The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1891-06-06
rbe oyster Question.
Correspondence ofthe Democratic Advocate.
MARYLAND OYSTER BUREAU, !
Building South and Second streets1 7
Baltimore Nd, May %, 1891.

Correspondence VI tut DelAloNAodS EN'SNrse~-l
MARYLAND OYSTER BUREAU,
Firemen's Building South and Second streeis3
Baltimore, Nd, May %, 1871.
To THE EDITORS OF THE ADVOCATE
Westminster Md
DEAR SIRs The above Bureau has been formed
for the purpose Of promoting oyster culture in Mary
land. Among the very few members of the last
Legislature, who took any interest in this great
subject was the Hon. Frank T. Shaw. Of Carroll
county While many other legislators did not seem
aware of the existence of an oyster industry in
Maryland Dr. Shaw gave close attention TO all that
was said by any person presenting any plan for the
increase of the supply Of oysters in the Chesapeake
Bay.
The oyster industry is, undoubtedly, the principal
trade which is now carried on in the STATE whether
viewed from the amount ofcapital invested, or from
the number of persons whose livelihood depends
upon its prosecution. II is now well known that
this business is languishing, and is in danger OF
destruction. The cause the evil which threatens
the trade is the scarcity oysters The actual sup
ply is not more than half of what it was ten years
ago, and the demand for oysters from all parts of
the country has increased many times over in the
same period.
The natural oyster producing resources of Mary
land are so vast that have been saying for years
that they could not be exhausted. A single glance
into the history of other countries this subject.
would have undeeeived us. The natural beds of
France, once Astounding in oysters were destroyed
through over fishing. The same state of affairs
existed in England. The natural rocks of Massa-
ehusets waters were laid bare through the activity
of the dredge and the scoop, though many good
people of that state maintained that God had sent
disease to the oysters on account of the sins of the
fishermen We now see clearly that even our rich
heritage is in danger of total destruction. The de-
mand for this nutritious food has increased that
we could sell with profit ten times as many oysters
as are now taken from the natural beds of the Bay.
Many of your readers know already that the
natural beds are those portions of the Bay where
oysters grow in great profuson without the aid of
man. Nature placed them there, and they increase
in most marvellous manner. Other portions Of the
Bay where oysters do not grow, capable of pro-
dueing oysters through cultivation. This has been
demonstrated in 50 many places all over the world
that the statement can no longer be said to express
theory.
The proposition of the oyster planter now is to
make the barren bottoms Of the Bay productive.
Up to this time the oysterman has reaped where no
man has sown. The oyster harvest has been like
the harvest which is gathered from the hill sides,
where the wild berries grow, and from the woods,
where nuts and natural fruits are sown by Nature.
We now propose TO plant the oyster and raise him
up again in great numbers just as we plant corn or
wheat or any other cereals or fruits which formerly
grew wild. The man who wishes 10 plant oysters,
in this way points to the rich and productive beds
Of Connecticut which raising oysters to sell to
Baltimore packers, yes, and oysters which were
taken from the Chesapeake Bay to be planted in
Long Island waters. The oyster farmer reminds us
that in Rhode Island 10000 bushels of oysters per
annum are raised, where formerly aboutGOOO grew
in state of nature. Practical men and scientists
unite in telling us that instead of producing 10000
600 bushels per annum as the Chesapeake has done,
it is capable of producing 1OOOOOOOO bushels and
more every year without destroying or in any way
impairing the efficiency or productiveness of the
bottoms. We all know, that is all ofus who have
examined the question at all, that these statements
| are true. We all know that the taxes which the
farmer now pays to the State might all be paid
through the revenue which the State could derive
from this one source. 1t is evident then, that
oyster planting ought to be favored by every con-
sumner and every farmer in Maryland.
As against the people who eat oysters and the
people who pay taxes, who are opposed to the in
PRODUCTION of this industry? DR.. Shaw could tell
you. The boatmen who bring oysters to market are
said to be opposed to oyster planting Two grounds
are given by the gentlemen who claim TO represent
the boatmen, in support of their opposition.
First.-They do not wish any private property
established in the beds they think that these should
be kept as commons of fisheries. They say that
Nature created the beds, and they should remain
for the use of all the citizens of the State that is TO
say, for the use of the boatmen We accede to this
opposition The oyster planter is not trying to get
natural beds His proposition is to lease the I'M
productive portions of the Bay giving to the State
certain revenue per acre for the right of leasing, and
the farm so leased be stocked at the expense of
the person who leases.
second.-The boatmen, or rather, the lawyers who
claim to represent the boamen, say that there is a
great danger of the Bay being leased out to monopo-
lies, or syndicates, large corporations. We can
only say in answer to this that there is corpora
ton or syndicate asking for tracts of land i'll the
Bay Even if these imaginary corporations really
did exist, they would be powerless if the oyster
planting law provided as it would provide against
the holding of any large trscts by any one in
diyidual. The law should say that no man would
be allowed to take more than certain reasonable
quantity of land; that no large grants should be
made to corporations and that interests should not
be consolidated. 1t is right to notice. too, in this
connection, that the real monopolst in the case is
the boatman. He fears that by the introduction of
modern system of oyster culture, that oysters Will
become cheaper and easier to get. and in this
event, he thinks his occupation will be gone. Even
outnumber you twenty to one. What are your in
terests as compared to ours and compared to the
interests of tens of thousands whose daily bread de-
ponds upon good supply of oysters?' The boat
man is however mistaken in his fear that he would
be injured through oyster planting. He would in
fact, be much benefited. He is now in danger of
extrpation. The scarcity of oysters will drive him
out of the Bay within ten years. as the scarcity of
game has driven the Indians 10 the West.
We must all admit that the question, whether
oyster planting shall be introduced in the Chesa-
peake Bay or not is q very vital one to the greatest
trade IN Maryland and is scarcely less interesting
and important to every farmer in the State. We do
not represent any OF the conflicting interests which
the trade We stand for the tax payer and the con-
sumner. We are with every man who wants taxes
lowered and the prices of oysters reduced. We
shall be glad to receive any suggestions from the
readers of your valuable paper, which may reflect
the sentiments of Carroll county the subject of
oyster planting. In order that such communica-
lions may be sent freely and with confidence, we
state that we are in way interested in this ques-
ton as political matter 1t affects us only as an
industrial and economic matter. We are seeking,
as best we can the truth in a most interesting and
productive field. We hope that You and your
readers will aid us.
Very respectfully yours,
MARYLAND OYSTER BUREAU.
FRANK BROWNS CANDIDACY.
His SuDnnrf Amon. the Far.ners-PreSS