The Agriculture of America has seemed to me to demand some light upon the subject of Drainage; some work, which, with an exposition of the various theories, should give the simplest details of the practice, of draining land. This treatise is an attempt to answer that demand, and to give to the farmers of our country, at the same time, enough of scientific principles to satisfy intelligent inquiry, and plain and full directions for executing work in the field, according to the best known rules. It has been my endeavor to show what lands in America require drainage, and how to drain them best, at least expense; to explain how the theories and the practice of the Old World require modification for the cheaper lands, the dearer labor, and the various climate of the New; and, finally, to suggest how, through improved implements and processes, the inventive genius of our country may make the brain assist and relieve the labor of the hand.

With some hope that my humble labors, in a field so broad, may not have entirely failed of their object, this work is offered to the attention of American farmers.

H. F. F.

The Pines, Exeter, N. H., March, 1859.

A Book upon Farm Drainage! What can a person find on such a subject to write a book about? A friend suggests, that in order to treat any one subject fully, it is necessary to know everything and speak of everything, because all knowledge is in some measure connected.

With an earnest endeavor to clip the wings of imagination, and to keep not only on the earth, but to burrow, like a mole or a sub-soiler, in it, with a painful apprehension lest some technical term in Chemistry or Philosophy should falsely indicate that we make pretensions to the character of a scientific farmer, or some old phrase of law-Latin should betray that we know something besides agriculture, and so, are not worthy of the confidence of practical men, we have, nevertheless, by some means, got together more than a bookfull of matter upon our subject.[14]

Our publisher says our book must be so large, and no larger—and we all know that an author is but as a grasshopper in the hands of his publisher, and ought to be very thankful to be allowed to publish his book at all. So we have only to say, that if there is any chapter in this book not sufficiently elaborate, or any subject akin to that of drainage, that ought to have been embraced in our plan and is not, it is because we have not space for further expansion. The reader has our heartfelt sympathy, if it should happen that the very topic which most interests him, is entirely omitted, or imperfectly treated; and we can only advise him to write a book himself, by way of showing proper resentment, and put into it everything that everybody desires most to know.

A book that shall contain all that we do not know on the subject of drainage, would be a valuable acquisition to agricultural literature, and we bespeak an early copy of it when published.

Irrigation is a subject closely connected with drainage, and, although it would require a volume of equal size with this to lay it properly before the American public, who know so little of water-meadows and liquid-manuring, and even of the artificial application of water to land in any way, we feel called upon for an apology for its omission.

Lieutenant Maury, whose name does honor to his nation over all the civilized world, and on whom the blessings of every navigator upon the great waters, are constantly showered, in a letter which we had the honor recently to receive from him, thus speaks of this subject:

"I was writing to a friend some months ago upon the subject of drainage in this country, and I am pleased to infer from your letter, that our opinions are somewhat similar. The climate of England is much more moist than this, though the amount of rain in many parts of this country, is much greater than the amount of rain there. It drizzles[15] there more than it does here. Owing to the high dew point in England, but a small portion only—that is, comparatively small—of the rain that falls can be evaporated again; consequently, it remains in the soil until it is drained off. Here, on the other hand, the clouds pour it down, and the sun sucks it up right away, so that the perfection of drainage for this country would be the very reverse, almost, of the drainage in England. If, instead of leading the water off into the water-veins and streams of the country, as is there done, we could collect it in pools on the farm, so as to be used in time of drought for irrigation, then your system of drainage would be worth untold wealth. Of course, in low grounds, and all places where the atmosphere does not afford sufficient drainage by evaporation, the English plan will do very well, and much good may be done by a treatise which shall enable owners to reclaim or improve such places."

Indeed, the importance of this subject of drainage, seems all at once to have found universal acknowledgement throughout our country, not only from agriculturists, but from philosophers and men of general science.

Emerson, whose eagle glance, piercing beyond the sight of other men, recognizes in so-called accidental heroes the "Representative men" of the ages, and in what to others seem but caprices and conventionalisms, the "Traits" of a nation, yet never overlooks the practical and every-day wants of man, in a recent address at Concord, Mass., the place of his residence, thus characteristically alludes to our subject:

"Concord is one of the oldest towns in the country—far on now in its third century. The Select-men have once in five years perambulated its bounds, and yet, in this year, a very large quantity of land has been discovered and added to the agricultural land, and without a murmur of complaint from any neighbor. By drainage,[16] we have gone to the subsoil, and we have a Concord under Concord, a Middlesex under Middlesex, and a basement-story of Massachusetts more valuable than all the superstructure. Tiles are political economists. They are so many Young-Americans announcing a better era, and a day of fat things."

John H. Klippart, Esq., the learned Secretary of the Ohio Board of Agriculture, expresses his opinion upon the importance of our subject in his own State, in this emphatic language:

"The agriculture of Ohio can make no farther marked progress until a good system of under-drainage has been adopted."

A writer in the Country Gentleman, from Ashtabula County, Ohio, says:—"One of two things must be done by us here. Clay predominates in our soil, and we must under-drain our land, or sell and move west."

Professor Mapes, of New York, under date of January 17, 1859, says of under-draining:

"I do not believe that farming can be pursued with full profit without it. It would seem to be no longer a question. The experience of England, in the absence of all other proof, would be sufficient to show that capital may be invested more safely in under-draining, than in any other way; for, after the expenditure of many millions by English farmers in this way, it has been clearly proved that their increased profit, arising from this cause alone, is sufficient to pay the total expense in full, with interest, within twenty years, thus leaving their farms increased permanently to the amount of the total cost, while the income is augmented in a still greater ratio. It is quite doubtful whether England could at this time sustain her increased population, if it were not for her system of thorough-drainage. In my own practice, the result has been such as to convince me of its advantages, and I[17] should be unwilling to enter into any new cultivation without thorough drainage."

B. P. Johnson, Secretary of the New York Board of Agriculture, in answer to some inquiries upon the subject of drainage with tiles, writes us, under date of December, 1858, as follows:

"I have given much time and attention to the subject of drainage, having deemed it all-important to the improvement of the farms of our State. I am well satisfied, from a careful examination in England, as well as from my observation in this country, that tiles are far preferable to any other material that I know of for drains, and this is the opinion of all those who have engaged extensively in the work in this State, so far as I have information. It is gratifying to be assured, that during the year past, there has been probably more land-draining than during any previous year, showing the deep interest which is taken in this all-important work, so indispensable to the success of the farmer."

It is ascertained, by inquiry at the Land Office, that more than 52,000,000 acres of swamp and overflowed lands have been selected under the Acts of March 2d, 1849, and September 28th, 1850, from the dates of those grants to September, 1856; and it is estimated that, when the grants shall have been entirely adjusted, they will amount to 60,000,000 acres.

Grants of these lands have been made by Congress, from the public domain, gratuitously, to the States in which they lie, upon the idea that they were not only worthless to the Government, but dangerous to the health of the neighboring inhabitants, with the hope that the State governments might take measures to reclaim them for cultivation, or, at least, render them harmless, by the removal of their surplus water.

Governor Wright, of Indiana, in a public address,[18] estimated the marshy lands of that State at 3,000,000 acres. "These lands," he says, "were generally avoided by early settlers, as being comparatively worthless; but, when drained, they become eminently fertile." He further says: "I know a farm of 160 acres, which was sold five years ago for $500, that by an expenditure of less than $200, in draining and ditching, has been so improved, that the owner has refused for it an offer of $3,000."

At the meeting of the United States Agricultural Society, at Washington, in January, 1857, Mr. G. W. P. Custis spoke in connection with the great importance of this subject, of the vast quantity of soil—the richest conceivable—now lying waste, to the extent of 100,000 acres, along the banks of the Lower Potomac, and which he denominates by the old Virginia title of pocoson. The fertility of this reclaimable swamp he reports to be astonishing; and he has corroborated the opinion by experiments which confounded every beholder. "These lands on our time-honored river," he says, "if brought into use, would supply provisions at half the present cost, and would in other respects prove of the greatest advantage."

The drainage of highways and walks, was noted as a topic kindred to our subject, although belonging more properly perhaps, to the drainage of towns and to landscape-gardening, than to farm drainage. This, too, was found to be beyond the scope of our proposed treatise, and has been left to some abler hand.

So, too, the whole subject of reclaiming lands from the sea, and from rivers, by embankment, and the drainage of lakes and ponds, which at a future day must attract great attention in this country, has proved quite too extensive to be treated here. The day will soon come, when on our Atlantic coast, the ocean waves will be stayed, and all along our great rivers, the Spring floods, and the[19] Summer freshets, will be held within artificial barriers, and the enclosed lands be kept dry by engines propelled by steam, or some more efficient or economical agent.

The half million acres of fen-land in Lincolnshire, producing the heaviest wheat crops in England; and Harlaem Lake, in Holland, with its 40,000 acres of fertile land, far below the tides, and once covered with many feet of water, are examples of what science and well-directed labor may accomplish. But this department of drainage demands the skill of scientific engineers, and the employment of combined capital and effort, beyond the means of American farmers; and had we ability to treat it properly, would afford matter rather of pleasing speculation, than of practical utility to agricultural readers.

With a reckless expenditure of paper and ink, we had already prepared chapters upon several topics, which, though not essential to farm-drainage, were as near to our subject as the minister usually is limited in preaching, or the lawyer in argument; but conformity to the Procrustean bed, in whose sheets we had in advance stipulated to sleep, cost us the amputation of a few of our least important heads.

"Don't be too English," suggests a very wise and politic friend. We are fully aware of the prejudice which still exists in many minds in our country, against what is peculiarly English. Because, forsooth, our good Mother England, towards a century ago, like most fond mothers, thought her transatlantic daughter quite too young and inexperienced to set up an establishment and manage it for herself, and drove her into wasteful experiments of wholesale tea-making in Boston harbor, by way of illustrating her capacity of entertaining company from beyond seas; and because, near half a century ago, we had some sharp words, spoken not through the mouths of prophets and sages, but through the mouths of great guns, touching[20] the right of our venerated parent to examine the internal economy of our merchant-ships on the sea—because of reminiscences like these, we are to forswear all that is English! And so we may claim no kindred in literature with Shakspeare and Milton, in jurisprudence, with Bacon and Mansfield, in statesmanship, with Pitt and Fox!

Whence came the spirit of independence, the fearless love of liberty of which we boast, but from our English blood? Whence came our love of territorial extension, our national ambition, exhibited under the affectionate name of annexation? Does not this velvet paw with which we softly play with our neighbors' heads, conceal some long, crooked talons, which tell of the ancestral blood of the British Lion?

The legislature of a New England State, not many years ago, appointed a committee to revise its statutes. This committee had a pious horror of all dead languages, and a patriotic fear of paying too high a compliment to England, and so reported that all proceedings in courts of law should be in the American language! An inquiry by a waggish member, whether the committee intended to allow proceedings to be in any one of the three hundred Indian dialects, restored to the English language its appropriate name.

Though from some of our national traits, we might possibly be supposed to have sprung from the sowing of the dragon's teeth by Cadmus, yet the uniform record of all American families which goes back to the "three brothers who came over from England," contradicts this theory, and connects us by blood and lineage with that country.

Indeed, we can hardly consent to sell our birthright for so poor a mess of pottage as this petty jealousy offers. A teachable spirit in matters of which we are ignorant, is usually as profitable and respectable as abundant self-conceit,[21] and rendering to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, quite as honest as to pocket the coin as our own, notwithstanding the "image and superscription."

We make frequent reference to English writers and to English opinions upon our subject, because drainage is understood and practiced better in England than anywhere else in the world, and because by personal inspection of drainage-works there, and personal acquaintance and correspondence with some of the most successful drainers in that country, we feel some confidence of ability to apply English principles to American soil and climate.

To J. Bailey Denton, Engineer of the General Land Drainage Company, and one of the most distinguished practical and scientific drainers in England, we wish publicly to acknowledge our obligations for personal favors shown us in the preparation of our work.

We claim no great praise of originality in what is here offered to the public. Wherever we have found a person of whom we could learn anything, in this or other countries, we have endeavored to profit by his teachings, and whenever the language of another, in book or journal, has been found to express forcibly an idea which we deemed worthy of adoption, we have given full credit for both thought and words.

Our friends, Messrs. Shedd and Edson, of Boston, whose experience as draining engineers entitles them to a high rank among American authorities, have been in constant communication with us, throughout our labors. The chapter upon Evaporation, Rain fall, &c., which we deem of great value as a contribution to science in general, will be seen to be in part credited to them, as are also the tables showing the discharge of water through pipes of various capacity.

Drainage is a new subject in America, not well understood,[22] and we have no man, it is believed, peculiarly fitted to teach its theory and practice; yet the farmers everywhere are awake to its importance, and are eagerly seeking for information on the subject. Many are already engaged in the endeavor to drain their lands, conscious of their want of the requisite knowledge to effect their object in a profitable manner, while others are going resolutely forward, in violation of all correct principles, wasting their labor, unconscious even of their ignorance.

In New England, we have determined to dry the springy hill sides, and so lengthen our seasons for labor; we have found, too, in the valleys and swamps, the soil which has been washed from our mountains, and intend to avail ourselves of its fertility in the best manner practicable. On the prairies of the great West, large tracts are found just a little too wet for the best crops of corn and wheat, and the inquiry is anxiously made, how can we be rid of this surplus water.

There is no treatise, English or American, which meets the wants of our people. In England, it is true, land drainage is already reduced to a science; but their system has grown up by degrees, the first principles being now too familiar to be at all discussed, and the points now in controversy there, quite beyond the comprehension of beginners. America wants a treatise which shall be elementary, as well as thorough—that shall teach the alphabet, as well as the transcendentalism, of draining land—that shall tell the man who never saw a drain-tile what thorough drainage is, and shall also suggest to those who have studied the subject in English books only, the differences in climate and soil, in the prices of labor and of products, which must modify our operations.

With some practical experience on his own land, with careful observation in Europe and in America of the details of drainage operations, with a somewhat critical[23] examination of published books and papers on all topics connected with the general subject, the author has endeavored to turn the leisure hours of a laborious professional life to some account for the farmer. Although, as the lawyers say, the "presumptions" are, perhaps, strongly against the idea, yet a professional man may understand practical farming. The profession of the law has made some valuable contributions to agricultural literature. Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, author of the "Boke of Husbandrie," published in 1523, was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and, as he says, an "experyenced farmer of more than 40 years." The author of that charming little book, "Talpa," it is said, is also a lawyer, and there is such wisdom in the idea, so well expressed by Emerson as a fact, that we commend it by way of consolation to men of all the learned professions: "All of us keep the farm in reserve, as an asylum where to hide our poverty and our solitude, if we do not succeed in society."

Besides the prejudice against what is foreign, we meet everywhere the prejudice against what is new, though far less in this country than in England. "No longer ago than 1835," says the Quarterly Review, "Sir Robert Peel presented a Farmers' Club, at Tamworth, with two iron plows of the best construction. On his next visit, the old plows, with the wooden mould-boards, were again at work. 'Sir,' said a member of the club, 'we tried the iron, and we be all of one mind, that they make the weeds grow!'"

American farmers have no such ignorant prejudice as this. They err rather by having too much faith in themselves, than by having too little in the idea of progress, and will be more likely to "go ahead" in the wrong direction, than to remain quiet in their old position.

The art of removing superfluous water from land, must be as ancient as the art of cultivation; and from the time when Noah and his family anxiously watched the subsiding of the waters into their appropriate channels, to the present, men must have felt the ill effects of too much water, and adopted means more or less effective, to remove it.

The Roman writers upon agriculture, Cato, Columella, and Pliny, all mention draining, and some of them give minute directions for forming drains with stones, branches of trees, and straw. Palladius, in his De Aquæ Ductibus, mentions earthen-ware tubes, used however for aqueducts, rather for conveying water from place to place, than for draining lands for agriculture.

Nothing, however, like the systematic drainage of the present day, seems to have been conceived of in England, until about 1650, when Captain Walter Bligh published a work, which is interesting, as embodying and boldly[25] advocating the theory of deep-drainage as applied by him to water-meadows and swamps, and as applicable to the drainage of all other moist lands.

We give from the 7th volume of the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, in the language of that eminent advocate of deep-drainage, Josiah Parkes, an account of this rare book, and of the principles which it advocates, as a fitting introduction to the more modern and more perfect system of thorough drainage:

Dr. Shier, editor of "Davy's Agricultural Chemistry," says, "The history of drainage in Britain may be briefly told. Till the time of Smith, of Deanston, draining was generally regarded as the means of freeing the land from springs, oozes, and under-water, and it was applied only to lands palpably wet, and producing rushes and other aquatic plants."

He then proceeds to give the principles of Elkington, Smith, Parkes, and other modern writers, of which we shall speak more at large.[27]

The work published in England, not far from Captain Bligh's time, under the title "A Complete Body of Husbandry," undertakes to give directions for all sorts of farming processes. A Second Edition, in four octavo volumes, of which we have a copy, was published in 1758. It professes to treat of "Draining in General," and then of the draining of boggy land and of fens, but gives no intimation that any other lands require drainage.

Directions are given for filling drains with "rough stones," to be covered with refuse wood, and over that, some of the earth that was thrown out in digging. "By this means," says the writer, "a passage will be left free for all the water the springs yield, and there will be none of these great openings upon the surface."

