THE OYSTER INDUSTRY OF MARYLAND. 
213 
protective measure iu America, and iu ouly one or two States is a provision of this 
kind operative, Maryland being almost the first to attempt the enforcement of such a 
regulation; indeed, restrictions as to the size of the oysters to be taken are not 
now very popular abroad. The reason for this is that in most ot the other American 
States that have given attention to the oyster industry, as well as in the oyster- 
producing countries of Europe, the present regulations of the common fishery are 
auxiliary to the needs of the private or several fisheries, and the public-reef fishermen 
make no complaint, for they are thus enabled to market their small oysters among the 
planters. 
As even the smallest oysters caught in Maryland could be utilized in the steaming- 
houses of that State, or sold for bedding in other localities, the fishermen found a 
market for all they took from the water and did not attempt to carefully cull and 
return the small ones to the beds to increase in size for another season. A 1^-inch 
cull law had been enacted in 1886 (ch. 569) for the waters of Somers.et County, but the 
difficulty in enforcing a local law of this nature rendered it almost inoperative. The 
general cull law as operative at present is as follows : 
All oysters taken from any of the waters of this State (either with scoops, dredges, or any 
similar instruments, or tongs or rakes) shall be culled upon their natural bed or bar as taken, and all 
oyster shells, and oysters whose shells measure less than two and one-half inches in length, measuring 
from hinge to mouth, shall be included iu said culling and replaced upon said bed or bar as taken. 
This regulation required such a change in the practices of the oystermen who had 
been accustomed to market oysters of all sizes that it was at first regarded as a great 
hardship, and much difficulty was experienced in its enforcement, notwithstanding the 
fact that everyone recognized its value. In a letter to the Maryland Board of Public 
Works, which controls the State fishery force, the commander of that force wrote, under 
date of December 31, 1890, in reference to the cull law, as follows: 
At the last session of the legislature a hill was prepared and introduced, under the direction 
of the governor, which provided for a system of culling, so-as to have the young oysters left on the 
bars to furnish seed for a future supply, and this act is now about the only law which tends at all to 
relieve the bars from complete destruction. But the hill had a rider put upon it in the shape of an 
amendment that has about broken it down . The amendment provides for the ascertainment of the 
quantity of marketable oysters in a cargo by dumping 1 bushel in every 50, and in the end culling 
this “dump,” finding the percentage of shells and small oysters, and deducting this percentage from 
the full cargo. This percentage is never taken out; but, on the contrary, goes into the bins of the 
packers as so much clear gain to them. By this section the packers are in position of greatest benefit 
when the oysters are not culled, as they get all the culls free, and these have, in some instances, 
amounted to 300 bushels in a cargo of 1,200 bushels. I find all classes to agree with me in saying that 
the cull law should he vigorously enforced, and all as unanimous in both violating it and trying to 
screen violators from arrest by the fishery force. 
An attempt was made by act of 1892 (ch.. 278) to remedy the defects in the regula- 
tion of this provision, and, as it can be effectively enforced only at the oyster markets, 
provision was made for the appointment by the governor of one inspector at each of 
the wholesale ports, whose duty it is to properly enforce the cull law in his respective 
district. Their compensation, limited to $600 per annum, was to be derived from 
the imposition of a tax of one-tenth of 1 cent per bushel oh all oysters purchased by 
every wholesale or retail dealer. Many of the dealers, however, refused to pay this 
tax, alleging that it is irregular, and only about $2,500 was paid in 1892-93, notwith- 
standing the fact that 10,000,000 bushels of oysters were handled. But each year the 
