see vee eer 77
D
Dangers from oyster pollution, methods of determining ........... 112-115
Department of agriculture, United States ....................000- 92-05
Dairy SCoresand Odi yon yee ak aes aie der aa eae at aera ate - 92-93
Diseases caused by oysters
Stemi Pass ee char en oe une ni ook unuie HAMAS CHAS CN NG SPIRE Fc LAMM OR IIO-III
Ay plroid fever ne Mean Nel AMAL OIE ON at ston von Neenah Arete 110
Dissemination of diseases by oysters
BATH Someh bbe GhaN Nae CARS ae en eR NN NNR EAR TAL ANGLIN i IOQ-I1I
E
Examination bacteriologicalyofloystensaieeneee ee eee eee eee 50-51
Food inspection decision written after ......................-- 51-52
Stiles, Dr. G. W., on sewage-pollution in connection with ..... 51
F
Rederal BurcauvonNhishenie sii satya ce ip ecole, sae let aun etna eee ae 76
Eiranclise taxca borin eyaie ne ui miiets 2 nae MPR Re nL AC Dae A Pa a ra 16-18
Methodo fl iii ieee OU ry MRA OS NE CU ye or 18
Revaluation mecessanyiecn wae ane een eee Be Su 17-18
Wariation iniassessmentiy wen nwa a i yenUt ny uu neta aaa ate 17
H
History of the oyster industry in Connecticut .................... 3-9
Capitol): CONTESTS a Ce ny NT VRS Ce oN ge USSU ane 5
Cultivar Ne iki AMEE SRE eK 0s aa ac) en RA of
IBelnlain saakeraXayclS Wha SAO AU Rens Ee INO Re euaiay meagan aN 7,8
Dp oye ab aateiatasy, SNe AUR a MOTO MNT eb AOA SIMO m MMMM il cia 8,9

INDEX. 125

: Page.
ioreresidents (OMly) se /--)-sya)ej-i-)<\s)efeiy ss eet AES Spr eteletahyelaie cietais 4
Oystenrdevelopmemtsy le). a estes eve o1aiei«\alayete octet alehs el le) fale ween - 6
Prrivilecenontias1s platitiil oy. )cle) ie) cle)e))a)eteialal ale! s/alctahela\«/«/eKe/-\}-)=1-)-) 15 4
Statei@omumissionl so. 7-.. 84.54.01 9 Ae ne MRS ce Sarah halal epson i 5
Siaue Ti, WOES AU Oe App ohare acc oepubecanonGus aU BSR eee. 5,6
TTMTOHIGTO JEN? Boodiocbecabcons 5 GnUueEnood boos dnopddoUnpoocatar 4,5
Wicktied! IsISlii® Leposdodden pepouoemarbens docasiasococaseenoue sope 4
I
Inspection, scientific, of oysters
Warns Oe IDie, ISlevayeay WWY=. WSU in Geo dtacresonencoennsagnocus 67-68
Inspection trip made by Governor Weeks, Board, et al. ............ 9
Ika Deeions Ot mail Chala? 46 on oscbqacdanoecobadoogeausuAdeecoS 31-33
EexpemsevOhsetithwva trative dy inne maeienac sticvealcieielelereloievaeiersiclelsiel- 32
Necommircndanonyconceriinos saree eee ener reenaracecceicec 33
Should be appointed by State and vested with same power as
HEE treme Na cpep tat ot wen arch spreads ee pT On tetrad essa cicaattatign ata a ees garcia Sertarc, 32
StabikerprOVviSIONSirelating s-Onere jays eiise cleiaiiea iste usenet 32
ARAMEMS OW AT COSEROT car ayaiesiersy cata sistaia ele bern clesore aic\cheuays eles syeceiels 33
Interpretation of laboratory results
Sanitary and unsanitary grounds determined by federal rulings 120
L
Laboratory investigations
Big Omi Cates: OT ta Gaya el colas wictelecietstciletel deiieicteicve se eel evaie @ 119
Data ekeriiime dete ers cp meta as) oth he) Siete DL oa a a ture arent aiatiouet Ss 119
Samples noweo Dtaimed! Vitwactilstialcictae ecciebiecieveierac) ieiaie vere see ais 119
Law of Massachusetts concerning pollution of streams ........... 99-100
Law of New Jersey on oyster propagation ................--+08- 73-74
awn Ot VMscsinialCOncerning OYSteLrs) ws «l/s ses sisi siete eee acle cis ws <> 100-102
Laws of Connecticut concerning oyster franchises ................ 74-76
Recommendation Concerniner gees seca leceee nase aee as 74-76
Letter received by the Board from Dr. E. H. Jenkins concerning
OVSLEH IMVESTIS ALL OMn tl harcten tetera ers oll Ae crateesta ie lata crore ates cisleiste 60-70
M
TINIIES SONS) beat cs cen A ul yet Cats et a ea SR ON PLA ea 80
Minrclindim pin oaeinSpectOncmOnn cis cteericeiioliciicieicieicicielecioiecieleisleisieins 31-33
N
National Association of Shell-Fish Commissioners
iPapensuneaduatemectingrOnen sacri seyae deca eke enolase oe aoe 63
ReSolutionsadopted iby ciate srerae cocla sre sie arora open crore srareverare eke ereta 64
Natural growthers
BAIS GT ES ISVS ol eh HO) aun Winton rr ot a aie ne deli coma ar 40-47
Restriction recommended in regard to licensing of ........... 48
Sifatistiesnpentarmi nay toMy ty yas cin orl aicualavorteldateere waalatels oes oe 47-48
Natural oyster beds
Licenses, given only to State residents, cost of, etc. .......... 44
INunibertandinanresn Ofer a cose iieciis ee rete ate eo tatale onoeharc verse
Recommendation concerning new method of taxation of ..... 49-50
Receipts and expenses for sixteen years of .................. 49-50
Wate wisi ory) Eemibura mc WV OOM) ;Om iach (my ermine Ss SN en ee 44-46
New Haven Harbor
Classification of oyster grounds into sanitary and insanitary... 120
IMIS SONS OURNTERYE iio ale LR MR SR aa eee al ots ts LeU Ra A 8S eS ER 122