He thus describes a method practiced in Oxfordshire of draining with bushes:

No mention whatever is made in this elaborate treatise of tiles of any kind, which affords very strong evidence that they were not in use for drainage at that time. In a note, however, to Stephen's "Draining and Irrigation," we find the following statement and opinion:

It appears, that, in 1795, the British Parliament, at the request of the Board of Agriculture, voted to Joseph[28] Elkington a reward of £1000, for his valuable discoveries in the drainage of land. Joseph Elkington was a Warwickshire farmer, and Mr. Gisborne says he was a man of considerable genius, but he had the misfortune to be illiterate. His discovery had created such a sensation in the agricultural world, that it was thought important to record its details; and, as Elkington's health was extremely precarious, the Board resolved to send Mr. John Johnstone to visit, in company with him, his principal works of drainage, and to transmit to posterity the benefits of his knowledge.

Accordingly, Mr. John Johnstone, having carefully studied Elkington's system, under its author, in the peripatetic method, undertook, like Plato, to record the sayings of his master in science, and produced a work, entitled, "An Account of the Most Approved Mode of Draining Land, According to the System Practised by Mr. Joseph Elkington." It was published at Edinburgh, in 1797. Mr. Gisborne says, that Elkington found in Johnstone "a very inefficient exponent of his opinions, and of the principles on which he conducted his works."

Again—

Johnstone's report seems to have undergone several revisions, and to have been enlarged and reproduced in other forms than the original, for we find, that, in 1838, it was published in the United States, at Petersburg, Virginia,[29] as a supplement to the Farmer's Register, by Edmund Ruffin, Esq., editor, a reprint "from the third British Edition, revised and enlarged," under the following title:

Mr. Ruffin certainly deserves great credit for his enterprise in republishing in America, at so early a day, a work of which an English copy could not be purchased for less than six dollars, as well as for his zealous labors ever since in the cause of agriculture.

There is, in this work of Johnstone, a quaintness which he, probably, did not learn from Elkington, and which illustrates the character of his mind as one not peculiarly adapted to a plain and practical history of another man's system and labors. For instance, in speaking of the arrangement of his subject into parts, he says, in a note, "The subject being closely connected with cutting, section is held as a better division than chapter!"

Again, he speaks of embanking, and says he has some experience on that head. Then he adds the following note, lest a possible pun should be lost: "An embankment is often termed a 'head,' as it makes head, or resistance, against the encroachment of high tide or river floods."

There is some danger that a mind which scents a whimsical analogy of meaning like this, may entirely lose the main track of pursuit; but Johnstone's special mission[30] was to ascertain Elkington's method, and his account of it is, therefore, the best authority we have on the subject.

He gives the following statement of Elkington's discovery:

Begging pardon of the shade of John Johnstone for the liberty, we will copy from Mr. Gisborne, as being more clearly expressed, a summary explanation of Elkington's system, as Mr. Gisborne has deduced it from Johnstone's report, with two simple and excellent plans:

Johnstone sums up this system as follows:

Wherever, from any cause, water bursts out from a hill's side, or from below, in a well defined spring, in any considerable quantity, the Elkington method of cutting a[35] deep drain directly into the seat of the evil, and so lowering the water that it may be carried away below the surface, is obviously the true and common-sense remedy. There may be cases where, in addition to the drain, it may be expedient to bore with an auger in the course of the drain. This, however, would be useful only where, from the peculiar formation, water is pent up upon a retentive subsoil in the manner already indicated. Elkington's method of draining by boring is illustrated in the following cut.

In studying the history of Elkington's discovery, and especially of his own application of it, it would seem that he must have possessed some peculiar faculty of ascertaining the subterranean currents of water, not possessed or even claimed by modern engineers.

Indeed, Mr. Denton, who may rightly claim as much skill as a draining engineer, perhaps, as any man in England, expressly says, "It does not appear that any person now will undertake to do what Elkington did sixty years back."

In the Patent Office Report for 1851, at page 14, may be found an article entitled, "Well-digging," in which it is gravely contended, and not without a fair show of evidence, that certain persons possess the power of indicating, by means of a sort of divining rod of hazel or willow, subterraneous currents or springs of water.[36] This power has been called Bletonism, which is defined by Webster to be, "the faculty of perceiving and indicating subterraneous springs and currents by sensation—so called from one Bleton, of France, who possessed this faculty."

Under the authority of Webster, and of Mr. Ewbank, the Commissioner of Patents, in whose report the article in question was published by the Government of the United States, it will not be considered, perhaps, as putting faith in "water-witchery," to suggest that, possibly, Elkington did really possess a faculty, not common to all mankind, of detecting running water or springs, even far below the surface. We have the high authority of Tam o' Shanter for the opinion, that witches cannot cross a stream of water; for, when pursued by the "hellish legion" from Kirk-Alloway, he put his "gude mare Meg" to do her "speedy utmost" for the bridge of Doon, knowing that,

If witches are thus affected by flowing water, there is no reason to doubt that others, of peculiar organization, may possess some sensitiveness at its presence.

It would not, probably, be useful to pursue more into detail the method of Mr. Elkington. The general principles upon which he wrought have been sufficiently explained. The miracles performed under his system seem to have ceased with his life, and, until we receive some new revelation as to the mode of finding the springs hidden in the earth, we must be content with the moderate results of a careful application of ordinary science, and not be discouraged in our attempts to leave the earth the better for our having lived on it, if we do not, like Elkington, succeed in draining, by a single ditch and a few auger holes, sixty statute acres of land.

James Smith, Esq., of Deanston, Sterlingshire, in Scotland, next after Elkington, in point of time, is the prominent leader of drainage operations in Great Britain. His peculiar views came into general notice about 1832, and, in 1844, we find published a seventh edition of his "Remarks on Thorough Draining." Smith was a man of education, and seems to be, in fact, the first advocate of any system worthy the name of thorough drainage.

Instead of the few very deep drains, cut with reference to particular springs or sources of wetness, adopted by Elkington, Smith advocated and practiced a systematic operation over the whole field, at regular distances and shallow depths. Smith states, that in Scotland, much more injury arises from the retention of rain water, than from springs; while Elkington's attention seems to have been especially directed to springs, as the source of the evil.

The characteristic views of Smith, of Deanston, as stated by Mr. Denton, were:

[38]

Mr. Smith somewhat modified his views during the last years of his life, especially as to the depth of drains, and, instead of shallow drains, recommended a depth of three feet, and even more in some cases; but continued, to the time of his death, which occurred about 1854, to oppose any increased intervals between the drains, and the extreme depth of four feet and more advocated by others. The peculiar points insisted on by Smith were, that drains should be near and parallel. His own words are:

Mr. Smith called it the "frequent drain system," and Mr. Denton says, that, "for distinction sake, I have ventured to christen this ready-made practice, the gridiron system," a name, by the way, which will, probably, seem to most readers more distinctive than respectful. Whatever may be the improvements on the Deanston method of draining, the name of Mr. Smith deserves, and, indeed, has already obtained, a high place among the improvers of agriculture.

About the year 1846, when the first Act of the British Parliament authorizing "the advance of public money to promote the improvement of land by works of drainage" was passed, a careful investigation of the whole subject was made by a Committee of the House of Lords, and it was found that the best recorded opinions, if we except the peculiar views of Elkington, were represented by, if not merged into, those of Smith, of Deanston, which have already been stated, or those of Josiah Parkes. Mr. Parkes is the author of "Essays on the Philosophy and[39] Art of Land Drainage," and of many valuable papers on the same subject, published in the journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, of which he was consulting engineer. He is spoken of by Mr. Denton as "one whose philosophical publications on the same subject gave a scientific bearing to it, quite irreconcilable with the more mechanical rules laid down by Mr. Smith."

The characteristic views of Mr. Parkes, as set forth at that time, as compared with those of Mr. Smith, are—

The most material differences between the views of these two leaders of what have been deemed rival systems of drainage, will be seen to be the following. Smith advocates drains of two to three feet in depth, at from ten to twenty-four feet distances; while Parkes contends for a depth of not less than four feet, with a width between of from twenty-one to fifty feet, the depth in some measure compensating for the increased distance.

Mr. Parkes advocated the use of pipes of one inch bore,[40] which Mr. Smith contemptuously denominated "pencil-cases," and which subsequent experience has shown to be quite too small for prudent use.

The estimate of Mr. Parkes, based, in part, upon his wide distances and small pipes, that drainage might be effected generally in England at a cost of about fifteen dollars per acre, was soon found to be far below the average expense, which is now estimated at nearly double that sum.

The Enclosure Commissioners, after the most careful inquiry, adopted fully the views of Mr. Parkes as to the depth of drains. Mr. Parkes himself, saw occasion to modify his ideas, as to the cost of drainage, upon further investigation of the subject, and fixed his estimates as ranging from $15 to $30 per acre, according to soil and other local circumstances.

It has been well said by a recent English writer, of Mr. Parkes:

Lord Berners having adopted a method of drainage on his estate at Keythorpe, differing somewhat from any of the regular and more uniform modes which have been considered, a sharp controversy as to its merits has arisen, and still continues in England, which, like most controversies, may be of more advantage to others than to the parties immediately concerned.

The theory of the Keythorpe system seems to have been invented by Mr. Joshua Trimmer, a distinguished geologist[41] of England, who, about 1854, produced a paper, which was published in the journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, on the "Keythorpe System." He states that his own theory was based entirely on his knowledge of the geological structure of the earth, which will be presently given in his own language, and that he afterwards ascertained that Lord Berners, who had no special theory to vindicate, had, by the "tentative process," or in plain English, by trying experiments, hit upon substantially the same system, and found it to work admirably.

Most people in the United States have no idea of what it is to be patronized by a lord. In England, it is thought by many to be the thing needful to the chance, even, of success of any new theory, and accordingly, Mr. Trimmer, without hesitation, availed himself of the privilege of being patronized by Lord Berners; and the latter, before he was aware of how much the agricultural world was indebted to him for his valuable discoveries, suddenly found himself at the head of the "Keythorpe System of Drainage."

His lordship was probably as much surprised to ascertain that he had been working out a new system, as some man of whom we have heard, was, to learn that he had been speaking prose all his life! At the call of the public, however, his lordship at once gave to the world the facts in his possession, making no claim to any great discovery, and leaving Mr. Trimmer to defend the new system as best he might. The latter, in one of his pamphlets published in defence of the Keythorpe system, states its claims as follows:

It would seem highly probable that the mode of drainage adopted at Keythorpe, is indebted for its success at that place, to a geological formation not often met with. At a public discussion in England, Mr. T. Scott, a gentleman of large experience in draining, stated that "he never, in his practice, had met with such a geological[43] formation as was said to exist at Keythorpe, except in such large areas as to admit of their being drained in the usual gridiron or parallel fashion."

It is claimed for this system by its advocates, that it is far cheaper than any other, because drains are only laid in the places where, by careful examination beforehand, by opening pits, they are found to be necessary; and that is a great saving of expense, when compared with the system of laying the drains at equal distances and depths over the field.

Against what is urged as the Keythorpe system, several allegations are brought.

In the first place, that it is in fact no system. Mr. Denton, having carefully examined the Keythorpe estate, and the published statements of its owner, asserts, that the drains there laid have no uniformity of depth—part of the tiles being laid but eighteen inches deep, and others four feet and more, in the same field.

Secondly, that there is no uniformity as to direction—part of the drains being laid across the fall, and part with the fall, in the same fields—with no obvious reason for the difference of direction.

Thirdly, that there is no uniformity as to materials—a part of the drains being wood, and a part tiles, in the same field.

Finally, it is contended that there is no saving of expense in the Keythorpe draining, over the ordinary mode, when all points are considered, because the pretended saving is made by the use of wood, where true economy would require tiles, and shallow drains are used where deeper ones would in the end be cheaper.

In speaking of this controversy, it is due to Lord Berners to say, that he expressly disclaims any invention or novelty in his operations at Keythorpe.

On the whole, although a work at the present day[44] which should pass over, without consideration, the claims of the Keythorpe system, would be quite incomplete in its history of the subject, yet the facts elicited with regard to it are perhaps chiefly valuable, as tending to show the danger of basing a general principle upon an isolated case.

The discussion of the claims of that system—if such it may be called—may be valuable in America, where novelty is sure to attract, by showing that one more form of error has already been tried and "found wanting;" and so save us the trouble of proving its inutility by experiment.

Lord Wharncliffe, with a view to effect adequate drainage at less expense than is usual in thorough drainage, has adopted upon his estate a sort of compromise system, which he has brought to the notice of the public in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society.

Upon Fontenelle's idea, that "mankind only settle into the right course after passing through and exhausting all the varieties of error," it is well to advise our readers of this particular form of error also—to show that it has already been tried—so that no patent of invention can be claimed upon it by those perverse persons who are not satisfied without constant change, and who seem to imagine that the ten commandments might be improved by a new edition.

Lord Wharncliffe states his principles as follows, and calls his method the combined system of deep and shallow drainage:

There are two reasons why this mode of drainage cannot be adopted in the northern part of the United States.

First: The two-foot drains would be liable to be frozen up solid, every winter.

Secondly: The subsoil plow, now coming into use among our best cultivators, runs to so great a depth as to be likely to entirely destroy two-foot drains at the first operation, even if it were not intended to run the sub-soiler to a greater general depth than eighteen inches. Any one who has had experience in holding a subsoil-plow,[46] must know that it is an implement somewhat unmanageable, and liable to plunge deep into soft spots like the covering over drains; so that no skill or care could render its use safe over two-foot drains.

The history of drainage in America, is soon given. It begins here, as it must begin everywhere, when practiced as a general system, with the introduction of tiles.

In 1835, Mr. John Johnston, of Seneca County, New York, a Scotchman by birth, imported from Scotland patterns of drain-tiles, and caused them to be made by hand-labor, and set the example of their use on his own farm. The effects of Mr. Johnston's operations were so striking, that in 1848, John Delafield, Esq., for a long time President of the Seneca County Agricultural Society, imported from England one of Scragg's Patent Tile machines. From that time, tile-draining in that county, and in the neighboring counties, has been diligently and profitably pursued. Several interesting statements of successful experiments by Mr. Johnston, Mr. Delafield, Mr. Theron G. Yeomans of Wayne County, and others, have been published, from time to time, in the "New York Transactions." Indeed, most of our information of experimental draining in this country, has come from that quarter.

Mr. Johnston, for more than twenty years, has made himself useful to the country, and at the same time gained a wide reputation for himself, by occasional publications on the subject of drainage.

In addition to this, his practical knowledge of agriculture, and especially of the subject of drainage, has gained for him a competence for his declining years. In this we rejoice; and trust that in these, his latter years, he may be made ever to feel, that even they among us of the friends of agriculture who have not known him personally, are not unmindful of their obligations to him as the leader of a most beneficent enterprise.[47]

Tile-works have since been established at various places in New York, at several places in Massachusetts, Ohio, Michigan, and many other States. The first drain-tiles used in New-Hampshire, were brought from Albany, in 1854, by Mr. William Conner, and used on his farm in Exeter, that year; and the following year, the writer brought some from Albany, and laid them on his farm, in the same town.

In 1857, tile-works were put in operation at Exeter; and some 40,000 tiles were made that year.

The horse-shoe tiles, we understand, have been generally used in New York. At Albany, and in Massachusetts, the sole-tile has been of late years preferred. We cannot learn that cylindrical pipes have ever been manufactured in this country until the Summer of 1858 when the engineers of the New York Central Park procured them to be made, and laid them, with collars, in their drainage-works there. This is believed to be the first practical introduction into this country of round pipes and collars, which are regarded in England as the most perfect means of drainage.

Experiments all over the country, in reclaiming bog-meadows, and in draining wet lands with drains of stone and wood, have been attempted, with various success.

Those attempts we regard as merely efforts in the right direction, and rather as evidence of a general conviction of the want, by the American farmer, of a cheap and efficient mode of drainage, than as an introduction of a system of thorough drainage; for—as we think will appear in the course of this work—no system of drainage can be made sufficiently cheap and efficient for general adoption, with other materials than drain-tiles.

Although we usually regard drainage as a means of rendering land sufficiently dry for cultivation, that is by no means a comprehensive view of the objects of the operation.

Rain is the principal source of moisture, and a surplus of moisture is the evil against which we contend in draining. But rain is also a principal source of fertility, not only because it affords the necessary moisture to dissolve the elements of fertility already in the soil, but also because it contains in itself, or brings with it from the atmosphere, valuable fertilizing substances. In a learned article by Mr. Caird, in the Cyclopedia of Agriculture, on the Rotation of Crops, he says:

[49]

About 42 inches of rain may be taken as a fair general average of the rain-fall in the United States. If this supplies as much ammonia to the soil as 3 cwt. of Peruvian guano to the acre, which is considered a liberal manuring, and which is valuable principally for its ammonia, we at once see the importance of retaining the rain-water long enough upon our fields, at least, to rob it of its treasures. But rain-water has a farther value than has yet been suggested:

We see, then, that the rains of heaven bring us not only water, but food for our plants, and that, while we would remove by proper drainage the surplus moisture, we should take care to first conduct it through the soil far enough to fulfill its mission of fertility. We cannot suppose that all rain-water brings to our fields precisely the same proportion of the elements of fertility, because the foreign properties with which it is charged, must continually vary with the condition of the atmosphere through which it falls, whether it be the thick and murky cloud which overhangs the coal-burning city, or the transparent ether of the mountain tops. We may see, too, by the tables, that the quantity of rain that falls, varies much, not only with the varying seasons of the year, and with the different seasons of different years, but with the distance[50] from the equator, the diversity of mountain and river, and lake and wood, and especially with locality as to the ocean. Yet the average results of nature's operations through a series of years, are startlingly constant and uniform, and we may deduce from tables of rain-falls, as from bills of mortality and tables of longevity, conclusions almost as reliable as from mathematical premises.

