The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1894-01-05
MORE ABOUT THE OYSTER BEDS.

EDITOR OLYMPIAN: AS advisory
counsel in the oyster claim cases,
wish to say in addition to what Judge
Wickersham has so we'll SAID, that
while the question of public benefit or
injury may properly be discussed, the
question to be decided by the state
board of land commissioners is one of
fact rather than of mere policy. If
the board shall decide from the evil
dence that the beds in question are
natural oyster beds, then it's duty will
be to refuse to certify to any body's
right to purchase. If it shall decide
that these beds of oysters exist by vir-
tue of artificial means, then there will
be no trouble about permitting pur-
chases-at least in cases wherein the
artificial beds were created prior to
March 26, 1890. True, in any event,
there is a serious constitutional ques-
ton involved in connection with rights
existing by virtue of law when our
state constitution went into effect !;
but this question, if required to be de-
termined, must be adjudicated by the
courts. The land commissioners have
to do merely with the administration
of state laws affecting the disposition
of tide lands occupied by oyster beds.
Under those laws, upon an applica-
ton to purchase by virtue of alleged
existence of an artificial oyster bed,
there are four questions to be deter
mined, viz:
l. Is the bed included in tide lands
of the first class?
2. Is it in point of fact an artific-
ial bed?
8. Was it an artificial bed on the
26th of March, 1890?
4. Is the applicant entitled to own
and hold lands within the state OF
Washington?
Ie the oyster bed be situated outside
the limits Of tide lands of the first
class, then the determination of the
other three questions in the affirma-
tive will entitle the applicant to pur-
chase at its appraised value the tide
land applied for to the extent OF the
limit fixed by law. Certainly it would
be a public calamity if the applicants
in Thurston and Mason counties
should be denied the right to purchase
after having built up an industry so
important, but the case is not one OF
sentiment or of mere policy. | be-
lieve, however, that these applicants
all, or nearly all, have justice and
equity on their side, and that their
rights to purchase can be clearly
established.
The vital question is not, as some
may suppose, were there ever In exls-
tence on these tide lands natural Oys-
ter beds? But rather, were the oyster
beds now existing in existence by vir-
tue of artificial means when the law
went into effect? The facts are that
the natural oyster beds once in exis-
tence upon Oyster bay, Mud bay and
adjoining localities, were long ago de-
nuded of their product, and were de-
stroved; that thereafter, because of
this destruction of the oyster beds and
the oyster business, the territory of
Washington passed laws designed
especially to foster the industry and
to protect those who might see fit to
cultivate oysters; that, under these
territorial laws. the persons now seek
ing to purchase began in good faith
the systematic culture of oysters.
Owing to the natural conditions they
could of course succeed the best where
oysters had existed in their natural
state; otherwise, they might have
planted oysters in other places. Under
our state government the Legislature
passed law designed alike to protect
those who had in good faith brought
artificial oyster beds into existence
and to protect natural oyster bed
from being destroyed by mere poach
ers upon public property. 1t is un
fortunate that our oystermen are nov
thrown in jeopardy, even under tn
, provisions of the very law designed
to afford them ample protection.
! Very respectfully, ALLEN WEII