Transcriber's Note:
A number of typographical errors have been corrected. They are shown in the text with mouse-hover popups.

FARM DRAINAGE.

THE
PRINCIPLES, PROCESSES, AND EFFECTS
OF
DRAINING LAND
WITH STONES, WOOD, PLOWS, AND OPEN DITCHES,
AND ESPECIALLY WITH TILES;
INCLUDING
TABLES OF RAIN-FALL,
EVAPORATION, FILTRATION, EXCAVATION, CAPACITY OF PIPES; COST AND NUMBER TO THE ACRE, OF TILES, &C., &C.,

AND MORE THAN 100 ILLUSTRATIONS.

BY
HENRY F. FRENCH.

"Read, not to contradict and to confute, nor to believe and take for granted, but to weigh and consider."—Bacon.

"The first Farmer was the first man, and all nobility rests on the possession and use of land."—Emerson.

NEW YORK:
C. M. SAXTON, BARKER & CO.,
AGRICULTURAL BOOK PUBLISHERS, No. 25 PARK ROW
1860.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1859,
By HENRY F. FRENCH,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States in and for the Southern District of New York.

to
The Honorable Simon Brown,
of Massachusetts,
A Lover of Agriculture, and a Progressive Farmer,
whose Words and Works are so well devoted to Improve the Condition
of Those who Cultivate the Earth,
this Book is Inscribed, as a Testimonial of Respect and Personal Esteem,
by his Friend and Brother,

The Author.

PREFACE.

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.

LIST OF ENGRAVINGS.

CONTENTS.

  • [CHAPTER I.]
  • INTRODUCTORY.
  • Why this Treatise does not contain all Knowledge.—Attention of Scientific Men attracted to Drainage.—Lieutenant Maury's Suggestions.—Ralph Waldo Emerson's Views.—Opinions of J. H. Klippart, Esq.; of Professor Mapes; B. P. Johnson, Esq.; Governor Wright, Mr. Custis, &c.—Prejudice against what is English.—Acknowledgements to our Friends at Home and Abroad.—The Wants of our Farmers.
  • [CHAPTER II.]
  • HISTORY OF THE ART OF DRAINING.
  • Draining as old as the Deluge.—Roman Authors.—Walter Bligh in 1650.—No thorough drainage till Smith, of Deanston.—No mention of Tiles in the "Compleat Body of Husbandry," 1758.—Tiles found 100 years old.—Elkington's System.—Johnstone's Puns and Peripatetics.—Draining Springs.—Bletonism, or the Faculty of Perceiving Subterranean Water.—Deanston System.—Views of Mr. Parkes.—Keythorpe System.—Wharncliffe System.—Introduction of Tiles into America.—John Johnston, and Mr. Delafield, of New York.
  • [CHAPTER III.]
  • RAIN, EVAPORATION AND FILTRATION.
  • Fertilizing Substances in Rain Water.—Amount of Rain Fall in United States; in England.—Tables of Rain Fall.—Number of Rainy Days, and Quantity of Rain each Month.—Snow, how Computed as Water.—Proportion of Rain Evaporated.—What Quantity of Water Dry Soil will Hold.—Dew Point.—How Evaporation Cools Bodies.—Artificial Heat Underground.—Tables of Filtration and Evaporation.
  • [CHAPTER IV.]
  • DRAINAGE OF HIGH LANDS—WHAT LANDS REQUIRE DRAINAGE.
  • What is High Land?—Accidents to Crops from Water.—Do Lands need Drainage in America?—Springs.—Theory of Moisture, with Illustrations.—Water of Pressure.—Legal Rights as to Draining our Neighbor's Wells and Land.—What Lands require Drainage?—Horace Greeley's Opinion.—Drainage more Necessary in America than in England; Indications of too much Moisture.—Will Drainage Pay?
  • [CHAPTER V.]
  • VARIOUS METHODS OF DRAINAGE.
  • Open Ditches.—Slope of Banks.—Brush Drains.—Ridge and Furrow.—Plug-Draining.—Mole-Draining.—Mole-Plow.—Wedge and Shoulder Drains.—Larch Tubes.—Drains of Fence Rails, and Poles.—Peat Tiles.—Stone Drains Injured by Moles.—Downing's Giraffes.—Illustrations of Various Kinds of Stone Drains.
  • [CHAPTER VI.]
  • DRAINAGE WITH TILES.
  • What are Drain-Tiles?—Forms of Tiles.—Pipes.—Horse-shoe Tiles.— Sole-Tiles.—Form of Water-Passage.—Collars and their Use.—Size of Pipes.—Velocity.—Friction.—Discharge of Water through Pipes.—Tables of Capacity.—How Water enters Tiles.—Deep Drains run soonest and longest.—Pressure of Water on Pipes.—Durability of Tile Drains.— Drain-Bricks 100 years old.
  • [CHAPTER VII.]
  • DIRECTION, DISTANCE AND DEPTH OF DRAINS.
  • Direction of Drains.—Whence comes the Water?—Inclination of Strata.—Drains across the Slope let Water out as well as Receive it.—Defence against Water from Higher Land.—Open Ditches.—Headers.—Silt-basins.
  • Distance of Drains.—Depends on Soil, Depth, Climate, Prices, System.—Conclusions as to Distance.
  • Depth of Drains.—Greatly Increases Cost.—Shallow Drains first tried in England.—10,000 Miles of Shallow Drains laid in Scotland by way of Education.—Drains must be below Subsoil plow, and Frost.—Effect of Frost on Tiles and Aqueducts.
  • [CHAPTER VIII.]
  • ARRANGEMENT OF DRAINS.
  • Necessity of System.—What Fall is Necessary.—American Examples.—Outlets.—Wells and Relief-Pipes.—Peep-holes.—How to secure Outlets.—Gate to Exclude Back-Water.—Gratings and Screens to keep out Frogs, Snakes, Moles, &c.—Mains, Submains, and Minors, how placed.—Capacity of Pipes.—Mains of Two Tiles.—Junction of Drains.—Effect of Curves and Angles on Currents.—Branch Pipes.—Draining into Wells or Swallow Holes.—Letter from Mr. Denton.
  • [CHAPTER IX.]
  • THE COST OF TILES—TILE MACHINES.
  • Prices far too high; Albany prices.—Length of Tiles.—Cost in Suffolk Co., England.—Waller's Machine.—Williams' Machine.—Cost of Tiles compared with Bricks.—Mr. Denton's Estimate of Cost.—Other Estimates.—Two-inch Tiles can be Made as Cheaply as Bricks.—Process of Rolling Tiles.—Tile Machines.—Descriptions of Daines'.—Pratt & Bro.'s.
  • [CHAPTER X.]
  • THE COST OF DRAINAGE.
  • Draining no more expensive than Fencing.—Engineering.—Guessing not accurate enough.—Slight Fall sufficient.—Instances.—Two Inches to One-Thousand Feet.—Cost of Excavation and Filling.—Narrow Tools required.—Tables of Cubic contents of Drains.—Cost of Drains on our own Farm.—Cost of Tiles.—Weight and Freight of Tiles.—Cost of Outlets.—Cost of Collars.—Smaller Tiles used with Collars.—Number of Tiles to the Acre, with Tables.—Length of Tiles varies.—Number of Rods to the Acre at different Distances.—Final Estimate of Cost.—Comparative Cost of Tile-Drains and Stone-Drains.
  • [CHAPTER XI.]
  • DRAINING IMPLEMENTS.
  • Unreasonable Expectations about Draining Tools.—Levelling Instruments.—Guessing not Accurate.—Level by a Square.—Spirit Level.—Span, or A Level.—Grading by Lines.—Boning-rod.—Challoner's Drain Level.—Spades and Shovels.—Long-handled Shovel.—Irish Spade, description and cut.—Bottoming Tools.—Narrow Spades.—English Bottoming Tools.—Pipe-layer.—Pipe-laying Illustrated.—Pick-axes.—Drain Gauge.—Drain Plows, and Ditch-Diggers.—Fowler's Drain Plow.—Pratt's Ditch-Digger.—McEwan's Drain Plow.—Routt's Drain Plow.
  • [CHAPTER XII.]
  • PRACTICAL DIRECTIONS FOR OPENING DRAINS AND LAYING TILES.
  • Begin at the Outlet.—Use of Plows.—Leveling the Bottom.—Where to begin to lay Pipes.—Mode of Procedure.—Covering Pipes.—Securing Joints.—Filling.—Securing Outlets.—Plans.
  • [CHAPTER XIII.]
  • EFFECTS OF DRAINAGE UPON THE CONDITION OF THE SOIL.
  • Drainage deepens the Soil, and gives the roots a larger pasture.—Cobbett's Lucerne 30 feet deep.—Mechi's Parsnips 13 feet long!—Drainage promotes Pulverization.—Prevents Surface-Washing.—Lengthens the Season.—Prevents Freezing out.—Dispenses with Open Ditches.—Saves 25 per cent. of Labor.—Promotes absorption of Fertilizing Substances from the Air.—Supplies Air to the Roots.—Drains run before Rain; so do some Springs.—Drainage warms the Soil.—Corn sprouts at 55°; Rye on Ice.—Cold from Evaporation.—Heat will not pass downward in Water.—Count Rumford's Experiments with Hot Water on Ice.—Aeration of Soil by Drains.
  • [CHAPTER XIV.]
  • DRAINAGE ADAPTS THE SOIL TO GERMINATION AND VEGETATION.
  • Process of Germination.—Two Classes of Pores in Soils, illustrated by cuts.—Too much Water excludes Air, reduces Temperature.—How much Air the Soil Contains.—Drainage Improves the Quality of Crops.—Drainage prevents Drought.—Drained Soils hold most Water.—Allow Roots to go Deep.—Various Facts.
  • [CHAPTER XV.]
  • TEMPERATURE AS AFFECTED BY DRAINAGE.
  • Drainage Warms the Soil in Spring.—Heat cannot go down in Wet Land.—Drainage causes greater Deposit of Dew in Summer.—Dew warms Plants in Night, Cools them in the Morning Sun.—Drainage varies Temperature by Lessening Evaporation.—What is Evaporation.—How it produces Cold.—Drained Land Freezes Deepest, but Thaws Soonest, and the Reasons.
  • [CHAPTER XVI.]
  • POWER OF SOILS TO ABSORB AND RETAIN MOISTURE.
  • Why does not Drainage make the Land too Dry?—Adhesive Attraction.—The Finest Soils exert most Attraction.—How much Water different Soils hold by Attraction.—Capillary Attraction, illustrated.—Power to Imbibe Moisture from the Air.—Weight Absorbed by 1,000 lbs. in 12 Hours.—Dew, Cause of.—Dew Point.—Cause of Frost.—Why Covering Plants Protects from Frost.—Dew Imparts Warmth.—Idea that the Moon Promotes Putrefaction.—Quantity of Dew.
  • [CHAPTER XVII.]
  • INJURY OF LAND BY DRAINAGE.
  • Most Land cannot be Over-drained.—Nature a Deep drainer.—Over-draining of Peaty Soils.—Lincolnshire Fens. Visit to them in 1857.—56 Bushels of Wheat to the Acre.—Wet Meadows Subside by Drainage.—Conclusions.
  • [CHAPTER XVIII.]
  • OBSTRUCTION OF DRAINS.
  • Tiles will fill up, unless well laid.—Obstruction by Sand or Silt.—Obstructions at the Outlet from Frogs, Moles, Action of Frost, and Cattle.—Obstruction by Roots.—Willow, Ash, &c., Trees capricious.—Roots enter Perennial Streams.—Obstruction by Mangold Wurtzel.—Obstruction by Per-Oxide of Iron.—How Prevented.—Obstructions by the Joints Filling.—- No Danger with Two-Inch Pipes.—Water through the Pores.—Collars.—How to Detect Obstructions.
  • [CHAPTER XIX.]
  • DRAINAGE OF STIFF CLAYS.
  • Clay not impervious, or it could not be wet and dried.—Puddling, what is.—Water will stand over Drains on Puddled Soil.—Cracking of Clays by Drying.—Drained Clays improve by time.—Passage of Water through Clay makes it permeable.—Experiment by Mr. Pettibone, of Vermont.—Pressure of Water in Saturated Soil.
  • [CHAPTER XX.]
  • EFFECTS OF DRAINAGE ON STREAMS AND RIVERS.
  • Drainage Hastens the Supply to the Streams, and thus creates Freshets.—Effect of Drainage on Meadows below; on Water Privileges.—Conflict of Manufacturing and Agricultural Interests.—English Opinions and Facts.—Uses of Drainage Water.—Irrigation.—Drainage Water for Stock.—How used by Mr. Mechi.
  • [CHAPTER XXI.]
  • LEGISLATION—DRAINAGE COMPANIES.
  • England protects her Farmers.—Meadows ruined by Corporation dams.—Old Mills often Nuisances.—Factory Reservoirs.—Flowage extends above level of Dam.—Rye and Derwent Drainage.—Give Steam for Water-Power.—Right to Drain through land of others.—Right to natural flow of Water.—Laws of Mass.—Right to Flow; why not to Drain?—Land-drainage Companies in England.—Lincolnshire Fens.—Government Loans for Drainage.
  • [CHAPTER XXII.]
  • DRAINAGE OF CELLARS.
  • Wet Cellars Unhealthful.—Importance of Cellars in New England.—A Glance at the Garret, by way of Contrast.—Necessity of Drains.—Sketch of an Inundated Cellar.—Tiles best for Drains.—Best Plan of Cellar Drain; Illustration.—Cementing will not do.—Drainage of Barn Cellars.—Uses of them.—Actual Drainage of a very Bad Cellar described.—Drains Outside and Inside; Illustration.
  • [CHAPTER XXIII.]
  • DRAINAGE OF SWAMPS.
  • Vast Extent of Swamp Lands in the United States.—Their Soil.—Sources of their Moisture.—How to Drain them.—The Soil Subsides by Draining.—Catch-water Drains.—Springs.—Mr. Ruffin's Drainage in Virginia.—Is there Danger of Over-draining?
  • [CHAPTER XXIV.]
  • AMERICAN EXPERIMENTS IN DRAINAGE—DRAINAGE IN IRELAND.
  • Statement of B. F. Nourse, of Maine.—Statement of Shedd and Edson, of Mass.—Statement of H. F. French, of New Hampshire.—Letter of Wm. Boyle, Albert Model Farm, Glasnevin, Ireland.
  • [INDEX.]