The quantity of rain is generally increased by the locality of mountain ranges. "Thus, at the Edinburgh Water Company's works, on the Pentland Hills, there fell in 1849, nearly twice as much rain as at Edinburgh, although the distance between the two places is only seven miles."

Although a much greater quantity of rain falls in mountainous districts (within certain limits of elevation) than in the plains, yet a greater quantity of rain falls at the surface of the ground than at an elevation of a few hundred feet. Thus, from experiments which were carefully made at York, it was ascertained that there fell eight and a half inches more rain at the surface of the ground, in the course of twelve months, than at the top of the Minster, which is 212 feet high. Similar results have been obtained in many other places.

Some observations upon this point may also be found in the Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1855, at p. 210, given by Professor C. W. Morris, of New York.

Again, the evaporation from the surface of water being much greater than from the land, clouds that are wafted by the winds from the sea to the land, condense their vapor upon the colder hills and mountain sides, and yield rain, so that high lands near the sea or other large bodies of water, from which the winds generally blow, have a greater proportion of rainy days and a greater fall of rain than lands more remote from water. The annual rain-fall in the lake districts in Cumberland County, in England, sometimes amounts to more than 150 inches.[51]

With a desire to contribute as much as possible to the stock of accurate knowledge on this subject, we availed ourselves of the kindly offered services of our friends, Shedd and Edson, in preparing a carefully considered article upon a part of our general subject, which has much engaged their attention. Neither the article itself, nor the observations of Dr. Hobbs, which form a part of its basis, has ever before been published, and we believe our pages cannot be better occupied than by giving them in the language of our friends:

"All vegetables, in the various stages of growth, require warmth, air, and moisture, to support life and health.

Below the surface of the ground there is a body of stagnant water, sometimes at a great depth, but in retentive soils usually within a foot or two of the surface. This stagnant water not only excludes the air, but renders the soil much colder, and, being in itself of no benefit, without warmth and air, its removal to a greater depth is very desirable.

A knowledge of the depth to which this water-table should be removed, and of the means of removing it, constitutes the science of draining, and in its discussion, a knowledge of the rain-fall, humidity of the atmosphere, and amount of evaporation, is very important.

The amount of rain-fall, as shown by the hyetal, or rain-chart, of North America, by Lorin Blodget, is thirty inches vertical depth in the basin of the great lakes; thirty-two inches on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain; thirty-six inches in the valley of the Hudson, on the head waters of the Ohio, through the middle portions of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and western portion of North Carolina; forty inches in the extreme eastern and the northern portion of Maine, northern portions of New Hampshire and Vermont, south-eastern counties of Massachusetts,[52] Central New York, north-east portion of Pennsylvania, south-east portion of New Jersey and Delaware; also, on a narrow belt running down from the western portion of Maryland, through Virginia and North Carolina, to the north-western portion of South Carolina; thence, up through the western portion of Virginia, north-east portion of Ohio, Northern Indiana and Illinois, to Prairie du Chien; forty-two inches on the east coast of Maine, Eastern Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and middle portion of Maryland; thence, on a narrow belt to South Carolina; thence, up through Eastern Tennessee, through Central Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, to Iowa; thence, down through Western Missouri and Texas to the Gulf of Mexico; forty-five inches from Concord, New Hampshire, through Worcester, Mass., Western Connecticut, and the City of New York, to the Susquehanna River, just north of Maryland; also, at Richmond, Va., Raleigh, N. C., Augusta, Geo., Knoxville, Tenn., Indianopolis, Ind., Springfield, Ill., St. Louis, Mo.; thence, through Western Arkansas, across Red River to the Gulf of Mexico. From the belt just described, the rain-fall increases inland and southward, until at Mobile, Ala., the rain-fall is sixty-three inches. The same amount also falls in the extreme southern portion of Florida.

In England, the average rain-fall in the eastern portion is represented at twenty inches; in the middle portion, twenty-two inches; in the southern and western, thirty inches; in the extreme south-western, forty-five inches; and in Wales, fifty inches. In the eastern portion of Ireland, it is twenty-five inches; and in the western, forty inches.

Observations at London for forty years, by Dalton, gave average fall of 20.69 inches. Observations at New Bedford, Mass., for forty-three years, by S. Rodman, gave average fall of 41.03 inches—about double the amount in[53] London. The mean quantity for each month, at both places, is as follows:

Another very striking difference between the two countries is shown by a comparison of the quantity of water falling in single days. The following table, given in the Radcliffe Observatory Reports, Oxford, England, 15th volume, shows the proportion of very light rains there. The observation was in the year 1854. Rain fell on 156 days:

[54]Nearly half the number gave less fall than five-hundredths of an inch, and more than four-fifths the number gave less than one-fifth of an inch, and none gave over an inch.

There is more rain in the United States, by a large measure, than there; but the amount falls in less time, and the average of saturation is certainly much less here. From manuscript records, furnished us by Dr. Hobbs, of Waltham, Mass., we find, that the quantity falling in the year 1854, was equal to the average quantity for thirty years, and that rain fell on fifty-four days, in the proportion as follows:

Number of rainy days, 54; total rain-fall, 41.29.

No rain-fall gave less than five-hundredths of an inch; and more than one-fourth the number of days gave more[55] than one inch. In 1850, four years earlier, the rain-fall for the year, in Waltham, was 62.13 inches, the greatest recorded by observations kept since 1824. It fell as shown in the table:

Number of rainy days, 58; total rain-fall, 62.13.

Sept. 7th and 8th, in 24 hours, 6.88 inches of rain fell, the greatest quantity recorded in one day.

In 1846—still earlier by four years—the rain-fall in Waltham was 26.90 inches—the least recorded by the same observations. It fell, as shown in the table: Number of rainy days, 49; total rain-fall, 26.90.

The rain-fall in 1852 was very near the average for thirty years; and the quantity falling in single storms, on sixty-three different occasions, as registered by Dr. Hobbs, was as follows: Number of storms, 63; total rain-fall, 42.24.

These tables are sufficient to show that provision must be made to carry off much greater quantities of water from lands in this country than in England. We add a table of the greatest fall of rain in any one day, for each month, and for the year, from April, 1824, to 1st January,[57] 1859. It also was abstracted from the manuscript of observations by Dr. Hobbs, and will be, we think, quite useful:

[58]The following table shows the record of rain-fall, as kept for one year; it was selected as a representative year, the total quantity falling being equal to the average. For the year 1840: Number of rainy days, 50; total rain-fall, 42.00.

[59]The average quantity of rain which has fallen in Waltham, during the important months of vegetation, from 1824 to 1858 inclusive—a period of thirty-five years—is for—

It will be noticed, that the average for the month of August is about 33 per cent. larger than for June and July. The quantity of rain falling in each month, as registered at the Cambridge Observatory, is as follows:

The quantity falling from January to July, is much less than falls from July to January.

The great quantity of snow which falls in New England during the Winter months, and is carried off mainly in the Spring, usually floods the low lands, and should be taken into account in establishing the size of pipe to be used in a system of drainage. The following observations of the average depth of snow, have been made at the places cited, and are copied, by Blodget, from various published notices:

[60]One-tenth the depth of snow is taken as its equivalent in water, for general purposes, though it gives too small a quantity of water in southern latitudes, and in extreme latitudes too great a quantity. The rule of reduction of snow to water, in cold climates, is one inch of water to twelve of snow.

The proportion of the annual downfall of rain which is collectable into reservoirs—or, in other words, the per-centage of the rain-fall which drains off—is well shown in a table used by Ellwood Morris, Esq., C. E., in an article on "The Proposed Improvement of the Ohio River" (Jour. Frank. Inst., Jan., 1858), in which we find, that, in eighteen series of observations in Great Britain, the ratio, or per cent. of the rain-fall which drains off is 65½, or nearly two-thirds the rain-fall.

Seven series of observations in America are cited as follows:

These examples show an average rain-fall of thirty-eight vertical inches, and an annual amount, collectable in reservoirs, of nineteen inches, or fifty per cent.

The per-centage of water of drainage from land under-drained[61] with tile, would be greater than that which is collectable in reservoirs from ordinary gathering-grounds.

If a soil were perfectly saturated with water, that is, held as much water in suspension as possible to hold without draining off, and drains were laid at a proper depth from the surface, and in sufficient number to take off all surplus water, then the entire rain-fall upon the surface would be water of drainage—presuming, of course, the land to be level, and the air at saturation, so as to prevent evaporation. The water coming upon the surface, would force out an equal quantity of water at the bottom, through the drains—the time occupied by the process, varying according to the porous or retentive nature of the soil; but in ordinary circumstances, it would be, perhaps, about forty-eight hours. Drains usually run much longer than this after a heavy rain, and, in fact, many run constantly through the year, but they are supplied from lands at a higher level, either near by or at a distance.

If, on the other hand, the soil were perfectly dry, holding no water in suspension, then there would be no water of drainage until the soil had become saturated.

Evaporation is constantly carrying off great quantities of water during the warm months, so that under-drained soil is seldom in the condition of saturation, and, on account of the supply by capillary attraction and by dew, is never thoroughly dry; but the same soil will, at different times, be at various points between saturation and dryness, and the water of drainage will be consequently a greater or less per centage of the rain-fall.

An experiment made by the writer, to ascertain what quantity of water a dry soil would hold in suspension, resulted as follows: A soil was selected of about average porosity, so that the result might be, as nearly as possible, a mean for the various kinds of soil, and dried by several days' baking. The quantity of soil then being carefully[62] measured, a measured quantity of water was supplied slowly, until it began to escape at the bottom. The quantity draining away was measured and deducted from the total quantity supplied. It was thus ascertained that one cubic foot of earth held 0.4826+ cubic feet of water, which is a little more than three and one-half gallons. A dry soil, four feet deep, would hold a body of water equal to a rain-fall of 23.17 inches, vertical depth, which is more than would fall in six months.

The quantity which is not drained away is used for vegetation or evaporated; and the fact, that the water of drainage is so much greater in proportion to the rain-fall in England than in this country, is owing to the humidity of that climate, in which the evaporation is only about half what it is in this country.

The evaporation from a reservoir surface at Baltimore, during the Summer months, was assumed by Colonel Abert to be to the quantity of rain as two to one.

Dr. Holyoke assigns the annual quantity evaporated at Salem, Mass., at fifty-six inches; and Colonel Abert quotes several authorities at Cambridge, Mass., stating the quantity at fifty-six inches. These facts are given by Mr. Blodget, and also the table below.

The quantity for Whitehaven, England, is reported by J. F. Miller. It was very carefully observed, from 1843 to 1848—the evaporation being from a copper vessel, protected from rain. The district is one of the wettest of England—the mean quantity of rain, for the same time, having been 45.25 inches.

This shows a great difference in the capacity of the air[63] to absorb moisture in England and the United States; and as evaporation is a cooling process, there is greater necessity for under-draining in this country than in England, supposing circumstances in other respects to be similar.

Evaporation takes place at any point of temperature from 32°, or lower, to 212°—at which water boils. It is increased by heat, but is not caused solely by it—for a north-west wind in New-England evaporates water, and dries the earth more rapidly than the heat alone of a Summer's day; and when, under ordinary circumstances, evaporation from a water-surface is slow, it becomes quite active when brought in close proximity to sulphuric acid, or other vapor-absorbing bodies.

The cold which follows evaporation is caused by a loss of the heat which is required for evaporation, and which passes off with the vapor, as a solution, in the atmosphere; and as heat leaves the body to aid evaporation, it is evident that that body cannot be cooled by the process, below the dew-point at which evaporation ceases. The popular notion that a body may be cooled almost to the freezing-point, in a hot Summer day, by the action of heat alone, is, then, erroneous. But still, the amount of heat which is used up in evaporating stagnant water from undrained land, that might otherwise go towards warming the land and the roots of crops, is a very serious loss.

The difference in the temperature of a body, resulting from evaporation, may reach 25° in the desert interior of the American continent; but, in the Eastern States, it is not often more than 15°.

The temperature of evaporation is the reading of a wet-bulb-thermometer (the bulb being covered with moistened gauze) exposed to the natural evaporation; and the difference between that reading and the reading of a dry-thermometer, is the expression of the cold resulting from evaporation.[64]

When the air is nearly saturated, the temperature of the air rarely goes above 74°; but, if so, the moisture in the air prevents the passing away of insensible perspiration, and the joint action of heat and humidity exhausts the vital powers, causing sun-stroke, as it is called. At New York city, August 12th to 14th, 1853, the wet-thermometer stood at 80° to 84°; the air, at 90° to 94°. The mortality, from this joint effect, was very great—over two hundred persons losing their lives in the two days, in that city.

From very careful observations, made by Lorin Blodget, in 1853, at Washington, it was found that the difference between the wet and dry thermometer was 18½° at 4 P. M., June 30th, and 16° at 2 P. M. on July 1st—the temperature of the air being 98° on the first day, and 95° on the second; but such excesses are unusual.

The following table has been compiled from Mr. Blodget's notice of the peculiarities of the Summer of 1853:

The dates are such as were selected to illustrate the extreme temperatures of the month, and the degrees represent the differences between the wet and dry thermometer. The observations were made at 3 P. M.:

[65]Observations by Lieut. Gillis, at Washington, give mean differences between wet and dry thermometers, from March, 1841, to June, 1842, as follows:

Observations at 3 P. M.:

A mean of observations for twenty-five years at the Radcliffe Observatory, Oxford, England, gives a difference between the wet and dry thermometer equal to about two-thirds the difference, as observed by Lieutenant Gillis, at Washington.

On the 12th day of August, 1853, in Austin, Texas, the air was perfectly saturated at a temperature of 76°, which was the dew-point, or point of the thermometer at which dew began to form. The dew-point varies according to the temperature and the humidity of the atmosphere; it is usually a few degrees lower than the temperature of evaporation—never higher.

From observations made at Girard College, by Prof. A. D. Bache, in the years 1840 to 1845, we find, that for April, 1844, the dew-point ranged from 4° to 16° lower than the temperature of the air; in May, from 4° to 14° lower; in June, from 6° to 20° lower; in July, from 4° to 17°; in August, from 6° to 15° lower; and in September, from 6° to 21° lower. The dew-point is, then, during the important months of vegetation, within about 20° of the temperature of the air. The temperature of the dew-point, as observed by Prof. Bache, was highest in August, 1843, being 66°, and lowest in January, 1844, being 18°; in July, 1844, it was 64°, and in February, 1845, it was 25°. Its hourly changes during each day are quite marked, and follow, with some degree of regularity, the changes in the temperature of the air; their greatest departure from each other being at the hottest hour of the day, which is two or three hours after noon, and the least at the coldest[66] hour which is four or five hours after midnight. The average temperature of the dew-point in April, May, and June, 1844, was, at midnight, 50½°, air, 57°; five hours after midnight, dew-point, 49°, air 54°; three hours after noon, dew-point, 54°, air, 63½°. The average temperature for July, August and September, was, at midnight, dew-point, 58½°, air, 65°; five hours after midnight, dew-point, 58°, air, 62°; three hours after noon, dew-point, 60½°, air, 78°. The average temperature for the year was, at midnight, dew-point, 42°, air, 48°; five hours after midnight, dew-point, 41°, air, 46°; three hours after noon, dew-point, 44½°, air, 59°.

The relative humidity of the atmosphere, or the amount of vapor held in suspension in the air, in proportion to the amount which it might hold, was, in the year 1858, as given in the journal of the Franklin Institute, for

The saturation often falls to 30 per cent., but with great variability. Evaporation goes on most rapidly when the per centage of saturation is lowest; and, as before observed, the cause of the excess of evaporation in this country over that of England is the excessive humidity of that climate and the dryness of this. It has also been said that there is greater need for drainage in the United States on this account; and, as the warmth induced by draining is somewhat, in its effect, a merchantable product, it may be well to consider it for a moment in that light.

First: The drained land comes into condition for[67] working, a week or ten days earlier in the Spring than other lands.

Secondly: The growth of the crops is quickened all through the Summer by an increase of several degrees in the temperature of the soil.

Thirdly: The injurious effects of frost are kept off several days later in the Fall.

