22 
a brief report of the Edinburgh Fisheries Exhibition, from which 
we make the following interesting extract: 
‘«Mr. Byram Littlewood, of Huddersfield, England, exhibited oysters 
“*produced by artificial contact of the sperm and ova in artificial sea- 
‘‘water by a process of his invention. He claims that while an 
‘American experimenter has succeeded in hatching the oyster, no 
‘‘one but himself has succeeded as yet in growing it beyond one of 
‘‘the earliest stages of development. He showed living specimens 
‘‘which he had kept in continuous growth from three to five months, 
‘‘which is as long as he has been experimenting in that direction, 
‘‘and expressed full confidence in the practicability of hatching and 
‘rearing oysters abundantly and profitably.” 
It is noticeable that no intimation is given by Mr. Littlewood of 
the process by which such valuable results have been accomplished. 
A decision of Judge Nelson, of Boston, in a case pending in the 
U. S. Circuit Court, reported in the newspapers a few weeks ago, has 
caused no little excitement and alarm among oystermen. It was rep-- 
resented that, if sustained, it would invalidate that part of the boundary 
agreement entered into between the two States relating to the division 
of the Sound, and that neither New York nor Connecticut could 
exercise proprietary rights in the Sound Fisheries. The subject was 
deemed of sufficient importance to lead the Commissioners to seek 
for a copy of the decision that its full force might be known, and a 
copy has been obtained. The case before the Court was briefly as 
follows: William Wallace brought suit against the Providence and 
Stonington Steamship Company to recover for personal injuries and 
loss of his baggage, caused by a collision on the Sound between the 
Stonington and the Narragansett, two boats owned by the Company. 
The defendants set up in their defence certain proceedings in the Dis- 
trict Court of the United States for the Southern District of New 
York, under the Limited Liability Act of March 3, 1851; whereby 
they claimed that they were discharged from all further liability aris- 
ing out of the disaster. To this answer the plaintiffs demurred, and 
assigned seven separate causes of demurrer, all of which were overruled. 
The first cause, and the one that gave rise to said report, was ‘‘ that 
“the act of March 3, 1851, does not exempt from liability common 
‘*carriers who are owners of vessels used in inland navigation.” ‘The 
court in its decision says that ‘‘Long Island Sound isa part of the 
Atlantic ocean, and its navigation is in no sense inland navigation 
within the meaning of the term as used in Section 7 of the act.” It is 
obvious that the sole question thus raised was whether the Limited 
