The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-04-18
OYSTER GROWERS PROTEST AGAINST THE PERRY PLAN


 among oyster growers, over what they believe to be an unjust and illegal at tempt at discriminatory taxation One of the best-known oyster growers ex- presses his opinion as follows:
 We are informed that MT. Perry has prepared and proposes to offer still another bill upon the taxation of oyster grounds. The subject of additional taxation of oyster properties has been before the Legislature for three successive sessions. The Committee on Shell Fish cries and on Finance of these legisla- lures have repeatedly had these mat ters under consideration, and the Board of Equalization gave consider ation to 1t in pursuance of a resolu- ton passed by the General Assembly four years ago.
 For six years the oyster growers
 have been compelled to come before | these different bodies and show the i facts concerning the oyster industry, and when the facts have been shown, the different theories and propositions have been discredited and rejected by the various committees of the General Assembly and by the General Assem- bly, itself.
 ''This year two new bills were pre- scented, and a hearing was announced upon these two bills before the Ff-.
 nance Committee. It was necessary for the oyster growers of the State to leave their business to come before the Finance Committee and to show that the proposed bills were against public policy. No one appeared to defend or advocate these bills, and the matter was considered closed. Now, after the 1 time for new business has passed. the clerk of Shell Fisheries brings forward a bill proposing to lay a tax upon oysters exported from the State. MT. Perry was present when the other bills upon additional taxation had a hearing before the Finance Commit tee, but he said nothing upon the sub ject and offered no substitute bill. He has waited until the oyster growers
 have been before the committee and
 have gone back to their business then
 he offers this bill before the Farmers Alliance and advocates it. This he
 does without any notice to the oyster
 growers that he proposes to make a new attack upon their interests
 t"The time for the offering of new
 bills is long past. If he desired to of fer. such a bill, he should have done so early in the session, or at the very latest, proposed it as a substitute bili
 when the oyster growers were present to reply to him. He does so without any notice to the oyster growers, and
 brings forward 8 bill which is not based upon any principle ever rec- commended by Governor woodruff. or any other governor, nor recommended Oy lAi0 oOcI U O4 lIOaS nor or fered during the period when new bus mess could be offered to the General Assembly. He does it without any no
 tice to those engaged in the industry, and seeks to have such a bill reported upon private interviews and upon
 hearings of which the oyster growers
 were not notified.
 Such method of back-door or sec ond-Story entrance ought to be suffi- cient to stamp this project but 1t can 1@@ Ia
 tions that have been made during the past six years, this one is the most contrary to public policy, and the most improper, of all that have been made.
 Many nations tax imports, but there are very few taxes on exports. An enlightened government encour- ages the export of the products of it's people. To place any burden of tax ation upon the exported product of the farms. mines or oyster farms of the people would be an absurd contradic-
 tion of the principles of political econ- omy.
 ''The waters of the State have been polluted by sewage and other dis charges, so that large portion of
 the maturing grounds formerly situat-
 ed in this State have been temporarily destroyed. As a result of this pollu- tion and other causes, and because of the great advantage of maturing grounds in other states a. large DOT ton of the oyster seed produced in Connecticut is sent out of this State
 to be matured, and a considerable DOT tion of it is brought back and opened in this State for shipment. To place a burden upon the oysters exported
 from this State would result in the production of these oysters in the ad- joining states. A large number of the leading firms of this State have taken their business partly or wholly from Connecticut into Rhode Island and
 New York. Such a bill as this would hasten the departure of the business from the State of Connecticut. Moth ing could be more absurd and against l public policy than such a provision. Almost all of the oysters now ex- ported from the State are mined with shels and other matter, sometimes in proportion of three-Quarters oyster one-Quarter oyster, sometimes one-half | oyster, and it would be 1mpracticable | to cull out and separate these oysters, and to know how many oysters are taken from the State. It would in volve an expense of hundreds of thou sands of dollars to cull out the oys- | ters that are caught and transported | to other states for temporary plant ing. It would entail a prohibitive ex- pense. Moreover, where a firm re- moves it's oysters from Connecticut to plant upon it's own grounds in another i State, 1t does not measure the oysters l at all, and 1t would be innpra ctica ble | to make such returns are required | in the bill proposed by MT. Perry. There are many other reasons why
 this bill ought to be rejected which
 can be given if opportunity is afforded, | but it is reason enough that it has | been introduced in an entirely fmprop-
 CT manner, that it is utterly unjust
 and unfair to oyster growers, that it
 is against public policy, and it would
 be impracticable to enforce it if it l were enacted. The oyster growers have had no opportunity to be heard
 upon this bill, and if any committee | of the General Assembly is to give i the bill consideration, we ask to be fully heard upon it, but we submit
 that in view of the reasons offered, it ! o11ght not to receive any considera-