1882. ] SHELL-FISH COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT. 47 
Since the Ist day of May about 20,000 acres have been 
designated by the commissioners, one-half of, which wall 
be paid for by the time this report is printed—the sum of 
$8,373.19 having been already collected and paid into the 
State treasury. The balance will be paid as soon as 
deeds can be prepared. 45,000 acres within the State 
jurisdiction were designated prior to May 1, 1881. 
Of the designations heretofore made about 10,000 acres 
are under cultivation, and it needs no prophetic eye to see 
that in the near future doubtless this whole cultivable area 
will be transformed into flourishing oyster farms, giving 
employment to a great number of our people and bringing 
vast revenues to the owners. 
Of the 45,000 acres spoken of as designated by the towns 
before May 1, 1881, the larger portion was designated dur- 
ing the short period between the passage of the act of 1881 
and it going into effect; and thereby a large sum of money 
was diverted from the State Treasury. Many of these 
designations were made hastily and imperfectly, and are of 
questionable legality. Whether or not Section 8 of the act 
of 1881 validated and confirmed them is a serious question, 
which the commissioners do not consider within the scope 
of their authority to decide. The act was publicly consid- 
ered in committee and debated in both branches of the leg- 
islature for several weeks; and it was commented upon by 
the press; so that its provisions were well known through- 
out the State, especially to those who were persoually 
interested in oyster cultivation. It was approved April 
14, 1881, having been enacted some days before. There 
was no special provision in the act as to the time it was to 
.go into effect; but by a general act approved the same day 
“all public acts, except when otherwise therein specially 
provided shall take effect on the first day of May subse- 
quent to the adjournment of the General Assembly.”’ The 
eround thus designated comprised the greater portion of 
the most desirable grounds under State jurisdiction. In 
view of these facts, the conclusion is irresistible that the 
committee men who made these hasty designations were 
not actuated by the highest and best motives; but were 
