The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-20 00:00:00

THE SALMON FISHERIES.

It was stated in the newspapers a few days ago
that the proprietors of fixed engines for the cap-
ture of Salmon on the Scotch side of the Solway
Firth had received summonses to attend the in-
quiry held at Carlisle by the Special Salmon
Fisheries Commission, and support their claims ;
but that, subsequently, intimation had been sent
to the proprietors that their presence would not
be required at Carlisle. In the course of the in-
quiry held in that city during the past week the
question of the jurisdiction of the English Fishery
Commissioners over the stake nets in the Solway on
Scottish territory was raised, and on Thursday the
Chief Commissioner (Mr. Paterson) gave judgment
upon the point; which is one of considerable im-
portance as affecting a vast quantity of fixed
engines. He said :—" The present state of the
law seems to be this. The rivers on both sides
of the Solway and the Solway itself were up to
1861 regulated by the Solway Fisheries Act which
passed in 1801. In 1861 the English Salmon
Fisheries Act repealed the Solway Act as, to the
English side and so far as respects salmon; and
the effect of that was to put the English side of
the Solway on the same footing as the rest of Eng-
land. Then the Scotch Salmon Fisheries Act of 1832,
section 33, without repealing the Solway Act in
other respects, applied the English Act to the Scotch
side, so far as its provisions relate to the use of fixed
engines. Now, that is to be read as relating only
to the future use of such fixed engines as may have
been legal before that date, as well as the future use
of fixed engines to be set up for the first time after
that date. But there was nothing in the Scotch Act
of 1862 to the effect that English law would in any
manner determine the legality of the fixed engines
previously in use on the Scotch side, or that the
Scotch law on that subject was abrogated or re-
pealed. Then came the English Act of 1865, which
gave the commissioners jurisdiction to inquire into
the legality of all fixed engines throughout the
limits of the previous English Act of 1861—that is
to say, throughout England. No jurisdiction was
expressly given to inquire into the legality of any
engine situated in Scotland, and the appeal was only
to the English Courts of Westminster. It is true
that the English Act of 1866 contained also an
enactment (section 63) that the river Esk with its
tributaries shall be deemed to be within the limits
of the English Acts of 1861 and 1865. Now, the
Esk is only a Scotch river near its source, after
which it becomes entirely English, and it does not
again become Scotch except for about five miles on
one side—namely, from where it passes the Sark till
it joins the Eden. But the above enactment (the
63d section) of the English Act of 1865 only im-
ports the English law into the Scotch parts of the
Esk so far as relates to such offences as may be
committed with respect to salmon, to trout, and
such matters. It does not import into Scotland
either the English.law relating to the legality of the
fixed engines, or the jurisdiction of the English
commissioners, who were to decide that legality.
And this construction of the Acts is confirmed by
the important circumstance that there is no provi-
sion for any appeal from the commissioners' decision
to,any court except an English court. Now, if power
had been given to the English commissioners to try
the legality of engines situated in Scotland, it is
obvious that they must necessarily have applied
Scotch law only to that question. But in that case
also an appeal would naturally have been made to
Court of Session in Scotland, and not to the English
courts at Westmiuster,whereas there is no such pro-
vision. For these reasons we have no doubt that
the late statutes have not conferred upon us the
power to decide the legality of any fixed engines for
catching salmon, which are situated in Scotland. As
this state of things, however, may lead to most ano-
malous results, and create a just grievance. on the
English side of the Solway, all we can do is
IT re-
port the the circumstance with our opinion. to the o
Secretary, who may for greater ce.rtiaoinntoyfptrohbealballyy
consider it proper to take the opinion
Co:,lffio icuenrisisos if o
coops
aexdeep‘Nt'atrhyre. iek- hall
theners Crown
noolnv tcloiencwluhdoelde
theirsub subject."
inquiryt .
at
Carlisle, but they have reserved till next mouth
tthheeirridveecriEsiodnens uaptoucoarllbtyheccases
and
which they have pronounced legal, ordering, how-
ever, some slight alterations to be made in them to
facilato the passage of salmon.