Of the value of these conditions, the farmer, who has lost his crops for lack of a few more warm days, may make his own estimates. In Roxbury, Mr. I. P. Rand heats up a portion of his land, for the purpose of raising early plants for the market, by means of hot water carried by iron pipes under the surface of the ground. In this manner he heats an area equal to 100 feet by 12 feet, by burning about one ton of coal a month. The increase of temperature which, in this case, is caused by that amount of coal, can, in the absence of direct measurement, only be estimated; but it, probably, will average about 30°, day and night, throughout the month. In an acre the area is 36.4 times as great as that heated by one ton of coal; the cost being in direct proportion to the area, 36.4 tons of coal would be required to heat an acre; which, at $6 per ton, would cost $217.40. To heat an acre through 10°, would cost, then, $72.47. It may be of interest to consider how much coal would be required to evaporate from an undrained field that amount of water which might be carried off by under-drains, but which, without them, is evaporated from the surface. It may be taken as an approximate estimate, that the evaporation from the surface of an undrained retentive field, is equal to two inches vertical depth of water for each of the months of May, June, July, and August; which is equal to fifty-four thousand three hundred and five gallons, or eight hundred and sixty-two hogsheads per acre for each month. If this quantity of water were evaporated by means of a coal fire,[68] about 22⅔ tons of coal would be consumed, which, at $6 a ton, would cost $136. The cost of evaporating the amount of water which would pass off in one day from an acre would be about $4.53. It is probable that about half as much water would be evaporated from thorough-drained land, though, by some experiments, the proportion has been made greater—in which case the loss of heat resulting from an excess of moisture evaporated from undrained retentive land, over that which would be evaporated from drained land, would be equal to that gained by 11⅓ tons of coal, which would cost $68; and this for each acre, in each of the three months. At whatever temperature a liquid vaporizes, it absorbs the same total quantity of heat.

The latent heat of watery vapor at 212° is 972°; that is, when water at 212° is converted into vapor at the same temperature, the amount of heat expended in the process is 972°. This heat becomes latent, or insensible to the thermometer. The heat rendered latent by converting ice into water is about 140°. There are 7.4805 gallons in a cubic foot of water which weighs 62.38 lbs."

We have seen that a sea of water, more than three feet deep over the whole face of the land, falls annually from the clouds, equal to 4,000 tons in weight to every acre. We would use enough of this water to dissolve the elements of fertility in the soil, and fit them for the food of plants. We would retain it all in our fields, long enough to take from it its stores of fertilizing substances, brought from reeking marshes and steaming cities on cloud-wings to our farms. We would, after taking enough of its moisture to cool the parched earth, and to fit the soil for germination and vegetable growth, discharge the surplus, which must otherwise stagnate in the subsoil, by rapid drainage into the natural streams and rivers.

Evaporation proceeds more rapidly from a surface of[69] water, than from a surface of land, unless it be a saturated surface. It proceeds more rapidly in the sun than in the shade, and it proceeds again more rapidly in warm than in cold weather. It varies much with the culture of the field, whether in grass, or tillage, or fallow, and with its condition, as to being dry or wet, and with its formation, whether level or hilly. Yet, with all these variations, very great reliance may be placed upon the ascertained results of the observations already at our command.

We have seen that evaporation from a water surface is, in general, greater than from land, and here we may observe one of those grand compensating designs of Providence which exist through all nature.

If the same quantity of water fell upon the sea and the land, and the evaporation were the same from both, then all the rivers running into the sea would soon convey to it all the water, and the sea would be full. But though nearly as much water falls on the sea as on the land, yet evaporation is much greater from the water than from land.

About three feet of rain falls upon the water, while the evaporation from a water surface far exceeds that amount. In the neighborhood of Boston, evaporation from water surface is said to be 56 inches in the year, and in the State of New York, about 50 inches; while, in England, it is put by Mr. Dalton at 44.43 inches, and, by others, much lower.

Again, about three feet of water annually falls upon the land, while the evaporation from the land is but little more than 20 inches. If this water fell upon a flat surface of soil, with an impervious subsoil of rock or clay, we should have some sixteen inches of water in the course of the year more than evaporates from the land. If a given field be dish-shaped, so as to retain it all, it must become a pond, and so remain, except in Summer,[70] when greater evaporation from a water surface may reduce it to a swamp or marsh.

With 16 or 18 inches more water falling annually on all our cultivated fields than goes off by evaporation, is it not wise to inquire by what process of Nature or art this vast surplus shall escape?

Experiments have been made with a view to determine the proportion of evaporation and filtration, upon well-drained land, in different months. From an able article in the N. Y. Agricultural Society for 1854, by George Geddes, we copy the following statement of valuable observations upon these points.

It will be observed that, in the different observations collected in this chapter, results are somewhat various. They have been brought together for comparison, and will be found sufficiently uniform for all practical purposes in the matter of drainage.

In reviewing the whole subject of rain, and of evaporation[74] and filtration, we seem to have evidence to justify the opinion, that with considerable more rain in this country than in England, and with a greater evaporation, because of a clearer sky and greater heat, we have a larger quantity of surplus water to be disposed of by drainage.

The occasion for thorough-drainage, however, is greater in the Northern part of the United States than in England, upon land of the same character; because, as we have already seen, rain falls far more regularly there than here, and never in such quantities in a single day; and because there the land is open to be worked by the plough nearly every day in the year, while here for several months our fields are locked up in frost, and our labor for the Spring crowded into a few days. There, the water which falls in Winter passes into the soil, and is drained off as it falls; while here, the snow accumulates to a great depth, and in thawing floods the land at once.

Both here and in England, much of the land requires no under-draining, as it has already a subsoil porous enough to allow free passage for all the surplus water; and it is no small part of the utility of understanding the principles of drainage, that it will enable farmers to discriminate—at a time when draining is somewhat of a fashionable operation with amateurs—between land that does and land that does not require so expensive an operation.

By "high land," is meant land, the surface of which is not overflowed, as distinguished from swamps, marshes, and the like low lands. How great a proportion of such lands would be benefitted by draining, it is impossible to estimate.

The Committee on Draining, in their Report to the State Agricultural Society of New York, in 1848, assert that, "There is not one farm out of every seventy-five in this State, but needs draining—yes, much draining—to bring it into high cultivation. Nay, we may venture to say, that every wheat-field would produce a larger and finer crop if properly drained." The committee further say: "It will be conceded, that no farmer ever raised a good crop of grain on wet ground, or on a field where pools of water become masses of ice in the Winter. In such cases, the grain plants are generally frozen out and perish; or, if any survive, they never arrive at maturity, nor produce a well-developed seed. In fact, every observing farmer knows that stagnant water, whether on the surface of his soil, or within reach of the roots of his plants, always does them injury."[76]

The late Mr. Delafield, one of the most distinguished agriculturists of New York, said in a public address:

If we listen to the answers of farmers, when asked as to the success of their labors, we shall be surprised, perhaps, to observe how much of their want of success is attributed to accidents, and how uniformly these accidents result from causes which thorough draining would remove. The wheat-crop of one would have been abundant, had it not been badly frozen out in the Fall; while another has lost nearly the whole of his, by a season too wet for his land. A farmer at the West has planted his corn early, and late rains have rotted the seed in the ground; while one at the East has been compelled, by the same rains, to wait so long before planting, that the season has been too short. Another has worked his clayey farm so wet, because he had not time to wait for it to dry, that it could not be properly tilled. And so their crops have wholly or partially failed, and all because of too much cold water in the soil. It would seem, by the remarks of those who till the earth, as if there were never a season just right—as if Providence had bidden us labor for bread, and yet sent down the rains of heaven so plentifully as always to blight our harvests. It is rare that we do not have a most remarkable season, with respect to moisture, especially. Our potatoes are rotted by the Summer showers, or cut off by a Summer drought; and when, as in the season of 1856, in[77] New England, they are neither seriously diseased nor dried up, we find at harvest-time that the promise has belied the fulfillment; that, after all the fine show above ground, the season has been too wet, and the crop is light. We frequently hear complaint that the season was too cold for Indian corn, and that the ears did not fill; or that a sharp drought, following a wet Spring, has cut short the crop. We hear no man say, that he lacked skill to cultivate his crop. Seldom does a farmer attribute his failure to the poverty of his soil. He has planted and cultivated in such a way, that, in a favorable season, he would have reaped a fair reward for his toil; but the season has been too wet or too dry; and, with full faith that farming will pay in the long run, he resolves to plant the same land in the same manner, hoping in future for better luck.

Too much cold water is at the bottom of most of these complaints of unpropitious seasons, as well as of most of our soils; and it is in our power to remove the cause of these complaints and of our want of success.

We must underdrain all the land we cultivate, that Nature has not already underdrained, and we shall cease complaints of the seasons. The advice of Cromwell to his soldiers: "Trust God, and keep your powder dry," affords a good lesson of faith and works to the farmer. We shall seldom have a season, upon properly drained land, that is too wet, or too cold, or even too dry; for thorough draining is almost as sure a remedy for a drought, as for a flood.

Do lands need under draining in America? It is a common error to suppose that, because the sun shines more brightly upon this country than upon England, and because almost every Summer brings such a drought here as is unknown there, her system of thorough drainage can[78] have no place in agriculture on this side of the Atlantic. It is true that we have a clearer sky and a drier climate than are experienced in England; but it is also true that, although we have a far less number of showers and of rainy days, we have a greater quantity of rain in the year.

The necessity of drainage, however, does not depend so much upon the quantity of water which falls or flows upon land, nor upon the power of the sun to carry it off by evaporation, as upon the character of the subsoil. The vast quantity of water which Nature pours upon every acre of soil annually, were it all to be removed by evaporation alone, would render the whole country barren; but Nature herself has kindly done the work of draining upon a large proportion of our land, so that only a healthful proportion of the water which falls on the earth, passes off at the surface by the influence of the sun.

If the subsoil is of sand or gravel, or of other porous earth, that portion of the water not evaporated, passes off below by natural drainage. If the subsoil be of clay, rock, or other impervious substances, the downward course of the water is checked, and it remains stagnant, or bursts out upon the surface in the form of springs.

As the primary object of drainage is to remove surplus water, it may be well to consider with some care

Springs.—These are, as has been suggested, merely the water of rain and snow, impeded in its downward percolation, and collected and poured forth in a perennial flow at a lower level.

The water which falls in the form of rain and snow upon the soil of the whole territory of the United States, east of the Rocky Mountains, each year, is sufficient to cover it to the depth of more than 3 feet. It comes upon the[79] earth, not daily in gentle dews to water the plants, but at long, unequal intervals, often in storms, tempests, and showers, pouring out, sometimes, in a single day, more than usually falls in a whole month.

What becomes of all this moisture, is an inquiry especially interesting to the agriculturist, upon whose fruitful fields this flood of water annually descends, and whose labor in seed-time would be destroyed by a single Summer shower, were not Nature more thoughtful than he, of his welfare. Of the water which thus falls upon cultivated fields, a part runs away into the streams, either upon the surface, or by percolation through the soil; a part is taken up into the air by evaporation, while a very small proportion enters into the constitution of vegetation. The proportion which passes off by percolation varies according to the nature of the soil in the locality where it falls.

Usually, we find the crust of the earth in our cultivated fields, in strata, or layers: first, a surface-soil of a few inches of a loamy nature, in which clay or sand predominates; and then, it may be, a layer of sand or gravel, freely admitting the passage of water; and, perhaps, next, and within two or three feet of the surface, a stratum of clay, or of sand or gravel cemented with some oxyd of iron, through which water passes very slowly, or not at all. These strata are sometimes regular, extending at an equal depth over large tracts, and having a uniform dip, or inclination. Oftener, however, in hilly regions especially, they are quite irregular—the impervious stratum frequently having depressions of greater or less extent, and holding water, like a bowl. Not unfrequently, as we cut a ditch upon a declivity, we find that the dip of the strata below has no correspondence with the visible surface of the field, but that the different strata lie nearly level, or are much broken, while the surface has a regular inclination.[80]

Underlying all soils, at greater or less depth, is found some bed of rock, or clay, impervious to water, usually at but few feet below the surface—the descending water meeting with obstacles to its regular descent. The tendency of the rain-water which falls upon the earth, is to sink directly downward by gravitation. Turned aside, however, by the many obstacles referred to, it often passes obliquely, or almost horizontally, through the soil. The drop which falls upon the hill-top sinks, perhaps, a few inches, meets with a bed of clay, glides along upon it for many days, and is at last borne out to be drunk up by the sun on some far-off slope; another, falling upon the sand-plain, sinks at once to the "water-line," or line of level water, which rests on clay beneath, and, slowly creeping along, helps to form a swamp or bog in the valley.

Sometimes, the rain which falls upon the high land is collected together by fissures in the rocks, or by seams or ruptures in the impervious strata below the surface, and finds vent in a gushing spring on the hill-side.

We feel confident that no better illustration of the theory of springs, as connected with our subject, can be found, than that of Mr. Girdwood, in the Cyclopedia of Agriculture—a work from which we quote the more liberally, because it is very expensive and rare in America:

Water that issues from the land, either constantly, periodically, or even intermittently, may, perhaps, be properly termed a spring. But there is often much water in the soil which did not fall in rain upon that particular field, and which does not issue from it in any defined stream, but which is slowly passing through it by percolation from a higher source, to ooze out into some stream, or to pass off by evaporation; or, perhaps, farther on, to fall into crevices in the soil, and eventually form springs. As we find it in our field, it is neither rain-water, which has there fallen, nor spring-water, in any sense. It has been appropriately termed the water of pressure, to distinguish it from both rain and spring-water; and the recognition of this term will certainly be found convenient[85] to all who are engaged in the discussion of drainage.

The distinction is important in a legal point of view, as relating to the right of the land-owner to divert the sources of supply to mill-streams, or to adjacent lower lands. It often happens that an owner of land on a slope may desire to drain his field, while the adjacent owner below, may not only refuse to join in the drainage, but may believe that he derives an advantage from the surface-washing or the percolation from his higher neighbor. He may believe that, by deep drainage above, his land will be dried up and rendered worthless; or, he may desire to collect the water which thus percolates, into his land, and use it for irrigation, or for a water-ram, or for the supply of his barn-yard. May the upper owner legally proceed with the drainage of his own land, if he thus interfere with the interests of the man below?

Again: wherever drains have been opened, we already hear complaints of their effects upon wells. In our good town of Exeter, there seems to be a general impression on one street, that the drainage of a swamp, formerly owned by the author, has drawn down the wells on that street, situated many rods distant from the drains. Those wells are upon a sandy plain, with underlying clay, and the drains are cut down upon the clay, and into it, and may possibly draw off the water a foot or two lower through the whole village—if we can regard the water line running through it as the surface of a pond, and the swamp as a dam across its outlet.

The rights of land-owners, as to running water over their premises, have been fruitful of litigation, but are now well defined. In general, in the language of Judge Story,

Chief Justice Richardson, of New Hampshire, thus briefly states the same position:

We are not aware that it has ever been held by any court of law, or even asserted, that a land-owner may not intercept the percolating water in his soil for any purpose and at his pleasure; nor have we in mind any case in which the draining out of water from a well, by drainage for agricultural purposes, has subjected the owner of the land to compensation.

It is believed that a land-owner has the right to follow the rules of good husbandry in the drainage of his land, so far as the water of pressure is concerned, without responsibility for remote consequences to adjacent owners, to the owners of distant wells or springs that may be affected, or to mill-owners.

In considering the effect of drainage on streams and rivers, it appears that the results of such operations, so far as they can be appreciated, are, to lessen the value of water powers, by increasing the flow of water in times of[87] freshets, and lessening it in times of drought. It is supposed in this country, that clearing the land of timber has sensibly affected the value of "mill privileges," by increasing evaporation, and diminishing the streams. No mill-owner has been hardy enough to contend that a land-owner may not legally cut down his own timber, whatever the effect on the streams. So, we trust, no court will ever be found, which will restrict the land-owner in the highest culture of his soil, because his drainage may affect the capacity of a mill-stream to turn the water-wheels.

To return from our digression. It is necessary, in order to a correct apprehension of the work which our drains have to perform, to form a correct opinion as to how much of the surplus moisture in our field is due to each of the three causes to which we have referred—to wit, rain-water, which falls upon it; springs, which burst up from below; and water of pressure, stagnant in, or slowly percolating through it. The rain-tables will give us information as to the first; but as to the others, we must form our opinion from the structure of the earth around us, and observation upon the field itself, by its natural phenomena and by opening test-holes and experimental ditches. Having gained accurate knowledge of the sources of moisture, we may then be able to form a correct opinion whether our land requires drainage, and of the aid which Nature requires to carry off the surplus water.

The more one studies the subject of drainage, the less inclined will he be to deal in general statements. "Do you think it is profitable to underdrain land?" is a question a thousand times asked, and yet is a question that admits of no direct general answer. Is it profitable to fence land? is it profitable to plow land? are questions of much the same character. The answers to them all depend[88] upon circumstances. There is land that may be profitably drained, and fenced, and plowed, and there is a great deal that had better be let alone. Whether draining is profitable or not, depends on the value and character of the land in question, as well as on its condition as to water. Where good land is worth one hundred dollars an acre, it might be profitably drained; when, if the same land were worth but the Government price of $1.25 an acre, it might be better to make a new purchase in the neighborhood, than to expend ten times its value on a tract that cannot be worth the cost of the operation. Drainage is an expensive operation, requiring much labor and capital, and not to be thought of in a pioneer settlement by individual emigrants. It comes after clearing, after the building of log-houses and mills, and schoolhouses, and churches, and roads, when capital and labor are abundant, and when the good lands, nature-drained, have been all taken up.

