The Northern Oyster Field 181 



there was built up an artificial source of supply while 

 that of nature was being destroyed. It must not be sup- 

 posed, however, that this was accomplished without a 

 struggle. Everywhere there was strenuous opposition to 

 the sale or lease of bottoms, particularly from thee 

 whose living depended on the gathering of oysters from 

 natural beds, and the lawmakers very wisely decided 

 that the industry was possible only under private own- 

 ership, as in the case of agriculture. 



But some of the colonial charters had reserved all 

 beaches below high tide line for the State. There were no 

 private beach rights or rights to shore bottoms under 

 water. Probably no one desired rights to such bottoms 

 until oyster culture was developed. By that time the 

 idea had been fixed by tradition that the sea was and 

 should be the common possession of all. So objection 

 was made not only to the sale or lease of bottoms bearing 

 oyster beds, but also barren bottoms on which oysters 

 had never been known to grow. Oyster culture has had 

 to contend against this principle at all points along the 

 entire coast. This state of mind is typically set forth 

 by Mr. Ingersoll, who describes the efforts of a New 

 Brunswick fisheries inspector to convert the natives to 

 the idea of oyster culture, which of course involved the 

 lease of bottoms. They had destroyed the natural beds 

 by excessive raking, but would not hear to a lease. The 

 only argument that he elicited was " My grand f adder 

 rake oysters, my fadder he rake oysters when he want 

 'em, and by Gar! I rake him too." 



One of the great objections to sale or lease was that 

 monopolies would thereby be fostered. This objection 

 to the lease has been used in every state possessing oyster 

 bottoms. As a result, the earlier laws allowed the lease 