FARM DRAINAGE.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.

Why this Treatise does not contain all Knowledge.—Attention of Scientific Men attracted to Drainage.—Lieutenant Maury's Suggestions.—Ralph Waldo Emerson's Views.—Opinions of J. H. Klippart, Esq.; of Professor Mapes; B. P. Johnston, Esq.; Governor Wright, Mr. Custis, &c.—Prejudice against what is English.—Acknowledgements to our Friends at Home and Abroad.—The Wants of our Farmers.

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.

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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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, 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, 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 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.

CHAPTER II.
HISTORY OF THE ART OF DRAINING.

Draining as Old as the Deluge.—Roman Authors.—Walter Bligh in 1650.—No thorough drainage till Smith of Deanston.—No mention of tiles in the "Compleat Body of Husbandry," 1758.—Tiles found 100 years old.—Elkington's System.—Johnstone's Puns and Peripatetics.—Draining Springs.—Bletonism, or the Faculty of Perceiving Subterranean Water.—Deanston System.—Views of Mr. Parkes.—Keythorpe System.—Wharncliffe System.—Introduction of tiles into America.—John Johnston, and Mr. Delafield, of New York.

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 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:

"The author of this work was a Captain Walter Bligh, signing himself, 'A Lover of Ingenuity.' It is quaintly entitled, 'The English Improver Improved; or, the Survey of Husbandry Surveyed;' with several prefaces, but specially addressed to 'The Right Honorable the Lord General Cromwell, and the Right Honorable the Lord President, and the rest of the Honorable Society of the Council of State.' In his instructions for forming the flooding and draining trenches of water-meadows, the author says of the latter:—'And for thy drayning-trench, it must be made so deep, that it goe to the bottom of the cold spewing moyst water, that feeds the flagg and the rush; for the widenesse of it, use thine own liberty, but be sure to make it so wide as thou mayest goe to the bottom of it, which must be so low as any moysture lyeth, which moysture usually lyeth under the over and second swarth of the earth, in some gravel or sand, or else, where some greater stones are mixt with clay, under which thou must goe half one spade's graft deep at least. Yea, suppose this corruption that feeds and nourisheth the rush or flagg, should lie a yard or four-foot deepe; to the bottom of it thou must goe, if ever thou wilt drayn it to purpose, or make the utmost advantage of either floating or drayning, without which the water cannot have its kindly operation; for though the water fatten naturally, yet still this coldnesse and moysture lies gnawing within, and not being taken clean away, it eates out what the water fattens; and so the goodnesse of the water is, as it were, riddled, screened, and strained out into the land, leaving the richnesse and the leanesse sliding away from it.' In another place, he replies to the objectors of floating, that it will breed the rush, the flagg, and mare-blab; 'only make thy drayning-trenches deep enough, and not too far off thy floating course, and I'le warrant it they drayn away that under-moysture, fylth, and venom as aforesaid, that maintains them; and then believe me, or deny Scripture, which I hope thou doust not, as Bildad said unto Job, "Can the rush grow without mire, or the flagg without water?" Job viii. 12. That interrogation plainly showes that the rush cannot grow, the water being taken from the root; for it is not the moystnesse upon the surface of the land, for then every shower should increase the rush, but it is that which lieth at the root, which, drayned away at the bottom, leaves it naked and barren of relief.'

"The author frequently returns to this charge, explaining over and over again the necessity of removing what we call bottom-water, and which he well designates as 'filth and venom.'

"In the course of my operations as a drainer, I have met with, or heard of, so many instances of swamp-drainage, executed precisely according to the plans of this author, and sometimes in a superior manner—the conduits being formed of walling stone, at a period long antecedent to the memory of the living—that I am disposed to consider the practice of deep drainage to have originated with Captain Bligh, and to have been preserved by imitators in various parts of the country; since a book, which passed through three editions in the time of the Commonwealth, must necessarily have had an extensive circulation, and enjoyed a high renown. Several complimentary autograph verses, written by some imitators and admirers of the ingenious Bligh, are bound up with the volume. I find also, not unfrequently, very ancient deep drains in arable fields, and some of them still in good condition; and in a case or two, I have met with several ancient drains six feet deep, placed parallel with each other, but at so great a distance asunder, as not to have commanded a perfect drainage of the intermediate space. The author from whom I have so largely quoted, is the earliest known to me, who has had the sagacity to distinguish between the transient effect of rain, and the constant action of stagnant bottom-water in maintaining land in a wet condition."

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.

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:

"Let the trenches be cut deeper than otherwise, suppose three foot deep, and two foot over. As soon as they are made, let the bottoms of them be covered with fresh-cut blackthorn bushes. Upon these, throw in a quantity of large refuse stones; over these let there be another covering of straw, and upon this, some of the earth, so as to make the surface level with the rest. These trenches will always keep open."

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:

"In draining the park at Grimsthorpe, Lincolnshire, about three years ago, some drains, made with tiles, were found eight feet below the surface of the ground. The tiles were similar to what are now used, and in as good a state of preservation as when first laid, although they must have remained there above one hundred years."

ELKINGTON'S SYSTEM OF DRAINAGE.

It appears, that, in 1795, the British Parliament, at the request of the Board of Agriculture, voted to Joseph 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."

"Every one," says he, "who reads the work, which is popularly called 'Elkington on Draining,' should be aware, that it is not Joseph who thinks and speaks therein, but John, who tells his readers what, according to his ideas, Joseph would have thought and spoken."

Again—

"Johnstone, measured by general capacity, is a very shallow drainer! He delights in exceptional cases, of which he may have met with some, but of which, we suspect the great majority to be products of his own ingenuity, and to be put forward, with a view to display the ability with which he could encounter them."

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, 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:

"A Systematic Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Draining Land, &c., according to the most approved methods, and adapted to the various situations and soils of England and Scotland; also on sea, river, and lake embankments, formation of ponds and artificial pieces of water, with an appendix, containing hints and directions for the culture and improvement of bog, morass, moor, and other unproductive ground, after being drained; the whole illustrated by plans and sections applicable to the various situations and forms of construction. Inscribed to the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, by John Johnstone, Land Surveyor."

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 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:

"In the year 1763, Elkington was left by his father in the possession of a farm called Prince-Thorp, in the parish of Stretton-upon-Dunsmore, and county of Warwick. The soil of this farm was so poor, and, in many places, so extremely wet, that it was the cause of rotting several hundreds of his sheep, which first induced him, if possible, to drain it. This he begun to do, in 1764, in a field of wet clay soil, rendered almost a swamp, or shaking bog, by the springs which issued from an adjoining bank of gravel and sand, and overflowed the surface of the ground below. To drain this field, which was of considerable extent, he cut a trench about four or five feet deep, a little below the upper side of the bog, where the wetness began to make its appearance; and, after proceeding with it in this direction and at this depth, he found it did not reach the principal body of subjacent water from which the evil arose. On perceiving this, he was at a loss how to proceed, when one of his servants came to the field with an iron crow, or bar, for the purpose of making holes for fixing sheep hurdles in an adjoining part of the farm, as represented on the plan. Having a suspicion that his drain was not deep enough, and desirous to know what strata lay under it, he took the iron bar, and having forced it down about four feet below the bottom of the trench, on pulling it out, to his astonishment, a great quantity of water burst up through the hole he had thus made, and ran along the drain. This led him to the knowledge, that wetness may be often produced by water confined farther below the surface of the ground than it was possible for the usual depth of drains to reach, and that an auger would be a useful instrument to apply in such cases. Thus, chance was the parent of this discovery, as she often is of other useful arts; and fortunate it is for society, when such accidents happen to those who have sense and judgment to avail themselves of hints thus fortuitously given. In this manner he soon accomplished the drainage of his whole farm, and rendered it so perfectly dry and sound, that none of his flock was ever after affected with disease.

"By the success of this experiment, Mr. Elkington's fame, as a drainer, was quickly and widely extended; and, after having successfully drained several farms in his neighborhood, he was, at last, very generally employed for that purpose in various parts of the kingdom, till about thirty years ago, when the country had the melancholy cause to regret his loss. From his long practice and experience, he became so successful in the works he undertook, and so skillful in judging of the internal strata of the earth and the nature of springs, that, with remarkable precision, he could ascertain where to find water, and trace the course of springs that made no appearance on the surface of the ground. During his practice of more than thirty years, he drained in various parts of England, particularly in the midland counties, many thousand acres of land, which, from being originally of little or no value, soon became as useful as any in the kingdom, by producing the most valuable kinds of grain and feeding the best and healthiest species of stock.

"Many have erroneously entertained an idea that Elkington's skill lay solely in applying the auger for the tapping of springs, without attaching any merit to his method of conducting the drains. The accidental circumstance above stated gave him the first notion of using an auger, and directed his attention to the profession and practice of draining, in the course of which he made various useful discoveries, as will be afterwards explained. With regard to the use of the auger, though there is every reason to believe that he was led to employ that instrument from the circumstance already stated, and did not derive it from any other source of intelligence, yet there is no doubt that others might have hit upon the same idea without being indebted for it to him. It has happened, that, in attempts to discover mines by boring, springs have been tapped, and ground thereby drained, either by letting the water down, or by giving it vent to the surface; and that the auger has been likewise used in bringing up water in wells, to save the expense of deeper digging; but that it had been used in draining land, before Mr. Elkington made that discovery, no one has ventured to assert."

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:

"A slight modification of Johnstone's best and simplest plan, with a few sentences of explanation, will sufficiently elucidate Elkington's mystery, and will comprehend the case of all simple superficial springs. Perhaps in Agricultural Britain, no formation is more common than moderate elevations of pervious material, such as chalk, gravel, and imperfect stone or rock of various kinds, resting upon more horizontal beds of clay, or other material less pervious than themselves, and at their inferior edge overlapped by it. For this overlap geological reasons are given, into which we cannot now enter. In order to make our explanation simple, we use the words, gravel and clay, as generic for pervious and impervious material.

Fig. 1

"Our drawing is an attempt to combine plan and section, which will probably be sufficiently illustrative. From A to T is the overlap, which is, in fact, a dam holding up the water in the gravel. In this dam there is a weak place at S, through which water issues permanently (a superficial spring), and runs over the surface from S to O. This issue has a tendency to lower the water in the gravel to the line M m. But when continued rains overpower this issue, the water in the gravel rises to the line A a, and meeting with no impediment at the point A, it flows over the surface between A and S. In addition to these more decided outlets, the water is probably constantly squeezing, in a slow way, through the whole dam. Elkington undertakes to drain the surface from A to O. He cuts a drain from O to B, and then he puts down a bore-hole, an Artesian well, from B to Z. His hole enters the tail of the gravel; the water contained therein rises up it: and the tendency of this new outlet is to lower the water to the line B b. If so lowered that it can no longer overflow at A or at S, and the surface from A to O is drained, so far as the springs are concerned, though our section can only represent one spring, and one summit-overflow, it is manifest that, however long the horizontal line of junction between the gravel and clay may be, however numerous the weak places (springs) in the overlap, or dam, and the summit-overflows, they will all be stopped, provided they lie at a higher level than the line B b. If Elkington had driven his drain forward from B to n, he would, at least, equally have attained his object; but the bore-hole was less expensive. He escapes the deepest and most costly portion of his drain. At x, he might have bored to the centre of the earth without ever realizing the water in this gravel. His whole success, therefore, depended upon his sagacity in hitting the point Z. Another simple and very common case, first successfully treated by Elkington, is illustrated by our second drawing.

Fig. 2

"Between gravel hills lies a dish-shaped bed of clay, the gravel being continuous under the dish. Springs overflow at A and B, and wet the surface from A to O, and from B to O. O D is a drain four or five feet deep, and having an adequate outlet; D Z a bore-hole. The water in the gravel rises from Z to D, and is lowered to the level D m and D n. Of course it ceases to flow over at A and B. If Elkington's heart had failed him when he reached X, he would have done no good. All his success depends on his reaching Z, however deep it may lie. Elkington was a discoverer. We do not at all believe that his discoveries hinged on the accident that the shepherd walked across the field with a crow-bar in his hand. When he forced down that crow-bar, he had more in his head than was ever dreamed of in Johnstone's philosophy. Such accidents do not happen to ordinary men. Elkington's subsequent use of his discovery, in which no one has yet excelled him, warrants our supposition that the discovery was not accidental. He was not one of those prophets who are without honor in their own country: he created an immense sensation, and received a parliamentary grant of one thousand pounds. One writer compares his auger to Moses' rod, and Arthur Young speculates, whether though worthy to be rewarded by millers on one side of the hill for increasing their stream, he was not liable to an action by those on the other for diminishing theirs."

Johnstone sums up this system as follows:

"Draining according to Elkington's principles depends chiefly upon three things:

"1. Upon discovering the main spring, or source of the evil.

"2. Upon taking the subterraneous bearings: and,

"3dly. By making use of the auger to reach and tap the springs, when the depth of the drain is not sufficient for that purpose.

"The first thing, therefore, to be observed is, by examining the adjoining high grounds, to discover what strata they are composed of; and then to ascertain, as nearly as possible, the inclination of these strata, and their connection with the ground to be drained, and thereby to judge at what place the level of the spring comes nearest to where the water can be cut off, and most readily discharged. The surest way of ascertaining the lay, or inclination, of the different strata, is, by examining the bed of the nearest streams, and the edges of the banks that are cut through by the water; and any pits, wells, or quarries that may be in the neighborhood. After the main spring has been thus discovered, the next thing is, to ascertain a line on the same level, to one or both sides of it, in which the drain may be conducted, which is one of the most important parts of the operation, and one on which the art of draining in a scientific manner essentially depends.

