21 
The questionable features of the Act, viewed now in the 
light of ten years’ experience, would seem to be as follows: 
(a), the provision for an immediate comprehensive survey in 
advance of the demand for leasing areas; (b), the inclusion 
of arbitrary restrictions limiting the area taken, forbidding 
a corporate lessee and restricting the methods used by the 
planter in cultivation; (c), the attempt to make the survey 
a permanent determination of the character of the bottom 
without regard to actual future conditions. 
It is perhaps unwise to attempt to fix at this late date the 
responsibility for these features. It is worth while, however, 
to call attention to the fact that all of the indications at that 
time were that the natural beds were shrinking and that there- 
fore the immediate extensive survey, accepted as a permanent- 
ly conclusive determination of the character of the bottom, 
promised to operate to the advantage of the natural-rock 
oystermen rather than to the advantage of the would-be lessee. 
The contention that features “a” and “c” were concessions to 
the demands of the natural-rock oystermen is certainly sup- 
ported therefore by the probabilities of the case. The second 
feature, ““b,” restriction of area, of type of lessee, and of meth- 
ods of operation, was unquestionably a concession to them. 
The natural-rock oystermen had, therefore, certainly noth- 
ing of which to complain in either the Act or the methods of 
the survey, excepting possibly the use of tongs to determine 
the condition of dredging bottom. ‘This one objection or any 
others which may have been overlooked in the present discus- 
sion were cared for by the provision for an appeal to the local 
court, a tribunal fully cognizant of local conditions and local 
sentiment, so that after the survey was made, the charts pub- 
lished and the opportunity for appeal allowed to pass, the 
natural-rock oysterman had no one but himself or his leaders 
to blame if a single foot of natural bottom was open to lease. 
The law, however, did fail to include one provision which 
might have given a small amount of additional protection to 
the natural-rock oystermen. The law did not provide that 
the filing of the charts and the consequent beginning of the 
period in which appeal might be taken should be advertised in 
the local press. Asa matter of fact, such advertisements were 
