25 
out of the funds to be raised by licence dues ;—-a plan 
which I have reason to believe would meet with the sup- 
port of the Tweed Commissioners. 
The last class of expenses should, I think, fall on the 
officials who in Scotland are now and have always been 
entrusted with the administration of the criminal law. 
Looking to the severity of the punishment for offences 
authorised by the Salmon Acts, consisting of fines reaching 
up to £20, and of various terms of imprisonment up to six 
months, it seems to me unconstitutional, inexpedient, and 
anomalous, to give to Boards the power, and still more to 
impose on them the duty, of acting as prosecutors. In 
cases of an analogous nature, such as night poaching, 
killing game in close time, fishing for oysters, lobsters, and 
mussels in close time, the prosecutions are, and can only 
be, at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal,—an official 
who is subject to control, and even to dismissal, for any 
impropriety or mismanagement. The expenses of such 
prosecutions are audited by the county magistrates, and, 
if found correct, paid out of the county funds. Why 
should the same rule not be followed in regard to 
offences under the Salmon Acts ? 
What is the practice in England in regard to the prose- 
cution of offenders under the Fishery Acts, I do not know. 
In Ireland, offences against the fishery laws are taken 
notice of by the county constabulary, and prosecutions are 
conducted by them, as well as by Fishery Conservators. 
I have now related, I fear at too great a length, what 
we have been doing or trying to do in Scotland to 
bring about some amendment in our salmon fishery laws. 
During last year, a Fishery Act was passed for Scotland, 
abolishing the old, and creating a new fishery board, 
which has been so far a step in the right direction, that 