"Lastly, the use of the auger, which, in many cases, is the sine qua non of the business, is to reach and tap the spring when the depth of the drain does not reach it: where the level of the outlet will not admit of its being cut to a greater depth; and where the expense of such cutting would be great, and the execution of it difficult.

"According to these principles, this system of draining has been attended with extraordinary consequences, not only in laying the land dry in the vicinity of the drain, but also springs, wells, and wet ground, at a considerable distance, with which there was no apparent connection."

DRAINAGE OF SPRINGS.

Fig. 3.

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 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. 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,

"A running stream they darena cross."

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.

THE DEANSTON SYSTEM; OR, FREQUENT DRAINAGE.

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:

"1st. Frequent drains at intervals of from ten to twenty-four feet.

"2nd. Shallow depth—not exceeding thirty inches—designed for the single purpose of freeing that depth of soil from stagnant and injurious water.

"3rd. 'Parallel drains at regular distances carried throughout the whole field, without reference to the wet and dry appearance of portions of the field,' in order 'to provide frequent opportunities for the water, rising from below and falling on the surface, to pass freely and completely off.

"4th. Direction of the minor drains 'down the steep,' and that of the mains along the bottom of the chief hollow; tributary mains being provided for the lesser hollows.

"The reason assigned for the minor drains following the line of steepest descent, was, that 'the stratification generally lies in sheets at an angle to the surface.'

"5th. As to material—Stones preferred to tiles and pipes."

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:

"The drains should be parallel with each other and at regular distances, and should be carried throughout the whole field, without regard to the wet and dry appearance of portions of the field—the principle of this system being the providing of frequent opportunities for the water rising from below, or falling on the surface, to pass freely and completely off."

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.

VIEWS OF MR. PARKES.

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 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—

"1st. Less frequent drains, at intervals varying from twenty-one to fifty feet, with preference for wide intervals.

"2nd. Deeper drains at a minimum depth of four feet, designed with the two-fold object of not only freeing the active soil from stagnant and injurious water, but of converting the water falling on the surface into an agent for fertilizing; no drainage being deemed efficient that did not both remove the water failing on the surface, and 'keep down the subterranean water at a depth exceeding the power of capillary attraction to elevate it to near the surface.'

"3rd. Parallel arrangement of drains, as advocated by Smith, of Deanston.

"4th. The advantage of increased depth, as compensating for increased width between the drains.

"5th. Pipes of an inch bore, the 'best known conduit' for the parallel drains. (See Evidence before Lords' Committee on Entailed Estates, 1845, Q. 67.)

"6th. The cost of draining uniform clays should not exceed £3 per acre."

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, 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:

"That gentleman's services in the cause of drainage, have been inestimable, and his high reputation will not be affected by any remarks which experience may suggest with reference to details, so long as the philosophical principles he first advanced in support of deep drainage are acknowledged by thinking men. Mr. Parkes' practice in 1854, will be found to differ very considerably from his anticipations of 1845, but the influence of his earlier writings and sayings continues to this day."

THE KEYTHORPE SYSTEM.

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 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:

"The peculiarities of the Keythorpe system of draining consist in this—that the parallel drains are not equidistant, and that they cross the line of the greatest descent. The usual depth is three and a half feet, but some are as deep as five and six feet. The depth and width of interval are determined by digging trial-holes, in order to ascertain not only the depth at which the bottom water is reached, but the height to which the water rises in the holes, and the distance at which a drain will lay the hole dry. In sinking these holes, clay-banks are found with hollows or furrows between them, which are filled with a more porous soil, as represented in the annexed sectional diagram.

Fig. 4.

  • a a Trial-holes.
  • b Clay-banks of lias or of boulder-clay.
  • c A more porous warp-drift filling furrows between the clay-banks.

"The next object is to connect these furrows by drains laid across them. The result is, that as the furrows and ridges here run along the fall of the ground, which I have observed to be the case generally elsewhere, the sub-mains follow the fall, and the parallel drains cross it obliquely.

"The intervals between the parallel drains are irregular, varying, in the same field, from 14 to 21, 31, and 59 feet. The distances are determined by opening the diagonal drains at the greatest distance from the trial-holes at which experience has taught the practicability of its draining the hole. If it does not succeed in accomplishing the object, another drain is opened in the interval. It has been found, in many cases, that a drain crossing the clay-banks and furrows takes the water from holes lying lower down the hill; that is to say, it intercepts the water flowing to them through these subterranean channels. The parallel drains, however, are not invariably laid across the fall. The exceptions are on ground where the fall is very slight, in which case they are laid along the line of greatest descent. On such grounds there are few or no clay-banks and furrows."

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 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 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.

THE WHARNCLIFFE SYSTEM.

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:

"In order to secure the full effect of thorough drainage in clays, it is necessary that there should be not only well-laid conduits for the water which reaches them, but also subsidiary passages opened through the substance of the close subsoil, by means of atmospheric heat, and the contraction which ensues from it. The cracks and fissures which result from this action, are reckoned upon as a certain and essential part of the process.

"To give efficiency, therefore, to a system of deep drains beneath a stiff clay, these natural channels are required. To produce them, there must be a continued action of heat and evaporation. If we draw off effectually and constantly the bottom water from beneath the clay and from its substance, as far as it admits of percolation, and by some other means provide a vent for the upper water, which needs no more than this facility to run freely, there seems good reason to suppose that the object may be completely attained, and that we shall remove the moisture from both portions as effectually as its quantity and the substance will permit. Acting upon this view, then, after due consideration, I determined to combine with the fundamental four-feet drains a system of auxiliary ones of much less depth, which should do their work above, and contribute their share to the wholesome discharge, while the under-current from their more subterranean neighbors should be steadily performing their more difficult duty.

"I accomplished this, by placing my four-feet drains at a distance of from eighteen to twenty yards apart, and then leading others into them, sunk only to about two feet beneath the surface (which appeared, upon consideration, to be sufficiently below any conceivable depth of cultivation), and laying these at a distance from each other of eight yards. These latter are laid at an acute angle with the main-drains, and at their mouths are either gradually sloped downwards to the lower level, or have a few loose stones placed in the same intervals between the two, sufficient to ensure the perpendicular descent of the upper stream through that space, which can never exceed, or, indeed, strictly equal, the additional two feet."

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, 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.

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.

CHAPTER III
RAIN, EVAPORATION, AND FILTRATION.

Fertilizing Substances in Rain Water.—Amount of Rain Fall in United States—in England.—Tables of Rain Fall.—Number of Rainy Days, and Quantity of Rain each Month.—Snow, how Computed as Water.—Proportion of Rain Evaporated.—What Quantity of Water Dry Soil will Hold.—Dew Point.—How Evaporation Cools Bodies.—Artificial Heat Underground.—Tables of Filtration and Evaporation.

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:

"The surprising effects of a fallow, even when unaided by any manure, has received some explanation by the recent discovery of Mr. Barral, that rain-water contains within itself, and conveys into the soil, fertilizing substances of the utmost importance, equivalent, in a fall of rain of 24 inches per annum, to the quantity of ammonia contained in 2 cwt. of Peruvian guano, with 150 lbs. of nitrogeneous matter besides, all suited to the nutrition of our crops."

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:

"Rain-water always contains in solution, air, carbonic acid, and ammonia. The two first ingredients are among the most powerful disintegrators of a soil. The oxygen of the air, and the carbonic acid being both in a highly condensed form, by being dissolved, possess very powerful affinities for the ingredients of the soil. The oxygen attacks and oxydizes the iron; the carbonic acid seizing the lime and potash and other alkaline ingredients of the soil, produces a further disintegration, and renders available the locked-up ingredients of this magazine of nutriment. Before these can be used by plants, they must be rendered soluble; and this is only affected by the free and renewed access of rain and air. The ready passage of both of these, therefore, enables the soil to yield up its concealed nutriment."

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 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.

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, 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 London. The mean quantity for each month, at both places, is as follows:

New Bedford. London.
January 3.36 1.46
February 3.32 1.25
March 3.44 1.17
April 3.60 1.28
May 3.63 1.64
June 2.71 1.74
July 2.86 2.45
August 3.61 1.81
September 3.33 1.84
October 3.46 2.09
November 3.97 2.22
December 3.74 1.74
Spring 10.67 4.09
Summer 9.18 6.00
Autumn 10.76 6.15
Winter 10.42 4.45
Year 41.03 20.69

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:

73days gaveless than .05inch.
30 " betweenthatand .10 "
27 " between.10 " .20 "
9 " " .20 " .30 "
9 " " .30 " .40 "
4 " " .40 " .50 "
1 gave .60 "
2 " .80 "
1 " 1.00 "

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.

0days gaveless than .05inch.
2 " betweenthatand .10 "
8 " between .10 " .20 "
7 " " .20 " .30 "
5 " " .30 " .40 "
4 " " .40 " .50 "
2 " " .50 " .60 "
4 " " .60 " .70 "
4 " " .70 " .80 "
3 " " .80 " .90 "
0 " " .90 "1.00 "
0 " " 1.00 "1.10 "
2 " " 1.10 "1.20 "
1 " " 1.20 "1.30 "
1 " " 1.30 "1.40 "
3 " " 1.40 "1.50 "
2 " " 1.50 "1.60 "
1 " " 1.60 "1.70 "
2 " " 1.80 "1.90 "
1 " " 2.30 "2.40 "
1 " " 2.50 "2.60 "
1 " " 3.20 "3.30 "

No rain-fall gave less than five-hundredths of an inch; and more than one-fourth the number of days gave more 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.

3 days gave between .05 and .10 inches.
4 " .10 " .20 "
6 " .20 " .30 "
3 " .30 " .40 "
5 " .40 " .50 "
3 " .50 " .60 "
3 " .60 " .70 "
3 " .70 " .80 "
2 " .80 " .90 "
1 " .90 " 1.00 "
3 " 1.00 " 1.10 "
7 " 1.20 " 1.30 "
2 " 1.80 " 1.90 "
2 " 1.90 " 2.00 "
3 " 2.00 " 2.10 "
2 " 2.10 " 2.20 "
1 " 2.30 " 2.40 "
1 " 2.50 " 2.60 "
1 " 2.60 " 2.70 "
1 " 2.80 " 2.90 "
1 " 3.60 " 3.70 "
1 " 4.50 " 4.60 "

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.

3 days gave between .05 and .10 inches.
7 " .10 " .20 "
10 " .20 " .30 "
6 " .30 " .40 "
4 " .40 " .50 "
3 " .50 " .60 "
2 " .70 " .80 "
3 " .80 " .90 "
1 " .90 " 1.00 "
3 " 1.00 " 1.10 "
2 " 1.10 " 1.20 "
1 " 1.20 " 1.30 "
2 " 1.40 " 1.50 "
1 " 1.50 " 1.60 "
1 " 2.40 " 2.50 "

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.

7storms gaveless than .10inches.
11 " between .10and .20 "
9 " " .20 " .30 "
5 " " .30 " .40 "
6 " " .40 " .50 "
5 " " .50 " .60 "
1 " " .60 " .70 "
1 " " .70 " .80 "
3 " " .80 " .90 "
1 " " .90 " 1.00 "
5 " " 1.00 " 1.10 "
1 " " 1.10 " 1.20 "
1 " " 1.20 " 1.30 "
1 " " 1.40 " 1.50 "
3 " " 1.60 " 1.70 "
1 " in5days 3.16 "
1 " " 4 " 4.38 "
1 " " 6 " 5.35 "

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, 1859. It also was abstracted from the manuscript of observations by Dr. Hobbs, and will be, we think, quite useful:

Years January February March April May June July August September October November December Greatest
Fall in
the Year
1824 0.76 0.67 0.53 0.44 1.90 2.54 0.81 0.76 1.80 2.54
1825 2.16 2.61 0.27 1.23 1.37 0.91 2.51 0.89 1.32 0.71 2.40 2.61
1826 1.80 0.56 1.67 0.89 0.39 1.78 0.87 1.80 1.57 1.37 1.22 1.41 1.87
1827 3.81 1.55 2.42 0.66 1.36 3.16 4.93 2.22 3.85 1.39 4.93
1828 0.60 1.48 1.82 2.06 2.01 1.44 1.52 0.14 1.82 1.52 1.90 0.29 2.06
1829 3.86 1.98 4.12 2.35 1.15 0.97 1.92 0.97 1.39 1.00 1.25 1.58 4.12
1830 1.31 1.17 2.68 2.28 0.78 1.84 2.45 2.40 1.20 2.64 2.44 2.68
1831 0.64 1.48 2.32 2.12 1.79 1.87 2.27 1.00 1.00 2.82 1.24 0.15 2.82
1832 2.68 1.59 2.00 4.48 2.52 1.24 2.13 0.80 1.50 2.60 1.34 4.48
1833 0.83 2.57 0.98 2.03 1.42 0.64 2.75 2.32 3.12 1.27 3.12
1834 0.64 1.31 0.94 2.35 1.87 2.12 0.73 1.25 1.89 2.42 0.92 2.42
1835 1.44 0.88 2.48 2.48 1.18 1.52 4.72 1.32 1.57 3.28 0.74 2.32 4.72
1836 2.72 3.04 2.26 1.86 1.29 2.24 1.04 0.72 0.36 2.04 1.50 1.68 3.04
1837 3.62 1.50 1.14 1.68 1.46 1.30 0.72 0.78 0.66 1.46 0.81 1.68 3.62
1838 1.64 0.75 0.76 1.32 1.40 1.67 0.82 1.40 3.84 1.10 2.46 1.00 3.84
1839 0.70 0.80 0.58 4.06 2.98 0.94 1.08 3.54 0.70 1.60 0.80 1.92 4.06
1840 1.68 2.20 1.54 2.12 1.16 1.08 1.40 2.72 1.28 1.04 3.72 1.12 3.72
1841 1.44 1.12 1.32 1.64 0.90 0.75 0.64 2.82 2.78 2.66 1.05 1.70 2.82
1842 0.54 1.22 1.16 0.64 0.47 2.10 0.68 1.44 0.96 0.34 1.10 2.02 2.10
1843 1.60 1.64 2.50 1.34 0.34 1.04 1.98 2.58 0.52 1.94 1.28 2.58
1844 4.14 2.06 0.24 0.58 0.78 0.86 1.34 1.76 2.30 1.86 1.28 4.14
1845 2.42 1.70 1.14 0.70 1.02 1.03 1.20 1.66 0.88 1.16 3.32 1.46 3.32
1846 1.54 2.46 1.16 1.18 0.82 1.46 0.49 0.56 0.55 0.54 1.02 2.46
1847 1.18 2.74 1.66 1.12 0.84 1.28 0.56 1.86 2.16 0.64 2.74 3.02 3.02
1848 1.44 1.56 2.68 0.68 2.28 1.00 0.72 1.24 1.48 2.96 0.88 1.00 2.96
1849 1.36 0.40 2.30 0.92 1.28 0.72 1.52 2.08 1.12 2.60 2.48 1.76 2.60
1850 2.56 1.92 1.84 2.68 2.80 1.20 1.20 3.68 6.88 1.04 2.16 1.92 6.88
1851 0.80 1.84 0.56 3.60 1.92 1.12 0.96 0.32 1.15 1.47 2.25 0.89 3.60
1852 1.06 0.88 1.15 4.38 1.47 1.69 0.66 4.16 1.19 1.61 1.59 0.89 4.38
1853 0.92 1.33 1.03 1.12 2.39 0.42 1.03 2.36 2.14 1.95 1.67 1.35 2.39
1854 0.83 1.60 1.25 1.88 2.57 1.50 1.58 0.48 2.33 1.82 3.25 1.43 3.25
1855 3.37 3.08 0.80 1.33 0.39 1.23 1.93 0.75 0.70 1.77 2.22 1.24 3.37
1856 1.30 0.63 1.97 2.93 0.66 1.30 4.23 2.42 0.87 0.88 1.20 4.23
1857 1.50 0.54 1.55 3.68 1.28 0.96 2.43 2.00 0.87 3.54 0.67 1.28 3.68
1858 1.12 1.18 0.35 1.28 1.00 3.86 1.35 2.21 1.64 1.22 1.36 1.40 3.86

