Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1881-07-16
ADDRESS OF THE FISH COMMISSION
OF MISSOURI.
ST. JOSEPH, Mo-, June 27, 1SS

ST. JOSEPH, Mo-, June 81, 1881.
10 the People OF Missouri:
All Legislative power in Missouri is,
by the constitution lodged in the gener-
al Assembly ot the state. That the leg
islature has the power TO pass all laws
that it may regard best calculated to
promote the welfare OF the people of the
state, and protect them in all OF their
rights and interests, subject only to the
prohibitions OF the constitution, no one
will question. 1t is equally clear, that
when laws are constitutionally enacted,
it Is the duty OF every citizen TO obey
them. No cit Zen has the right To dis
regard Il law oil the state on account oi
its real or supposed conflict with his
wishes OF interests. And whoever dis
regards the law by his acts, aud sets up
his own will against lis enforcement,
ought to be taught, by those whose du-
ty 1t is to enforce it, that obedience will
be required OF every citizen. at what
ever cost or trouble may be necessary.
The Organizati Il and successful ad-
ministratiun OF every government neces-
sarily implies and absolutely demand
the surrender, Oh tie part OF every par
tlcipant OF the protection OF the govern
ment, many natural rights. As a COM
pensation tor the surrender thus made
every citizen is entitled TO protection In
every right guaranteed To him under
and by virtue OF the consultation and
laws OF his country. Our laws are not
made tor the benefit oil Individuals or
classes, but for the good of ali; hence it
follows that whenever an individual
violates the law, and thereby acquires
an individual advantage or profit, it is
at the expense and injury OF the public.
Let US illustrate by an example. A
Water-course has Its source in Iowa. 1t
flows into Missouri, and passes through
a rich agricultural district Tor one hun-
dred and nity miles, and empIies into
the Missouri river. This stream oil wa
ter is the common property of all, and
especially of those VINO reside near to it.
There are thousand families living
near its. margin in Missouri. Nature
supplied il with chol>e fish, enough to
satisfy the wants of all residing near to
it, from its mouth to its source. But
one citizen living on its bank, ten miles
from the Missouri river, for personal
profit, builds Il dam fifteen feet high,
| across the stream, for the purpose OF
getting sufficient head OF water Tor
milling and manufacturing purposes.
What is the etfectP Simply this: No
fish ever pass above this dam again,
and all that pass down the stream, over
1t, do so never to return. Thus hun
dreds and thousands OF persons are de-
prlved OF a natural right,a great luxury,
and necessary and important article
Of food. simply to crafty the greed or
avarice or selishness Of Il single persolh
And this Is all done too in violation oil
law, as no one has the right to erect o.
MAINTAIN any dam across any stream ol
water in the state, without preparing a
pass-way for fish over 1t. as we now
propose to show most conclusively.
The act approved March llth, 1881
as follows: -....
"SECTIoN L. Every person who shall
erect or maintain, or cause to be erect
ed or maintained, in or across any ol
the waters OF this state (unless said wa
ters BIZ wholly upon his own prem.ses)
any dam or other obstruction, no mat.
ter for wat purpose, and shall not
place and maintain thereon an apron OF
chute, not less than fifteen lee. wide
1
shall be at least six inches lower thar
either edge, and having an inclination
OF not more than forty five degrees
water impeded in its natura
flow by the dam or other
obstruction, shall pass over the same, ,oI
who shall not so construct or arrange
such dam or other obstruction that il
shall be lowest at the point where the
apron or chute shall be placed, and low
enough for the Tree passage OF fish over
the same each way, whenever the
stream in which the same shall be situ
ated shall be swollen beyond its ordina.
ry size, shall be guilty OF a mlsdemea-
nor, and shall be held guilty oi dis
tinct offence each day he shall be in de-
fault, as aforesaid and every dam OF
| other obstruction erected or maintained
| in violation OF this act, shall be a public
| nuisance, and may be abated as such :"
1t will be seen that this act declares
| that "every person who shall erect Or
maintain, &C., any dam, no matter for
what purpose, and shall not place and
maintain thereon an apron or chute, &c,
shall be guilty Of Il misdemeanor, and
shall be held to be guilty OF distinct
otfense each day he shall be i'll default,
as aforesaid" Now, every owner and
maintainer OF any such dam Is liable to
be indicted and fined and imprisoned
ior each and every day that he has al
lowed such dam to remain across any
stream OF water in this state. Not only
SO the law further declares: "Aud eve
ry dam or other obstruction erected or
maintained in violence oil this act, shall
be public nuisance, and may be aba
ted rs such.'' So it will be seen that al
who violate the law subject themselves
not only to au Indictment Tor every day
OF the year. but the dan! may be :,bated
that is, torn down and destroyed.
This law has not been enforced up to
the present time i'll Missouri, and it
seems that no Intention on the part of
owners OF dams to comply with its pro
visions, has been manifested. Why is
this? We are at Il loss Tor an answer
TO the question. To be sure, we have
heard it said that lawyers had been con-
suited as to the constitutionalIty OF the
law, and had expressed the opinion that
1t was unconstitutional. Whether such
an opinion has been given or not we do
not know, as we have never heard any
lawyers express i doubt as to the con-
stitutlonality OF the law, alter an exam
InatlOn OF the question. Such laws rs
the one under consideration have re-
cclved the approval OF the courts of
many OF the states, rs well is that OF
the supreme courts OF the United States
The supreme court OF Massachusetts
has passed directly upon the question
several times, and universally upheld
the law, and enforced obedience to 1t.
In the casa OF the Commonwealth vs.
Essex Company (l5th Gray, 24S) The
court says: the manner IN which
the public right to tree passage OF fish
up the rivers and streams has been es-
tablished and regulated by the early
colonial and provincial laws, as we'll as
by the laws OF the Commonwealth. is
well establlshed.-5 Pick, 1879: 9 Pick,
81. In this last case, alter citing the
case of Stoughton VS.. Baker, Mass,
and various other cases, Parker, c. J.,
sums up the result thus: In the first
cited. it was decided that the colonial,
provincial and constitutional legislatures
having exercised the right, tor the pub
lie good, OF regulating the fisheries in
the several towns. the owners ui several
fisheries and dams across rivers held
their property subject to such reguIa
tions as the legislature should from
time to time tor Il,. DrpG.t,r.fi, ,t