126 INDEX.

New Haven Harbor—cont. i Page
Report vconcerning ee Cae oe on at ee vee a rena |e yt ana 115-118
Sanitary investigations of oyster grounds ..................... 120
Sanitary ‘SurvieySvor 2.00.2 Sask See Reet cite) ee eee II5-118
Sewage-pollutromrot yo Soon Oi elareaioomtaeie gel taete reacts 112
Tabletoiving datavof cis ites eke nei rebel ed ea 122

Oo

Openine houses! 2 seek Pao eee ep eas PSs Ret sme ROH Bet tA SH a 60-61
urmip lo yee. oicisal Ge abete ter sia ieuevek ogeiet ste te cnc SDAP Ce ey SEA) tae 60-61
Lack of neatness apparent, in some ...............-.--ee+ess 62
Oysters, show contaminated. 2 hey aie se eee see ae ian a eee eee 61
Recommendationiconcernning eee eet aoe eae ree ener 63

Opinion of Attorney-General on Commission to investigate oyster

DROPSHEL SS ee iN ae A SDS Ta IC URE OP NON pane ea aca Q-12

Oysters: bacteriolocicallexamination of .c- ee oe eee eee eens 50-51

Oysteribeds; cnatunal yy sye cia eae a eee ONIN eae nc sate eee ... 44-46

Oyster Commissioners, acting as board of relief
Applications: TON fete gy anie sia pale ieee ja sienna ee tees aval ree 20, 21
Blames iSemit bryce ee een aI ah nanan RCO LO en ir eta) et uie te 19-20
FUCA TINGS OL we re sese ee censor aiele let nike Peeps na ieee ral tay sc es Oise ee 20
INOLCE Sent Dy. Me Meea eek alive Sin ter ctaii tena ctre a tere suntan ioscan atin vata 19
Public hearings of ...... RES Us LIE A eA eee aoe Fe ca NU NA ea 23, 24

Oyster contamination
Conelusionsirelatinesto cee ean ee eee eee eee eee 123
IELowsexplaitred 00 sei eat BM Ue UM SURG a ees an a a 122-123

Oyster franchises
Recommendation of Board relative to ...0.0....0)..2..-..05.. 30
WMaxation. OL ys SOs eine a coe ne Se nee ee Ch eee OEE Ee 41-44

Oyster grounds
Pollution caused by sewerage infection ....................-. 58-590
Recommendation /concerming. 306. hace en eee 60
Should be inspected by State Board of Health ............... 60

Oyster Growers’ and Dealers’ Association
Papers sreaddatymecting iO sien Meera nce a ennnna ts ee eer analy 65
Resolutronmadoptediitny ie sii ts Cire Wile re yele isla) ane pine py Metin olga 67
Views On StatemnsSpection (se euian Lease seein iets eee ieee 66

Oyster industry, Connecticut
Comparison awitheRhodesisiandi een nese meee er ee eee 26-28
Be eculranitiesy Oe tera tier UN sor NUR ie et Sun ep rer AUC SN 24, 25
Table showing rents received from Rhode Island lands ....... 29
WranSference (of Seedy eee iM haar Ale ae sim Lees Cc pines a amnaERge 24,25 -