And, again, whether drainage is profitable, depends not only on the value, but on the character of the soil as to productiveness when drained. There is much land that would be improved by drainage, that cannot be profitably drained. It would improve almost any land in New England to apply to it a hundred loads of stable manure to the acre; but whether such application would be profitable, must depend upon the returns to be derived from it. Horace Greeley, who has his perceptions of common affairs, and especially of all that relates to progress, wide awake, said, in an address at Peekskill, N. Y.:

[89]

Whether land would be improved by drainage, is one question, and whether the operation will pay, is quite another. The question whether it will pay, depends on the value of the land before drainage, the cost of the operation, and the value of the land when completed. And the cost of the operation includes always, not only the money and labor expended in it, but also the loss to other land of the owner, by diverting from it the capital which would otherwise be applied to it. Where labor and capital are limited so closely as they are in all our new States, it is a question not only how can they be profitably applied, but how can they be most profitably applied. A proprietor, who has money to loan at six per cent. interest, may well invest it in draining his land; when a working man, who is paying twelve per cent. interest for all the capital he employs, might ruin himself by making the same improvement.

Our opinion is, that a great deal of land does not in any sense require drainage, and we should differ with Mr. Greeley, in the opinion that all lands worth ploughing, would be improved by drainage. Nature has herself thoroughly drained a large proportion of the soil. There is a great deal of finely-cultivated land in England, renting at from five to ten dollars per acre, that is thought there to require no drainage.

In a published table of estimates by Mr. Denton, made in 1855, it is supposed that Great Britain, including England, Scotland, and Wales, contain 43,958,000 acres of land, cultivated and capable of cultivation; of which he sets down as "wet land," or land requiring drainage, 22,890,004 acres, or about one half the whole quantity. His estimate is, that only about 1,365,000 acres had then been permanently drained, and that it would cost about[90] 107 millions of pounds to complete the operation, estimating the cost at about twenty shillings, or five dollars per acre.

These estimates are valuable in various views of our subject. They answer with some definiteness the question so often asked, whether all lands require drainage, and they tend to correct the impression, which is prevalent in this country, that there is something in the climate of Great Britain that makes drainage there essential to good cultivation on any land. The fact is not so. There, as in America, it depends upon the condition and character of the soil, more than upon the quantity of rain, or any condition of climate, whether drainage is required or not. Generally, it will be found on investigation, that so far as climate, including of course the quantity and regularity of the rain-fall, is concerned, drainage is more necessary in America than in Great Britain—the quantity of rain being in general greater in America, and far less regular in its fall. This subject, however, will receive a more careful consideration in another place.

If in America, as in Great Britain, one half the cultivable land require drainage, or even if but a tenth of that half require it, the subject is of vast importance, and it is no less important for us to apprehend clearly what part of our land does not require this expenditure, than to learn how to treat properly that which does require it.

To resume the inquiry, what lands require drainage? it may be answered—

Lands overflowed by the regular tides of the ocean require drainage, whether they lie upon the sea-shore, or upon rivers or bays. But this drainage involves embankments, and a peculiar mode of procedure, of which it is not now proposed to treat.[91]

Again, all lands overflowed by Summer freshets, as upon rivers and smaller streams, require drainage. These, too, usually require embankments, and excavations of channels or outlets, not within the usual scope of what is termed thorough drainage. For a further answer to the question—what lands require drainage? the reader is referred to the chapters which treat of the effect of drainage upon the soil.

No argument is necessary to convince rational men that the very extensive tracts of land, which are usually known as swamps and bogs, must, in some way, be relieved of their surplus water, before they can be rendered fit for cultivation. The treatment of this class of wet lands is so different from that applied to what we term upland, that it will be found more convenient to pass the subject by with this allusion, at present, and consider it more systematically under a separate head.

Draining has been defined, "The art of rendering land not only so free of moisture as that no superfluous water shall remain in it, but that no water shall remain in it so long as to injure, or even retard the healthy growth of plants required for the use of man and beast."

Some plants grow in water. Some even spring from the bottom of ponds, and have no other life than such a position affords. But most plants, useful to man, are drowned by being overflowed even for a short time, and are injured by any stagnant water about their roots. Why this is so, it is not easy to explain. Most of our knowledge on these points, is derived from observation. We know that fishes live in water, and if we would propagate[92] them, we prepare ponds and streams for the purpose. Our domestic animals live on land, and we do not put them into fish-ponds to pasture. There are useful plants which thrive best in water. Such is the cranberry, notwithstanding all that has been said of its cultivation on upland. And there are domestic fowls, such as ducks and geese, that require pools of water; but we do not hence infer that our hens and chickens would be better for daily immersion. All lands, then, require drainage, that contain too much water, at any season for the intended crops.

This will be found to be an important element in our rule. Land may require drainage for Indian corn, that may not require it for grass. Most of the cultivated grasses are improved in quality, and not lessened in quantity, by the removal of stagnant water in Summer; but there are reasons for drainage for hoed crops, which do not apply to our mowing fields. In New England, we have for a few weeks a perfect race with Nature, to get our seeds into the ground before it is too late. Drained land may be plowed and planted several weeks earlier than land undrained, and this additional time for preparation is of great value to the farmer. Much of this same land would be, by the first of June, by the time the ordinary planting season is past, sufficiently drained by Nature, and a grass crop upon it would be, perhaps, not at all benefitted by thorough-drainage; so that it is often an important consideration with reference to this operation, whether a given portion of our farm may not be most profitably kept in permanent grass, and maintained in fertility by top-dressing, or by occasional plowing and reseeding in Autumn. It is certainly convenient to have all our fields adapted to our usual rotation, and it is for each man to balance for himself this convenience against the cost of drainage in each particular case.

What particular crops are most injured by stagnant[93] water in the soil, or by the too tardy percolation of rain-water, may be determined by observation. How stagnant water injures plants, is not, as has been suggested, easily understood in all its relations. It doubtless retards the decomposition of the substances which supply their nutriment, and it reduces the temperature of the soil. It has been suggested, that it prevents or checks perspiration and introsusception, and it excludes the air which is essential to the vegetation of most plants. Whatever the theory, the fact is acknowledged, that stagnant water in as well as on the soil, impedes the growth of all our valuable crops, and that drainage soon cures the evil, by removing the effect with its cause. And the remedy seems to be almost instantaneous; for, on most upland, it is found that by the removal of stagnant water, the soil is in a single season rendered fit for the growth of cultivated crops. In low meadows, composed of peat and swamp mud, in many cases, exposure to the air for a year or two after drainage, is often found to enhance the fertility of the soil, which contains, frequently, acids which need correction.

It has already been suggested, that motives of convenience may induce us to drain our lands—that we may have a longer season in which to work them; and that there may be cases where the crop would flourish if planted at precisely the right time, where yet we cannot well, without drainage, seasonably prepare for the crop. Generally, however, lands too wet seasonably to plant, will give indications, throughout the season, of hidden water producing its ill effects.

If the land be in grass, we find that aquatic plants, like rushes or water grasses, spring up with the seeds we have sown, and, in a few years, have possession of the field, and we are soon compelled to plow up the sod, and lay[94] it again to grass. If it be in wheat or other grain, we see the field spotted and uneven; here a portion on some slight elevation, tall and dark colored, and healthy; and there a little depression, sparsely covered with a low and sickly growth. An American traveling in England in the growing season, will always be struck with the perfect evenness of the fields of grain upon the well-drained soil. Journeying through a considerable portion of England and Wales with intelligent English farmers, we were struck with their nice perception on this point.

The slightest variation in the color of the wheat in the same or different fields, attracted their instant attention.

"That field is not well-drained; the corn is too light-colored." "There is cold water at the bottom there; the corn cannot grow;" were the constant criticisms, as we passed across the country. Inequalities that, in our more careless cultivation, we should pass by without observation, were at once explained by reference to the condition of the land, as to water.

The drill-sowing of wheat, and the careful weeding it with the horse-hoe and by hand, are additional reasons why the English fields should present a uniform appearance, and why any inequalities should be fairly referable to the condition of the soil.

Upon a crop of Indian corn, the cold water lurking below soon places its unmistakable mark. The blade comes up yellow and feeble. It takes courage in a few days of bright sunshine in June, and tries to look hopeful, but a shower or an east wind again checks it. It had already more trouble than it could bear, and turns pale again. Tropical July and August induce it to throw up a feeble stalk, and to attempt to spindle and silk, like other corn. It goes through all the forms of vegetation, and yields at last a single nubbin for the pig. Indian corn[95] must have land that is dry in Summer, or it cannot repay the labor of cultivation.

Careful attention to the subject will soon teach any farmer what parts of his land are injured by too much water; and having determined that, the next question should be, whether the improvement of it by drainage will justify the cost of the operation.

Drainage is a permanent investment. It is not an operation like the application of manure, which we should expect to see returned in the form of salable crops in one or two years, or ten at most, nor like the labor applied in cultivating an annual crop. The question is not whether drainage will pay in one or two years, but will it pay in the long run? Will it, when completed, return to the farmer a fair rate of interest for the money expended? Will it be more profitable, on the whole, than an investment in bank or railway shares, or the purchase of Western lands? Or, to put the question in the form in which an English land-owner would put it, will the rent of the land improved by drainage, be permanently increased enough to pay a fair interest on the cost of the improvement?

Let us bring out this idea clearly to the American farmer by a familiar illustration. Your field is worth to you now one hundred dollars an acre. It pays you, in a series of years, through a rotation of planting, sowing, and grass, a nett profit of six dollars an acre, above all expenses of cultivation and care.

Suppose, now, it will cost one-third of a hundred dollars an acre to drain it, and you expend on each three acres one hundred dollars, what must the increase of your crops be, to make this a fair investment? Had you expended the hundred dollars in labor, to produce a crop of[96] cabbages, you ought to get your money all back, with a fair profit, the first year. Had you expended it in guano or other special manures, whose beneficial properties are exhausted in some two or three years, your expenditure should be returned within that period. But the improvement by drainage is permanent; it is done for all time to come. If, therefore, your drained land shall pay you a fair rate of interest on the cost of drainage, it is a good investment. Six per cent. is the most common rate of interest, and if, therefore, each three acres of your drained land shall pay you an increased annual income of six dollars, your money is fairly invested. This is at the rate of two dollars an acre. How much increase of crop will pay this two dollars? In the common rotation of Indian corn, potatoes, oats, wheat, or barley, and grass, two or three bushels of corn, five or six bushels of potatoes, as many bushels of oats, a bushel or two of wheat, two or three bushels of barley, will pay the two dollars. Who, that has been kept back in his Spring's work by the wetness of his land, or has been compelled to re-plant because his seed has rotted in the ground, or has experienced any of the troubles incident to cold wet seasons, will not admit at once, that any land which Nature has not herself thoroughly drained, will, in this view, pay for such improvement?

But far more than this is claimed for drainage. In England, where such operations have been reduced to a system, careful estimates have been made, not only of the cost of drainage, but of the increase of crops by reason of the operation.

In answer to questions proposed by a Board of Commissioners, in 1848, to persons of the highest reputation for knowledge on this point, the increase of crops by drainage was variously stated, but in no case at less than a paying rate. One gentleman says: "A sixth of increase in[97] produce of grain crops may be taken as the very lowest estimate, and, in actual result, it is seldom less than one-fourth. In very many cases, after some following cultivation, the produce is doubled, whilst the expense of working the land is much lessened." Another says: "In many instances, a return of fully 25 per cent. on the expenditure is realized, and in some even more." A third remarks, "My experience and observation have chiefly been in heavy clay soils, where the result of drainage is eminently beneficial, and where I should estimate the increased crop at six to ten bushels (wheat) per statute acre."

These are estimates made upon lands that had already been under cultivation. In addition to such lands as are merely rendered less productive by surplus water, we have, even on our hard New England farms—on side hills, where springs burst out, or at the foot of declivities, where the land is flat, or in runs, which receive the natural drainage of higher lands—many places which are absolutely unfit for cultivation, and worse than useless, because they separate those parts of the farm which can be cultivated. If, of these wet portions, we make by draining, good, warm, arable land, it is not a mere question of per centage or profit; it is simply the question whether the land, when drained, is worth more than the cost of drainage. If it be, how much more satisfactory, and how much more profitable it is, to expend money in thus reclaiming the waste places of our farms, and so uniting the detached fields into a compact, systematic whole, than to follow the natural bent of American minds, and "annex" our neighbor's fields by purchasing.

Any number of instances could be given of the increased value of lands in England by drainage, but they are of little practical value. The facts, that the Government has made large loans in aid of the process, that private[98] drainage companies are executing extensive works all over the kingdom, and that large land-holders are draining at their own cost, are conclusive evidence to any rational mind, that drainage in Great Britain, at least, well repays the cost of the operation.

In another chapter may be found accurate statements of American farmers of their drainage operations, in different States, from which the reader will be able to form a correct opinion, whether draining in this country is likely to prove a profitable operation.

The most obvious mode of getting rid of surface-water is, to cut a ditch on the surface to a lower place, and let it run. So, if the only object were to drain a piece of land merely for a temporary purpose—as, where land is too wet to ditch properly in the first instance, and it is necessary to draw off part of the surplus water before systematic operations are commenced—an open ditch is, perhaps, the cheapest method to be adopted.

Again: where land to be drained is part of a large sloping tract, and water runs down, at certain seasons, in large quantities upon the surface, an open catch-water-ditch may be absolutely necessary. This condition of circumstances is very common in mountainous districts, where the rain which falls on the hills flows down, either on the visible surface or on the rock-formation under the soil, and breaks out at the foot, causing swamps, often high up on the hill-sides. Often, too, in clay districts, where sand or loam two or three feet deep rests on tough clay, we see broad sloping tracts, which form our best grass-fields.

If we are attempting to drain the lower part of such a[100] slope, we shall find that the water from the upper part flows down in large quantities upon us, and an open ditch may be most economical as a header, to cut off the down-flowing water; though, in most cases, a covered drain may be as efficient.

At the outlets, too, of our tile or stone drains, when we come down nearly to the level of the stream which receives our drainage-water, we find it convenient, often, and indeed necessary, to use open ditches—perhaps only a foot or two deep—to carry off the water discharged. These ditches are of great importance, and should be finished with care, because, if they become obstructed, they cause back-water in the drains, and may ruin the whole work.

Open drains are thus essential auxiliaries to the best plans of thorough drainage; and, whatever opinion may be entertained of their economy, many farmers are so situated that they feel obliged to resort to them for the present, or abandon all idea of draining their wet lands. We will, therefore, give some hints as to the best manner of constructing open drains; and then suggest, in the form of objections to them, such considerations as shall lead the proprietor who adopts this mode to consider carefully his plan of operations in the outset, with a view to obviate, as much as possible, the manifest embarrassments occasioned by them.

As to the location of drains in swamps and peculiarly wet places, directions may be found in another chapter. We here propose only to treat of the mode of forming open drains, after their location is fixed.

The worst of all drains is an open ditch, of equal width from top to bottom. It cannot stand a single season, in any climate or soil, without being seriously impaired by the frosts or the heavy rains. All open drains should be sloping; and it is ascertained, by experiment, what is the[101] best, or, as it is sometimes expressed, the natural slope, on different kinds of soil. If earth be tipped from a cart down a bank, and be left exposed to the action of the weather, it will rest, and finally remain, at a regular angle or inclination, varying from 21° to 55° with the horizon, according to the nature of the soil. The natural slope of common earth is found to be about 33° 42'; and this is the inclination usually adopted by railroad engineers for their embankments.

If the banks of the open ditch are thus sloped, they will have the least possible tendency to wash away, or break down by frost.

Again: where open ditches are adopted in mowing fields, they may, if not very deep, be sloped still lower than the natural slope, and seeded down to the bottom; so that no land will be lost, and so that teams may pass across them.

This amounts, in fact, to the old ridge and furrow system, which was almost universal in England before tiles were used, and is sometimes seen practiced in this country. The land, by that system, is back-furrowed in narrow lands, till it is laid up into beds, sloping from the tops, or backs, to the furrows which constitute the drains. This mode of culture is very ancient, and is probably referred to in the language of the Psalmist, in the Scriptures: "Thou waterest the ridges thereof abundantly, thou settlest the furrows thereof, thou makest it soft with showers."

The objections to open ditches, as compared with under-drains, may be briefly stated thus:

1. They are expensive. The excavation of a sloping drain is much greater than that of an upright drain. An open drain must have a width of one or two feet at the bottom, to receive the earth that always must, to some extent, wash into it. An open drain requires to be cleaned out once a year, to keep it in good order. There is a large[102] quantity of earth from an open drain to be disposed of, either by spreading or hauling away. Thus, a drain of this kind is costly at the outset, and requires constant labor and care to preserve it in working condition.

2. They are not permanent. A properly laid underdrain will last half a century or more, but an open drain, especially if deep, has a constant tendency to fill up. Besides, the action of frost and water and vegetation has a continual operation to obstruct open ditches. Rushes and water-grasses spring up luxuriantly in the wet and slimy bottom, and often, in a single season, retard the flow of water, so that it will stand many inches deep where the fall is slight. The slightest accident, as the treading of cattle, the track of a loaded cart, the burrowing of animals, dams up the water and lessens the effect of the drain. Hence, we so often see meadows which have been drained in this way going back, in a few years, into wild grass and rushes.

