Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-03-04
Professor Martin on Oysier-Culture.
baltimore Sun.

|
We gave yesterday the valuable remarks
Of Professor Martin, of Johns Hopkins
University. ION the relation of scientific
| work TO the question OF the preservation of
MARYLAND oysters" He paid generous
and lust tribute TO Professor Brooks, to
whom he ascribes the greater part OF the
| work relating to the oystcr-bcds OF the
| Chesapeake, and whose studies and discov-
cries on the development OF the oyster
| from the spat attracted the attention OF
professors of natural science IL Europe.
Professor Martin described very clearly
| the processes through which Professor
| Brooks arrived at his great discovery,
| the interest taken by the University
! in his work, AMI his ultimate sue
| cess in establishing the fact that the
| American oyster does not lead its early life
inside the shell of the mother, but IS sent
| wandering on the waters before the egg Is
| Matched, and that II was possible TO terll-
| lie thousands or millions OF oyster eggs IN
| q watch-glass and be able TO supply oyster
spat for the whole bay" This was the
| great discovery which did honor 10 the
University, and which won for Professor
Brooks the honor of a French medal. The
proof that the fertilization and preserva-
| ton of the young oyster is possible
wherever the conditions are under
control points directly TO the Guilt
-
tion Of tho laws on oyster farms. Connect
cut has done this with success by planting
seed-oysters ana allowing them 70 grow IN
til they are fit for market. But the COnnecti-
cut oyster-farming has many difficulties TO
contend with from the natural enemies OF
the Observation-Disclosures from which oyster
farming IN the Chesapeake would be almost
entirely free. The oyster commission Of 1882
was composed of Professor Brooks. james
a. WaddCll, and William Henry Legg. That
commission made thorough examination
of the whole subject. It's report to the Lc-
gisature of 1884 showed how the oyster
beds of the Chesapeake were being
steadily depleted by the selling of seed
oysters to other States, and by the exhaus
ton of the marketable oysters from lnces-
SAINT dredging and longing. Our people
were warned that unless proper legislative
measures were taken for the protection of
the oyster the exhaustion of the natural
beds would be inevitable III the course of q
few years, and one OF the greatest indus
tries of the State destroyed. At the close
of the report the commission submitted
bill Ito encourages the cultivation OF
oysters and to protect and improve
the oyster-fsheres of the Chesapeake
bay." Nothing of any consequence was
done with it, and very little attention was
paid TO the researches and conclusions Of
| the commission. The exhaustion of the
natural beds has been going on ever since.
| The extension of the closed season has had
very little ii any effect in increasing the
product. The reckless treatment of the
| beds has continued. Oysters that used to
be abundant are becoming scarce, while
private Oyster-iarms that might have saved
| the industry from extinction are scarcely
| heard Of Nhat IL 10 be the result? The
census report of 1850 showed that the pro
duct of the oyster industry for the whole
country amounted to 22.00O,0 900 bushels, OF
which the Chesapeake bay supplied near
| ly 100000 bushels" fully 50 per
cent" says the report. The number OF
persons employed was about hfty-two
! thousand, of which the Chesapeake oyster
| fisheries furnished over forty thousand.
Perhaps the number is not much less to-
| day, but the earnings are less, the despera-
| ton with which the beds are scraped Will
! lay them entirely bare before long, and the
men must take TO other means for living.
| We have been rocklessly squander!nG our
| inheritance-an inheritance winch, as Pro
| fessor Martin SAYS. might, with little
| wise and honest care, bring year alter year
millions or dollars to Maryland citizens"