‘ Oyster inspection, scientific views of Prof. Coe on................ 70-73

Oyster anvestigation Screnticy a nee ee eeeia ee ae eee 69-70
Letter written by Dr. E. H. Jenkins concerning ............... 69-70

Oyster laws of
PEO TUS TANNED oO Aye RT NOLS GN UN Re et aE ei RU ME ager 89
PU otoraKeye icy Cabo ta WeMtaUnerr en UeA enn ts PRL an eM RREC Ve NAL AAU lig 80-92

Oyster police
drone ah te ure Srey ues par OME eR DUE CCP AUD ca RARUU KE CUR ALAN SSK 31
Law authorizing Commissioners to appoint ................... 30
Present system not effective and remedy too expensive ........ ail
Recommendation concemnings {perc reer n ne hale ene mene ee 31

Oyster properties
Barly taxa trom Osby sc ele! eo raceme Tone ate ia DNC AC Eh oul One 37-AI

Regulations of various states on taxation and ownership of .... 34-37
Oyster reculations of

ING lalenyesn IBXo eine) OR JSKeihtla 6 oh so kladosoecasaboeeodaecenbosc. 99

Staterot) Varo yy ye soil eet a ORE Pe eae late ACen ce ea TO00—102

INDEX. 127

Page
Oyster propagation :
ier Jere Jen Om Sebadakde-Ssdbeubbbictdesqorneneddaouoscs 73-74
(OVRGSE GCE c.n.b 60 bbe BR eee O One eE Be Denne pot y cece AS enn OIel ers aes 28-2
12
IPT ONIGLED ch 6 Sdeie SSRN UB Ebien MEeriobon Sos HS5 OU aNe on Aceon 30-31
Pollution of streams
aw ote Massachusetts concenming: 402.2). occ scene ess 99-1090
Proposed leasing system of the natural beds .................--... 49-50
Private growers
iBlankeanduletterySemtarometsemtactt ret cree 2 ere atte atoe lois) ciche sil eeeiene 12-15
SELIG HOS HACC NYEUL TU ROIEEL sAinig. os Oo Un BO MID ROOD a Boone Oa Do mole 15-16
R
Recapitulation
PATHE en fells © ah Cieve mips se syyerais el sfau a nuabsiclajayeiclcvssyenate eis) cereiereiele 85, 86
Hedera lineqtinententswis ayers tga feiss teeter e/a) rayeheie oieiteue 84
Pracitcalitye on TecomimendatiOnS 2-15. cide = se sae es lets ois wie 85
RECOMMMENM ATOM, CONCETMING) 2 /j:t2cictetisiee «hla cayethe- Saldieentw c/tanls 84-86
Recommendations Of Board. summany, Ob.) se cee. os elise ce 81-84
Rhode Island blank for oyster house inspection ................... Q4-95
Rhode Island Shell-Fish Commission
Condemns) oysters by tederall rules 2 cons a. le ode se see sel 118
iS)

Sanitary investigation of oyster grounds in New Haven Harbor ...109—-123
Sanitary survey of New Haven Harbor

Hl GatseusedrandalocatlonvOLerer cine oe ei ecieies coe nn ee 116, I17
Shell-Fish Commissioners

National wACCOCIATIONEOL pm acre svete clear oats eile oinele tratneee 63-04

Recommendation conceming number Of 2.5--.55.06--+200-- 5 -
Shrellench tthe Hosting Oni... sstsictes ace sislsta eer cele e ciel sn hicleiaienel 53-55
Sheffield Scientific School fitness for bacteriological studies ....... 70
Statute appointing State Board of Equalization an Oyster Com-

ATILS STO Tee eee eee eee Oca SUR aed Sine ay RU a ea 3, 10
Suggestions to oyster house owners by State of Rhode Isalnd ..... 05-99
Sumimanygor Boards recommendations -4-> 45 sissies sane loses coe 81-84
System of taxation proposed for natural beds .................... 49-50

