The Sun.
London, England, 1867-01-08 00:00:00

American Humour.

Irish drollery has long been proverbial. Rich in
imagination—prone to exaggeration, careless in
expression, and fluent in speech—the Irishman,
with his ready reply and his comical way of putting
things, makes his " bulls" tell with more effect than
other men their truisms. But the irrepressible
Yankee is " taking the wind" even out of his sails,
and fast attaining the highest reputation for a wit
and drollery which has an equal advantage with the
Irish of being original and national, such, indeed,
as no other nation can imitate. ARTEMUS WARD is
an excellent sample of the American style, though
he is too polished and intellectual to convey a real
idea of the general type of Down-East humour.
SAM SLICK is a charming specimen ; though books
cannot fully convey to the mind the effect of the
individual. The American humorist is a man with
a grave, serious face—never more grave and serious
than when exciting shouts of laughter from all around
him. A keen sense of the ludicrous, and a happy
knock of seizing on it, are strongly his characteris-
tics. lle has a fitting way of conveying the pic-
ture in a national phraseology, and then handling
that picture in all its aspects in a dry, droll
manner, which never loses the serious guise under
which it is shrouded. Many American humorists
hit the question at issue by a quaint story, more
powerful than the strongest argument, though
the hearers may not at first perceive the drift till
the point is made. The late President LINCOLN
was an admirable example of this. The speeches of
the American yachtsmen at the banquet at Cowes
were full of fun and "chaff," delivered in that
peculiar American manner which is irresistibly
comic to the English. There are few people who
more enjoy jokes than the English, and though
themselves not given to drollery, they appreciate it
highly in others. ARTEMUS WARD is the greatest
success of the season, and we venture to say that
there was no dinner during Christmas week where
there was more merriment than that to which we
have alluded at Cowes. Nothing could be more
effective than the line taken by these celebrated
yachtsmen. Instead of disturbing digestion by
dreary platitudes, they sent their entertainers home
with sore sides and muscles strained by unwonted
exertion—benefited and refreshed by an unusual
exercise. The American is known to the world
mainly as a trader, and the world is now only be-
ginning truly to learn the national character. De-
mocratic institutions and a keen sharpness in trade,
have generated an erroneous impression. The true
American is a most imaginative being. Poetical,
witty, prone to exaggeration, and with high-flown
sentiments and imagery. He combines all these
with a rare practical aptitude which has deceived
foreigners. The war has exploded a host of errors
held in Europe of the American people, but it is
e thatTllehde
ofhrnaeredtrh
iitsootseiudr
epe
orpoueorestre
itenhoehwapveresetj
aubbdeleiicasebsegdoe,fn
aearnadcl el
ytni
cue
orfyma .ept
r et
truly
ly long
appreciated, hene e, the
to acknowledge that they were wrong is producing
Aahmeerfficeactn; cihtarisacpt
reorbwabilll be probable that, not
and when it is European statesmen will be less
liable to blunder when dealing with A •
merican
questions.—Angle- American 2 inie3.

The Salmon Fisheries Comraission.

The special commissioners concluded their sittings at
Preston on Friday afternoon, for the Ribble, when, at the
appointed hour, judgment was deliverei in the case of the
Clitheroo weir. The Chairman (Mr. Paterson) delivered as
elaborate judgment in this important case. Mr. Garnett, he
said, had been served with a notice, as the owner of a fish-
ing mill-dam on the Ribble, at Low Moor, Clitheroe ; and,
on the one side, it had been contended that such fishing
mill-dam was illegal ; and, on the other, it was contended
that the commissioners had no jurisdiction—that even if
they had, the weir was in all respects in conformity with
ne
ad if this sng
was any of these
the law, and not in contravention of the act 1861, and so
that there was nothing as to which they could make any
order whatever. Considering first the question of jurisdic-
which
tion, ho said they had to inquire into fixed engines, fishing
shit
was defined by the statute to mean " a dam used or in-
twherieres, things, and
fi
tended to be used partly for the Purpose of catching or
fishing
could mill-dams,
onl b
facilitating the catching of fish, and partly for the purpose
of supplying water for milling or other purposee This
dam, according to the evidence, was a solid wall of ma-
sonry, built right across the bed of the Ribble, at a part
where it is not navigable. He thought an agreement dated
1829, which had been produced, showed that there had
been added since that date a row of planks along
of this stone-work, thus adding about
20 inch the top
es to the
height of the dam. At the end of the darn was a sluice
leading to the mill. On the other side was a of the
dam, next the right bank, called a baulk, partwhi Was a
piece
of wood, about 17 feet long and 30 inches wide, which was
moveable on a hinge at one end, so that it could be lifted
up, and when so lifted it made an opening in the dam itself
of a triangular shape. There was no cub cruive or cial apparatus, put behind any part of the dam for arch-
ingcat-
fish. The mill, during most of the four dry months of
the year, absorbed the whole of the water of the river,
so that the natural bed of the river, below the dam,
was loft all but dry. Then when the baulk was suddenly
opened, the flow of water down the natural bed of the
river enticed the fisk up to the dam, and they crowded at
ties.foot of it and if the baulk be suddenly shut again the
fish could be taken either by hand as they lay stranded or by nets in the few pools in which water was left. They
thought that tho fact of there being no box or cruive
close to the dam itself was Immaterial, because, though
a box was the usual feature of a fishing mill-dam, it
was only so because in most cases without it fish
could not be easily
caught, and whore, as in this
case, fish could just as readily be caught. without the
aid of a box or cruivo, this was not the less a fishing
mill-darn, if in pint of fact, the dam had been used to
facilitate the catching of a fish. The commissioners
thought the facts satisfied the definition given by the
statute of a fishing milldam, and that it was imma-
terial whether the owner fished with the aid of the mill
dam occasionally or constantly, nor did they think it
made any difference whether the milling power was so
much more valuable than the fishing power that the latter
was insignificant in proportion. On tho whole-they consi-
dered this a fishery mill-dam, and that therefore they had
jurisdiction. After some remarks on the application of
sec. 23 and 25 of the Salmon Fishery Act to this case,
which the commissioners thought did not take this case
out of their jurisdiction, the chairman said they had to con-
sider next the nature of the issue to be raised before them,
and ho said they considered they had no concern with a
more matter of complaint that might arise between A and
B, but they presumed they bad to deal with only those
cases in which public rights had been infringed by reason
of the violation of some maxim of public policy as declared
by common law, or by express statute. This being their
view, the question was whether there was any ground of
public policy in the common law or the statutes which
prohibited any dams being made which hindered fish front
passing. He said it was unnecessary in this case to con-
sider what was the doctrine of the common law, for there
was a statute applicable to this very run which seemed in
point. He then quoted 1 Geo. 1., stat. 2, c. 18, sec. 14 of
which contained a preamble stating that the several acts for
the preservation of fishing had proved ineffectual in certain
rivers, the Ribble being one, and therefore it was enacted
that any person setting "any bank, dam, hedge, or slouch
net or nets across the said rivers" should forfeit £5 for the
offence, and the justices should demolish the banks or
dams. This remained unrepealed until the passing of the
Salmon Fishery Act of 1861, so that since 1774 to 1861 any
dam in the Ribble and other rivers named, so far as it hin-
dered the fish passing or going up to spawn, was and had
been illegal, and the enactment embodied this principle,
that, as mill dams were not excepted from the operation of

