28 
Fish Commission could present the situation from the Com-_ 
mission’s point of view and have in return a frank discussion 
on the part of the oystermen of their demands. This letter, 
although sent and received, was never answered, so that the 
Commission was denied the opportunity of presenting its 
case to the Oystermen’s Association. A little later, however, 
this Association requested a hearing before the Board of 
Public Works, which was believed by the oystermen to be 
more friendly to them than the Commission. The Board of 
Public Works, though without any authority to deal with the 
matter, granted a public hearing and received a number of 
complaints as to specific areas charted as barren bottom and 
claimed to be at the time of the hearing good productive areas. 
The Board of Public Works then requested the Board of Shell 
Fish Commissioners to re-examine protested areas and to use 
any means which might be within its power to delay until after 
the session of the Legislature the leasing of any areas found 
upon examination to be natural bottom. ‘To this request the 
Board of Shell Fish Commissioners replied that it would do 
all in its power to meet the wishes of the Board of Public 
Works. This was merely a statement that the Shell Fish Com- 
mission would continue to do what it had already announced 
as its policy. It was, however, heralded as a concession, which 
had been forced from an unwilling Commission by an appeal 
to the Board of Public Works, and was used to influence the 
natural-rock oystermen against the Commission. 
Meanwhile another serious situation was developing. A 
certain element among the oystermen, declaring their convic- 
tion that they would not be punished for their acts, proceeded 
to destroy the property and steal the oysters of certain lessees. 
The situation was one which presented considerable difficulty. 
The Oyster Police Force of the State has been for a genera- 
tion entirely inadequate for the enforcement of the existing 
laws and there was no hope of securing from it a sufficiently 
effective patrol to prevent depredation. The only way in 
which the property of the lessees and the good name of the 
State could have been protected would be by aggressive action 
on the part of the State and County authorities in handling 
the first case of depredation without gloves. ‘This was not 