ANGRETEES Ont ate\ I ENG eos Ok HOO OU OD OOM Oen GE Hoo a bok ae apoE 50
Leases
ARGTREKS) Gai Nine Cipla Salo S RCE ERG nS SOIR OS DIAG Ia ERR aia 49
NOAH even STATIK al emo Blo chan en re Hla Id G om OT On RG LEIS 49
T
Table showing results of scientific investigation of New Haven
abe rl OYOI CA Se Hid Go eo ehO ECCS SOI! Tae NRT RRS ieee sara IRI has 121
Table showing estimated receipts under new system of taxation 79
saxationpcaniytoOmoyster pROpeRtleSiis isso see aioee eee esate. 37-AT
Extracts from previous shell-fish reports, on
INSSESSIMEMERCUTCTIIGTES | 2 aye /sieaia ial Seto te ier aces aaa treinee 30-40
A Tes te amd OME A Tae eee cs) sic ol sR SIGE Re esate eer aie 38-30
Objectionaiutile of large.ownersiaae sos. oo eecce cciesee 40-4
iaxcationamneth Odeon rye cme a are nl alee 37-38
Taxation and ownership of oyster properties in different states.... 34-37
(CONT CHI CHE Te ees aT ye eC CNC AE Weng ty gM 35
Delaware

128 INDEX.

Taxation—cont. ED
TRUKoy cra HM Una hn yea AGN Ee Nir meee BRUM AMINA ered Cau naira cam UNL Lila oo 35
ABO VGN col ke Ma eA nga eH Reema erat Vi Panett DEANS SMSCARS A capil area CES oy Fy 35
LENGE ARON A ear aR Stoel Bie ana ioo sucess unas Ml ba atrelann aol ( 35
IMATE ea I Ann RA ey SPs NS Ae RI ER 35
INIISSACIUAS CEES is cache rece ole cists roe ene ra DN ete Paar EDS) aL a a 36
AN wr JierSey lc a crate neces atest emp eel iate o Ulnats UE nein Rn ns eee aR 36
INS WOT ke ois area ee ese hs tote gues SL Fae ea SL 36
Nore Carolina nea ce ror ere one PPE Ue Va A ION oe 36
Rend eS: Pekar Se a ea pe ORI NU a Dee an ELS a 26
MReacal Sits ehai sais SUA PADI a nN ROD URSA TA A IME aN He am LRG At 26
AWWirbigent alt Redeem tearmN Ser cictey anc leaicy RlensistaieloNciols Wie avas Lyi Aaa Nava tals LU 27,

Taxation of oyster franchises
Complaimntsipertamingatomneen eee ee ere retin oee er teen 41-42
IDSHASES) Thay DING) Ot) W boadoucossoudsSodeouedaos SANE UNE USA Bas 42
No equity possible in present system Of ..................04.. AI
Recommendations concerning a system of ...................-. 42-44

V

Valuation of oyster grounds, minimum ......................000- AN BE

Views of
Dr. H. W. Wiley on scientific oyster inspection ................ 67-68

Prof. Coe on field for scientific investigation in oyster inspection 71-73

.

+)

MAP NO. 1.

Fieco Pons

Naturat Eco

Guarp 1438
20-415

40 -$75
163-¢ 5

Were 1444
Tue STANDARD OvsteR Co. .
20-326 :

Conriner/Aay
R15 [24s

C.EPaumea
66.6-#5

Fauscu Bro
OystTeER Go

GREAT Captain's !snanp

Natura. Bepo

36.2 -815

: GREENWICH
Os 1496 1504

PUBLIC JE HUNTER

x :

Accompanying the report to 2 1498
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY , 497
OF THE Boarp of Equauization a
: AS A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE <o tn
Tae OYSTER PROPERTIES oF THE STATE

>

AN Henry & =

* Geo. H. DayTon

AG ts

NOTE.
Plain figures are the numbers of the different lots.
Figures with dollar mark ($) are the assessed valuations, os

B.EPAumer®

Tuomas Cummins E: F

G.NPamer

*CoLunn
GaeeNwich Point

Greenwich Point ©

Naturar Ben

AED Gen Suey

Dumping Grounp

SECTION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND

OYSTER GROUNDS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

1910

Part ef BiENNIAL REPORTof the
STATE SHELL FISH COMMISSION

USED TO SHOW
x= ASSESSED VALUATIONS

- Eee
£
Scare == ame"
SS.

SvATUTEMiLe aa

Mow cia Jomcd’
eee

nee

vA

sEASS

qe
° ‘

TE.
Plain figures ar«
Figures with do!

MAP NO. 2..

