106 



Appendices to Second Annual Report 



but from its height above the pool below it, it does not afford 

 a free passage to ascending fish. And, if it be the case that 

 the Tongueland Doachs are really cruives — which in my humble 

 opinion they are, — there cannot be the slightest doubt that they are 

 worked quite contrary to the provisions of the bye-law (Schedule F) 

 which regulates ' the construction and use of cruives,' especially 

 violating the first section of the said bye-law, which provides that, 

 ' The upper surface of the sill of each cruive shall be not higher than 

 ' 12 inches above the natural bed of the river where the cruive is 

 ' placed, and in the event of the sill being placed any higher than 

 ' the natural bed of the river, there must be a paved floor or apron to 

 ' it down stream at least as wide as the cruive, having its lower end 

 ' not higher than the natural level of the river, and having a slope 

 ' not steeper than 1 in 6 ; and otherwise the cruives shall be so con- 

 ' structed as to afford a ready and easy passage for the fish during the 

 ' annual and weekly close times.' With reference to the above, I 

 may mention that at the time I inspected the ' Big Doach ' and the 

 deep pool called the ' Black Pot' below it, the sill or bottom of the 

 Doach was at least 4 feet 6 inches above the level of the pool, 

 and there was no paved floor or apron of any kind as prescribed 

 in the bye-law. I may further mention that Mr Stewart, in 

 his well-known Treatise on the law of Scotland relating to Eights 

 of Fishing, states that fishing by means of Doachs is subject to the 

 provisions of the above-quoted bye-law. 'A method of fishing, 

 he says, ' not exactly the same as, but similar to, cruive fishing, was 

 ' subjected by the Court to the regulations which affect cruives.' The 

 case he alludes to is that of Peter Johnston and others, trustees of 

 James Murray, Esq. of Broughton, against the Messrs Stott of 

 Kelton and their commissioners, decided in the House of Lords 

 18th February 1802. In this case, an action was originally raised 

 by the Messrs Stott, who were the proprietors of lands and salmon 

 fishings about a couple of miles above the Doachs, to have it found 

 and declared that these Doachs were really cruives, and must be 

 constructed and worked subject to the rules and restrictions regu- 

 lating that mode of fishing. It was found proved that the fishings 

 at Tongueland had been carried on as far back at least as the 

 middle of the seventeenth century by means of Doachs, as shown 

 by an old valuation of 1642 and other documents. The Lord 

 Ordinary found that - cruives or doachs must be regulated in terms 

 ' of the laws regarding cruive fishings, and that the blind eyes and 

 ' other artificial obstructions or barricades to intercept the run 

 £ of the fish in the river, within the bounds of the defenders' 

 ' fishings, must be removed as illegal.' On reclaiming, the 

 Court adhered, and found that the barricades termed ' blind 

 ' eyes' must be removed from the spaces between the rocks, 

 and the said spaces filled up with proper materials, formed and 

 constructed like other cruive dykes. These 'blind eyes' were 

 more effectual to intercept fish than a cruive dyke, because they 

 admitted a passage to the water downwards, without allowing the 

 salmon to proceed upwards ; whereas, during a flood, when water 

 was coming over the cruive dyke, the fish were able to ascend. 

 The case was then appealed to the House of Lords, who ultimately 