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.

Days January
1840 		February March April May June July August September October November December
1 0.55 0.14 2.72 0.64
2 0.08 0.05
3 0.32
4 1.08 0.10
5 1.16 0.63
6 0.50
7
8 0.20
9 0.25 3.72
10 2.20 1.28
11 0.10
12 2.12 0.54
13 0.14 1.12
14 0.58 0.70
15 0.36
16
17
18
19 0.82 0.24 0.68 1.04
20 1.54 0.44
21 0.98 1.04
22 0.52 2.20
23 1.68 0.96 0.18
24 1.40
25 0.16 0.35
26 0.18
27 0.17 0.30
28
29 1.80 0.10 1.40
30 1.42 0.08 1.04
31
Total 1.68 2.78 3.28 5.17 2.28 2.41 2.09 5.22 2.89 3.65 7.35 3.20

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—

April.May.June.July.Aug.Sept.
3.963.713.183.384.503.52
Average for the six months, 22.25.

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:

MEAN OF OBSERVATIONS FOR TWELVE YEARS.
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. June.July.Aug. Sept.Oct. Nov. Dec.
2.393.193.473.643.743.132.575.474.273.734.574.31
Spring.Summer.Autumn.Winter.
10.8511.1712.57 9.89
Average quantity per year, 44.48.

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:

Oxford Co., Me. 12 years 90 inches per year.
Dover, N. H. 10 " 68.6 " "
Montreal 10 " 67 " "
Burlington, Vt. 10 " 85 " "
Worcester, Mass. 12 " 55 " "
Amherst, " 7 " 54 " "
Hartford, Conn. 24 " 43 " "
Lambertville, N. J. 8 " 25.5 " "
Cincinnati 16 " 19 " "
Burlington, Iowa 4 " 15.5 " "
Beloit, Wisconsin 3 " 25 " "

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:

No. Name
of
Drainage Area. 		Annual
rain-fall,
in inches. 		Drainage
flowing away,
in inches. 		Ratio, or
per ct. of
the rain which
drains off. 		Authorities.
1 Schuylkill Navigation Reservoirs 36 18 50 Morris and Smith.
2 Eaton Brook 34 23 66 McAlpine.
3 Madison Brook 35 18 50 McAlpine.
4 Patroon's Brook 46 25 55 McAlpine.
5 Patroon's Brook 42 18 42 McAlpine.
6 Long Pond 40 18 44 Boston Water Com'rs.
7 West Fork Reservoir 36 14 40 W. Milnor Roberts.
Totals 269 134 347
Averages 38 19 50

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 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 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.

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. June. July. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Year.
Whitehaven, England,
mean of 6 years 		0.88 1.04 1.77 2.54 4.15 4.54 4.20 3.40 3.12 1.93 1.32 1.09 30.03
Ogdensburg, N. Y., 1 yr. 1.65 0.82 2.07 1.63 7.10 6.74 7.79 5.41 7.40 3.95 3.66 1.15 49.37
Syracuse, N. Y., 1 year 0.67 1.48 2.24 3.42 7.31 7.60 9.08 6.85 5.33 3.02 1.33 1.86 50.20

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 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.

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.:

Locality.Dates.Differences.
June, 1853.
Burlington, Vt. 14thto30thranged from 8°to 17°
Montreal 14thto30th " 6 to 17
Poultney, Iowa 10thto30th " 9 to 16
Washington 20thto30th " 8.5 to 16
Baltimore 13thto30th " 7.4 to20.2
Savannah 13thto30th " 5.2 to17.3
Austin, Texas 10thto30th " 4 to 24
Clarkesville, Tenn. 4thto30th " 10.3 to20.5
August.
Bloomfield, N. J. 9thto14th"5 to15
Austin, Texas 6thto12th"0 to19
Philadelphia 10thto15th"8 to14
Jacksonville, Fla.10thto15th"6 to 8

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.:

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. June. July. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
3°.08 4°.40 6°.47 5°.37 7°.05 8°.03 8°.89 5°.29 5°.63 4°.61 4°.77 2°.03

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 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

Philadelphia. Somerset Co.
April 49 per cent. — 2 P. M.
May 59 " 72 "
June 55 " 63 "
July 50 " 61 "
August 55 " 58 "
September 50 " 57 "

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 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, 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 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, 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.

"The experiments upon evaporation and drainage, made on Mr. Dalton's plan, were in vessels three feet deep, filled with soil just in the condition to secure perfect freedom from excess of water, and the drainage was determined by the amount of water that passed out of the tube at the bottom. These experiments have been most perfectly made in England by Mr. John Dickinson. The following table exhibits the mean of eight years:

Year.October to March.April to September.Total each year.
Rain.FiltrationPer cent
filtered.		Rain.FiltrationPer cent
filtered.		Rain.FiltrationPer cent
filtered.
183618.8015.5582.712.202.1017.331.0017.6556.9
183711.30 6.8560.6 9.800.10 1.021.10 6.9532.9
183812.32 8.4568.810.810.12 1.223.13 8.5737.0
183913.8712.3188.217.412.6015.031.2814.9147.6
184011.76 8.1969.6 9.680.00 0.021.44 8.1938.2
184116.8414.1984.215.260.00 0.032.1014.1944.2
184214.2810.4673.212.151.3010.726.4311.7644.4
184312.43 7.1157.214.040.99 7.126.47 8.1036.0
Mean13.9510.3974.512.670.90 7.126.6111.2942.4

"A soil that holds no water for the use of plants below six inches, will suffer from drouth in ten days in June, July, or August. If the soil is in suitable condition to hold water to the depth of three feet, it would supply sufficient moisture for the whole months of June, July, and August.

"M. de la Hire has shown that, at Paris, a vessel, sixteen inches deep, filled with sand and loam, discharged water through the pipe at the bottom until the 'herbs' were somewhat grown, when the discharge ceased, and the rains were insufficient, and it was necessary to water them. The fall of water at Paris is stated, in this account, at twenty inches in the year, which is less than the average, and the experiment must have been made in a very dry season; but the important point proved by it is, that the plants, when grown up, draw largely from the ground, and thereby much increase the evaporation from a given surface of earth. The result of the experiment is entirely in accordance with what would have been expected by a person conversant with the laws of vegetation.

"The mean of each month for the eight years is:

Months. Rain. Filtration. Per cent
filtered.
Inches. Inches.
January 1.84 1.30 70.7
February 1.79 1.54 78.4
March 1.61 1.08 66.6
April 1.45 0.30 21.0
May 1.85 0.11 5.8
June 2.21 0.04 1.7
July 2.28 0.04 1.8
August 2.42 0.03 1.4
September 2.64 0.37 13.9
October 2.82 1.40 49.5
November 3.83 3.26 84.9
December 1.64 1.80 110.0

"The filtration from April to September is very small—practically nothing; but during those months we have 12.67 inches of rain—that is, we have two inches a month for evaporation besides the quantity in the earth on the first day of April. From October to March we have 10.39 inches filtered out of 13.95 inches, the whole fall. 'Of this Winter portion of 10.39, we must allow at least six inches for floods running away at the time of the rain, and then we have only 4.39 inches left for the supply of rivers and wells.' (Breadmore, p. 34.)

"It is calculated in England that the ordinary Summer run of streams does not exceed ten cubic feet per minute per square mile, and that the average for the whole year, due to springs and ordinary rains, is twenty feet per minute per square mile, exclusive of floods—and assuming no very wet or high mountain districts (Breadmore, p. 34)—which is equal to about four inches over the whole surface. If we add to this the six inches that are supposed to run off in freshets, we have ten inches discharged in the course of the year by the streams. The whole filtration was 11.29 inches—10.39 in the Winter, and .90 in the Summer. The remainder, 1.29 inches, is supposed to be consumed by wells and excessive evaporation from marshes and pools, from which the discharge is obstructed, by animals, and in various other ways. These calculations were made from experiments running through eight years, in which the average fall of water was only 26.61 inches per annum. When the results derived from them are applied to our average fall of 35.28 inches, we have for the water that constitutes the Summer flow of our streams 13.25 cubic feet per minute per mile of the country drained, and for the average annual flow, exclusive of freshets, 26.50 cubic feet per mile per minute. That is to say, of the 35.28 inches of water that fall in the course of the year, 5.30 run away in the streams as the average annual flow, 7.95 run away in the freshets, and 20.47 evaporate from the earth's surface, leaving 1.56 for consumption in various ways. In the whole year the drainage is nearly equal to one cubic foot per second per square mile (.976), no allowance being made for the 1.56 inches which is lost as before stated. These calculations are based upon English experiments. Mr. McAlpine, late State engineer and surveyor, in making his calculations for supplying the city of Albany with water (page 22 of his Report to the Water Commissioners), takes 45 per cent of the fall as available for the use of the city. Mr. Henry Tracy, in his Report to the Canal Board of 1849 (page 17), gives the results of the investigations in the valleys of Madison Brook, in Madison County, and of Long Pond, near Boston, Mass., as follows:

Year. Name of valley. Fall of rain
and snow
in valley. 		Water ran off
in inches. 		Evaporation
from surface
of ground. 		Ratio of
drainage.
1835 Madison Brook 35.26 15.83 19.43 0.449
1837 Long Pond 26.65 11.70 14.95 0.439
1838 Do 38.11 16.62 21.49 0.436
Mean 0.441

"Madison Brook drains 6,000 acres, and Long Pond 11,400 acres. Mr. Tracy makes the following comment on this table: 'It appears that the evaporation from the surface of the ground in the valley of Long Pond was about 44 per cent more in 1838 than it was in 1837, while the ratio of the drainage differed less than one per cent the same years.'

"Dr. Hale states the evaporation from water-surface at Boston to be 56 inches in a year. (Senate Doc., No. 70, for 1853.)

"The following table contains the results arrived at by Mr. Coffin, at Ogdensburgh, and Mr. Conkey, at Syracuse, in regard to the evaporation from water-surface:

Months.Coffin, at Ogdensburgh, in 1838.Conkey, at Syracuse, in 1852.
Rain.Evaporation.Rain.Evaporation.
January 2.36 1.652 3.673 0.665
February 0.97 0.817 1.307 1.489
March 1.18 2.067 3.234 2.239
April 0.40 1.625 3.524 3.421
May 4.81 7.100 4.491 7.309
June 3.57 6.745 3.773 7.600
July 1.88 7.788 2.887 9.079
August 2.55 5.415 2.724 6.854
September 1.01 7.400 2.774 5.334
October 2.73 3.948 4.620 3.022
November 2.07 3.659 4.354 1.325
December 1.08 1.146 4.112 1.863
Total 24.6149.36241.47350.200

"The annual fall of water in England, is stated, by Mr. Dalton, to be 32 inches. In this State, it is 35.28 inches. The evaporation from water-surface in England, is put, by Mr. Dalton, at 44.43 inches. The fall is less, and the evaporation is less, in England than here; and the fall, in each case, bears the same proportion to the evaporation, very nearly; and it appears that the experiments made on the two sides of the ocean, result in giving very nearly the same per centage of drainage. In England, it is 42.4 per cent.; in this State, it is 44.1. In England, the experiments were made on a limited scale compared with ours; but the results agree so well, that great confidence may safely be placed in them."

In reviewing the whole subject of rain, and of evaporation 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.

CHAPTER IV
DRAINAGE OF HIGH LANDS—WHAT LANDS REQUIRE DRAINAGE.

What is High Land?—Accidents to Crops from Water.—Do Lands need Drainage in America?—Springs.—Theory of Moisture, with Illustrations.—Water of Pressure.—Legal Rights as to Draining our Neighbor's Wells and Land.—What Lands require Drainage?—Horace Greeley's Opinion.—Drainage more Necessary in America than in England; Indications of too much Moisture.—Will Drainage Pay?

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."

