The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-03-01


 , at all.
 3 The removal of this office to Hartford
 would entail a great loss of time, an l noyance and expense to the oyster in. terests of this state. I have procured : information from the clerk of shell. r fisheries, giving some idea of the
 amount of such trouble and expense as
 it would entail upon the oyster industry , He estimates the visits upon business } to the Jerk and commission at 1900 in a l year If the office was removed tc Hartford that would entail loss in
 time and expense to the oyster growers engineers and others of about seven
 dollars per visit, or an aggregate Of
 13,300 a year.
 ; An oyster police should have its , headquarters on the coast and not at } Hartford, unless they will salt the Con-
 necticut river so that we can raise oys- ] ters in it.
 We have, shown that we have paid
 into the state treasury $141, ,262.76; we
 have asked only for the expenditure by
 the state of the pay of inspectors
 mud dumping, $3,256.95, This Is ri-
 diculously small outlay in twenty years,
 while tinny fish of the state have been
 propagated at an expense of perhaps
 1000 for the fishermen of the state
 and sportsmen of the state to catch,
 Taxation should procure protection by
 law. Our property is far less protected than any other in the state The
 ground is from one to four miles from land. It is subject to inroads of New
 orIz vessels nights; probably hundreds
 of thousands of dollars warth are stolen
 out of the state yearly, We employ l private police, but we need to have men with the authority of the state to act
 sheriffs and constables, and we believe
 we deserve the assistance of the state in maintaining such police.
 l If the Natural Growthers may ask ' that all that they pay into the state | treasury shall be devoted to objects
 which they propose, why should not we have devoted to such an object as we l propose one-half of our taxes, especially when we are at present credited on the books of the state more than $40, 900? One might say that the state has spent much on the shell fish commis- sion; but any one who is thoroughly in formed may we'll answer that "The oyster growers are in n6 way responsi-
 ble for that expense; never asked for
 the commission, but protested against it."
 What we now say is that if there is to be any commission, leave it just as it is; because the men who are upon it are able, efficient, business-like and economical-good for us and good for the state.
 We do not need to put ourselves in I the position of asking favors, for we feel sure that this committee will see that 1t is for the interest of the state | to report against bill which will ham, | per and embarrass the oyster industry, l and to report a bill which will protect | and foster it.
 Mir. Rowe next called on Mir George | c. Waldo, chairman of the shell-flsh | commission, to express his views. He | stated; 'As MT. Rowe has said, I am | here at the request of the Oyster Grow CTS association and not on my own ac- count simply come here to, so far as I can, back up their statement that the oyster industry represeted by q line of holdings from Greenwich to Branford, some seventy thousand acres-into which in the neighborhood of from three to five millions have been put, with sixty or seventy steamers, employ ing about four thousand persons--is. te- totally opposed to this move to oonsoii- date the commissions, so far as theyl have expressed themselves. I wish to state that representative men. rep resenting nine-tenths of the tax paying power of the state and of the acreage, have voted against the consoli- dation bill, and this committee of thir- teen oyster growers were instructed to express their views.
 So far as that goes think 1t repre- sents nine-tenths of the oyster growers of the state; the other tenth could have been gotten if the oyster growers had had time to look them up. Therefore 1t is evident that the oyster industry is opposed to this consolidation bill. I make that statement, but I appear, as said before, to endorse the declara- ton of the oyster Growers association 1
 Mir. Hall has asked why one man could not act upon questions that arise my man who has been on that commis- sion would want to accept that position with that responsibility. There cer- .ainly is no board of relief composed of l l single person in Connecticut.
 With reference to the bill concerning police, I would say that approve it. { understand that it is the idea that t here should be cooperative action be- ween the shell-fsh commissioners and ( he Oyster Growers association, which $ Jhall result in utilizing whatever ap- lropriation may be made to the besti r possible advantage" It
 MT Rowe: Are you and the ccn1-l e mission in favor of the principle of oys- CT police?" MT. Waldo--"I am. The t is not new one; it has been f bought of for a long time. The oyster 1. ,rowers farms lie out a mile and half q 0 two miles from the shore; they cam c lot watch them at a time when it Is andy for some one to come across and teal one, two or five thousand bushels, b nd carry the oysters away under cover v f night or fog" tt MT. Rowe: Tn your opinion the g yster police ought to be located at a Hartford or at New Haven?" MT. Wal u O. My opinion is that if there is any fl hange the office should go to Bridge W ort It never should go one foot in- a md. I am not advocating the removal g 2, b11t r cav if if ic +n hnJ