the act, whatever milling rights might have been acquired
since 1714 had been acquired subject to the paramount
right which thepublic had, that the fish should not be taken
or hindered by such dams from passing or going up the
river to spawn. If there were no such enactments restrain-
ing mill-owners, it would be competent for any person to
plant himself at that part where a great river ceases to be
navigable, and to erect so largo a dam as to practically an-
nihilate the whole salmon fisheries of the river. Hence the.
statute makes the salmon pass a paramount right over all
milling rights, and that on the ground of public policy.
Now the question was, whether the mill dam of Messrs
Garnett came within the above prohibition. Their coun-
sel contended that the statute had gone into disuse, and
was therefore inoperative ; that, at all events, this dam
had been used 20, 40, and 60 years, without challenge, and
that the title was now good against all the world ; that the
Prescription Act had now repealed the statute of George
L, and that it was at all events repealed brthe Fishery
Act in 1861; and that even if the Ist Geo. I. could be
looked at, this dam did not, in point of fact, take or hinder
the fish from passing up to spawn. The learned commis-
sioner then combated these severe' points, showing that
the weir was supposed to have been built in 1781, and at
all events that it had not been proved to have existed
before 1714, and that it must have been illegal up to 1861.
They did not think there was any authority for saying
that the statute of 1714 became inoperative, because it was
not enforced. It only showed that no one felt sufficiently
aggrieved to set it in motion, but it did not alter the essen-
tially illegal character of the act prohibited by the statute.
If then, the mill dam was illegal up to 1861, how had it
since become legal ? The act of 1861, though repealing
previous acts, and among them lstGeorge 1., did not make
legal anything that had been previously illegal, and what
they had to try was whether this dam was legal in 1861,
and if it had anything illegal since that date. They saw
nothing in the late Salmon Fishery Acts, which made this
dam legal, or which could warrant them in finding it to
bo now legal, though the remedy had no doubt been now
altered. Then it had been contended that the darn did not
take or hinder fish from passing up the river. The baulk
(before described) was occasionally lifted, so as to make
au aperture through which the fish often did effect a pas-
sage. But this was only used as matter of fairness and
occasionally, and was first put in about 49 years ago, not
because there was any obligation to do so, but because
Mr. Garnett, being a lover of the sport, wished to assist
his neighbours in that respect. This was generous and
neighbourly ; but the question was, whether ho had ever
legally acquired the right to do this. When the baulk
was closed, did it hinder the fish, and had Mr. Garnett
the right to a dam of that character ? They considered it
did, and their order must be that the dam must be al-
tered so as to render it legal. According to the
act of 1865,. their order must be such as would " render
the dam incapable of taking fish ;" and the only way to do
that was to make an opening in the top of tho dam, at the
site of the previous baulk. It was impossible to make an
order which would not in some way injure the milling
power. The owner of the dam had made no suggestion or
they would have endeavoured to give it weight ; but as he
relied on his absolute right, and considering the import-
ance of the case, as affecting his milling interests, would
probably take the opinion of a superior court, they must
come to the best decision they could on the evidence be-
fore them as affecting the practical form of their order.
What they would therefore order was that the planks
on the top of the stonework of the dam, which were shown
to be first used since 1827, should be removed ; and also
that the baulk be removed, and two inches more under the
baulk, during the whole length of such baulk, and that
this opening shall be permanent during the whole year.
Mr. Jordan, Messrs. Garnett's counsel, immediately gave
notice of appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench.