OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. 25 
best land in the State which he would not sell for $300 an acre, 
or even for more than that. Yet in no case have the Commis- 
sioners ever assessed his land more than fifty dollars an acre, 
which, at one per cent., yielded a tax of fifty cents an acre! 
What he means by a “fair tax”’ is no tax at all. 
But whatever tax is received, the State will get the whole of it, 
as it has always got every dollar, as fast as collected. 
Now, as to the final appeal “For yusTicr,”’ the Commissioners 
cheerfully join in it. Let these complainants have jws¢7ce,—no 
more, no less—but the State must have justice, too; and the 
Commissioners, as agents of the State, urge upon you to see that 
no injustice be done to anyone, whatever may be the clamor of 
selfish and designing men. 
Although great efforts have been made to create a prejudice 
against the Commission and mislead public sentiment, the Com- 
missioners have deemed it unnecessary here to take notice of such 
acts, believing the Legislature of the State to be the proper tribu- 
nal for them to appeal to for judgment; and as they had nothing 
to conceal or to be ashamed of, they have made this statement of 
facts, confident that you will act in the best interests of the State, 
as the Commissioners claim they have done and desire to do. 
Such was the statement presented—and it is believed that to 
unprejudiced minds it must be conclusive upon the propriety and 
necessity of prosecuting the work so thoroughly begun and so 
nearly completed by the Commissioners. The joint committee on 
fisheries to whom the subject was referred, after an exhaustive in- 
vestigation, reported almost unanimously against the petitioners 
and in favor of the Commission. 
As the matter stands now, the Commissioners are required by 
law to make the final maps according to their legal title. But the 
appropriations for the necessary expenses of the work are, as has 
been already stated, entirely insufficient. And it may well be 
asked: Will the State suffer its best plans for protecting its val- 
uable oyster industries to be defeated simply to gratify the per- 
sonal spite of a clique of selfish men? And further: Will it not 
be bad faith to the oyster growers, who bought and paid for their 
grounds under the belief that the law would be carried out and 
trustworthy maps made of the oyster territory? 
The State has achieved an enviable reputation as a pioneer in 
the best legislation for the development and protection of oyster 