OYSTER Co
12541
SH '$25 | =
STAMFOR H ‘Lownoes, ieee ee
D ARBOR. i $75 1255 |
ie He STANDARD |
903 Ovsrer Co. \ |
#15
S.H.Lownpes
1304
Foro& Ryte
#15
1306
Ny 1305 ‘
120-?50 a 51 |
35-250 30.8-#5 a ‘
1Gen Bea} 259-415 H} i PSqriteses- a |
1316 js $05 \ 1307
S1-#5_ | $5
1323. «THE! : |
90-F50 L 1 :
154-8 5 es DARIEN
= ——aaal
4 --~~ 1309! $5
Z --\ 20425\ + |
\
\a3-45 |
\
\ ofc

1327
Davin B. Decker Accompanying the report to
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

#5 =e \
| OF THE BoARD of EQUALIZATION
D.BDeckeR =o 3 AS A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE

: \ Tur OYSTER PROPERTIES OF THE STATE

THOMAS |

1329 \ \
}405 PUBLI \ ‘
3025 & \
123.6 $5 | 7
REENWICH | Cummins. : 1312
Point
Berea Est Joun Von Wren.
E $5
Dumpinc Ground
Ss SECTION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND

OYSTER GROUNDS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

STAMFORD 1910

Part of BIENNIAL REPORTof the
STATE SHELL FISH COMMISSION

GREENWICH ! poearsenan| © USED TO SHOW
<€ASSESSED VALUATIONS

|
|
|
|
|
|

American.

Note.
ISG t Plain figures are the numbers of the different lots.
ry are the assessed valuations.

=—=s5
| Se Sc eae SSeS THE STANDARG OYSTER Co. Figures with dollar mark (
1 a

= |
| THe STAN DARDOYSTER C

| MoIWwAa aw
TH}

amy

aah

|
| aageTaVd

|

| REESE Sk net Ee

| HOTW VAD ice

Baie siete i

arate | 4 |

“hae 1 8e>
9 | | £°*

a | |

3 ‘ | ; ‘ we = PANIRAAR DY SRR Oe

A a SHE |

Soe

"1
;
/
.
Peas vu cas tenes LC i FAS NANA bs OT oe

Pinliat
ion

0 a

ee el

—_

MAP NO.

CS

Natura. Beo way *

Ouiver CooK

i MES j=
rt a re
Juarsuiet _—
———e

Fish aa | & Roron Poisr

TATE -
—

re be Beos.

war

ae

e ‘A Jonvseee DEH.Orsrea col

Te Se TTR ESOS
et s O- +
mes 1.225 762-915 r
coals

LIB INV. 1108"

7-926 : Ettsworrh
- Co
8-425 bee :
266-915 ON ee 78-#50
: 56-45

ins
S.tLLowmpes.
$25

THe
20-#25 = :
Ve ie THe Lowney fo} fees ‘
7 PUBLIC piss -- 1126 :
Aneto American 100-%25
S.H. Lownbes. = 25 38.3-$15 |
25-960 | CAN 406615 Oyster Co 124 AB RS THe Lownpes Oyster Ch
1 \s B R
x Aucio Ameaica
THe 'Aps t : “
SS Y 39 Raper, exsre8 ios a Srwcie 2 | PUBLIC Ove
of" FS vgevan, ates: é DenoysTER Ce: “STER Co.
& i ‘ ‘A \¢s 3 Joe 1136 B
St
7 -- y aed
7. y er jaaz | #25 'FF i __-- lies 126 |
. i eae N Ri soporte Tue STEVENS 30
= 1233) ' RE ul o
- H 1 $5 Toe: Awonew Raper OysTer Co. ae ‘
if Jas Ag H ese jaan TANBARD Oyster Co. PUBLIC PUBLIC
1 ae Se ‘1238 1z65 $25 __-~ ia 116-#50 Tee A.Raper O-Co
Leen ep 4 : | -7" Ovster Co. S50-$25 $5
r ; i ifs! $5 eo? :
' it ep athe a eee oe
; : z ji L-- i Maa) rank Honus | _ Stevens Ovsrer / Oswarers |—i60 reise 1134 1135 1136 N37
' bao to) ae zas-¢5 °° 2 eee) | 1132 4ISS AG $5 :
i a ' ! ner #5 | sce | wes 8. Bi}.
H 1247 } : He” PUBLIC Evsworrn Co.
a5 4 H | PUBLIC on [PUBLIC] pystic PUBLIC PUBLIC Nae
t 1248
H PUBLIC 1249 S.H.LownoE
} 1251 j250 :
7 fp
} Te STanparo! A. Rave OvsteRCe PUBLIC :
st $5 | ii
ft Ovsrer Co| | 43 142 PUBLIC
1 $5 :
1 e :
Ey
| a | J&ZIWErswortn Co. PUBLIC | &
e jaw)
H TESS) 2 o)
' PEED 145
(ee [ Qs
i SxinneR § Heneine
DARIEN Beacons |
H NORWALK a
boea=n” <ysen
[Ros , +6 i
$45 |