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

"We all well know that wheat and other grains, as well as grasses, are never fully developed, and never produce good seed, when the roots are soaked in moisture. No man ever raised good wheat from a wet or moist subsoil. Now, the farms of this country, though at times during the Summer they appear dry, and crack open on the surface, are not, in fact, dry farms, for reasons already named. On the contrary, for nine months out of twelve, they are moist or wet; and we need no better evidence of the fact, than the annual freezing out of the plants, and consequent poverty of many crops."

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 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.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves."

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 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

THE SOURCES OF MOISTURE.

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 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.

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:

"When rain falls on a tract of country, part of it flows over the surface, and makes its escape by the numerous natural and artificial courses which may exist, while another portion is absorbed by the soil and the porous strata which lie under it.

"Let the following diagram represent such a tract of country, and let the dark portions represent clay or other impervious strata, while the lighter portions represent layers of gravel, sand, or chalk, permitting a free passage to water.

Fig. 5.

"When rain falls in such a district, after sinking through the surface-layer (represented in the diagram by a narrow band), it reaches the stratified layers beneath. Through these it still further sinks, if they are porous, until it reaches some impervious stratum, which arrests its directly-downward course, and compels it to find its way along its upper surface. Thus, the rain which falls on the space represented between B and D, is compelled, by the impervious strata, to flow towards C. Here it is at once absorbed, but is again immediately arrested by the impervious layer E; it is, therefore, compelled to pass through the porous stratum C, along the surface of E to A, where it pours forth in a fountain, or forms a morass or swamp, proportionate in size or extent to the tract of country between B and D, or the quantity of rain which falls upon it. In such a case as is here represented, it will be obvious that the spring may often be at a great distance from the district from which it derives its supplies; and this accounts for the fact, that drainage-works on a large scale sometimes materially lessen the supply of water at places remote from the scene of operations.

"In the instance given above, the water forming the spring is represented as gaining access to the porous stratum, at a point where it crops out from beneath an impervious one, and as passing along to its point of discharge at a considerable depth, and under several layers of various characters. Sometimes, in an undulating country, large tracts may rest immediately upon some highly-porous stratum—as from B to C, in the following diagram—rendering the necessity for draining less apparent; while the country from A to B, and from C to D, may be full of springs and marshes—arising, partly, from the rain itself, which falls in these latter districts, being unable to find a way of escape, and partly from the natural drainage of the more porous soils adjoining being discharged upon it.

Fig. 6.

"Again: the rocks lying under the surface are sometimes so full of fissures, that, although they themselves are impervious to water, yet, so completely do these fissures carry off rain, that, in some parts of the county of Durham, they render the sinking of wells useless, and make it necessary for the farmers to drive their cattle many miles for water. It sometimes happens that these fissures, or cracks, penetrate to enormous depths, and are of great width, and filled with sand or clay. These are termed faults by miners; and some, which we lately examined, at distances of from three to four hundred yards from the surface, were from five to fifteen yards in width. These faults, when of clay, are generally the cause of springs appearing at the surface: they arrest the progress of the water in some of the porous strata, and compel it to find an exit, by passing to the surface between the clay and the faces of the ruptured strata. When the fault is of sand or gravel, the opposite effect takes place, if it communicates with any porous stratum; and water, which may have been flowing over the surface, on reaching it, is at once absorbed. In the following diagram, let us suppose that B represents such a clay-fault as has been described, and that A represents a sandy one, and that C and D represent porous strata charged with water. On the water reaching the fault at B, it will be compelled to find its way to the surface—there forming a spring, and rendering the retentive soil, from B to A, wet; but, as soon as it reaches the sandy-fault at A, it is immediately absorbed, and again reaches the porous strata, along which it had traveled before being forced to the surface at B. It will be observed, that the strata at the points of dislocation are not represented as in a line with the portions from which they have been dissevered. This is termed the upthrow of the fault, as at B; and the downthrow, as at A. For the sake of the illustration, the displacement is here shown as very slight; but, in some cases, these elevations and depressions of the strata extend to many hundreds of feet—as, for instance, at the mines of the British Iron Company, at Cefn-Mawre, in North Wales, where the downthrow of the fault is 360 feet.

Fig. 7.

"Sometimes the strata are disposed in the form of a basin. In this case, the water percolating through the more elevated ground—near what may be called the rim—collects in the lower parts of the strata towards the centre, there forcing its way to the surface, if the upper impervious beds be thin; or, if otherwise, remaining a concealed reservoir, ready to yield its supplies to the shaft or boring-rod of the well-sinker, and sometimes forming a living fountain capable of rising many feet above the surface. It is in this way that what are called Artesian wells are formed. The following diagram represents such a disposition of the strata as has just been referred to. The rain which falls on the tracts of country at A and B, gradually percolates towards the centre of the basin, where it may be made to give rise to an Artesian well, as at C, by boring through the superincumbent mass of clay; or it may force itself to the surface through the thinner part of the layer of clay, as at D—there forming a spring, or swamp.

Fig. 8.

"Again: the higher parts of hilly ground are sometimes composed of very porous and absorbent strata, while the lower portions are more impervious—the soil and subsoil being of a very stiff and retentive description. In this case, the water collected by the porous layers is prevented from finding a ready exit, when it reaches the impervious layers, by the stiff surface-soil. The water is by this means dammed up in some measure, and acquires a considerable degree of pressure; and, forcing itself to the day at various places, it forms those extensive "weeping"-banks which have such an injurious effect upon many of our mountain-pastures. This was the form of spring, or swamp, to the removal of which Elkington principally turned his attention; and the following diagram, taken from a description of his system of draining, will explain the stratification and springs referred to, more clearly.

Fig. 9.

"In some districts, where clay forms the staple of the soil, a bed of sand or gravel, completely saturated with water, occurs at the depth of a few feet from the surface, following all the undulations of the country, and maintaining its position, in relation to the surface, over considerable tracts, here and there pouring forth its waters in a spring, or denoting its proximity, by the subaquatic nature of the herbage. Such a configuration is represented in the following diagram, where A represents the surface-soil; B, the impervious subsoil of clay; C, the bed of sandy-clay or gravel; and D, the lower bed of clay, resting upon the rocky strata beneath.

Fig. 10.

"Springs sometimes communicate with lakes or pools, at higher levels. In such cases, the quantity of water discharged is generally so great, as to form at once a brook or stream of some magnitude. These, therefore, hardly come under the ordinary cognizance of the land-drainer, and are, therefore, here merely referred to."

THE WATER OF PRESSURE.

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 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,

"Every proprietor upon each bank of a river, is entitled to the land covered with water in front of his bank to the middle thread of the stream, &c. In virtue of this ownership, he has a right to the use of the water flowing over it in its natural current, without diminution or obstruction. The consequence of this principle is, that no proprietor has a right to use the water to the prejudice of another. It is wholly immaterial whether the party be a proprietor above or below, in the course of the river, the right being common to all the proprietors on the river. No one has a right to diminish the quantity which will, according to the natural current, flow to the proprietor below, or to throw it back upon a proprietor above."

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

"In general, every man has a right to the use of the water flowing in a stream through his land, and if any one divert the water from its natural channel, or throw it back, so as to deprive him of the use of it, the law will give him redress. But one man may acquire, by grant, a right to throw the water back upon the land of another, and long usage may be evidence of such a grant. It is, however, well settled that a man acquires no such right by merely being the first to make use of the water."

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 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.

WHAT LANDS REQUIRE DRAINAGE?

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 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.:

"My deliberate judgment is, that all lands which are worth plowing, which is not the case with all lands that are plowed, would be improved by draining; but I know that our farmers are neither able nor ready to drain to that extent, nor do I insist that it would pay while land is so cheap, and labor and tile so dear as at present. Ultimately, I believe, we shall tile-drain nearly all our level, or moderately sloping lands, that are worth cultivation."

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.

DO ALL LANDS REQUIRE DRAINAGE?

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 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—

ALL LANDS OVERFLOWED IN SUMMER REQUIRE DRAINAGE.

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.

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.

SWAMPS AND BOGS REQUIRE DRAINAGE.

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.

ALL HIGH LANDS THAT CONTAIN TOO MUCH WATER AT ANY SEASON, REQUIRE DRAINAGE.

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 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 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.

INDICATIONS OF TOO MUCH MOISTURE.

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 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 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.

WILL IT PAY?

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 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 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 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.

CHAPTER V
VARIOUS METHODS OF DRAINAGE.

Open Ditches.—Slope of Banks.—Brush Drains.—Ridge and Furrow.—Plug-Draining.—Mole-Draining.—Mole-Plow.—Wedge and Shoulder Drains.—Larch Tubes.—Drains of Fence Rails, and Poles.—Peat Tiles.—Stone Drains Injured by Moles.—Downing's Giraffes.—Illustrations of Various Kinds of Stone Drains.

OPEN DITCHES.

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 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 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 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; 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 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.

BRUSH 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. 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:

"Although in some districts they are still employed, they can only be looked upon as a clumsy, and superficial plan of doing that which can be executed in a permanent and satisfactory manner, at a very small additional expense, now that draining-tiles are so cheap and plentiful."

Draining-tiles are not yet either cheap or plentiful in 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.

PLUG-DRAINING

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.

"Plug-draining, like mole-draining, does not require the use of any foreign material—the channel for the water being wholly formed of clay, to which this kind of drain, like that last mentioned is alone suited.

"This method of draining requires a particular set of tools for its execution, consisting of, first, a common spade, by means of which the first spit is removed, and laid on one side; second, a smaller-sized spade, by means of which the second spit is taken out, and laid on the opposite side of the trench thus formed; third, a peculiar instrument called a bitting iron (Fig. [11]), consisting of a narrow spade, three and a half feet in length, and one and a half inches wide at the mouth and sharpened like a chisel; the mouth, or blade, being half an inch in thickness in order to give the necessary strength to so slender an implement. From the mouth, a, on the right-hand side, a ring of steel, b, six inches long and two and a half broad, projects at right angles; and on the left, at fourteen inches from the mouth, a tread, c, three inches long, is fitted.

Fig. 11.

"A number of blocks of wood, each one foot long, six inches high, and two inches thick at the bottom, and two and a half at the top, are next required. From four to six of these are joined together by pieces of hoop-iron let into their sides by a saw-draught, a small space being left between their ends, so that when completed, the whole forms a somewhat flexible bar, as shown in the cut, to one end of which a stout chain is attached. These blocks are wetted, and placed with the narrow end undermost, in the bottom of the trench, which should be cut so as to fit them closely; the clay which has been dug out is then to be returned, by degrees, upon the blocks, and rammed down with a wooden rammer three inches wide. As soon as the portion of the trench above the blocks, or plugs, has been filled, they are drawn forward, by means of a lever thrust through a link of the chain, and into the bottom of the drain for a fulcrum, until they are all again exposed, except the last one. The further portion of the trench, above the blocks, is now filled in and rammed, and so on the operations proceed until the whole drain is finished."

Fig. 12.—Plug Drainage.

MOLE DRAINING.

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 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.

Fig. 13.—Mole Plow.

The following description is from Morton's Cyclopedia:

"Mole-Drains are the simplest of all the forms of the covered drains. They are formed by means of a machine called the mole plow. This machine consists of a long wooden beam and stilts, somewhat in the form of the subsoil plow; but instead of the apparatus for breaking up the subsoil in the latter, a short cylindrical and pointed bar of iron is attached, horizontally, to the lower end of the broad coulter, which can be raised or lowered by means of a slot in the beam. The beam itself is sheathed with iron on the under side, and moves close to the ground; thus keeping the bar at the end of the coulter at one uniform depth. This machine is dragged through the soft clay, which is the only kind of land on which it can be used with propriety, by means of a chain and capstan, worked by horses, and produces a hollow channel very similar to a mole-run, from which it derives its name."

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:

"I believe there is not a rod of tile laid on this farm, and not a dozen rods of covered stone drain. But the major has a home-made, or, at least, home-devised, 'bull plow,' consisting of a sharp-pointed iron wedge, or roller, surmounted by a broad, sharp shank nearly four feet high, with a still sharper cutter in front, and with a beam and handles above all. With five yoke of oxen attached, this plow is put down through the soil and subsoil to an average depth of three feet—in the course which the superfluous water is expected and desired to take—and the field thus plowed through and through, at intervals of two rods, down to three feet, as the ground is more or less springy and saturated with water. The cut made by the shank closes after the plow and is soon obliterated, while that made by the roller, or wedge, at the bottom, becomes the channel of a stream of water whenever there is any excess of moisture above its level, which stream tends to clear itself and rather enlarge its channel. From ten to twenty acres a day are thus drained, and Major D. has such drains of fifteen to twenty years' standing, which still do good service. In rocky soils, this mode of draining is impracticable: in sandy tracts it would not endure; but here it does very well, and, even though it should hold good in the average but ten years, it would many times repay its cost."

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

SHANGHAE PLOW.

"I will take the poorest acre of stubble ground, and if too wet for corn in the first place, I will thoroughly drain it with a Shanghae plow and four yoke of oxen in three hours.

"I will suppose the acre to be twenty rods long and eight rods wide. To thoroughly drain the worst of your clay subsoil, it may require a drain once in eight feet, and they can be made so cheaply that I can afford to make them at that distance. To do so, will require the team to travel sixteen times over the twenty rods lengthwise, or one mile in three hours; two men to drive, one to hold the plow, one to ride the beam, and one to carry the crow-bar, pick up any large stones thrown out by going to the right or left, and to help to carry around the plow, which is too heavy for the other two to do quickly.

"The plow is quite simple in its construction, consisting of a round piece of iron three and a half or four inches in diameter, drawn down to a point, with a furrow cut in the top one and a half inches deep; a plate, eighteen inches wide and three feet long, with one end welded into the furrow of the round bar, while the other is fastened to the beam. The coulter is six inches in width, and is fastened to the beam at one end, and at the other to the point of the round bar. The coulter and plate are each three-fourths of an inch thick, which is the entire width of the plow above the round iron at the bottom.

