OYSTER BEDS OF JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA. 81 



bottoms of the region discussed. These resolve themselves into 

 three: (1) The maintenance of the integrity of the public grounds 

 as now constituted; (2) their abolition in toto; and (3) a middle 

 course which will preserve to the public the productive bottoms 

 practically in their entirety while throwing open to oyster planting 

 a large part of the barren and unproductive bottom now included 

 within the public grounds. The principal arguments for and against 

 these propositions may be epitomized as follows: 



1 . The first course — that the beds be retained in the present status — 

 hardly needs discussion. It has been tried and its results are known, 

 largely as the effect of the acrimonious disputes to which it has given 

 rise. The matters of fact which have been at issue in these inter- 

 minable discussions, as to whether or not the public grounds embraced 

 any considerable area of barren bottom, have been dealt with in the 

 preceding pages and speak for themselves. It should be pointed 

 out, however, that while the barren area is shown to constitute a 

 considerable proportion of the whole bottom, much of it is so related 

 to the productive bottom that it could not be eliminated under any 

 scheme permitting of practical administration. 



2. The second alternative — the total abolition of the public grounds 

 and its corollary , the opening of the whole area for leasing — is drastic. 

 On broad economic grounds the proposition is as logical and legiti- 

 mate as the sale of public timber land or the breaking up of the 

 great public ranges of the West into holdings in severalty, and, as 

 the oyster is sessile, it has nothing in common with an alienation of 

 the common fishery for nomadic species. The law has already 

 recognized that under conditions an oyster in situ may be property, 

 while a wandering fish can not become such until caught. The 

 breaking up of the public grounds into leaseholds under private 

 control would increase their productiveness precisely as the breaking 

 up of the common ranges of the West has resulted in economic effi- 

 ciency and greater productiveness. This course would, furthermore, 

 yield a return to the State, where there is now a net outlay for 

 policing the public grounds, though this aspect of the matter is one 

 which should always be held subservient to the major consideration — 

 the welfare and prosperity of the citizen. 



On the other side of the question it is necessary to consider the 

 effect of so drastic an innovation upon the welfare of a large body 

 of persons whose livelihood in part is at present dependent upon 

 the situation to which the policy of the State has given the aspect 

 of presumed permanency. Immediately upon the alienation of the 

 public beds the men engaged on them for part of the season are, 

 for the time being, forced from the category of independent workers 

 into that of employees, unless they themselves elect to take 4 up 



