THE OYSTER INDUSTRY OF MARYLAND. 
291 
These two provisions — protection of small oysters and placing the reefs in the best 
possible condition for the attachment of a “set” — are the key-notes to the proper gov- 
ernment of the fishery on the public beds, and any system of regulation that has not 
these for its objects can not be expected to be of great value. 
It has been proposed that certain portions of the bay — half, for instance — be 
closed for two or three years in order that the oysters now thereon may have time to 
mature, and when this area is thrown open the other be closed for a similar period, 
the system of open and closed districts being continued indefinitely. But there are 
many objections to such a procedure. When the southern half is closed it works a hard- 
ship to persons living along the shores thereof, and when the fishery is interdicted in the 
northern half the residents in that vicinity would consider themselves aggrieved. If, 
in order to avoid this objection, the size of the districts be reduced and the number 
of them be multiplied, it would be quite difficult to prohibit the fishery in the closed 
ones. Also, it has been shown that the operations of the oystermen improve the beds 
for spat-collecting purposes, and a stoppage of the fishery might to a material extent 
affect the attachment of a “ set.” 
It seems that the only good result of such a regulation would be a restriction in 
the removal of small oysters, but this would be secured under present regulations by 
a complete enforcement of the cull law. Were the system to be adopted, the enforce- 
ment of the cull law would still be necessary, and it would increase local jealousies, 
already too numerous, add another to the many regulations now difficult of enforce- 
ment, and yet be of questionable value. 
If there were adopted a regulation for obtaining a “ set,” having among its features 
the return to the water of a portion of the shells accumulating about the shucking- 
liouses, it seems possible that special benefit might result from this particular feature. 
When one considers that, as a component part of the oyster shells, 200,000 tons of car- 
bonate of lime are annually removed from the Chesapeake, the question naturally arises 
as to the continuation of the supply. When returned to the water the shells rapidly 
disintegrate, furnishing material for the shells of other oysters. The benefits, if any, 
to be derived from such provision, however, rests entirely upon speculation. 
An opinion is quite current that the proper regulation of the oyster fishery in 
Maryland is for the State to lease or sell the natural reefs and leave to the individ 
ual owners the question of protection or improvement of their respective holdings. 
Under the present condition of the industry and its environments it seems that such a 
procedure would be detrimental to the welfare and interests of those persons dependent 
on that industry for support, as well as to the peace and good order prevailing in the 
tide- water regions of Maryland. I believe that no American State, and certainly none 
in which the fishery is of great consequence, has ever deemed it expedient to dispose 
of the public interest in any natural oyster beds. The fishery in Maryland is not, as 
frequently supposed, a haphazard undertaking conducted by a class of men depending 
for success on violations of the State laws, but is on a firm, orderly basis, any sudden, 
revolutionary change in which would work great hardship and distress to the thousands 
of citizens depending on it for a livelihood 
If the cull law be vigorously and thoroughly enforced, increasing the minimum 
limit to 3 inches as soon as the condition of the fishery may warrant, and a proper system 
be adopted for preparing the reefs for the attachment of spat during the spawning 
season, it is not probable that an extreme disaster to the industry will early eifsue. 
