74 



Appendices to Eighteenth Annual Report 



APPENDIX III. 



ON THE EXISTENCE, IN SCOTLAND, OF A CRUIVE WITH 

 A " MID-STREAM " SLAP. 



By W. L. Calderwood, 

 Inspector of Salmon Fisheries for Scotland. 



In Note III. appended to the Annual Report for last year I referred 

 to the cruive fishings of Scotland, showing that only six cruives are at 

 present in use, although several other cruive dykes still exist. I delayed 

 referring in detail to the first cruive mentioned in the list of six — that 

 at Inverawe. The structure is of special interest, because, so far as I am 

 aware, it is the only cruive in Scotland which seems to conform to the 

 old requirements for a 1 ' mid -stream," the dykes being so constructed as 

 to leave a gap of ample dimensions through which the main current of 

 the river descends. On this account it may probably be said with 

 accuracy that the Inverawe cruive is the least harmful structure of its 

 kind. 



In the Report already referred to, as in that by Mr. Archer and 

 Messrs. Carmichael and Miller, W.S., in the 13th AnnualReport,PartII., 

 Note III., p. 67, it was pointed out that the absence of " mid-streams" 

 in Scotland was accounted for, not by any statutory enactment repealing 

 the provisions of the early Acts which required the existence of "mid- 

 streams," but because in cases brought up before the Law Courts it had 

 gradually become the custom to regard the Acts referring to " mid- 

 streams" and their maintenance as having fallen into disu etude. Without 

 again referring to the early Acts and their provisions (vide 13th Annual 

 Report) I would state briefly that the opinion that the " mid-stream " 

 has fallen into disuetude seems to have arisen because witnesses were 

 unable to prove that any cruive with a "mid-stream" existed in Scotland. 

 There seems an entire absence of argument based upon statutory law. 

 Moreover, although the Salmon Fishery Acts of 1862 and 1868 make no 

 reference to the necessity of keeping open the " mid-stream," any more 

 than the Act of James VI., it seems doubtful if the powers conferred 

 upon the Commissioners who framed those Acts made it possible for 

 them to do more than regulate as to "the construction and use of 

 cruives." In addition to this it is necessary to remember that by the 

 9th sec. of the 1868 Act, sub-sec. 4, power was given to the Secretary for 

 Scotland, on petition by a District Fishery Board " to alter the regula- 

 tions with respect to the construction and use of cruives and cruive 

 dykes or weirs .... provided such alterations do not injure the 

 supply of water to any person entitled to use any existing cruive dyke 

 as a dam dyke." The important difference between the above 

 quotations is that only cruives are mentioned in the first case, whereas 

 cruive dykes or weirs are mentioned in the second. The application 

 of the provision for a " mid-stream " slap effects the construction of the 

 dyke, not of the cruive proper. In this way the point whether or not 

 the absence of the " mid-stream " slap in cruive dykes is an error, 



