1 66 NINTH REPORT OF THE 



citizens of either State under the non-resident law, and adopting the solution 

 proposed, recommended in their Sixth Report "That there should be no discrimi- 

 nation by this State, in the matter of hunting or fishing, against any citizen of the 

 United States, except in cases of citizens of States which discriminate against the 

 State of New York." 



Counsel for the Connecticut lobster fishermen undertook to prepare a measure 

 for enactment in both States and was promised the endorsement of this Commis- 

 sion, but later reported that his clients were not prepared for this full measure of 

 reciprocity. At this time the Legislatures of 1901 were in session in the respec- 

 tive States. In 1902 the question was taken up with Hon. Charles Phelps, then 

 Attorney-General of Connecticut, and with the Shellfish Commissioners of that 

 State, without result. 



Hon. William A. King, the present Attorney-General of Connecticut, has become 

 interested in the subject, and at his invitation your Superintendent visited Hart- 

 ford on February sixth and conferred with the Attorney-General, the Shellfish 

 Commissioners, the Fish and Game Commissioners, the respective Chairmen of the 

 Senate and House Committees on Fish and Game, and others. 



This conference resulted in an agreement to recommend in the two States 

 legislation of a reciprocal character, under which citizens of both States might 

 enjoy mutual rights in the shellfisheries so far as these fisheries are within the 

 jurisdiction of the State governments, with the exception of the use of the natural 

 growth seed-oyster beds, which our neighbors thought should be reserved for the 

 people of each State respectively. It was believed that such an arrangement 

 would greatly benefit the shellfish industry and give effect almost fully (for it 

 stopped a little short of full reciprocity) to the ideas for settlement expressed by 

 this Commission for more than two years past. 



The conclusions of the meeting at Hartford on February sixth, however, did 

 not seem to be pleasing to some of the Connecticut planters, and a hearing was 

 announced for February twenty-fifth before the joint committees, and your Super- 

 intendent was notified that his presence would be desirable. At this hearing a 

 number of Connecticut oyster planters was present, and it was urged by them that 

 they should be allowed, under any new plan, to take lands in Peconic and Gardners 

 Bays in New York. It was explained to them that these lands were not under 

 State jurisdiction, having been ceded by the State to the County of Suffolk 

 in 1884, and that if shellfish lands under local New York jurisdiction could be 

 opened up to them, it would involve a similar privilege to New York planters 

 in Connecticut local jurisdictions. The lands under the waters of Peconic and 

 Gardner's Bays are, by law, excluded from State jurisdiction so far as making 

 grants for shellfish cultivation are concerned, and as they are not located upon 

 the coast of the Sound and are not in their position opposite to the coast of 

 Connecticut, they cannot be considered in this arrangement. 



Some of the Connecticut towns hold, under ancient grants, shellfish lands over 

 which jurisdiction and control is held by said towns, and it was not supposed that 

 such control would be affected by the reciprocal legislation proposed. 