3. They obstruct good husbandry. In the chapter upon the effects of drainage on the condition of the soil, we suggest, in detail, the hindrances which open ditches present to the convenient cultivation of the land, and, especially, how they obstruct the farmer in his plowing, his mowing, his raking, and the general laying out of his land for convenient culture.

4. They occupy too much land. If a ditch have an upright bank, it is so soft that cattle will not step within several feet of it in plowing, and thus a strip is lost for culture, or must be broken up by hand. If, indeed, we can get the plow near it, there being no land to rest against, the last furrow cannot be turned from the ditch, and if it be turned into it, must be thrown out by hand. If the banks be sloped to the bottom, and the land be thus laid into beds or ridges, the appearance of the field may, indeed, be improved, but there is still a loss of soil;[103] for the soil is all removed from the furrow, which will always produce rushes and water-grass, and carried to the ridge, where it doubles the depth of the natural soil. Thus, instead of a field of uniform condition, as to moisture and temperature and fertility, we have strips of wet, cold, and poor soil, alternating with dry, warm, and rich soil, establishing a sort of gridiron system, neither beautiful, convenient, nor profitable.

5. The manure washes off and is lost. The three or four feet of water which the clouds annually give us in rain and snow, must either go off by evaporation, or by filtration, or run off upon the surface. Under the title of Rain and Evaporation, it will be seen that not much more than half this quantity goes off by evaporation, leaving a vast quantity to pass off through or upon the soil. If lands are ridged up, the manure and finer portions of the soil are, to a great extent, washed away into the open ditches and lost. Of the water which filters downwards, a large portion enters open ditches near the surface, before the fertilizing elements have been strained out; whereas, in covered drains of proper depth, the water is filtered through a mass of soil sufficiently deep to take from it the fertilizing substances, and discharge it, comparatively pure, from the field. In a paper by Prof. Way (11th Jour. Roy. Ag. Soc.), on "The Power of Soils to retain Manure," will be found interesting illustrations of the filtering qualities of different kinds of soil.

In addition to the above reasons for preferring covered drains, it has been asserted by one of the most skillful drainers in the world (Mr. Parkes), "that a proper covered drain of the same depth as an open ditch, will drain a greater breadth of land than the ditch can effect. The sides of the ditch," he says, "become dried and plastered, and covered with vegetation; and even while they are[104] free from vegetation, their absorptive power is inferior to the covered drain."

Of the depth, direction, and distance of drains, our views will be found under the appropriate heads. They apply alike to open and covered drains.

Having a farm destitute of stones, before tiles were known among us, we made several experiments with covered drains filled with brush. Some of those drains operated well for eight or ten years; others caved in and became useless in three or four years, according to the condition of the soil.

In a wet swamp a brush drain endures much longer than in sandy land, which is dry a part of the year, because the brush decays in dry land, but will prove nearly imperishable in land constantly wet. In a peat or muck swamp, we should expect that such drains, if carefully constructed, might last twenty years, but that in a sandy loam they would be quite unreliable for a single year.

Our failure on upland with brush drains, has resulted, not from the decay of the wood, but from the entrance of sand, which obstructed the channel. Moles and field-mice find these drains the very day they are laid, and occupy them as permanent homes ever after.

Those little animals live partly upon earth-worms, which they find by burrowing after them in the ground, and partly upon insects, and vegetation above ground. They have a great deal of business, which requires convenient passages leading from their burrows to the day-light, and drains in which they live will always be found perforated with holes from the surface. In the Spring, or in heavy showers, the water runs in streams into these holes, breaks down the soft soil as it goes, and finally the top begins to fall in, and the channel is choked up, and the work ruined.[105] We have tried many precautions against this kind of accident, but none that was effectual on light land.

The general mode of construction is this: Open the trench to the depth required, and about 12 inches wide at the bottom. Lay into this poles of four or five inches diameter at the butt, leaving an open passage between. Then lay in brush of any size, the coarsest at the bottom, filling the drain to within a foot of the surface, and covering with pine, or hemlock, or spruce boughs. Upon these lay turf, carefully cut, as close as possible. The brush should be laid but-end up stream, as it obstructs the water less in this way. Fill up with soil a foot above the surface, and tread it in as hard as possible. The weight of earth will compress the brush, and the surface will settle very much. We have tried placing boards at the sides, and upon the top of the brash, to prevent the caving in, but with no great success. Although our drains thus laid, have generally continued to discharge some water, yet they have, upon upland, been dangerous traps and pitfalls for our horses and cattle, and have cost much labor to fill up the holes, where they have fallen through by washing away below.

In clay, brush drains might be more durable. In the English books, we have descriptions of drains filled with thorn cuttings from hedges and with gorse. When well laid in clay, they are said to last about 15 years. When the thorns decay, the clay will still retain its form, and leave a passage for the water.

A writer in the Cyclopedia sums up the matter as to this kind of drains, thus:

Draining-tiles are not yet either cheap or plentiful in[106] this country; but we have full faith that they will become so very soon. In the mean time it may be profitable for us to use such of the substitutes for them as may lie within our reach, selecting one or another according as material is convenient.

has never been, that we are aware, practiced in America. Our knowledge of it is limited to what we learn from English books. We, therefore, content ourselves with giving from Morton's Cyclopedia the following description and illustrations.

We hear of an implement, in use in Illinois and other Western States, called the Gopher Plow, worked by a capstan, which drains wet land by merely drawing through it an iron shoe, at about two and a half feet in depth, without the use of any foreign substance.

We hear reports of a mole plow, in use in the same State, known by the name of Marcus and Emerson's Patent Subsoiler, with which, an informant says, drains are made also in the manner above named. This machine[108] is worked by a windlass power, by a horse or yoke of oxen, and the price charged is twenty-eight cents a rod for the work. These machines are, from description, modifications of the English Mole Plow, an implement long ago known and used in Great Britain.

The following description is from Morton's Cyclopedia:

A correspondent of the New York Tribune thus describes the operation and utility of a mole plow, which he saw on the farm of Major A. B. Dickinson, of Hornby, Steuben County, New York:

Major Dickinson himself in a recent address, thus speaks of what he calls his

From the best information we can gather, it would seem, that on certain soils with a clay subsoil, the mole plow, as a sort of pioneer implement, may be very useful. The above account certainly indicates that on the farm in question it is very cheap, rapid, and effectual in its operation.

Stephens gives a minute description of the mole plow figured above, in his Book of the Farm. Its general structure and principle of operation may be easily understood by what has been already said, and any person desirous of constructing one may find in that work exact directions.

These, like the last-mentioned kind of drains, are mere channels formed in the subsoil. They have, therefore, the same fault of want of durability, and are totally unfitted for land under the plow. In forming wedge-drains, the first spit, with the turf attached, is laid on one side, and the earth removed from the remainder of the trench is laid on the other. The last spade used is very narrow, and tapers rapidly, so as to form a narrow wedge-shaped cavity for the bottom of the trench. The turf first removed is then cut into a wedge, so much larger than the size of the lower part of the drain, that when rammed into it with the grassy side undermost, it leaves a vacant space in the bottom six or eight inches in depth, as in Fig. 14.

The shoulder-drain does not differ very materially from[111] the wedge-drain. Instead of the whole trench forming a gradually tapering wedge, the upper portion of the shoulder-drain has the sides of the trench nearly perpendicular, and of considerable width, the last spit only being taken out with a narrow, tapering spade, by which means a shoulder is left on either side, from which it takes its name. After the trench has been finished, the first spit, having the grassy side undermost as in the former case, is placed in the trench, and pushed down till it rests upon the shoulders already mentioned; so that a narrow wedge-shaped channel is again left for the water, as shown in Fig. 15.

These drains may be formed in almost any kind of land which is not a loose gravel or sand. They are a very cheap kind of drain; for neither the cost of cutting nor filling in, much exceeds that of the ordinary tile drain, while the expense of tiles or other materials is altogether saved. Still, such drains cannot be recommended, for they are very liable to injury, and, even under the most favorable circumstances, can only last a very limited time.

These have been used in Scotland, in mossy or swampy soils, it is said, with economy and good results. The tube[112] represented below presents a square of 4 inches outside, with a clear water-way of 2 inches. Any other durable wood will, of course, answer the same purpose. The tube is pierced with holes to admit the water. In wet meadows, these tubes laid deep would be durable and efficient, and far more reliable than brush or even stones, because they may be better protected from the admission of sand and the ruinous working of vermin. Their economy depends upon the price of the wood and the cost of tiles—which are far better if they can be reasonably obtained.

Near Washington, D. C., we know of drainage tolerably well performed by the use of common fence-rails. A trench is opened about three inches wider at bottom than two rails. Two rails are then laid in the bottom, leaving a space of two or three inches between them. A third rail is then laid on for a cover, and the whole carefully covered with turf or straw, and then filled up with earth. Poles of any kind may be used instead of rails, if more convenient.

In clay, these drains would be efficient and durable; in sand, they would be likely to be filled up and become useless. This is an extravagant waste of timber, except in the new districts where it is of no value.

Mr. J. F. Anderson, of Windham, Maine, has adopted a mode of draining with poles, which, in regions where wood is cheap and tiles are dear, may be adopted with advantage.

Two poles, of from 3 to 6 inches diameter, are laid at the bottom of the ditch, with a water-way of half their diameter between them. Upon these, a third pole is laid,[113] thus forming a duct of the desired dimensions. The security of this drain will depend upon the care with which it is protected by a covering of turf and the like, to prevent the admission of earth, and its permanency will depend much upon its being placed low enough to be constantly wet, as such materials are short-lived when frequently wet and dried, and nearly imperishable if constantly wet. It is unnecessary to place brush or stones over such drains to make them draw, as it is called. The water will find admission fast enough to destroy the work, unless great care is used.

In Ireland, and in some parts of England and Scotland, peat-tiles are sometimes used in draining bogs. They are cheap and very durable in such localities, but, probably, will not be used in this country. They are formed somewhat like pipes, of two pieces of peat. Two halves are formed with a peculiar tool, with a half circle in each. When well dried, they are placed together, thus making a round opening.

In draining, the object being merely to form a durable[114] opening in the soil, at suitable depth, which will receive and conduct away the water which filters through the soil, it is obvious that a thousand expedients may be resorted to, to suit the peculiar circumstances of persons. In general, the danger to be apprehended is from obstruction of the water-way. Nothing, except a tight tube of metal or wood, will be likely to prevent the admission of water.

Economy and durability are, perhaps, the main considerations. Tiles, at fair prices, combine these qualities better than anything else. Stones, however, are both cheap and durable, so far as the material is concerned; but the durability of the material, and the durability of the drains, are quite different matters.

Providence has so liberally supplied the greater part of New England with stones, that it seems to most inexperienced persons to be a work of supererogation, almost, to manufacture tiles or any other draining material for our farms.

We would by no means discourage the use of stones, where tiles cannot be used with greater economy. Stone drains are, doubtless, as efficient as any, so long as the water-way can be kept open. The material is often close at hand, lying on the field and to be removed as a nuisance, if not used in drainage. In such cases, true economy may dictate the use of them, even where tiles can be procured; though, we believe, tiles will be found generally cheaper, all things considered, where made in the neighborhood.

In treating of the cost of drainage, we have undertaken to give fair estimates of the comparative cost of different materials.

Every farmer is capable of making estimates for himself,[115] and of testing those made by us, and so of determining what is true economy in his particular case.

The various modes of constructing drains of stones, may be readily shown by simple illustrations:

If stone-drains are decided upon, the mode of constructing them will depend upon the kind of stone at hand. In some localities, round pebble-stones are found scattered over the surface, or piled in heaps upon our farms; in others, flat, slaty stones abound, and in others, broken stones from quarries may be more convenient. Of these, probably,[116] the least reliable is the drain filled with pebble-stones, or broken stones of small size. They are peculiarly liable to be obstructed, because there is no regular water-way, and the flow of the water must, of course, be very slow, impeded as it is by friction at all points with the irregular surfaces.

Sand, and other obstructing substances, which find their way, more or less, into all drains, are deposited among the stones—the water having no force of current sufficient to carry them forward—and the drain is soon filled up at some point, and ruined.

Miles of such drains have been laid on many New England farms, at shoal depths, of two or two and a half feet, and have in a few years failed. For a time, their effect, to those unaccustomed to under-drainage, seems almost miraculous. The wet field becomes dry, the wild grass gives place to clover and herds-grass, and the experiment is pronounced successful. After a few years, however, the wild grass re-appears, the water again stands on the surface, and it is ascertained, on examination, that the drain is in some place packed solid with earth, and is filled with stagnant water.

The fault is by no means wholly in the material. In clay or hard pan, such a drain may be made durable, with proper care, but it must be laid deep enough to be beyond the effect of the treading of cattle and of loaded teams, and the common action of frost. They can hardly be laid low enough to be beyond the reach of our great enemy, the mole, which follows relentlessly all our operations.

We recollect the remarks of Mr. Downing about the complaints in New England, of injury to fruit-trees by the gnawing of field-mice.

He said he should as soon think of danger from injury by giraffes as field-mice, in his own neighborhood, though he had no doubt of their depredations elsewhere!

It may seem to many, that we lay too much stress on[117] this point, of danger from moles and mice. We know whereof we do testify in this matter. We verily believe that we never finished a drain of brush or stones, on our farm, ten rods long, that there was not a colony of these varmint in the one end of it, before we had finished the other. If these drains, however, are made three or four feet deep, and the solid earth rammed hard over the turf, which covers the stones, they will be comparatively safe.

The figures 24 and 25 below, represent a mode of laying stone drains, practiced in Ireland, which will be found probably more convenient and secure than any other method, for common small drains. A flat stone is set upright against one side of the ditch, which should be near the bottom, perpendicular. Another stone is set leaning against the first, with its foot resting against the opposite bank. If the soil be soft clay, a flat stone may be placed first on the bottom of the ditch, for the water to flow upon; but this will be found a great addition to the labor, unless flat stones of peculiarly uniform shape and thickness are at hand. A board laid at the bottom will be usually far cheaper, and less liable to cause obstructions.

Figure 25 represents the ditch without the small stones[118] above the duct. These small stones are, in nine cases in ten, worse than useless, for they are not only unnecessary to admit the water, but furnish a harbor for mice and other vermin.

Drawings, representing a filling of small stones above the duct, have been copied from one work to another for generations, and it seems never to have occurred, even to modern writers, that the small stones might be omitted. Any one, who knows anything of the present system of draining with tiles, must perceive at once that, if we have the open triangular duct or the square culvert, the water cannot be kept from finding it, by any filling over it with such earth as is usually found in ditching. Formerly, when tiles were used, the ditch was filled above the tiles, to the height of a foot or more, with broken stones; but this practice has been everywhere abandoned as expensive and useless.

An opening of any form, equal to a circle of two or three inches diameter, will be sufficient in most cases, though the necessary size of the duct must, of course, depend on the quantity of water which may be expected to flow in it at the time of the greatest flood.

Whatever the form of the stone drain, care should be taken to make the joints as close as possible, and turf, shavings, straw, tan, or some other material, should be carefully placed over the joints, to prevent the washing in of sand, which is the worst enemy of all drains.

It is not deemed necessary to remark particularly upon the mode of laying large drains for water-courses, with abutments and covering stones, forming a square duct, because it is the mode universally known and practiced. For small drains, in thorough-draining lands, it may, however, be remarked, that this is, perhaps, the most expensive of all modes, because a much greater width of excavation is necessary in order to place in position the two[119] side stones and leave the requisite space between them. That mode of drainage which requires the least excavation and the least carriage of materials, and consequently the least filling up and levelling, is usually the cheapest.

Our conclusion as to stone drains is, that, at present, they may be, in many cases, found useful and economical; and even where tiles are to be procured at present prices stones may well be used, where materials are at hand, for the largest drains.

This would be an absurd question to place at the head of a division in a work intended for the English public, for tiles are as common in England as bricks, and their forms and uses as familiar to all. But in America, though tiles are used to a considerable extent in some localities, probably not one farmer in one hundred in the whole country ever saw one.

The author has recently received letters of inquiry about the use and cost of tiles, from which it is manifest that the writers have in their mind as tiles, the square bricks with which our grandfathers used to lay their hearths.

In Johnstone's Report to the Board of Agriculture on Elkington's System of Draining, published in England in 1797, the only kind of tiles or clay conduits described or alluded to by him, are what he calls "draining-bricks," of which he gives drawings, which we transfer to our pages precisely as found in the American edition. It will be[121] seen to be as clumsy a contrivance as could well be devised.

So lately as 1856, tiles were brought from Albany, N. Y., to Exeter, N. H., nearly 300 miles, by railway, at a cost, including freight, of $25 a thousand for two-inch pipes, and it is believed that no tiles were ever made in New Hampshire till the year 1857. These facts will soon become curiosities in agricultural literature, and so are worth preserving. They furnish excuse, too, for what may appear to learned agriculturists an unnecessary particularity in what might seem the well-known facts relative to tile-drainage.

