16 
ever, and provided for an immediate survey of all of the land 
underlying the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. 
There is another fundamental underlying difference between 
the gradual survey suggested above and the immediate total 
survey actually ordered. In the method suggested, it would 
have been incumbent upon the would-be lessee to point out 
the area which he claimed as barren bottom and submit his 
claim to the determination of the Commission. In other words, 
the burden of proof would be placed where it usually belongs, 
upon the petitioner. In the system actually adopted, how- 
ever, the Commission was supposed to examine only such 
ground as was claimed by the oystermen as natural bar and 
to throw open to lease as barren bottom all of the ground not 
claimed by the oystermen, together with all ground claimed 
by them which did not come up to the definition of natural 
bar as ultimately adopted. 
The weaknesses inherent in this system were three: first, 
the enormous expense entailed upon the State; second, the 
impracticability of attaching a permanent classification as 
natural rock to ground which might easily at some future 
time fall under the classification of barren bottom, or vice 
versa; third, the danger that all grounds coming within the 
classification of natural rock might not be claimed by the 
oystermen. 
After the adoption of the legislation in question, the Com- 
mission was organized and prepared to undertake the work. 
It found itself at the very beginning under the necessity of 
determining the meaning of the term “natural bar.” This was 
the crux of the whole situation and the failure of the Legis- 
lature to include the definition in the Act compelled the Com- 
mission to shoulder the responsibility of its framing. Seek- 
ing for guidance on this point, the Commission found a de- 
cision of Judge Goldsborough rendered in a Dorchester Coun- 
ty case which, while not ratified by the Court of Appeals, and 
hence not binding upon the other courts of the State, was not 
in conflict with any recorded decisions in other courts. The 
final summing up of the Judge contains the definition: “Land 
cannot be said to be natural oyster bar or bed merely because 
oysters are scattered here and there upon it and because if 