"It would require much more team to draw this plow on some soils than on yours. The strength of team depends entirely on the character of the subsoil. Cast-iron, with the exception of the coulter, for an easy soil would be equally good; and from eighteen to twenty-four inches is sufficiently deep to run the plow. I can as thoroughly drain an acre of ground in this way as any that can be found in Seneca County."

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.

WEDGE AND SHOULDER DRAINS.

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 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].

Fig. 14.
Wedge-Drain.

Fig. 15.
Shoulder-Drain.

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.

LARCH TUBES.

These have been used in Scotland, in mossy or swampy soils, it is said, with economy and good results. The tube 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.

Fig. 16.—Larch Tube-Drain.

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, 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.

Fig. 17.—Pole-Drain.

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.

Fig. 18.—Tool for Peat-Tiles.

Fig. 19.—Peat-Tiles.

In draining, the object being merely to form a durable 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.

DRAINS OF STONES.

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, 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:

Fig. 20.

Fig. 21.

Fig. 22.

Fig. 23.

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, 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 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.

Figs. 24, 25.—Stone Drains.

Figure [25] represents the ditch without the small stones 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 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.

CHAPTER VI
DRAINAGE WITH TILES.

What are Drain-Tiles?—Forms of Tiles.—Pipes.—Horse-shoe Tiles.—Sole-Tiles—Form of Water-Passage.—Collars and their Use.—Size of Pipes.—Velocity.—Friction.—Discharge of Water through Pipes.—Tables of Capacity.—How Water enters Tiles.—Deep Drains run soonest and longest.—Pressure of Water on Pipes.—Durability of Tile Drains.—Drain-Bricks 100 years old.

WHAT ARE DRAIN-TILES?

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 seen to be as clumsy a contrivance as could well be devised.

Fig. 26.—Draining-Bricks.

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, as affecting the efficiency, the cost, and the durability of tile-drainage, it will be well to give it critical attention.

THE FORMS OF TILES.

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

Figs. 27, 28, 29.—Round Pipes.

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; 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; 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.

Fig. 30—Horse-shoe Tiles and Soles.

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:

"We shall shock and surprise many of our readers, when we state confidently that, in average soils, and still more in those which are inclined to be tender, horse-shoe tiles form the weakest and most failing conduit which has ever been used for a deep drain. It is so, however; and a little thought, even if we had no experience, will tell us that it must be so.

"A horse-shoe tile, which may be a tolerably secure conduit in a drain of 2 feet, in one of 4 feet becomes an almost certain failure. As to the longitudinal fracture, not only is the tile subject to be broken by one of those slips which are so troublesome in deep draining, and to which the lightly-filled material, even when the drain is completed, offers an imperfect resistance, but the constant pressure together of the sides, even when it does not produce a fracture of the soil, catches hold of the feet of the tile, and breaks it through the crown. When the Regent's Park was first drained, large conduits were in fashion, and they were made circular by placing one horse-shoe tile upon another. It would be difficult to invent a weaker conduit. On re-drainage, innumerable instances were found in which the upper tile was broken through the crown and had dropped into the lower."

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.

Fig. 31—Sole-Tile.

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 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.

Fig. 32.—Pipes and Collar.

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:

"We were astounded to find, at the conclusion of Mr. Parkes' Newcastle Lecture, this sentence: 'It may be advisable for me to say, that in clays, and other clean-cutting and firm-bottomed soils, I do not find the collars to be indispensably necessary, although I always prefer their use.' This is a barefaced treachery to pipes, an abandonment of the strongest point in their case—the assured continuity of the conduit. Every one may see how very small a disturbance at their point of junction would dissociate two pipes of one inch diameter. One finds a soft place in the bottom of the drain and dips his nose into it one inch deep, and cocks up his other end. By this simple operation, the continuity of the conduit is twice broken. An inch of lateral motion produces the same effect. Pipes of a larger diameter than two inches are generally laid without collars. This is a practice on which we do not look with much complacency; it is the compromise between cost and security, to which the affairs of men are so often compelled. No doubt, a conduit from three to six inches in diameter is much less subject to a breach in its continuity than one which is smaller; but, when no collars are used, the pipes should be laid with extreme care, and the bed which is prepared for them at the bottom of the drain should be worked to their size and shape with great accuracy.

"To one advantage which is derived from the use of collars we have not yet adverted—the increased facility with which free water existing in the soil can find entrance into the conduit.

"The collar for a one and a half inch pipe has a circumference of nine inches. The whole space between the collar and the pipe, on each side of the collar, is open, and affords no resistance to the entrance of water: while, at the same time, the superincumbent arch of the collar protects the junction of two pipes from the intrusion of particles of soil. We confess to some original misgivings, that a pipe resting only on an inch at each end, and lying hollow, might prove weak, and liable to fracture by weight pressing on it from above; but the fear was illusory. Small particles of soil trickle down the sides of every drain, and the first flow of water will deposit them in the vacant space between the two collars. The bottom, if at all soft, will also swell up into any vacancy. Practically, if you re-open a drain well laid with pipes and collars, you will find them reposing in a beautiful nidus, which, when they are carefully removed, looks exactly as if it had been moulded for them."

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 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:

"It may be advisable for me to say, that in clays, and other clean-cutting and firm-bottomed soils, I do not find collars to be at all necessary; but that they are essential in all sandy, loose, and soft strata."

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:

"The use of collars is by no means general, although those who have used them speak highly of their advantages. Except in sandy soils, and in those that are subject to sudden alteration of character, in some of the deposits of red sand-stones, and in the clayey subsoils of the Bagshot sand district, for instance, collars are not found to be essential to good drainage. In the north of England they are used but seldom, and, in my opinion, much less than they ought to be; but this opinion, it is right to state, is opposed, in numerous instances of successful drainage, by men of extensive practice; and as every cause of increased outlay is to be avoided, the value of collars, as general appliances, remains an open question. In all the more porous subsoils in which collars have not been used, the more successful drainers increase the size of the pipes in the minor drains to a minimum size of two inches bore."

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.

Fig. 33—Flat-bottomed Pipe-Tile.

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

"It was found that a large proportion of sewers were constructed with flat bottoms, which, when there was a small discharge, spread the water, increased the friction, retarded the flow, and accumulated deposit. It was ascertained, that by the substitution of circular sewers of the same width, with the same inclination and the same run of water, the amount of deposit was reduced more than one-half."

THE SIZE OF TILES.

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.

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 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 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.

FRICTION,

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,

"it was found that, with pipes of the same diameter, exactitude of form was of more importance than smoothness of surface; that glass pipes, which had a wavy surface, discharged less water, at the same inclinations, than Staffordshire stone-ware clay pipes, which were of perfectly exact construction. By passing pipes of the same clay—the common red clay—under a second pressure, obtained by a machine at an extra expense of about eighteen pence per thousand, whilst the pipe was half dry, very superior exactitude of form was obtained, and by means of this exactitude, and with nearly the same diameters, an increased discharge of water of one-fourth was effected within the same time."

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.

"On a large scale, it was found that when equal quantities of water were running direct, at a rate of 90 seconds, with a turn at right-angles, the discharge was only effected in 140 seconds; whilst, with a turn or junction with a gentle curve, the discharge was effected in 100 seconds."

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

"DISCHARGE OF WATER THROUGH PIPES.

"The following tables of discharge are founded on the experiments made by Mr. Smeaton, and have been compared with those by Henry Law, and with the rules of Weisbach and D'Aubuisson. The conditions under which such experiments are made may be so essentially different in each case, that few experiments give results coincident with each other, or with the deductions of theory: and in applying these tables to practice, it is quite likely that the discharge of a pipe of a certain area, at a certain inclination, may be quite unlike the discharge found to be due to those conditions by this table, and that difference may be owing partly to greater or less roughness on the inside of the pipe, unequal flow of water through the joints into the pipe, crookedness of the pipes, want of accuracy in their being placed, so that the fall may not be uniform throughout, or the ends of the pipes may be shoved a little to one side, so that the continuity of the channel is partially broken; and, indeed, from various other causes, all of which may occur in any practical case, unless great care is taken to avoid it, and some of which may occur in almost any case.

"We have endeavored to so construct the tables that, in the ordinary practice of draining, the discharge given may approximate to the truth for a well laid drain, subject even to considerable friction. The experiments of Mr. Smeaton, which we have adopted as the basis of these tables, gave a less quantity discharged, under certain conditions, than given under similar conditions by other tables. This result is probably due to a greater amount of friction in the pipes used by Smeaton. The curves of friction resemble, very nearly, parabolic curves, but are not quite so sharp near the origin.

"We propose, during the coming season, to institute some careful experiments, to ascertain the friction due to our own drain-pipe. Water can get into the drain-pipe very freely at the joints, as may be seen by a simple calculation. It is impossible to place the ends so closely together, in laying, as to make a tight joint on account of roughness in the clay, twisting in burning, &c.; and the opening thus made will usually average about one-tenth of an inch on the whole circumference, which is, on the inside of a two-inch pipe, six inches—making six-tenths of a square inch opening for the entrance of water at each joint.

"In a lateral drain 200 feet long, the pipes being thirteen inches long, there will be 184 joints, each joint having an opening of six-tenth square inch area; in 184 joints there is an aggregate area of 110 square inches; the area of the opening at the end of a two-inch pipe is about three inches; 110 square inches inlet to three inches outlet; thirty-seven times as much water can flow in as can flow out. There is, then, no need for the water to go through the pores of the pipe; and the fact is, we think, quite fortunate, for the passage of water through the pores would in no case be sufficient to benefit the land to much extent. We tried an experiment, by stopping one end of an ordinary drain-pipe and filling it with water. At the end of sixty-five hours, water still stood in the pipe three-fourths of an inch deep. About half the water first put into the pipe had run out at the end of twenty-four hours. If the pipe was stopped at both ends and plunged four feet deep in water, it would undoubtedly fill in a short time; but such a test is an unfair one, for no drain could be doing service, over which water could collect to the depth of four feet."

Fall
in
100 feet. 		Velocity
per second
in feet. 		Discharge
in gallons
in 24 hours. 		Fall
in
100 feet. 		Velocity
per second
in feet. 		Discharge
in gallons
in 24 hours.
ft. in. ft. in.
0.3 0.71 5630.87 5.3 3.75 29704.51
0.6 1.04 8248.03 5.6 3.84 30454.28
0.9 1.29 10230.73 5.9 3.93 31168.06
1.0 1.52 12054.81 6.0 4.00 31723.21
1.3 1.74 13799.59 6.3 4.10 32516.36
1.6 1.91 15147.83 6.6 4.18 33150.76
1.9 2.10 16654.68 6.9 4.25 33705.91
2.0 2.26 17923.61 7.0 4.33 34340.38
2.3 2.41 19113.23 7.3 4.41 34974.85
2.6 2.56 20302.86 7.6 4.49 35609.30
2.9 2.69 21333.86 7.9 4.56 36154.45
3.0 2.83 22444.17 8.0 4.65 36878.23
3.3 2.94 23150.71 8.3 4.71 37354.08
3.6 3.06 24268.25 8.6 4.79 37988.55
3.9 3.16 25061.34 8.9 4.85 38464.40
4.0 3.28 26013.03 9.0 4.91 38940.25
4.3 3.38 26806.11 9.3 4.98 39495.39
4.6 3.46 27440.58 9.6 5.04 39971.24
4.9 3.56 28233.66 9.9 5.10 40447.10
5.0 3.65 28947.43 10.0 5.16 40922.93
2-inch drain-pipe.3-inch drain-pipe.
Fall
in
100 feet.		Velocity
per second
in feet.		Discharge
in gallons
in 24 hours.		Fall
in
100 feet.		Velocity
per second
in feet.		Discharge
in gallons
in 24 hours.
ft. in.ft. in.
0.30.7910575.4 0.30.90 24687.2
0.61.1615528.4 0.61.33 36482.2
0.91.5020079.9 0.91.66 45534.2
1.01.7122891.1 1.01.94 53214.7
1.31.9425970.0 1.32.19 60072.2
1.62.1628915.1 1.62.43 66655.5
1.92.3531458.5 1.92.63 72141.5
2.02.5333868.1 2.02.83 77627.6
2.32.6936009.9 2.33.00 82290.7
2.62.8337884.0 2.63.16 86679.6
2.92.9739758.2 2.93.31 90794.1
3.03.1141632.4 3.03.47 95182.9
3.33.2443372.6 3.33.60 98748.9
3.63.3644979.0 3.63.74102589.1
3.93.4846585.4 3.93.87106155.0
4.03.5948057.9 4.03.99109446.7
4.33.7049530.5 4.34.11112738.3
4.63.8050869.1 4.64.23116029.9
4.93.9152341.6 4.94.34119047.3
5.04.0253814.1 5.04.46122338.9
5.34.1155018.9 5.34.57125356.2
5.64.2256491.5 5.64.68128373.5
5.94.3157696.3 5.94.78131116.6
6.04.4058901.1 6.04.89134133.9
6.34.4960105.9 6.34.98136602.6
6.64.5861309.7 6.65.08139345.6
6.94.6662381.6 6.95.18142088.7
7.04.7463452.5 7.05.27144557.4
7.34.8364667.3 7.35.37147306.4
7.64.9165728.3 7.65.46150069.1
7.94.9966799.2 7.95.55152237.8
8.05.0767870.1 8.05.64154706.6
8.35.1568941.0 8.35.73157175.3
8.65.2370011.9 8.65.82159644.0
8.95.3171082.8 8.95.91162112.7
9.05.3872019.9 9.05.99164313.2
9.35.4673090.9 9.36.07166501.6
9.65.5374027.9 9.66.16168970.3
9.95.6074965.0 9.96.24171164.7
10.05.6775902.010.06.32173359.1
4-inch drain-pipe.5-inch drain-pipe.
Fall
in
100 feet.		Velocity
per second
in feet.		Discharge
in gallons
in 24 hours.		Fall
in
100 feet.		Velocity
per second
in feet.		Discharge
in gallons
in 24 hours.
ft. in.ft. in.
0.31.08 43697.6 0.31.13 99584.2
0.61.50 60691.2 0.61.57138362.4
0.91.83 74043.2 0.91.90167442.6
1.02.13 86181.4 1.02.20193881.0
1.32.38 96296.6 1.32.45215912.9
1.62.61105602.6 1.62.70237944.9
1.92.81113694.8 1.92.90255569.5
2.03.00121382.3 2.03.10273195.9
2.33.19129089.9 2.33.29289940.1
2.63.36135948.2 2.63.46304921.9
2.93.53142826.5 2.93.64320784.9
3.03.68148895.7 3.03.80334885.4
3.33.82154560.2 3.33.96348974.8
3.63.96160224.7 3.64.11362204.9
3.94.10165889.2 3.94.26375424.1
4.04.24171553.7 4.04.40387762.1
4.34.37176813.6 4.34.52398337.5
4.64.50182073.5 4.64.66410675.3
4.94.62186928.3 4.94.78421250.6
5.04.75192188.7 5.04.90430825.0
5.34.86196639.4 5.35.02442401.3
5.64.97201090.1 5.65.14452976.6
5.95.09205945.3 5.95.25462670.6
6.05.20210396.0 6.05.37473246.0
6.35.30214442.1 6.35.49483820.4
6.65.41218892.8 6.65.60493514.6
6.95.51222938.8 6.95.70502327.4
7.05.61226984.9 7.05.80511140.2
7.35.71231031.0 7.35.90520052.0
7.65.81235077.1 7.66.00528766.5
7.95.91239123.2 7.96.10537578.7
8.06.01243169.2 8.06.20546391.5
8.36.10246810.7 8.36.30555204.5
8.66.19250452.2 8.66.40564017.0
8.96.28255493.7 8.96.49571948.0
9.06.37257735.2 9.06.58579880.0
9.36.45260971.9 9.36.66586930.2
9.66.54264603.1 9.66.75594861.4
9.96.63268254.9 9.96.84602793.2
10.06.71271491.810.06.93610723.8
Fall
in
100 feet. 		Velocity
per second
in feet. 		Discharge
in gallons
in 24 hours. 		Fall
in
100 feet. 		Velocity
per second
in feet. 		Discharge
in gallons
in 24 hours.
ft. in. ft. in.
0.3 1.23 277487.7 5.3 5.35 1206959.3
0.6 1.65 372239.7 5.6 5.47 1234031.3
0.9 2.01 453455.7 5.9 5.59 1261103.3
1.0 2.33 525647.7 6.0 5.71 1288175.3
1.3 2.60 586559.7 6.3 5.83 1315247.3
1.6 2.85 642959.6 6.6 5.95 1343838.9
1.9 3.08 694847.6 6.9 6.07 1369391.3
2.0 3.30 744479.7 7.0 6.17 1391951.2
2.3 3.50 789599.6 7.3 6.27 1414531.1
2.6 3.70 844719.7 7.6 6.39 1441583.2
2.9 3.89 877583.5 7.9 6.50 1466399.3
3.0 4.05 913679.5 8.0 6.60 1488959.2
3.3 4.21 949775.6 8.3 6.70 1511539.1
3.6 4.37 971658.7 8.6 6.80 1534099.0
3.9 4.53 920447.4 8.9 6.90 1556658.9
4.0 4.67 1055551.4 9.0 7.00 1579199.3
4.3 4.81 1086135.4 9.3 7.10 1601759.2
4.6 4.95 1116718.7 9.6 7.20 1624319.1
4.9 5.08 1146047.4 9.9 7.29 1644622.1
5.0 5.22 1177631.3 10.0 7.38 1664927.1