Drain-tiles are made of clay of almost any quality that will make bricks, moulded by a machine into tubes, or into half-tube or horse-shoe forms, usually fourteen inches long before drying, and burnt in a furnace or kiln to be about as hard as what are called hard-burnt bricks. They are usually moulded about half an inch in thickness, varying with the size and form of the tile. The sizes vary from one inch to six inches, and sometimes larger, in the diameter of the bore. The forms are also very various; and as this is one of the most essential matters,[122] as affecting the efficiency, the cost, and the durability of tile-drainage, it will be well to give it critical attention.

The simplest, cheapest, and best form of drain-tile is the cylinder, or merely a tube, round outside and with a round bore.

Tiles of this form, and all others which are tubular, are called pipes, in distinction from those with open bottoms, like those of horse-shoe form.

About forty years ago, as Mr. Gisborne informs us, small pipes for land-drainage were used, concurrently, by persons residing in the counties of Lincoln, Oxford, and Kent, who had, probably, no knowledge of each other's operations. Most of those pipes were made with eyelet-holes, to admit the water. Pipes for thorough-draining excited no general attention till they were exhibited by John Read at the show at Derby, in the year 1843. A medal was awarded to the exhibitor. Mr. Parkes was one of the judges, and brought the pipes to the special notice of the council. From this time, inventions and improvements were rapid, and soon, collars were introduced, and the use of improved machines to mould the pipes;[123] and drainage, under the fostering influence of the Royal Agricultural Society, became a subject of general attention throughout the kingdom. The round pipe, or the pipe, as it seems, par excellence, to be termed by English drainers, though one of the latest, if not the last form of tiles introduced in England, has become altogether the most popular among scientific men, and is generally used in all works conducted under the charge of the Land Drainage Companies. This ought to settle the question for us, when we consider that the immense sum of twenty millions of dollars of public funds has been expended by them, in addition to vast amounts of private funds, and that the highest practical talent of the nation is engaged in the work.

After giving some idea of the various forms of tiles in use, it is, however, proposed to examine the question upon its merits, so that each may judge for himself which is best.

The earliest form of tiles introduced for the purpose of thorough-drainage, was the horse-shoe tile, so called from its shape. The horse-shoe tile has been sometimes used without any sole to form the bottom of the drain, thus leaving the water to run on the ground. There can hardly be a question of the false economy of this mode, for the hardest and most impervious soil softens under the constant action of running water, and then the edges of the tiles must sink, or the bottom of the drain rise, and thus destroy the work.

Various devices have been tried to save the expense of soles, such as providing the edges of the tiles with flanges or using pieces of soles on which to rest the ends of the tiles. They all leave the bottom of the drain unprotected against the wearing action of the water.

Horse-shoe tiles, or "tops and bottoms" as they are called in some counties, are still much used in England;[124] and in personal conversation with farmers there, the writer found a strong opinion expressed in their favor. The advantages claimed for the "tops and bottoms" are, that they lie firmly in place, and that they admit the water more freely than others.

The objections to them are, that they are more expensive than round pipes, and are not so strong, and are not so easily laid, and that they do not discharge water so well as tiles with a round bore. In laying them, they should be made to rest partly upon two adjoining soles, or to break bond, as it is called. The soles are made separate from the tiles, and are merely flat pieces, of sufficient width to support firmly both edges of the tiles. The soles are usually an inch wider than the tiles.

The above figure represents the horse-shoe tiles and soles properly placed.

As this form of tile has been generally used by the most successful drainers in New York, it may be well to cite the high authority of Mr. Gisborne for the objections which have been suggested. It should be recollected in this connection, that the drainage in this country has been what in England would be called shallow, and that it is too recent to have borne the test of time.

Mr. Gisborne says:

Another form of tiles, called sole-tiles, or sole-pipes, is much used in America, more indeed than any other, except perhaps the horse-shoe tile; probably, because the first manufacturers fancied them the best, and offered no others in the market.

In this form, the sole is solid with the tile. The bottom is flat, but the bore is round, or oval, or egg-shaped, with the small end of the orifice downward.

The sole-pipe has considerable advantages theoretically. The opening or bore is of the right shape, the bottom lies fair and firm in place, and the drain, indeed, is perfect, if carefully and properly laid.

The objections to the sole-pipes are, that they are somewhat more expensive than round pipes, and that they require great care in placing them, so as to make the passage even from one pipe to another.

A slight depression of one side of a pipe of this kind, especially if the bore be oval or egg-shaped, throws the water passage out of line. In laying them, the author has taken the precaution to place under each joint a thin piece of wood, such as our honest shoe manufacturers use for[126] stiffening in shoes, to keep the bottoms of the pipes even, at least until the ground has settled compactly, and as much longer as they may escape "decay's effacing finger."

Collars for tiles are used wherever a sudden descent occurs in the course of a drain, or where there is a loose sand or a boggy place, and by many persons they are used in all drains through sandy or gravelly land.

The above figure represents pipe-tiles fitted with collars. Collars are merely short sections of pipes of such size as to fit upon the smaller ones loosely, covering the joint, and holding the ends in place, so that they cannot slip past each other. In very bad places, small pipes may be entirely sheathed in larger ones; and this is advisable in steep descents or flowing sands.

A great advantage in round pipes is, that there is no wrong-side-up to them, and they are, therefore, more readily placed in position than tiles of any other form.

Again: all tiles are more or less warped in drying and burning; and, where it is desired to make perfect work, round pipes may be turned so as to make better joints and a straighter run for the water—which is very important.

If collars are used, there is still less difficulty in adjusting the pipes so as to make the lines straight, and far less danger of obstruction by sand or roots. Indeed, it is believed that no drain can be made more perfect than with round pipes and collars.

As it is believed that few collars have ever yet been used in this country, and the best drainers in England are not agreed as to the necessity of using them, we give the opinions of two or three distinguished gentlemen, in their own language. Mr. Gisborne says:

As to the danger of breaking the pipes, which might well be apprehended, we found by actual experiment, at the New York Central Park, that a one-inch Albany pipe[128] resting on collars upon a floor, with a bearing at each end of but one inch, would support the weight of a man weighing 160 pounds, standing on one foot on the middle of the pipe.

Mr. Parkes sums up his opinion upon the subject of collars, in these words:

In draining in the neighborhood of trees, collars are also supposed to be of great use in preventing the intrusion of roots into the pipes, although it may be impossible, even in this way, to exclude the roots of water-loving trees.

From the most careful inquiry that the writer was able to make, as to the practice in England, he is satisfied that collars are not generally used there in the drainage of clays, but that the pipes are laid in openings shaped for them at the bottom of the drains, with a tool which forms a groove into which the pipes fall readily into line, and very little seems to be said of collars in the published estimates of the cost of drainage.

On this subject, we have the opinion of Mr. Denton, thus expressed:

[129]

The form of the bore, or water passage, in tiles, is a point of more importance than at first appears. At one of our colleges, certain plank sewers, in the ordinary square form, were often obstructed by the sediment from the dirty water. "Turn them cornerwise," suggested the professor of Natural Philosophy. It was done, and ever after they kept in order. The pressure of water depends on its height, or head. Everybody knows that six feet of water carries a mill-wheel better than one foot. The same principle operates on a small scale. An inch head of water presses harder than a half inch. The velocity of water, again, depends much on its height. Whether there be much or little water passing through a drain, it has manifestly a greater power to make its way, to drive before it sand or other obstructions, when it is heaped up in a round passage, than when wandering over the flat surface of a tile sole. Any one who has observed the discharge of water from flat-bottomed and round tiles, will be satisfied that the quantity of water which is sufficient to run in a rapid stream of a half or quarter inch diameter from a round tile, will lazily creep along the flat bottom of a sole tile, with hardly force sufficient to turn aside a grain of sand, or to bring back to light an enterprising cricket that may have entered on an exploration. On the whole, solid tiles, with flat-bottomed passages, may be set down among the inventions of the adversary. They have not the claims even of the horse-shoe form to respect, because they do not admit water better than round pipes, and are not united by a sole on which the ends of the adjoining tiles rest. They combine the faults of all other forms, with the peculiar virtues of none.

[130]

From an English report on the drainage of towns, the following, which illustrates this point, is taken:

Is a matter of much importance, whether we regard the efficiency and durability of our work, or economy in completing it. The cost of tiles, and the freight of them, increase rapidly with their size, and it is, therefore, well to use the smallest that will effect the object in view. Tiles should be large enough, as a first proposition, to carry off, in a reasonable time, all the surplus water that may fall upon the land. Here, the English rules will not be safe for us; for, although England has many more rainy days than we have, yet we have, in general, a greater fall of rain—more inches of water from the clouds in the year. Instead of their eternal drizzle, we have thunder showers in Summer, and in Spring and Autumn north-east storms, when the windows of heaven are opened, and a deluge, except in duration, bursts upon us. Then, at the North, the Winter snows cover the fields until April, when they suddenly dissolve, often under heavy showers of rain, and planting time is at once upon us. It is desirable that all the snow and rain-water should pass through the soil into the drains, instead of overflowing the surface, so as to save the elements of fertility with which such water abounds, and also to prevent the washing of the soil. We require, then, a greater capacity of drainage, larger tiles, than do the English, for our drains must do a greater work than theirs, and in less time.[131]

There are several other general considerations that should be noticed, before we attempt to define the particular size for any location. Several small drains are usually discharged into one main drain. This main should have sufficient capacity to conduct all the water that may be expected to enter it, and no more. If the small drains overflow it, the main will be liable to be burst, or the land about it filled with water, gushing from it at the joints; especially, if the small drains come down a hill side, so as to give a great pressure, or head of water. On the other hand, if the main be larger than is necessary, there is the useless expense of larger tiles than were required. The capacity of pipes to convey water, depends, other things being equal, upon their size; but here the word size has a meaning which should be kept clearly in mind.

The capacity of round water-pipes is in proportion to the squares of their diameters.

A one-inch pipe carries one inch (circular, not square) of water, but a two-inch pipe carries not two inches only, but twice two, or four inches of water; a three-inch pipe carries three times three, or nine inches; and a four-inch pipe, sixteen inches. Thus we see, that under the same conditions as to fall, directness, smoothness, and the like, a four-inch pipe carries just four times as much water as a two-inch pipe. In fact, it will carry more than this proportion, because friction, which is an important element in all such calculations, is greater in proportion to the smaller size of the pipe.

Velocity is another essential element to be noticed in determining the amount of water which may be discharged through a pipe of given diameter. Velocity, again, depends on several conditions. Water runs faster down a steep hill than down a gentle declivity. This is due to the weight of the water, or, in other words, to gravitation, and operates whether the water be at large on[132] the ground, or confined in a pipe, and it operates alike whether the water in a pipe fill its bore or not.

But, again, the velocity of water in a pipe depends on the pressure, or head of water, behind it, and there is, perhaps, no definite limit to the quantity of water that may be forced through a given orifice. More water, for instance, is often forced through the pipe of a fire-engine in full play, in ten minutes, than would run through a pipe of the same diameter, lying nearly level in the ground, in ten hours.

In ordinary aqueducts, for supplying water, and not for drainage, it is desirable to have a high pressure upon the pipes to ensure a rapid flow; but in drainage, a careful distinction must be made between velocity induced by gravitation, and velocity induced by pressure. If induced by the former merely, the pipe through which the water is swiftly running, if not quite full, may still receive water at every joint, while, if the velocity be induced by pressure, the pipe must be already full. It can then receive no more, and must lose water at the joints, and wet the land through which it passes, instead of draining it.

So that although we should find that the mains might carry a vast quantity of water admitted by minor drains from high elevations, yet we should bear in mind, that drains when full can perform no ordinary office of drainage. If there is more than the pressure of four feet head of water behind; the pipes, if they passed through a pond of water, at four feet deep, must lose and not receive water at the joints.

The capacity of a pipe to convey water depends, then, not only on its size, but on its inclination or fall—a pipe running down a considerable descent having much greater capacity than one of the same size lying nearly level. This fact should be borne in mind even in laying single drains; for it is obvious that if the drain lie along a sandy[133] plain, for instance, extending down a springy hill-side, and then, as is usually the case, along a lower plain again, to its outlet at some stream, it may collect as much water as will fill it before it reaches the lower level. Its stream rushes swiftly down the descent, and when it reaches the plain, there is not sufficient fall to carry it away by its natural gravitation. It will still rush onward to its outlet, urged by the pressure from behind; but, with such pressure, it will, as we have seen, instead of draining the land, suffuse it with water.

as has already been suggested, is an element that much interferes with exact calculations as to the relative capacity of water-pipes of various dimensions, and this depends upon several circumstances, such as smoothness, and exactness of form, and directness. The smoother, the more regular in form, and the straighter the drain, the more water will it convey. Thus, in some recent English experiments,

So all sudden turns or angles increase friction and retard velocity, and thus lessen the capacity of the drain—a topic which may be more properly considered under the head of the junction of drains.

We are indebted to Messrs. Shedd & Edson for the following valuable tables showing the capacity of water-pipes, with the accompanying suggestions:

How water enters the tiles, is a question which all persons unaccustomed to the operation of tile-draining usually ask at the outset. In brief, it may be answered, that it enters both at the joints and through the pores of the burnt clay, but mostly at the joints.

Mr. Parkes expresses the opinion, based upon careful observation, that five hundred times as much water enters at the crevices as through the pores of the tiles! If this be so, we may as well, for all practical purposes, regard the water as all entering at the joints. In several experiments which we have attempted, we have found the quantity of water that enters through the pores to be quite too small to be of much practical account.

Tiles differ so much in porosity, that it is difficult to[139] make experiments that can be satisfactory—soft-burnt tiles being, like pale bricks, quite pervious, and hard-burnt tiles being nearly or quite impervious. The amount of pressure upon the clay in moulding also affects the density and porosity of tiles.

Water should enter at the bottom of the tiles, and not at the top. It is a well-known fact in draining, that the deepest drain flows first and longest. A familiar illustration will make this point evident. If a cask or deep box be filled with sand, with one hole near the bottom and another half way to the top, these holes will represent the tiles in a drain. If water be poured into the sand, it will pass downward to the bottom of the vessel, and will not flow out of either hole till the sand be saturated up to the lower hole, and then it will flow out there. If, now, water be poured in faster than the lower hole can discharge it, the vessel will be filled higher, till it will run out at both holes. It is manifest, however, that it will first cease to flow from the upper orifice. There is in the soil a line of water, called the "water-line," or "water-table;" and this, in drained land, is at about the level of the bottom of the tiles. As the rain falls it descends, as in the vessel; and as the water rises, it enters the tiles at the bottom, and never at the top, unless there is more than can pass out of the soil by the lower openings (the crevices and pores) into the tiles. It is well always to interrupt the direct descent of water by percolation from the surface to the top of the tiles, because, in passing so short a distance in the soil, the water is not sufficiently filtered, especially in soil so recently disturbed, but is likely to carry with it not only valuable elements of fertility, but also particles of sand, which may obstruct the drain. This is prevented by placing above the tiles (after they are covered a few inches with gravel, sand, or other porous soil) compact clay, if convenient. If not, a furrow each side of the[140] drain, or a heaping-up of the soil over the drain, when finished, will turn aside the surface-water, and prevent such injury.

In the estimates as to the area of the openings between pipes, it should be considered that the spaces between the pipes are not, in fact, clean openings of one-tenth of an inch, but are partially closed by earthy particles, and that water enters them by no means as rapidly as it would enter the clean pipes before they are covered. Although the rain-fall in England is much less in quantity and much more regular than in this country, yet it is believed that the use of two-inch pipes will be found abundantly sufficient for the admission and conveyance of any quantity of water that it may be necessary to carry off by drainage in common soils. In extraordinary cases, as where the land drained is a swamp, or reservoir for water which falls on the hills around, larger pipes must be used.

In many places in England "tops and bottoms," or horse-shoe tiles, are still preferred by farmers, upon the idea that they admit the water more readily; but their use is continued only by those who have never made trial of pipes. No scientific drainer uses any but pipes in England, and the million of acres well drained with them, is pretty good evidence of their sufficiency. In this country, horse-shoe tiles have been much used in Western New York, and have been found to answer a good purpose; and so it may be said of the sole-pipes. Indeed, it is believed that no instance is to be found on record in America of the failure of tile drains, from the inability of the water to gain admission at the joints.

It may be interesting in this connection to state, that water is 815 times heavier than air. Here is a drain at four feet depth in the ground, filled only with air, and open at the end so that the air can go out. Above this open space is four feet of earth saturated with water. What is the pressure of the water upon the tiles?[141]

Mr. Thomas Arkell, in a communication to the Society of Arts, in England, says—

It is difficult to demonstrate the truth of this theory; but the same opinion has been expressed to the writer by persons of learning and of practical skill, based upon observations as to the entrance of water into gas pipes, from which it is almost, if not quite, impossible to exclude it by the most perfect joints in iron pipes. Whatever be the theory as to pressure, or the difficulties as to the water percolating through compact soils to the tiles, there will be no doubt left on the mind of any one, after one experiment tried in the field, that, in common cases, all the surplus water that reaches the tiles is freely admitted. A gentleman, who has commenced draining his farm, recently, in New Hampshire, expressed to the author his opinion, that tiles in his land admitted the water as freely as a hole of a similar size to the bore of the tile would admit it, if it could be kept open through the soil without the tile.

