Morning journal and courier., 1892-05-04
OYSTER LAW IN ALABAMA

l What the Supreme Court Has Decided | as Regards the Laws Constitution
 ality-Why a Tax is Required in | That State-The State,s Claim as to
 Ownership.
 | Connecticut oystermen will find some
 thing of interest in the following from the
 Mobile, Ala, Register of late date, re-
 garding an important decision just made
 by the highest court of that state. The
 Mobile paper says:
 MT. Gaylord B. Clark, who drew the act
 to protect the oyster fisheries of Alabama,
 which was passed by the last legislature, ] is elated at the decision of the supreme
 court handed down Monday in the cases of
 the state of Alabama vs. Harrub and Mel
 win involving the constitutionality of the
 law. The provision of the statute declares
 that the title to the oysters should remain
 in the state until they had been shelled,
 and prohibited their being removed from
 their beds, whether natural or private, or
 otherwise dealt with, excepting by resi- | dents of the state of Alabama, and during | the time and in the manner pointed out by | the statute, was upheld by the decision. In it's opinion the court asserts the states absolute ownership over all oysters found within it's tide waters, and the un- qualified right of the legislature to regu-
 late the time and method of taking and disposing of such oysters, and to limit the
 license to catch or take oysters, to resi- | dents of Alabama. The opinion of Judge Coleman is a full and able exposition of
 the law upon the subject, and is we'll sus- tained by citation of decisions of the su- preme court of the United States and of
 the supreme courts of several states. The case was argued by Attorney General Mar | tin and Gaylord B. Clark for the state, l and by Gregory L. Smith and United States District Attorney Wickersham for the defendant.
 MT. Clark was asked last night as to the necessity for amendment of the law in some respects. He believes that the law should be amended in one particular-that the license for taking oysters from the beds should be reduced to five cents and that where the oysters have been planted the tax should be reduced to three cents. If permission to remove oysters from the reefs free of taxation for planting purposes were accorded, said he, there would not be tithe of the license collected; the inspec- tors demand for the license tax would be met by the contention that the oysters were for planting purposes.
 Yes, the man who plants oysters should pay tax, he continued. The right to use the beds of tide waters in several states is held at fixed price in Virginia and Mary land and other states; much higher, in deed, than the present tax in Alabama amounts to- For this tax the oyster farmer has his beds protected by the state from depreciation, and the gatherer has his occupation ensured to him. The law is beneacent and wise, as the depletion and | destruction of the oyster reefs in the wa- ters of the Mississippi sound during tho | past two years shows.
 When the law was drawn the license tax was fixed in it at cents barrel; this the assembly amended by making the tax 25 cents. Experience has shown that the tax as proposed in the first draft of the bill is too low, and that the tax of 10 cents per barrel, as the law passed, fixes 1t higher than the expenses of carrying out the pro. visions of the law demands. All tho amendment the law needs is reduction in the tax 80 that the law will not be bur. densome.
 vnt,A I