HOW WATER ENTERS THE TILES.

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 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 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?

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

"The pressure due to a head of water four or five feet, may be imagined from the force with which water will come through the crevices of a hatch with that depth of water above it. Now, there is the same pressure of water to enter the vacuum in the pipe-drain as there is against the hatches, supposing the land to be full of water to the surface."

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.

DURABILITY OF TILE DRAINS.

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.

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 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 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:

"Of the durability of common brick, when used in drains, there is a remarkable instance mentioned by Mr. George Guthrie, factor to the Earl of Stair or Calhoun, Wigtonshire. In the execution of modern draining on that estate, some brick-drains, on being intersected, emitted water very freely. According to documents which refer to these drains, it appears that they had been formed by the celebrated Marshal, Earl Stair, upwards of a hundred years ago. They were found between the vegetable mould and the clay upon which it rested, between the 'wet and the dry,' as the country phrase has it, and about thirty-one inches below the surface. They presented two forms—one consisting of two bricks set asunder on edge, and the other two laid lengthways across them, leaving between them an opening of four inches square for water, but having no soles. The bricks had not sunk in the least through the sandy clay bottom upon which they rested, as they were three inches broad. The other form was of two bricks laid side by side, as a sole, with two others built or laid on each other, at both sides, upon the solid ground, and covered with flat stones, the building being packed on each side of the drain with broken bricks."

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

CHAPTER VII
DIRECTION, DISTANCE, AND DEPTH OF DRAINS.

Direction of Drains.—Whence comes the Water?—Inclination of Strata.—Drains across the Slope let Water out as well as Receive it.—Defence against Water from Higher Land.—Open Ditches.—Headers.—Silt-basins.

Distance of Drains.—Depends on Soil, Depth, Climate, Prices, System.—Conclusions as to Distance.

Depth of Drains.—Greatly Increases Cost.—Shallow Drains first tried in England.—10,000 Miles of Shallow Drains laid in Scotland by way of Education.—Drains must be below Subsoil plow, and Frost.—Effect of Frost on Tiles and Aqueducts.

DIRECTION OF DRAINS.

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 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.

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 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.

"In many subsoils there are thin partings, or layers, of porous materials, interspersed between the strata, which, although not of sufficient capacity to give rise to actual springs, yet exude sufficient water to indicate their presence. These partings occasionally crop out, and give rise to those damp spots, which are to be seen diversifying the surface of fields, when the drying breezes of Spring have begun to act upon them. In the following cut, the light lines represent such partings.

"Now, it will be evident, in draining such land, that if the drains be disposed in a direction transverse or oblique to the slope, it will often happen that the drains, no matter how skillfully planned, will not reach these partings at all, as at A. In this case, the water will continue to flow on in its accustomed channel, and discharge its waters at B.

Fig. 34—Drains across the Slope.

"But again, even though it does reach these partings, as at C, a considerable portion of water will escape from the drain itself, and flow to the lower level of its old point of discharge at D. Whereas, a drain cut in the line of the slope, as from D to E, intersects all these partings, and furnishes an outlet to them at a lower level than their old ones."

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 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 drain at the surface, and that of the line of moisture beneath it. He says again:

"I recently had an opportunity, in Scotland, of gauging the quantity of water traveling along an important drain carried obliquely across the fall, when I ascertained with certainty, that, although the land through which it passed was comparatively full of water, the drain actually lost more than it gained in a passage of several chains through it."

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:

"With respect to the direction of drains, I believe very little difference of opinion exists. All the most successful drainers concur in the line of the steepest descent, as essential to effective and economical drainage. Certain exceptions are recognized in the West of England, but I believe it will be found, as practice extends in that quarter, that the exceptions have been allowed in error."

In another place, he says:

"The very general concurrence in the adoption of the line of greatest descent, as the proper course for the minor drains in soils free from rock, would almost lead me to declare this as an incontrovertible principle."

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.

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 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.

DISTANCES APART, OR FREQUENCY OF DRAINS.

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.

DISTANCES DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF THE SOIL.

Water runs readily through sand or gravel. In such soils it easily seeks and finds its level. If it be drawn 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 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.

DISTANCES DEPEND UPON THE DEPTH OF THE 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.

In a porous soil, as a general rule, the deeper the drain, the further it will draw. The tendency of water is to lie level in the soil; but capillary attraction and mechanical obstructions offer constant resistance to this tendency. The farther water has to pass in the soil, the longer time, other things being equal, will be required for the passage. Therefore, although a single deep drain might, in ten days lower the water-line as much as two drains of the same depth, or, in other words, might draw the water all down to its own level, yet, it is quite evident that the two drains might do the work in less time—possibly, in five days. We have seen already the necessity of laying drains deep enough to be below the reach of the subsoil plow and below frost, so that, in the Northern States, the question of shallow drainage seems hardly debatable. Yet, if we adopt the conclusion that four feet is the least allowable depth, where an outfall can be found, there may be the question still, whether, in very open soils, a still greater depth may not be expedient, to be compensated by increased distance.

DISTANCES DEPEND UPON CLIMATE.

Climate includes the conditions of temperature and moisture, and so, necessarily, the seasons. In the chapter which treats of Rain, it will be seen that the quantity of rain which falls in the year is singularly various in different places. Even, in England, "the annual average rain-fall of the wettest place in Cumberland is stated to be 141 inches, while 19½ inches may be taken as the average fall in Essex. In Cumberland, there are 210 days in the year in which rain falls, and in Chiswick, near London, but 124."

A reference to the tables in another place, will show us an infinite variety in the rain-fall at different points of our own country.

If we expect, therefore, to furnish passage for but two feet of water in the year, our drains need not be so numerous as would be necessary to accommodate twice that quantity, unless, indeed, the time for its passage may be different; and this leads us to another point which should ever be kept in mind in New England—the necessity of quick drainage. The more violent storms and showers of our country, as compared with England, have been spoken of when considering The Size of Tiles. The sudden transition from Winter to Summer, from the breaking up of deep snows with the heavy falls of rain, to our brief and hasty planting time, requires that our system of drainage should be efficient, not only to take off large quantities of water, but to take them off in a very short time. How rapidly water may be expected to pass off by drainage, is not made clear by writers on the subject.

"One inch in depth," says an English writer, "is a very heavy fall of rain in a day, and it generally takes two days for the water to drain fully from deep drained land." One inch of water over an acre is calculated to be something more than one hundred tons. This seems, in gross, to be a large amount, but we should expect that an inch, or even two inches of water, spread evenly over a field, would soon disappear from the surface; and if not prevented by some impervious obstruction, it must continue downward.

It is said, on good authority, that, in England, the smallest sized pipes, if the fall be good, will be sufficiently large, at ordinary distances, to carry off all the surplus water. In the author's own fields, where two-inch tiles are laid at four feet depth and fifty feet apart, in an open soil, they seem amply sufficient to relieve the ground of all surplus water from rain, in a very few days. Most of them have never ceased to run every day in the year, but as they are carried up into an undrained plain, they probably convey much more water than falls upon the land in which they lie.

So far as our own observation goes, their flow increases almost as soon as rain begins to fall, and subsides, after it ceases, about as soon as the water in the little river into which they lead, sinks back into its ordinary channel, the freshet in the drains and in the stream being nearly simultaneous. Probably, two-inch pipes, at fifty feet distances, will carry off, with all desirable rapidity, any quantity of water that will ever fall, if the soil be such that the water can pass through it to the distance necessary to find the drains; but it is equally probable that, in a compact clay soil, fifty feet distance is quite too great for sufficiently rapid drainage, because the water cannot get to the drains with sufficient rapidity.

DISTANCES DEPEND UPON THE COMPARATIVE PRICES OF LABOR AND TILES.

The fact, that the last foot of a four-foot drain costs as much labor as the first three feet, is shown in another chapter, and the deeper we go, the greater the comparative cost of the labor. With tiles at $10 per thousand, the cost of opening and filling a four-foot ditch is, in, round numbers, by the rod, equal to twice the cost of the tiles. In porous soils, therefore, where depth may be made to compensate for greater distance, it is always a matter for careful estimate, whether we shall practice true economy by laying the tiles at great depths, or at the smallest depth at which they will be safe from frost and the subsoil plow, and at shorter distances. The rule is manifest that, where labor is cheap and tiles are dear, it is true economy to dig deep and lay few tiles; and, where tiles are cheap and labor is dear, it is economy to make the number of drains, if possible, compensate for less depth.

DISTANCES DEPEND UPON SYSTEM.

While we would not lay down an arbitrary arrangement for any farm, except upon a particular examination, and while we would by no means advocate what has been called the gridiron system—of drains everywhere at equal depths and distances—yet some system is absolutely essential, in any operation that approaches to thorough drainage.

If it be only desired to cut off some particular springs, or to assist Nature in some ravine or basin, a deep drain here and there may be expedient; but when any considerable surface is to be drained, there can be no good work without a connected plan of operations.

Mains must be laid from the outfall, through the lowest parts; and into the mains the smaller drains must be conducted, upon such a system as that there may be the proper fall or inclination throughout, and that the whole field shall be embraced.

Again, a perfect plan of the completed work, accurately drawn on paper, should always be preserved for future reference. Now it is manifest, that it is impossible to lay out a given field, with proper mains and small drains, dividing the fall as equally as practicable between the different parts of an undulating field, preserving a system throughout, by which, with the aid of a plan, any drain may at any time be traced, without making distances conform somewhat to the system of the whole.

It is easily demonstrable, too, that drains at right angles with the mains, and so parallel with each other, are the shortest possible drains in land that needs uniform drainage. They take each a more uniform share of the water, and serve a greater breadth of soil than when laid at acute angles. While, therefore, it may be supposed that in particular parts of the field, distances somewhat greater or less might be advisable, considered independently, yet in practice, it will be found best, usually, to pay becoming deference to order, "Heaven's first law," and sacrifice something of the individual good, to the leading idea of the general welfare.

In the letter of Mr. Denton, in another chapter, some remarks will be found upon the subject of which we are treating. The same gentleman has, in a published paper, illustrated the impossibility of strict adherence to any arbitrary rule in the distances or arrangement of drains, as follows:

"The wetness of land, which for distinction's sake, I have called 'the water of pressure,' like the water of springs, to which it is nearly allied, can be effectually and cheaply removed only by drains devised for, and devoted to the object. Appropriate deep drains at B B B, for instance, as indicated in the dark vertical lines, are found to do the service of many parallel drains, which as frequently miss, as they hit, those furrows, or 'lips,' in the horizontal out-crop of water-bearing strata which continue to exude wetness after the higher portions are dry.

