OF MASSACHUSETTS. 125 



proving a serious drawback to the oyster industry. The best interests 

 of the oysterman and the consumer demand a better method of regula- 

 tion of this industry. As long as town politics, partiality and care- 

 lessness enter into the leasing of oyster grants, and thus deprive certain 

 people of their rights, it is safe to say that the oyster industry can 

 never get beyond its present state of development. One solution of the 

 difficulty might be full State control of leasing the grounds for the 

 oyster industry. This is possibly too radical a step at present, and 

 the system can perhaps be so adjusted as to remedy its defects without 

 taking the control of the fishery entirely away from the hands of the 

 town. Another solution is to continue the system of town control, but 

 to have a State commission which would act as a board of appeal for 

 all who felt aggrieved at the judgment of the selectmen. 



The advisability of ten-year grants has caused much comment among 

 the oystermen. Practically all grants are now given for this period 

 of time. As a system it is deservedly unpopular, since it does not help 

 the quahaug interest, and it checks the development of the oyster in- 

 dustry. The oyster business, unlike the other branches of shellfish 

 culture, requires a considerable capital. This system of ten-year grants 

 operates directly to discourage the outlay of capital. If the oysterman 

 were sure of reaping the benefits of his labor and capital, it would be 

 to his selfish interest to develop his own grant to its maximum capacity. 

 But what far-sighted business man will invest money in a business 

 which stands a good chance of being completely " wiped out " in a 

 few years? Again, this system makes three years out of the ten prac- 

 tically worthless. The oysterman usually " seeds " his grant about three 

 years before he expects to reap his harvest; but when his grant has 

 run for seven years, it is evident that he will plant no more oysters 

 because of the uncertainty of obtaining a second lease, and naturally 

 does not desire to invest his labor and money for the benefit of an 

 unknown successor. 



The remedy for this is not difficult. If a grant were rented annually 

 as long as the planter desired to hold it, to be forfeited if not improved 

 to a certain standard (to be decided upon), or for non-payment of 

 rent, the difficulties above enumerated would disappear. Much of the 

 territory now held unimproved would either be brought up to a standard 

 of excellence or given over to the quahaugers, and in either case direct 

 benefits would result. If legislation were so arranged that any man 

 might take, by the payment of a nominal rent, a small piece of ground, 

 which he could hold as long as he improved it, the oyster industry could 

 be put on a firmer footing; a man confident of enjoying the fruits of 

 his labors could thus improve his grant, and, as he acquired skill and 

 knowledge, could add other land and ultimately expect to build up a 

 successful business. 



A third important suggestion relates to the marketing of oysters in 

 a sanitary condition. The oyster industry of the State has suffered 



