B. All the shellfish laws should be revised, to secure a unity and clearness which should render graft, unfairness and avoidable economic loss impossible, and be replaced with a code of fair, intelligent and forceful laws, which would not only permit the advancement of the shellfish industry through the individual efforts of the progressive shellfishermen, but also protect the rights of the general public.
C. The majority of the shellfish laws of the State are enacted by the individual towns. In 1880 the State first officially granted to each town the exclusive right to control and regulate its own shellfisheries, as provided under section 68 of chapter 91 of the Public Statutes. This was slightly modified by the Acts of 1889 and 1892 to read as follows (now section 85 of chapter 91 of the Revised Laws):—
Section 85. The mayor and aldermen of cities and the selectmen of towns, if so instructed by their cities and towns, may, except as provided in the two preceding sections, control, regulate or prohibit the taking of eels, clams, quahaugs and scallops within the same; and may grant permits prescribing the times and methods of taking eels and such shellfish within such cities and towns and make such other regulations in regard to said fisheries as they may deem expedient. But an inhabitant of the commonwealth, without such permit, may take eels and the shellfish above-named for his own family use from the waters of his own or any other city or town, and may take from the waters of his own city or town any of such shellfish for bait, not exceeding three bushels, including shells, in any one day, subject to the general rules of the mayor and aldermen and selectmen, respectively, as to the times and methods of taking such fish. The provisions of this section shall not authorize the taking of fish in violation of the provisions of sections forty-four and forty-five. Whoever takes any eels or any of said shellfish without such permit, and in violation of the provisions of this section, shall forfeit not less than three nor more than fifty dollars.
Responsibility has thus been transferred from the State to the towns, and they alone, through their incompetence and neglect, are to blame for the decline of the shellfisheries. The town laws are miniature copies of the worst features of the State laws. While a few towns have succeeded in enacting fairly good laws, the majority have either passed no shellfish regulations at all, or made matters worse by unintelligent and harmful laws. It is time that a unified system of competent by-laws were enacted and enforced in every town.
The ill-advised features which characterize the present town laws are numerous, and are best considered under the following headings:—
(1) Unintelligent Laws.—One of the worst features of our town shellfish laws is their extreme unfitness. Numerous laws which are absolutely useless for the regulation and improvement of these industries have been made by towns, through men who knew nothing about the shellfisheries. These laws were made without any regard for the practical or biological conditions underlying the shellfish industry. It is to be expected that laws from such a source would often be ill-advised and unintelligent, but under the present system it cannot be avoided. Until sufficient knowledge of the habits and growth of shellfish is acquired by the authorities of State and town, Massachusetts can never expect to have intelligent and profitable shellfish laws. While the majority of these unintelligent laws do no harm, there are some that work hardship to the fishermen and are an injury to the shellfisheries.
(2) Unfairness; Town Politics.—Town politics offers many chances for unscrupulous discrimination in the shellfish laws. Here we find one class of fishermen benefiting by legislation at the expense of the other, as in the case of the quahaugers v. oystermen. In one town the oystermen will have the upper hand; in another, the quahaugers. In every case there is unfair discrimination, and a resultant financial loss to both parties. The waters of Massachusetts are large enough for both industries, and every man should have a "square deal," which is frequently lacking under the present régime.
Besides party discrimination, there is discrimination against certain individuals, as illustrated in giving oyster grants. Town politics plays a distressing part here. Favoritism is repeatedly shown, and unfairness results. All this shows the unpopularity and impracticability of such regulations and the method of making them.
(3) Present Chaotic State.—The present town laws are in a chaotic condition, which it is almost impossible to simplify. No one knows the laws, there is merely a vague impression that such have existed. Even the selectmen themselves, often new to the office and unacquainted with the shellfisheries, know little about the accumulated shellfish laws of the past years, and find it impossible to comprehend them. The only remedy is to wipe out all the old and replace them with unified new laws.
(4) Unsystematic Laws.—The present laws are unsystematized. Each town has its own methods, good and bad, and the result is a heterogeneous mixture. Often there are two or three laws where one would definitely serve. To do absolute justice there should be a definite system, with laws elastic enough to satisfy the needs of all.