FUTURE SALMON LEGISLATION. 203 



waters to poison or kill fish," unless he can prove that 

 he has " used the best practicable means, within a rea- 

 sonable cost," to render the matter harmless. The clause 

 in the Scotch Act is almost precisely the same, but spe- 

 cifies saw-dust among noxious and prohibited matters. 

 There is no doubt that much harm is prevented by these 

 clauses on some salmon rivers ; but, besides that they 

 do not apply to rivers not containing salmon, it will be 

 noted that even in salmon rivers they do not apply to 

 any kind of pollution or nuisance which is not absolutely 

 poisonous to fish. So far as the clauses in the Fishery 

 Acts extend, a river may give out offensive stenches 

 through aU its course, and yet escape the law, for it is 

 found that ordinary town sewage, though most ofiensive 

 to men, is not fatal to fish. " It has been clearly shown," 

 said the EngHsh Commissioners of Inquiry, " that a very 

 considerable amount of pollution may exist at certain 

 points in a river without destroying the salmon or pre- 

 venting them from passing up to spawn, provided the 

 upper waters are favourable for that purpose, and that 

 no artificial obstructions bar their way," In this way, 

 the fisheries might be preserved, and yet the public 

 nuisance remain. It is true that in various Acts, both 

 English and Scotch, there are enactments against the 

 poisoning of rivers in other respects : for instance, the 

 Scotch Eemoval of Nuisances Act (1856) imposes a 

 penalty of £50 on "any person engaged in the manu- 

 facture of gas, naphtha, vitriol, or dye-stuffs, or in any 

 trade in which the refuse produced in any such manu- 

 facture is used, who shall at any time cause or suffer to 

 be brought or to flow into any streams, etc., any washing 