Doumeinc Grouno-

SECTION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND

OYSTER GROUNDS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1910
Pactof BIENNIAL RERORTof the
STATE SHELL FISH COMMISSION

USED TO SHOW
3=ASSESSED VALUATIONS Accongaryng nergor

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Or THE BoARrD oF EQUALIZATION
Scate. AS A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE
a

ns
4 % Ye % % % i THE OYSTER PROPERTIES OF THE STATE
STATUTE MILE

—=_——

Nore ,
i the bers of the different lots.
Plaine with dollar mark @ are the assessed valuations

nas
$5

PETER DECKER.

ra Ripat x F ‘ “s
PRIA 8 A) See rs et heat ryt

ona-s
Bie-e

S34

tacuwe tr. i Mite sant
af Obe- eS

‘ ghey RAL

‘ ‘Rat i # ey he 4h

Liao anton bos rani mbey eee I OG ya ae rae ie

3? aaTaxO saontt vag ST Be

i ~

ale sash est ;
ne a, cy rn
fe Wes? . hk ae a '

os

esa aC

Pat >
‘
t

3 Be aa aest

i
21faua~

ea h : Ps y

}

oe een

mem i ne

Sg ap ey een ee

1

TT CP RSE ice

ee

TS 825
155
,

=r
pare Ts

ay
?

nat
*

ar
fe
al

rune
meh

Ls

r

Lem seamen eh htt

MAP NO. 4.

Accompanying the report to
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Or THE BoARD oF Equauization
AS A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE

THE OYSTER PROPERTIES OF THE STATE

Scotts Housa.

Kenzies Pr.

ispicTICn
Stare _JuRispe

Burnuams Baan

90s
$75 ' $75 |! ges $s H.C.

THe Anomew Rade.

AnoREw RApen
$50 | $75 | 375

May Oyster Co.

———— May_ Oyster Co.
50-F75
2404--$5

Ovsten Co.
$75) so-$75
165.2-$5

g16 H
ee H 35 1

J Raver !Ovster Co.
J. Smaure '

& Sons, inc 0
$s t

1045

BRIDGEPORT

i ee, oe ee

FAIRFIELD

Dumping Grovnp.

SECTION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND

OYSTER GROUNDS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1910
Part of BIENNIAL HREPORTof the
STATE SHELL FISH COMMISSION

USED TO SHOW
x= ASSESSED VALUATIONS

Scate.

On ee See ae 4%

STATUTE MILE

NoTE.
2950 OE an figures are the numbers of the different lots.

amaneaaal Figures with dollar mark (#) are the assessed valuations
Dumpine Ground

yt -

toa wk arin

viet

toe pa raeerranere yor,

aoa a RE NR aR ede

it URI So vaeet pag 1

ics ete
- at
Pidseres

Bois No Poin:

URAL Bep

Lone

EASIDE Pank.~
CHIMNEY

f
eZ - Bep

May Oysrek EO

SES

Powwt

pate
Point.

No 604100
6: oo Oo} 675 676
120-
Sea Coast |i, arate eS)
OYSTER Co, Sees GH.
BRIDGEPORT ano | STRATFORD NATURAL Bep a7e| 773 \777 Abeer
cucpuniretny r NGROMe $50 20-475
He Hy tey | Voi-¥:p
Murer & SPYSTER Co u ‘a di of Es
Brown | $2 35-¢ 75
Tue HAL.O.Co q
Overen to] ©37 | 65-$25
16 817. Fal Sa ae |
25 Nao fl (781 $75 | 36 aoe eae? HD | ee
oS 10e ag. © ! 2 ;
aeaeue Send Inc. PS painaGel Eiinsesow $25
816 Go47s 762 | 707 06 705 475 |\785| 704 703
ral $15 19341 $150 ' c THe A arin ons :
T $25 SEALSHIPT Oyster | SYSTEM ) $100 OvsrRACe: ceric H C,Rewe $25
fl RISERS Re Seen mie See ee
625 MiLteR 620 | 619 Ir 708 709 710 $757 712 T 715 |
Ki $5 | $15 & 1 so-$i50. |? Ga.a-
' 504#100 : 63,.a-$50 | u
Pe Rowen ___| J.SmitH& Sons Inc. Brown | #15 ! $15 1 Be) AWG ! $150 TeeHILOCo. | C.D.PARMELEE #52 1 $25 c
\ e289 | i eseann 23.3-$75 : 1 |
\ 1 831 I 19 TIT 7c
\ $S 83035 $5 V8 $i50 \ $75 2
" Awerican THe Hd.Lews0.Co. | Murer & Tie Anorew, RAdEL
a Gene Co. bs Sr | PRS EI) O«C“‘C fos SSS SoS
aA Reer Lr 637 | [720 722 ! 723
; z
Baown 5 s 75 A
Bal 849 GON eRe Ss #75 Oveteny Co 7
a RA eaetE 239 | ve Tal $ 723 S478 728 727 726 A
H. C. Rowe TMEHJLG.Co Miter & $15 $50 THe STANOARD $50 50 40-¢245
asta Drown & Co.|MANsFIELD & Sons | TEH.SL.O.Co. OysTeER Co. | MAnsriELO& Sons ? 3344-4|5
(oe eeeaae Co. a | 28.3-$25 Cone Foner Soe |
344 h T8638 732 1 735 754 ! 735 ' 736 ' 737
Tet. $15 -$25 ! $50 D $5 \
| Ti J .Co. sade ee 0-$2 ° ‘ 0
7) \ ; $s Te Se) ete & Browk & PaameLee poten Tue |Anorew avg Ovstea Coll c20) :
: FE) $5 ‘ | i $5 | ig | |
, 43 «JAZ, FA2 7Al FAO #59 739 | 738
S 95 $5 $15 TEVENS | $50 — | :
| “GvorER SYSTEM GH. [lowrsens ee THe H.J.Lewis pS Co aoe Tue H.JjLewis $50 | 677
Z De ESS ye eee $ 5
"744, | Tas 76 Tal. gas 748 | $50 749 :
| 85 0 5 Biercnes! PA mee Oyster Co.
‘ | J. Smurn!S Sons Ine. $15 SeEALSuiPT OYSTER OYSTEM
| if L aus
| Dumping 73% $15 75) 720 | 675 a5
: Ground H.C $18 Si

