35 



1623 for the protection of the alewife. In 1682 further legisla- 

 tion was enacted, and in 1709 and 1727 an act was passed and 

 amended for the prevention of all obstructions to the passage 

 of fish in rivers, except mill dams. Failure to enforce these acts 

 and the increasing number of dams, resulted in 1741 in an act 

 which provided that a sufficient passageway be made through 

 or around each dam from the first day of April to the last day 

 of May annually, or in certain rivers for a period not exceeding 

 sixty days as designated; that the owners of the dams be re- 

 quired to give a sufficient water flow for the young to pass down; 

 and that the cost of installing fish ways in dams erected before 

 1709 be borne by the towns, and the future maintenance by 

 the owner of the dam. One or more persons were to be ap- 

 pointed at the annual town meeting to see that the passageways 

 were opened according to law, and to regulate the taking of 

 fish. Persons were forbidden to catch alewives in other maimer 

 than prescribed by the town, under a penalty of ten shillings 

 for each offence. 



In 1743 an additional act provided that upon the petition 

 of a dam owner the court should appoint a committee of three 

 disinterested persons to inspect the dam, determine exactly 

 what kind of a fishway was necessary, and what regulations 

 should be enforced concerning it. Their decision when accepted 

 by the court was adjudged the lawful rule for that stream, 

 although aggrieved parties had the right of appeal, and could 

 ask a second inspection by the court. In 1745 the mill owners 

 by means of political pressure, obtained a provision abolishing 

 fishways, provided the fish did not pass up stream in sufficient 

 numbers to be of greater benefit than the damage from loss of 

 water power due to the opening of the dam. The acceptance 

 of a report of a committee appointed by the courts freed the 

 owner of the dam from all obligations to make or keep open 

 any passageway. It was also stipulated that no dam owner 

 should be liable to any penalty for not keeping open a passage- 

 way through his dam in rivers or streams where no salmon, 

 shad or alewives were found. 



Subsequent legislation for the most part has been purely 

 local in character, and extremely voluminous. Even at the 

 present day the alewife streams are carrying the burden of much 



