in framing any new regulations of the close and fishing 

 seasons. And they demonstrate, beyond all question, the 

 necessity of the fishery being forbidden, in rivers at least, 

 until a period greatly later than is at present in observance. 



II. We come now to consider, whether the old Scots 

 acts, under which the use of stake-nets has been held to be 

 prohibited, ought not to be repealed. 



And here it may be remarked, in the outset, that there 

 seems to be no reason for holding, what the heritors on the 

 fresh waters have sometimes maintained, that their private 

 rights would be invaded, if stake-net fishings were per- 

 mitted. This is an argument against the use of stake- 

 nets, which any one who considers the subject dispas- 

 sionately, must perceive to be totally without foundation. 

 The statutes by which stake-nets are held to be prohibit- 

 ed, are public statutes ; having no other object in view but 

 the public advantage, and liable to be repealed the mo- 

 ment it shall appear that they do not promote the inte- 

 rests of the public. This, indeed, is the only legitimate 

 ground on which the Legislature could ever have taken 

 the fishery under its controul. It would have been in 

 opposition to the interests of the state, as well as to com- 

 mon justice, to prohibit the most successful mode of fish- 

 ing at the stations belonging to one heritor, had no bet- 

 ter end been in view than the private advantage of ano- 

 ther heritor, who might not happen to possess the same 

 local advantages. Such an act would have been absurd 

 and iniquitous. No man would venture, in these times, 

 to advocate such a policy; nor can it ever have been, in 

 any age, the policy of the Legislature. That the exist- 

 ing statutes, accordingly, were viewed by the Supreme 

 Court, as exclusively directed to public objects, every one 



