G6 



" Looking for instances of oysters that have boon obviously missed, we find that 

 "in 1809, bauk6 15 and lb - contained oysters of 2\ and 3 years old in December, 

 " where a blank was recorded in March of the same year. Again, in March of the 

 " same year, bank 49 held ' many oysters of 1, 2 and 3 years of age,' which for want of 

 " inspection had not been found before. In April 1S7S, banks 11 and ii> 'were 

 "thickly covered with oysters of one year age ', and in May of the following year the 

 " record is ' blank '. If they had not migrated and been missed, we might perhaps 

 " have found some traces of at least a few dead shells. In 18S2, we find ' dead 

 " shells ' of we know not what age on bank 20, which the previous year was 

 "'blank'. 



"Banks 15, 16, 17 might seemingly have been fished in 1S70, but they were not 

 "inspected. Perhaps Captain Phipps was away; perhaps the necessity for inspection 

 " was lost sight of for want of statement P." 



I may add that long weeks before I made my investigation and before I had 

 acquaintance with the facts above related, my most intelligent coxswain, a Tuticorin 

 man himself, in reply to my inquiry if he had any theory why oysters came to 

 maturity so seldom on the Indian banks, said " oysters often come, inspection not good, 

 not wide enough ". He remarked that he and his people often said among themselves 

 that if the Indian inspection was carried out in the thorough manner it is on the Ceylon 

 side there would be more frequent fisheries. As he said, long ago fisheries were very 

 good off Tuticorin and Kayalpatnam, — why should they now be so very few and 

 unprofitable ? This opinion expressed, I believe, his honest belief ; there was nojad van- 

 tage in deceiving me and at that time he had no idea that I was likely to have any 

 connection with the Indian banks. Candid opinion of the native fishermen is often 

 shrewd and well considered, and I agree cordially with Mr. Sullivan Thomas in his 

 remark " as regards fisherfolk knowledge — it is marvellously good and should never 

 be neglected, but at the same time always tested." * In other words the ideas of the 

 local fishermen and divers may often furnish a valuable working hypothesis. 



Numerical Deficiency of Divers attending the Fisheries. 



Apart from any question of the fertility of the banks, the inadequate supply of 

 divers attending the Tuticorin fisheries has frequently entailed disastrous financial 

 consequences, notably in 18S9 and 1890. In those years large fisheries took place 

 concurrently off the Ceylon coast, and as the Ceylon fisheries are believed by the 

 divers to vield them better results than those on the Indian coast, it was with consider- 

 able difficulty that any men were prevailed upon to attend the latter. This state of 

 affairs was well known among the native merchants and all the more wealthy resorted 

 accordingly to Ceylon as the market possessed of the greater attractions. Their 

 abstention further influenced the results adversely. 



Take the fishery of 18S9 for example. In that year the Tolayiram Par was 

 densely stocked with fine oysters nearly six years old. Captain Phipps, the then 

 Superintendent of Pearl Fisheries, calculated that there were 309,760,000 oysters upon 

 the bank; but for want of sufficient boats and divers the gross take, 12,600,000 oysters, 

 barely reached 4 per cent, of the estimated total available. The average number of 

 boats out per day was 35 ; the largest on any one occasion was but 48. 



The next year, when the oysters were dying off, an even worse state of affairs 

 prevailed ; the average number of boats employed per day fell to 21 and the total take 

 of oysters was a miserable million and three quarters (1,806,762), bringing in a paltry 

 profit of Es. 7,803 to the Government. 



The ensuing year, as was to be expected from the age limit being exceeded, no 

 oysters were found on the banks. 



The combined takes of 1889 and 1890 were under 11,500,000 oysters, so that if 

 we accept Captain Phipps' estimate of over 309,000,000 on the bank in 1889, the 

 Government harvested a wholly inadequate proportion of the crop. Can we justly 

 characterize the Indian banks as being poor and unsatisfactory when one bank brings 

 such a multitude to maturity in one year? Is it not more reasonable to lay the 



* Loc. cit., page 25, 



