Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1897-02-25

considered as so much additional or
cumulative proof in the cause.
"Thomas Lecompte, who has
lived upon the Howell farm II
years, testifes in MI that time as
never having seen o boat tonging
upon the lands embraced within
the stakes of these lots, but has fire.
quentiy seen boats upon the bar i'm
mediately above the lots. Wilson
Merrick. residing upon the Wallace
farm for many years. and dsjoining
the Howell farm. in full view of
these lots, corroborated Mr.. Le-
Icompte's testimony BY his (Mer-
riok's) own obserxations for Ten
years past, and Mr. Woolford him
self says that in locating she lots
six were surveyed, but, finding the
sixth one encroaching upon the nat
ural bar, it was abandoned, a1d no
certificate of such survey was made
out and recorded. The questions
involved have been very fully and
ingenlously, as well as technically,
gone into by counsel in their briefs,
and, while a scientific discussion of
them is beyond my ken, l have
given the whole matter my best
thought and most sober judgment,
being fully conscious of the delicacy
of my own position by reason of the
public interest felt in my conclu-
sions, from which the law provides
no appeal, but makes them final,
whatever they may be.
''1 am not prepared to accept,
under all circumstances and as an
invariable rule, the argument of
petitioners counsel, either, as to
the admissibility of evidence on the
indestructibility of an oyster rock.
The examinations of tests of the
character of the bottom in dispute
made by many respondents, wit
nesses, standing alone as an isola-
ted fact. would prove very little,
but as a link in the whole chain of
testimony, they are, to my mind,
not only admissible, but throw
grave doubt upon the exact locality
or spot where other people have tes-
titled to the existence of large guam.
titles of oysters.
"These bottoms and the oysters
resting upon them are the proper
ty of the State, which for years past
has had upon its statute books
provision for oyster planting. This
was intended to encourage the cul-
tivation and production of oysters
by private parties, and ] think it
was further meant that they might
be cultivated anywhere where they
had ceased to grow naturally in
large quantities. II, in old times,
certain bottoms yielded large guam
titles, but are now barren, | do not
think the mere fact of people re-
sorting thither ten years ago should
prevent or hinder the appropriation
of these grounds to the private
planting of oysters thereon now.
1t will not do to say oysters grow
upon them naturally simply because
they have grown upon them in the
past.
"Reports of scientists and others
who have made the subject one of
investigation and study furnish in
formation of the utter destruction
of the oyster product in some local.
tiles. or the absolute necessity of
feeding and rehabilitating the worm
out bottom by private planting of
shells and young oysters to save the
oyster interest from annihilation.
The mere absence of oyster, for
year or two years from what we have
assumed as a natural rock would
hardly be sufficient to justify the
conclusion of its being a depleted
bed IN the sense of opening it to
private appropriation. Nor would
it do for a man deliberately to
sweep with tongs and scrape every
thing from a bottom, then seek to
locate a private lot for planting
thereon. under the plea of its be-
ing depleted bar. This would be
a fraud upon the public, which a
judge would vigorously and prompt
/ ly undo. 4 court or judge would
in all cases have due regard to the
circumstances of the depletion.
whether from natural causes and
permanent in character, or from
the design and contrivance of man
with ulterior motives and tempo.
rary in character. regard the
1