How long will they last? This is the first and most important question. Men, who have commenced with open ditches, and, having become disgusted with the deformity, the inconvenience, and the inefficiency of them, have then tried bushes, and boards, and turf, and found them, too, perishable; and again have used stones, and after a time seen them fail, through obstructions caused by moles or frost—these men have the right to a well-considered answer to this question.[142]

The foolish fellow in the Greek Reader, who, having heard that a crow would live a hundred years, purchased one to verify the saying, probably did not live long enough to ascertain that it was true. How long a properly laid tile-drain of hard-burnt tiles will endure, has not been definitely ascertained, but it is believed that it will outlast the life of him who lays it.

No tiles have been long enough laid in the United States to test this question by experience, and in England no further result seems to have been arrived at, than that the work is a permanent improvement.

In another part of this treatise, may be found some account of Land Drainage Companies, and of Government loans in aid of improvements by drainage in Great Britain. One of these acts provides for a charge on the land for such improvements, to be paid in full in fifty years. That is to say, the expense of the drainage is an incumbrance like a mortgage on the land, at a certain rate of interest, and the tenant or occupant of the land, each year pays the interest and enough more to discharge the debt in just fifty years. Thus, it is assumed by the Government, that the improvement will last fifty years in its full operation, because the last year of the fifty pays precisely the same as every other year.

It may therefore be considered as the settled conviction of all branches of the British government, and of all the best-informed, practical land-drainers in that country, that TILE-DRAINAGE WILL ENDURE FIFTY YEARS AT LEAST, if properly executed.

This is long enough to satisfy any American; for the migratory habits of our citizens, and the constant changes of cultivated fields into village and city lots, prevent our imagination even conceiving the idea that we or our posterity can remain for half a century upon the same farm.

It is much easier, however, to lay tile-drains so that[143] they will not be of use half of fifty years, than to make them permanent in their effect. Tile-drainage, it cannot be too much enforced, is an operation requiring great care and considerable skill—altogether more care and skill than our common laborers, or even most of our farmers, are accustomed to exercise in their farm operations.

A blunder in draining, like the blunder of a physician, may be soon concealed by the grass that grows over it, but can never be corrected. Drainage is a new art in this country, and tile-making is a new art. Without good, hard-burnt tiles, no care or skill can make permanent work.

Tile-drainage will endure so long as the tiles last, if the work be properly done.

There is no reason why a tile should not last in the ground as long as a brick will last. Bricks will fall to pieces in the ground in a very short time if not hard-burnt, while hard-burnt bricks of good clay will last as long as granite.

Tiles must be hard-burnt in order to endure. But this is not all. Drains fail from various other causes than the crumbling of the tiles. They are frequently obstructed by mice, moles, frogs, and vermin of all kinds, if not protected at the outlet. They are often destroyed by the treading of cattle, and by the deposit of mud at the outlet, through insufficient care. They are liable to be filled with sand, through want of care in protecting the joints in laying, and through want of collars, and other means of keeping them in line. They are liable, too, to fill up by deposits of sand and the like, by being laid lower in some places than the parts nearer the outlet, so that the slack places catch and retain whatever is brought down, till the pipe is filled.

Frost is an enemy which in this country we have to[144] contend with, more than in any other, where tile-drainage has been much practiced.

Upon all these points, remarks will be found under the appropriate heads; and these suggestions are repeated here, because we know that haste and want of skill are likely to do much injury to the cause which we advocate. Any work that requires only energy and progress, is safe in American hands; but cautious and slow operations are by no means to their taste.

Dickens says, that on railways and coaches, wherever in England they say, "All right," the Americans use, instead, the phrase, "Go ahead." In tile-drainage, the motto, "All right," will be found far more safe than the motto, "Go ahead."

Instances are given in England of drains laid with handmade tiles, which have operated well for thirty years, and have not yet failed.

Mr. Parkes informs us: "That, about 1804, pipe-tiles made tapering, with one end entering the other, and two inches in the smallest point, were laid down in the park now possessed by Sir Thomas Whichcote, Aswarby, Lincolnshire, and that they still act well."

Stephens gives the following instance of the durability of bricks used in draining:

In our chapter upon the "Obstruction of Drains," the various causes which operate against the permanency of drains, are more fully considered.

Whether drains should run up and down the slope of the hill, or directly across it, or in a diagonal line as a compromise between the first two, are questions which beginners in the art and mystery of drainage usually discuss with great zeal. It seems so plain to one man, at the first glance, that, in order to catch the water that is running down under the soil upon the subsoil, from the top of the hill to the bottom, you must cut a ditch across the current, that he sees no occasion to examine the question farther. Another, whose idea is, to catch the water in his drain before it rises to the surface, as it is passing up from below or running along on the subsoil, and keep it from rising higher than the bottom of his ditch, thinks it quite as obvious that the drains should run up and down the slope, that the water, once entering, may remain in the drain, going directly down hill to the outlet. A third hits on the Keythorpe system, and regarding the water as[147] flowing down the slope, under the soil, in certain natural channels in the subsoil, fancies they may best be cut off by drains, in the nature of mains, running diagonally across the slope.

These different ideas of men, if examined, will be found to result mainly from their different notions of the underground circulation of water. In considering the Theory of Moisture, an attempt was made to suggest the different causes of the wetness of land.

To drain land effectually, we must have a correct idea of the sources of the water that makes the particular field too wet; whether it falls from the clouds directly upon it; or whether it falls on land situated above it and sloping towards it, so that the water runs down, as upon a roof, from other fields or slopes to our own; or whether it gushes up in springs which find vent in particular spots, and so is diffused through the soil.

If we have only to take care of the water that falls on our own field, from the clouds, that is quite a different matter from draining the whole adjoining region, and requires a different mode of operation. If your field is in the middle, or at the foot, of an undrained slope, from which the water runs on the surface over your land, or soaks through it toward some stream or swamp below, provision must be made not only for drainage of your own field, but also for partial drainage of your neighbor's above, or at least for defence against his surplus of water.

The first, and leading idea to be kept in mind, as governing this question of the direction of drains, is the simple fact that water runs down hill; or, to express the fact more scientifically, water constantly seeks a lower level by the force of gravitation, and the whole object of drains is to open lower and still lower passages, into which the water may fall lower and lower until it is discharged from our field at a safe depth.[148]

Water goes down, then, by its own weight, unless there is something through which it cannot readily pass, to bring it out at the surface. It will go into the drains, only because they are lower than the land drained. It will never go upward to find a drain, and it will go toward a drain the more readily, in proportion as the descent is more steep toward it.

To decide properly what direction a drain should have, it is necessary, then, to have a definite and a correct idea as to what office the drain is to perform, what water is to fall into it, what land it is to drain.

Suppose the general plan to be, to lay drains forty feet apart, and four feet deep over the field, and the question now to be determined, as to the direction, whether across, or up and down the slope, there being fall enough to render either course practicable. The first point of inquiry is, what is expected of each drain? How much and what land should it drain? The general answer must be, forty feet breadth, either up and down the slope, or across it; according to the direction. But we must be more definite in our inquiry than even this. From what forty feet of land will the water fall into the drain? Obviously, from some land in which the water is higher than the bottom of the drain.

If, then, the drain run directly across the slope, most of the water that can fall into it, must come from the forty feet breadth of land between the drain in question, and the drain next above it. If the water were falling on an impervious surface, it would all run according to the slope of the surface, in which case, by the way, no drains but those across, could catch any of it except what fell upon the drains. But the whole theory of drainage is otherwise, and is based on the idea that we change the course of the underground flow, by drawing out the water[149] at given points by our drains; or, in other words, that "the water seeks the lowest level in all directions."

Upon the best view the writer has been able to take of the two systems as to the direction of drains, there is but a very small advantage in theory in favor of either over the other, in soil which is homogeneous. But it must be borne in mind that homogeneous soil is rather the exception in nature than the rule.

Without undertaking to advance or defend any peculiar geological views of the structure of the earth, or of the depositions or formations that compose its surface, it may be said, that very often the first four feet of subsoil is composed of strata, or layers of earth of varying porosity.

Beneath sand will be found a stratum of clay, or of compact or cemented gravel, and frequently these strata are numerous and thin. Indeed, if there be not some stratum below the soil, which impedes the passage of water, it would pass downward, and the land would need no artificial drainage. Quite often it will be found that the dip or inclination of the various strata below the soil is different from that of the surface.

The surface may have a considerable slope, while the lower strata lie nearly level, as if they had been cut through by artificial grading.

The following figure from the Cyclopedia of Agriculture, with the explanation, fully illustrates this idea.

These reasons are, it is true, applicable only to land of peculiar structure; but there are reasons for selecting the line of greatest fall for the direction of drains which are applicable to all lands alike.

"The line of the greatest fall is the only line in which a drain is relatively lower than the land on either side of it." Whether we regard the surplus water as having recently fallen upon the field, and as being stopped near the surface by an impervious stratum, or as brought down on these strata from above, we have it to be disposed of as it rests upon this stratum, and is borne out by it to the surface.

If there is a decided dip, or inclination, of this stratum outward down the slope, it is manifest that the water cannot pass backward to a cross drain higher up the slope. The course of the water must be downward upon the stratum on which it lies, and so all between two cross[151] drains must pass to the lower one. The upper drain could take very little, if any, and the greater the inclination of this stratum, the less could flow backward.

But in such case a drain down the slope gives to the water borne up by these strata, an outlet of the depth of the drain. If the drain be four feet deep, it cuts the water-bearing strata each at that depth, and takes off the water.

In these cases, the different layers of clay or other impervious "partings," are like the steps of a huge stairway, with the soil filling them up to a regular grade. The ditch cuts through these steps, letting the water that rests on them fall off at the ends, instead of running over the edges. Drains across the slope have been significantly termed "mere catch-waters."

If we wish to use water to irrigate lands, we carefully conduct it along the surface across the slope, allowing it to flow over and to soak through the soil. If we desire to carry the same water off the field as speedily as possible, we should carry our surface ditch directly down the slope.

Now, looking at the operation of drains across the slope, and supposing that each drain is draining the breadth next above it, we will suppose the drain to be running full of water. What is there to prevent the water from passing out of that drain in its progress, at every point of the tiles, and so saturating the breadth below it? Drainpipes afford the same facility for water to soak out at the lower side, as to enter on the upper, and there is the same law of gravitation to operate in each case. Mr. Denton gives instances in which he has observed, where drains were carried across the slope, in Warwickshire, lines of moisture at a regular distance below the drains. He could ascertain, he says, the depth of the drain itself, by taking the difference of height between the line of the[152] drain at the surface, and that of the line of moisture beneath it. He says again:

So far as authority goes, there seems, with the exception of some advocates of the Keythorpe system, of which an account has been given, to be very little difference of opinion. Mr. Denton says:

In another place, he says:

Allusion has been made to cases where we may have to defend ourselves from the flow of water from higher undrained lands of our neighbor. To arrest the flow of mere surface water, an open ditch, or catch-water, is the most effectual, as well as the most obvious mode. There are many instances in New England, where lands upon the lowest slopes of hills are overflowed by water which fell high up upon the hill, and, after passing downward till arrested by rock formation, is borne out again to the surface, in such quantity as to produce, just at the foot of the hill, almost a swamp. This land is usually rich from the wash of the hills, but full of cold water.[153]

To effect perfect drainage of a portion of this land, which we will suppose to be a gentle slope, the first object must be to cut off the flow of water upon or near the surface. An open ditch across the top would most certainly effect this object, and it may be doubtful whether any other drain would be sufficient. This would depend upon the quantity of water flowing down. If the quantity be very great at times, a part of it would be likely to flow across the top of an under-drain, from not having time to percolate downward into it.

In all cases, it is advised, where our work stops upon a slope, to introduce a cross-drain, connecting the tops of all the minor-drains. This cross-drain is called a header. The object of it is to cut off the water that may be passing along in the subsoil down the slope, and which would otherwise be likely to pass downward between the system of drains to a considerable distance before finding them. If we suppose the ground saturated with water, and our drains running up the slope and stopping at 4 feet depth, with no header connecting them, they, in effect, stop against 4 feet head of water, and in order to drain the land as far up as they go, must not only take their fair proportion of water which lies between them, but must draw down this 4 feet head beyond them. This they cannot do, because the water from a higher source, with the aid of capillary attraction, and the friction or resistance met with in percolation, will keep up this head of water far above the drained level.

In railway cuttings, and the like, we often see a slope of this kind cut through, without drying the land above the cutting; and if the slope be disposed in alternate layers of sand or gravel, and clay, the water will continue to flow out high up on the perpendicular bank. Even in porous soils of homogeneous character, it will be found that the head of water, if we may use the expression, is[154] affected but a short distance by a drain across its flow. Indeed, the whole theory as to the distance of drains apart, rests upon the idea, that the limit to which drains may be expected effectually to operate, is at most but two or three rods.

Whether, in a particular case, a header alone will be sufficient to cut off the flow of water from the higher land, or whether, in addition to the header, an open catch-water may be required, must depend upon the quantity of water likely to flow through or upon the land. An under-drain might be expected to absorb any moderate quantity of what may be termed drainage-water, but it cannot stop a river or mill-stream; and if the earth above the tiles be compact, even water flowing through the soil with rapidity, might pass across it. If there is reason to apprehend this, an open ditch might be added to the header; or, if this is not considered sufficiently scientific or in good taste, a tile-drain of sufficient capacity may be laid, with the ditch above it carefully packed with small stones to the top of the ground. Such a drain would be likely to receive sand and other obstructing substances, as well as a large amount of water, and should, for both reasons, be carried off independently of the small drains, which would thus be left to discharge their legitimate service.

Where it is thought best to connect an open, or surface drain, with a covered drain, it will add much to its security against silt and other obstructions, to interpose a trap or silt-basin at the junction, and thus allow the water to pass off comparatively clean. Where, however, there is a large flow of water into a basin, it will be kept so much in motion as to carry along with it a large amount of earth, and thus endanger the drain below, unless it be very large.

The reader, who has studied carefully the rival systems of "deep drainage" and "thorough drainage," has seen that the distance of drains apart, is closely connected with that controversy. The greatest variety of opinion is expressed by different writers as to the proper distances, ranging all the way from ten feet apart to seventy, or even more.

Many English writers have ranged themselves on one side or the other of some sharp controversy as to the merits of some peculiar system. Some distinguished geologist has discovered, or thinks he has, some new law of creation by which he can trace the underground currents of water; or some noble noble lord has "patronized" into notice some caprice of an aspiring engineer, and straight-way the kingdom is convulsed with contests to set up or cast down these idols. By careful observation, it is said, we may find "sermons in stones, and good in everything;" and, standing aloof from all exciting controversies, we may often profit, not only by the science and wisdom of our brethren, but also by their errors and excesses. If, by the help of the successes and failures of our English neighbors, we shall succeed in attaining to their present standard of perfection in agriculture, we shall certainly make great advances upon our present position.

As the distances of drains apart, depend manifestly on many circumstances, which may widely vary in the diversity of soil, climate, and cost of labor and materials to be found in the United States, it will be convenient to arrange our remarks on the subject under appropriate heads.

Water runs readily through sand or gravel. In such soils it easily seeks and finds its level. If it be drawn[156] out at one point, it tends towards that point from all directions. In a free, open sand, you may draw out all the water at one opening, almost as readily as from an open pond.

Yet, even such sands may require draining. A body of sandy soil frequently lies not only upon clay, but in a basin; so that, if the sand were removed, a pond would remain. In such a case, a few deep drains, rightly placed, might be sufficient. This, however, is a case not often met with, though open, sandy soil upon clay is a common formation.

Then there is the other extreme of compact clay, through which water seems scarcely to percolate at all. Yet it has water in it, that may probably soak out by the same process by which it soaked in. Very few soils, of even such as are called clay, are impervious to water, especially in the condition in which they are found in nature. To render them impervious, it is necessary to wet and stir them up, or, as it is termed, puddle them. Any soil, so far as it has been weathered—that is, exposed to air, water and frost—is permeable to water to a greater or less degree; so that we may feel confident that the upper stratum of any soil, not constantly under water, will readily allow the water to pass through.

And in considering the "Drainage of Stiff Clays," we shall see that the most obstinate clays are usually so affected by the operation of drainage, that they crack, and so open passages for the water to the drains.

All gravels, black mud of swamps, and loamy soils of any kind, are readily drained.

Occasionally, however—even in tracts of easy drainage, as a whole—deposits are found of some combinations with iron, so firmly cemented together, as to be almost impenetrable with the pick-axe, and apparently impervious[157] to water. Exceptional cases of this nature must be carefully sought for by the drainer.

Whenever a wet spot is observed, seek for the cause, and be satisfied whether it is wet because a spring bursts up from the bottom; or because the subsoil is impervious, and will not allow the surface-water to pass downward. Ascertain carefully the cause of the evil, and then skillfully doctor the disease, and not the symptoms merely. A careful attention to the theory of moisture, will go far to enable us properly to determine the requisite frequency of drains.

The relations of the depth and distance of drains will be more fully considered, in treating of the depth of drains. The idea that depth will compensate for frequency, in all cases, seems now to be abandoned. It is conceded that clay-soils, which readily absorb moisture, and yet are strongly retentive, cannot be drained with sufficient rapidity, or even thoroughness, by drains at any depth, unless they are also within certain distances.