The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-04-11
THE OYSTER POLICE BILL
THE OYSTER GROWERS' ASS0CLA-
 TLON ON DECK.
They Make Reply 10 Certain Claims and Insinuations and Hit Back Lively in Their Own Defence.


 oyster police Dill His opinions have
 great weight with us-on any subject
 with which he is acquainted. His re- 1 marks about the oyster police bill be-
 tray an ignorance of the important
 facts concerning it. which naturally
 impars the weight of his conclusions.
 He bases his argument on the state
 ment that the oyster police are ito
 watch the beds in the sound and it's
 harbors" This is one of his great mis- | takes. If 1t were to watch the harbor
 grounds his argument would have some
 basis, because the harbor grounds are
 within town limits, and at present re-
 ceive some protection of law.
 He claims that the oyster police bill
 would be Special legislation" because
 it would give a protection that is not
 afforded to other kinds of property | this is the impression of the casual ob- server. The oyster police are to be for
 the grounds in Long Island sound, l from one to five miles from land. This
 property at present receives less protec-
 tion from the state than does any other;
 and even if oyster police be instituted
 it will still be less protected by law than any other property.
 The first thought of most persons on considering this bill isS-Why not spec ial police for other kinds of business? A little reflection shows that this prop erty is entirely differently situated, both in law and fact, from any other in the state:
 First-It is outside of the territory of any town.
 Second-It is the open highway of commerce in Long Island sound.
 Third-It is no trespass for any per- son to go back and forth upon it at any time of day or night; consequently the property is without the protection which thelaw of trespass gives in every other locality.
 Fourth--It is the only property in the state which receives no benefit from the taxes which 1t pays. Nearly all the tax payers in the state receive return of from two-thirds to all of their taxes, in roads, bridges, schools, etc The oyster growers ask for a return of but one-third of their ground tax, while it would have been perfectly equitable if they had asked for as much as two thirds.
 "Observer'' remarks upon the weary" course that the bill has fol lowed. All the "weariness" has been caused by the tricky and filibustering tactics of the opposition. After its passage in the house its opponents se- lected a time when 120 members, mostly friends of the bill were out at luncheon, and succeeded in getting a vote of 6S to SO to recall the bill, which, however, was promptly reconsidered at the very next session, when there was a fairly good attendance in the house.
 Claims were trumped up to induce the senate to reconmit the bill, but it was found that these claims were baseless, and that it was admitted by the op- ponents of the bill that they made these claims for the purpose of hamper ing the bill, and when the action of the senate was misrepresented; the senate voted to recall the bill, as it very prop erly should have done. Tt has been ready to pass it ever since, but the matter is kept on the table in deference to the wishes of certain opponents of the bill
 Observer" says that this bill is "backed by very strong lobby" The bill was passed by the committee and the house, after very thorough con sideration, by to vote, solely on it's l merits Not one dollar was paid to a lobby; and it is no secret in the capitol | that most of the opposition which the ! bill has encountered, has arisen from | the very fact that no lobby was em- | ployed "Observer's" statement con cerning the lobby is so exactly contrary | to the fact, that it becomes almost | ludierous
 Observer" says: 'The governor ought to veto it." As Observer" Is | a strong democrat, the governor ought | to feel obliged for his advice. Prob ably some democrats would be glad to have the governor veto any bill which | was passed by republican legislatures; but it is to be hoped that the gov- ernor will get his information con- cerning this bill from some source better informed than the author of this advice.
 The New Haven Leader says: "If the police bill becomes a law, this $4,000 900 worth of (oyster) property will pay no taxes that can be used to pay the ex- penses of the state or any town"
 We hope that this statement arises from ignorance, because it is absolutely untrue. All of tho $4000,OOO worth of pays taxes to towns or state. All that the oyster growers ask for in this bill is the tax on one-third of $700,- 900; that is, they ask for the tax upon about one-seventeenth of the amount named in the Leader. Sixteen seven Ieenths fairy story and one-seventeenth fact is a pretty bad proportion.
 We have watched the course of the Leader in this matter with interest. Instead of representing fairly a. great industry which has done much for the state of Connecticut, the Leader has to be the organ of a portion { of the lobby which has tried to "hold , ID" this bill--it is a most honorable position , During the history of the bill the Leader has pronounced it killed" knocked out''-or about to be SO; and f low as a last resort it proposes that