The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-12-07

Henry C. Rowe or GrOtOn, preS1- dent of the Oyster Growers and Deal
 CTS of North America, an organization representing the whole oyster interests of the United States and Canada, has just presented 8 paper to the Ameri- can Fisheries Society, in which he declares that the taxation on the oys- ter business is forcing the industry out of Connecticlt. His paper. out lines the remarkable history of the oyster farmer in Connecticut giving from the standpoint of the oyster growers an insight into situation which is expected to play promin. ent part in the affairs of the nex, General Assembly. MT. Rowe claims the rate of taxation in this state not only is unjust but of a nature to de- stroy the industry in Connecticut He points out that an official who assess ed a piece of oyster property for $9,. 900 in 1908 assessed it six years later for $12S,938, or more than fourteen times it's original assessment. MT. Rowe's paper, which is entitled Destroying a Food Industry Is Ii Sound Public Policy?" is in part as follows:
 When the Industry Began. Over forty years ago the state o1 Connecticut was foremost among all the states in permitting her enterpris- ! ing citizens to create an oyster farm ing industry. During the past ter years, she has by unwise legislation taken the lead toward it's destruc- ton.
 Pofr | ceded that Connecticut had taken the lead in the. oyster industry and the most progressive legislators from oth- CT states came here to ascertain Con- necticut methods and to advocate similar measures in their respective states.
 Between 1879 and 1880, the laws of Connecticut permitted certain of ficials in the coast towns to grant to any citizen areas of land under water for the purpose of propagating and planting shell fish; they were sold to such citizens at $1 per acre.
 For many years the enterprise was regarded as too hazardous for ex- tensive investment, but in 1874 and '75 the more enterprising oyster planters purchased some of the barren grounds in the open waters of Long Island Sound, from one to three miles from land, outside of the bays, harbors and islands, where the previous oyster cul- tivatfon had existed.
 These adventurous planters were ridiculed. for such hare-brained in vestment and it was commonly spoken of as a case of "A fool and his money soon partsd. SNotwi thstanding many losses, dangers and difficulties, these adventurous planters achieved success and before 1878 the enterprise was recognized as a promising and grow ing industry and was rapidly develop ed and extended Oysters at that time within these waters grew more rapidly and the meats were much pet ter than in the same areas at the present time.
 Bv 1881, the towns along the coast had realized large sums Of money at but little expense by selling oyster grounds to the planters, in pursuance of the laws then existing authorizing sl1ch sales. For instance, prior to 1881 the town of Stratford received clear of all expense, $5,0OO on a sale of about 5000 acres.
 This industry having proved a suc- cess. the legislature, in 1881, created a. commission so that the state instead of the towns should receive the pro- ceeds of the sales of the grounds. It was provided that this commission might sell oyster grounds for the same price at which the towns had previously been authorized to sell, and the commission in pursuance of this new legislation procured an of flee, held frequent meetings and em- ployed clerk and an engineer.
 How State Lost $45,OO.
 If the business of the state had been administered upon the same economical methods1as that of the towns had been, the state should have received net proceeds to the amount of the s45,000 on the sales of the next seven years. But on in vestigation in 1888, it was found that the business of the state had been transacted in so extravagant a man. ner that instead of netting $45,000, thes tate had lost $45,000.
 A summary of the official reports showed the following figures: Cost of com-
 mission, it's
 employees and
 expenses to
 June, 1885,. $84, ,647.15 Total proceeds
 ga les of
 ground a nd
 e n in eering
 same .s57,os1.oo D educt for
 W ort h less
 grou d re-
 turned to the
 state 18,247.40 38,343.60 Net loss to state $45,80355
 At legislature investigation in 1SS8. it appeared that each meeting