520 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



being to raise au issue to bo decided by the courts. The counsel of the association 

 were desirous that the questions involved should be raised, through the advice of 

 counsel elected to jiroceed by criminal i)rocess, and Capt. Chew, in coniuiand of the 

 alleged trespassing vessel, was arrested under the tenth section of the act approved 

 March 8, 1892, which makes it a misdemeanor to tlredge or catch oysters upon an 

 oyster bed duly staked out or belonging to any other person. The case was pre- 

 sented to the grand jury of Cumberland County at the October term, 1893, but no 

 indictment was then found. At the January term, 1894, Capt. Chew was indicted, 

 but the trial was ])ostponed until the jiresent May term. 



The excitement has been increased because of the delay of the trial of Capt. Chew. 

 Counsel of the Oyster Association, on March 19, advised the executive committee 

 that the best way to settle the uuittcr was for the luen to peaceably take the oysters 

 from the natural bed, and for tliose who claim them under rii>arian grants to resist 

 and bring action at law. At the last annual meeting of the Oyster Association it 

 voted to increase the tax on vessels to $l.r)0 per ton, so as to provide a fund to defend 

 such members as should )>c prosecuted for dredging upon riparian grants. This will 

 provide a fund of $(5,000. It is, however, denied that the raids were authorized by 

 the association, but the cai)tains acted individually. The riparian owners gave 

 notice that everybody would be prosecuted that raided the riparian lands. The 

 sheriff was notified to summon a posse comitatus to protect property or the 

 county would be held for dam^ages. The sheriff secured a steam vessel and with 

 posse proceeded to the disputed grounds. Several boats were warned off. The 

 sheriff, after watching several days, discharged his posse and returned to Bridgeton. 

 Soon after his departure many vessels appeared and began dredging. One of the 

 riparian owners shot at the invaders for the purpose of frightening them off. Over 

 thirty persons were subsequently arrested and held for court. A bill was then tiled 

 in chancery and a temporary order was obtained restraining the officers of the asso- 

 ciation from using the moneys raised by the tonnage tax in the defense of persons. 



The riparian owners claim that in the recent raids they lost $50,000 worth of 

 oysters. 



The questions at issue between the parties are nearly all of a legal character which 

 it is not within the province of this commission to decide, and for the solution of 

 which the courts and the ordinary proceedings therein afiord adequate means. 

 While not assuming to decide the legal questions involved, or to pass upon the 

 merits of the claims of the resjiective parties, the commission deem it their duty, for 

 the information of the legislature, to call attention to these points: 



" That the disputed area consists of about 97(5 acres, being but a very small pro- 

 portion of the territory which, under existing laws, is open to the ])ublic and which 

 is approxinuitely 3.5 miles long by 4 miles wide; the dispute on the part of theOyste"" 

 Association being one of ])riuciple rather than one of actual damage. 



" That the title of the State to the lands under tide water is, under the decision of 

 our courts, absolute, and that it has been the policy of former legislatures to reserve 

 to the State the right to grant the same to private parties, whether such lands be 

 staked up and occupied for the cultivation of oysters or not. The act passed April 

 28, 1890, confirmed the right to possession to all the citizens of this State to lands 

 under water occuiiicd by them since January 1, 1880, for the cultivation of oysters, 

 and made oysters grown tliereon their private property, provided the lands so occu- 

 pied do not include natural oyster beds. This act, however, contains this limita- 

 tion: 'That nothing in this act contained shall give any person or persons the right 

 or title to any of the said lands as against the State, and the State may at any time 

 alter or repeal this law, or the riparian commissioners may make grants the same 

 as if this act had not been jiassed.' 



" That so far as this commission is aware no legislative limitation was placed 

 upon the power of the riparian coainiissioners to make grants including oyster lauds 

 or beds, whether natural or otherwise, prior to the act approved March 6, 1888, 

 which provides: 'That no grant or lease of lands under tide water, whereon there 