BRIDGEPORT

FAIRFIELD

Accompanying the report to
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THe Boarp of EQUALIZATION
AS A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE

Due OYSTER PRopERTIES OF THE STATE

The H.J.L.0.Co. Mansrieoé Sons}
°

$5 752 !
The A.Raveu OvsteER Go
1

$5 760

=

SECTION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND

OYSTER GROUNDS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1910
Partof BIENNIAL REPORTof the
STATE SHELL FISH COMMISSION

USED TO SHOW
=< ASSESSED VALUATIONS

Scare
— pee es
Rh 34
StTaTureMiLe

° %

of the different lots

E.
Plain fipures are the number,
$) are the assessed valuations.

Figures with dollar mark (

STRATFORD

, Lewis 0.Co.

673

MILFORD

680
H.C Rowe

AAT PORE

f me Fw GS A331
73221 & \
x sal XN ee Passer er racmn fears ronnie

ri

ee en ee ee

eel "ea. SN ee
rh -

heat
Swehi JG.
Bahu henge

a
2
ee

“— es6
{ : = % , MO>sAS0 CO

or

woh en

Ps nV
”
=

SMig mud

HL
“a
|

”
i gMmMuvuorYy

I

MAP NO. 6.

SR SS

Accompanying the report to
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Or THe Boarp oF EQUALIZATION
AS A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE

Tie OYSTER PROPERTIES OF THE STATE

THe ~Anorew Raper 4 Co,

,A63
EE Ba.464

Or:NSE!
&

‘ PE egg FS Ger

20 WullamMe- Mew & Sons Coe! #1002 626 \#15
ern

N
5 fo5a 7°) 640 |S pgs S75
Ne as 50 an

63 /2LAND
ee

“gap #100.-- 629 |
$1o00m =" (638) y 9? 75,
_-- 643» #75 \

#loo \

_2- THEM J. Lewis Gyerest Coma
\ Ge na #163

141-$5

35

WN. Royoes

Oyster Co
637-#5 __-

643

A.F gare
Sy, Bayes
“Cel

THE A. RapeEL
Oyster Co

F.S.BEARDSLEY

ORANGE

H.JLewis Est.

OR wy £
G5 SS » Lt

NaTuraAL Bep.

MILFORD.

SECTION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND

OYSTER GROUNDS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1910
Pert of BIENNIAL BEPORTof the
STATE SHELL FISH COMMISSION

USED TO SHOW
x=ASSESSED VALUATIONS

Dompine Ground

STRATFORD

Note Scare.
Plain fibures are the numbers of the different lots. oa roe ee anne

Figures with dollar mark ($) are the assessed valuations.

7

Seale aaa eePRNRTA AMAITRECTIRN NAN ERAN LOOMIS CIS NREL

‘
.
S
:
E
3
5
?
:
3
4
a
2

150-$75
§500-$25
761.6-¢5

H.C. Rewe

Retr

At
aS

MAP NO.

