a) ; 
ing lessees had led the applicants to abandon their plans. For 
these reasons the Commission believed that to advertise the 
whole group of pending applications would be to entail upon 
the State a large unnecessary expense. It therefore communi- 
cated by circular letter with all persons who had applications 
pending, asking whether or not they desired the applications 
advertised. A second similar communication was sent to those — 
who did not respond to the first, and advertisements finally 
published only in those cases where the applicant so directed. 
Publication of these advertisements was followed immediately 
by a large number of protests, the result being tabulated by 
counties in Exhibit B. 
It was evident at once that if these cases were each to be 
tried and contested separately the total expense for attorneys, 
court costs and witness fees would be enormous. ‘The Com- 
mission therefore suggested to the courts and the attorneys 
representing the protestants that the hearings be delayed 
until the Commission could make a re-examination of the bot- 
tom so applied for; that after this re-examination it would 
report frankly to the attorneys for the protestants the results 
of its re-examination. This proceeding was adopted in a large 
number of cases, and the Commission’s report being that the 
ground at the present time conformed to the definition of the 
Shepherd Bill, the court costs and general expenses of the 
trial were very materially reduced. 
The same attitude was taken by the Commission with re- 
gard to areas not under lease and not yet applied for but 
claimed by the oystermen as natural bottom. It was felt that 
it was better for these to be re-examined under the initiative 
of the Shell Fish Commission than to have the re-classifica- 
tion of this territory thrown into the courts. The Oystermen’s 
Association thereupon pointed out to the Commission the areas 
in the open bay which it claimed as natural bottom, and the 
Commission, on its own initiative, thereupon re-examined so 
much of this area as it was able to cover during the open 
season of 1914, the result of this re-examination being set 
forth in the Engineer’s Report, Exhibit D. 
Where protests were filed against ground already under 
lease, the Commission did not feel free to attempt any re-ex- 