¥ rot
1d oof Branroro. Harsor
ia STATE ei:
=
re ao So SURI ICTION
| Es aS [ra (LOE ss
ER 0-415. uroliet
10-15 778 -
S04) i ena & G.WToudisend
#15 = fe
2
Oyster Riven Pe. Bom 262 1 ; H 7
sy SP $5 \ 268) ; 259 | 260 i261
Z i
Dea 1 $5 195 | $5 195
ar H.C.Rowe. __ J |H.CRbwe |
res 4 332 q
8loo 253 254 | 262
| 55-$25 309455 150-$75 5 AG tag
I 500-25 ey)
761.6-$5 Soot |
Glaae H.CR 265 | 266
s 22 ~ .C Rowe I
Soy as Ire. MaxisFieLp
419] pe f
$lco/cuare eo ea
Lueiaren Sos Co oe Branroro BEACON
i
257 $5
Mansrigto Mausrid CoA Pe 30.47% 1
& Sons: Co. Sens CH (uomoton [533415 roa esse
F100 BH
340 f p5|E.A.Benny 69
' 339 $5 #5
Ts04] 457 Flee i rere G.HTewnseno
\

LANCRAFT Gros.

SMITH Bros Inc.
=SRe3 SB&JH.Law Accompanying the report to
| THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
ig 34.3-$ 15 OF THE Boarp or EQuatizATion
z AG $5 ap 6 NOD Baraca =, AS A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE
Cu APEL 2891-$ 75 —— $65 Tee OYSTER PROPERTIES OF THE STATS
: o7.i-# ©
Be gol. #5 ag WituiasHTayion
'$5 3 H.C.Rowe
L. LancRarT Bros Rice
$5
351 349
$5
ee G.H PUBLIC
SESE: TOWNSEND
$15
tie. | 405 =r 26-925 >
Newron| LC Smit AMERICAN | 355
$5 5 a 357 Oyster Co
463. *5] 45! | puBLic
PUBLIC SmitH Brosine. @
482 $5 Mori? SES
Avsust Lieserun. Aes { [vc Smure.
$5 BRANFORD.
~

ORANGE. EAST HAVEN.

ARDELIA
GIS c,
DEWING
| Dumpine
Grounp

SECTION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND

| OYSTER GROUNDS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1910
Partof BIENNIAL BEPORTof the
STATE SHELL FISH €OMMISSION

MILFORD

426 55

=— USED To SHOW
=stASSESSE D VALUATIONS
499 $5

H.C. Rowe Scate.
y aS
2 & we % u
STATUTE MILE

OTE. “ i é
Plain figures are th ers of the different lots.
Funes with ails oe. ng are the assessed valuations,

pale

ig Ne
SS%-06°
SL e-e08 |

Gay aa arena OS)
etn |
ye Sq

| weneare jek

| LF Asides ay

i cai. x) Ma |
t f east is

a> ; iy
ig LG) Sate: wat
AS SOA ae Renata

i
S Kaeo > pg

(eS - 9y
t

Sere mee Ase

od -nateyG. ||

2 eS iS ee
sausmaad if See

a fi |
Seal en TIME do
axes STII sf wer

Pet

oe €Be
Sra

Ge say
MIRE 312 Fea /

teeth harm, <p ely mn

Vfenen ip el he abecig me

Chr

ane!
2 OU led inal

[=
‘Plain figures are the
Figures with dellar r

MAP NO. 8.

Accompanying the report fo
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

OF THE Boarp of EQuaLizATIon
AS A SPECIAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE

Tete OYSTER PROPERTIES OF THE STATE

oa

Fs

106

$5

108
$5

207
$5

FRANK WHEELER

The H.J.Lewis Oyster Co.

loo $5
GuiirorD OysteR Co.

H.C. Rowe

Licht

7 ie
7 £ Ee
FALKNERS eae

1910

MADISON

BRANFORD

SECTION OF LONG ISLAND SOUND

OYSTER GROUNDS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mapvison Bay 5

saa [uniseisx on Ling \ 2

HAmMmMONASSETT Pr

|
|
|

Part of BIENNIALREPORT of the
STATE SHELL FISH COMMISSION

USED TO SHOW

GUILFORD =x=ASSESSED VALUATIONS

Scare

NOTE in figures are the numbers of the different lots, 3 % pate mit

Figures with dollar mark ($) are the assessed valuations.

TON _

CLIN

a

~- ane ei hefics

ae
Ve ynore

NAIR
rarer
OD
i
at
a I
GHOUWVAHG
hf
rae | ;
wy
Het e
ne
wits ®

LB ON ‘Il

ii