Fig. 35.—The vertical dotted lines show the position of parallel drains.

"A consideration, too, of the varying inclinations of surface, of which instances will frequently occur in the same field, necessitates a departure from uniformity, not in direction only, but in intervals between drains. Take, for instance, the ordinary case of a field, in which a comparatively flat space will intervene between quickly rising ground and the outfall ditch. It is clear that the soak of the hill will pervade the soil of the lower ground, let the system of drainage adopted be what it may; and, therefore, supposing the soil of the hill and flat to be precisely alike, the existence of bottom water in a greater quantity in the lower lands than in the higher, will call for a greater number of drains. It is found, too, that an independent discharge or relief of the water coming from the hill, at B, should always be provided, in order to avoid any impediment by the slower flow of the flatter drains.

Fig. 36.

"Experience shows that, with few exceptions, hollows, or 'slacks,' observable on the surface, as at B B, have a corresponding undulation of subsoil and that any system which does not provide a direct release for water, which would otherwise collect in and draw towards these spots, is imperfect and unsatisfactory. It is found to be much more safe to depend on relief drains, than on the cutting of drains sufficiently deep through the banks, at A A, to gain a fall at a regular inclination.

"Still, in spite of experience, we often observe a disregard of these facts, even in works which are otherwise well executed to a depth of four feet, but fettered by methodical rules, and I feel compelled to remark, that it has often occurred to me, when I have observed with what diligent examination the rules of depth and distance have been tested, that if more attention had been paid to the source of injury, and to the mode of securing an effective and permanent discharge of the injurious water, much greater service would be done."

In conclusion, as to distances, we should advise great caution on the part of beginners in laying out their drains. Draining is too expensive a work to be carelessly or unskillfully done. A mistake in locating drains too far apart, brings a failure to accomplish the end in view. A mistake in placing them too near, involves a great loss of labor and money. Consult, then, those whose experience has given them knowledge, and pay to a professional engineer, or some other skillful person, a small amount for aid, which will probably save ten times as much in the end. We have placed our own drains in porous, though very wet soil, at fifty feet distances, which, in most soils, might be considered extremely wide. We are fully satisfied that they would have drained the land as well at sixty feet, except in a few low places, where they could not be sunk four feet for want of fall.

In most New England lands that require drainage, we believe that from 40 to 50 feet distances, with four feet depth, will prove sufficient. Upon stiff clays, we have no experience of our own of any value, although we have a field of the stiffest clay, drained last season at 40 feet distances and four feet depth. In England, this would, probably, prove insufficient, and, perhaps, it will prove so here. One thing is certain, that, at present, there is little land in this country that will pay for drainage by hand labor, at the English distances in clay, of 16 or 20 feet. If our powerful Summer's sun will not somehow compensate in part for distance, we must, upon our clays, await the coming of draining plows and steam.

DEPTH OF DRAINS.

Cheap and temporary expedients in agriculture are the characteristics of us Americans, who have abundance of land, a whole continent to cultivate, and comparatively few hands and small capital with which to do the work. We erect temporary houses and barns and fences, hoping to find time and means at a future day, to reconstruct them in a more thorough manner. We half cultivate our new lands, because land is cheaper than labor; and it pays best for the present, rather to rob our mother earth, than to give her labor for bread.

The easy and cheap process in draining, is that into which we naturally fall. It is far easier and cheaper to dig shallow than deep drains, and, therefore, we shall not dig deep unless we see good reason to do so. If, however, we carefully study the subject, it will be manifest that superficial drainage is, in general, the result of superficial knowledge of the subject.

Thorough-drainage does not belong to pioneer farming, nor to a cheap and temporary system. It involves capital and labor, and demands skill and system. It cannot be patched up, like a brush fence, to answer the purpose, from year to year, but every tile must be placed where it will best perform its office for a generation. In England, the rule and the habit in all things, is thoroughness and permanency; yet the first and greatest mistake there in drainage was shallowness, and it has required years of experiments, and millions of money, to correct that mistake. If we commit the same folly, as we are very likely to do, we cannot claim even the originality of the blunder, and shall be guilty of the folly of pursuing the crooked paths of their exploration, instead of the straight highway which they have now established. To be sure, the controversy as to the depth of drains has by no means ceased in England, but the question is reduced to this, whether the least depth shall be three feet or four; one party contending that for certain kinds of clay, a three-foot drain is as effectual as a four-foot drain, and that the least effectual depth should be used, because it is the cheapest; while the general opinion of the best scientific and practical men in the kingdom, has settled down upon four feet as the minimum depth, where the fall and other circumstances render it practicable. At the same time, all admit that, in many cases, a greater depth than four feet is required by true economy. It may seem, at first, that a controversy, as to one additional foot in a system of drainage, depends upon a very small point; but a little reflection will show it to be worthy of careful consideration. Without going here into a nice calculation, it may be stated generally as an established fact, that the excavation of a ditch four feet deep, costs twice as much as that of a ditch three feet deep. Although this may not seem credible to one who has not considered the point, yet it will become more probable on examination, and very clear, when the actual digging is attempted. Ditches for tiles are always opened widest at top, with a gradual narrowing to near the bottom, where they should barely admit the tile. Now, the addition of a foot to the depth, is not, as it would perhaps at first appear, merely the addition of the lowest and narrowest foot, but rather of the topmost and widest foot. In other words, a four-foot ditch is precisely a three-foot ditch in size and form, with an additional foot on the top of it, and not a three-foot ditch deepened an additional foot.

The lowest foot of a four-foot ditch is raised one foot higher, to get it upon the surface, than if the ditch were but three feet deep. In clays, and most other soils, the earth grows harder as we go deeper, and this consideration, in practice, will be found important. Again: the small amount of earth from a three-foot ditch, may lie conveniently on one bank near its edge, while the additional mass from a deeper one must be thrown further; and then is to be added the labor of replacing the additional quantity in filling up.

On the whole, the point may be conceded, that the labor of opening and finishing a four-foot drain is double that of a three-foot drain.

Without stopping here to estimate carefully the cost of excavation and the cost of tiles, it may be remarked, that, upon almost any estimate, the cost of labor, even in a three-foot drain in this country, yet far exceeds the cost of tiles: but, if we call them equal, then, if the additional foot of depth costs as much as the first three feet, we have the cost of a four-foot tile-drain fifty per cent. more than that of a three-foot drain. In other words, 200 rods of four-foot drain will cost just as much as 300 rods of three-foot drain. This is, probably, as nearly accurate as any general estimate that can be made at present. The principles upon which the calculations depend, having been thus suggested, it will not be difficult to vary them so as to apply them to the varying prices of labor and tiles, and to the use of the plow or other implements propelled by animals or steam, when applied to drainage in our country.

The earliest experiments in thorough-drainage, in England, were at very small depths, two feet being, for a time, considered very deep, and large tracts were underlaid with tiles at a depth of eighteen, and even twelve inches. It is said, that 10,000 miles of drains, two feet deep and less, were laid in Scotland before it was found that this depth was not sufficient. Of course, the land thus treated was relieved of much water, and experimenters were often much gratified with their success; but it may be safely said now, that there is no advocate known to the public, in England, for a system of drainage of less than three feet depth, and no one advocates a system of drainage of less than four feet deep, except upon some peculiar clays.

The general principle seems well established, that depth will compensate for width; or, in other words, that the deeper the drain, the farther it will draw. This principle, generally correct, is questioned when applied to peculiar clays only. As to them, all that is claimed is, that it is more economical to make the drains but three feet, because they must, even if deep, be near together—nobody doubting, that if four feet deep or more, and near enough, they will drain the land.

In speaking of clay soil, it should always be borne in mind, that clay is merely a relative term in agriculture. "A clay in Scotland," says Mr. Pusey, "would be a loam in the South of England." Professor Mapes, of our own country, in the Working Farmer, says, "We are convinced, that, with thorough subsoil plowing, no clay soil exists in this country which might not be underdrained to a depth of four feet with advantage."

There can be no doubt, that, with four-foot drains at proper distances, all soils, except some peculiar clays, may be drained, even without reference to the changes produced in the mechanical structure of soil by the operation. There is no doubt, however, that all soils are, by the admission of air, which must always take the place of the water drawn out, and by the percolation of water through them, rendered gradually more porous. Added to this, the subsoil plow, which will be the follower of drainage, will break up the soil to considerable depth, and thus make it more permeable to moisture. But there is still another and more effective aid which Nature affords to the land-drainer, upon what might be otherwise impracticable clays.

This topic deserves a careful and distinct consideration, which it will receive under the title of "Drainage of Stiff Clays."

In discussing the subject of the depth of drains, we are not unmindful of the fact that, in this country, the leaders in the drainage movement, especially Messrs. Delafield, Yeomans, and Johnston, of New York, have achieved their truly striking results, by the use of tiles laid at from two and a half to three feet depth. On the "Premium Farm" of R. J. Swan, of Rose Hill, near Geneva, it is stated that there are sixty-one miles of under-drains, laid from two and a half to three feet deep. That these lands thus drained have been changed in their character, from cold, wet, and unproductive wastes, in many cases, to fertile and productive fields of corn and wheat, sufficiently appears. Indeed, we all know of fields drained only with stone drains two feet deep, that have been reclaimed from wild grasses and rushes into excellent mowing fields. In England and in Scotland, as we have seen, thousands of miles of shallow drains were laid, and were for years quite satisfactory. These facts speak loudly in favor of drainage in general. The fact that shoal drains produce results so striking, is a stumbling-block in the progress of a more thorough system. It may seem like presumption to say to those to whom we are so much indebted for their public spirit, as well as private enterprise, that they have not drained deep enough for the greatest advantage in the end. It would seem that they should know their own farms and their own results better than others. We propose to state, with all fairness, the results of their experiments, and to detract nothing from the credit which is due to the pioneers in a great work.

We cannot, however, against the overwhelming weight of authority, and against the reasons for deeper drainage, which, to us, seem so satisfactory, conclude, that even three feet is, in general, deep enough for under-drains. Three-foot drains will produce striking results on almost any wet lands, but four-foot drains will be more secure and durable, will give wider feeding-grounds to the roots, better filter the percolating water, warm and dry the land earlier in Spring, furnish a larger reservoir for heavy rains, and, indeed, more effectually perform every office of drains.

In reviewing our somewhat minute discussion of this essential point—the proper depth of drains—certain propositions may be laid down with considerable assurance.

TILES MUST BE LAID BELOW THE REACH OF THE SUBSOIL PLOW.

Let no man imagine that he shall never use the subsoil plow; for so surely as he has become already so much alive to improvement, as to thorough-drain, so surely will he next complete the work thus begun, by subsoiling his land.

The subsoil plow follows in the furrow of another plow, and if the forward plow turn a furrow one foot deep, the subsoil may be run two feet more, making three feet in all. Ordinarily, the subsoil plow is run only to the depth of 18 or 20 inches; but if the intention were to run it no deeper than that, it would be liable to dip much deeper occasionally, as it came suddenly upon the soft places above the drains. The tiles should lie far enough below the deepest path of the subsoil plow, not to be at all disturbed by its pressure in passing over the drains. It is by no means improbable that fields that have already been drained in this country, may be, in the lifetime of their present occupants, plowed and subsoiled by means of steam-power, and stirred to as great a depth as shall be found at all desirable. But, in the present mode of using the subsoil plow on land free from stones, a depth less than three and a half or four feet would hardly be safe for the depth of tile-drains.

TILES MUST BE LAID BELOW FROST.

This is a point upon which we must decide for our selves. There is no country where drainage is practiced, where the thermometer sinks, as in almost every Winter it does in New England, to 20° below zero (Fahrenheit).

All writers seem to assume that tile-drains must be injured by frost. What the effect of frost upon them is supposed to be, does not seem very clear. If filled with water, and frozen, they must, of course, burst by the expansion of the water in freezing; but it would probably rarely happen, that drainage-water, running in cold weather, could come from other than deep sources, and it must then be considerably above the freezing point. Still; we know that aqueduct pipes do freeze at considerable depths, though supplied from deep springs. Neither these nor gas-pipes are, in our New England towns, safe below frost, unless laid four feet below the surface; and instances occur where they freeze at a much greater depth, usually, however, under the beaten paths of streets, or in exposed positions, where the snow is blown away. In such places, the earth sometimes freezes solid to the depth of even six feet. It will be suggested at once that our fields, and especially our wet lands, do not freeze so deep, and this is true; but it must be borne in mind, that the very reason why our wet lands do not freeze deeper, may be, that they are filled with the very spring-water which makes them cold in Summer, indeed, but is warmer than the air in Winter, and so keeps out the frost. Drained lands will freeze deeper than undrained lands, and the farmer must be vigilant upon this point, or he may have his work ruined in a single Winter.

We are aware, that upon this, as every other point, ascertained facts may seem strangely to conflict. In the town of Lancaster, among the mountains in the coldest part of New Hampshire, many of the houses and barns of the village are supplied with water brought in aqueducts from the hills. We observed that the logs which form the conduit are, in many places, exposed to view on the surface of the ground, sometimes partly covered with earth, but generally very little protected. There has not been a Winter, perhaps in a half century, when the thermometer has not at times been 10° below Zero, and often it is even lower than that. Upon particular inquiry, we ascertained that very little inconvenience is experienced there from the freezing of the pipes. The water is drawn from deep springs in the mountains, and fills the pipes of from one to two-inch bore, passing usually not more than one or two hundred rods before it is discharged, and its warmth is sufficient, with the help of its usual snow covering, to protect it from the frost.

We have upon our own premises an aqueduct, which supplies a cattle-yard, which has never been covered more than two feet deep, and has never frozen in the nine years of its use. We should not, therefore, apprehend much danger from the freezing of pipes, even at shallow depths, if they carry all the Winter a considerable stream of spring-water; but in pipes which take merely the surface water that passes into them by percolation, we should expect little or no aid from the water in preventing frost. The water filtering downward in Winter must be nearly at the freezing point; and the pipes may be filled with solid ice, by the freezing of a very small quantity as it enters them.

Neither hard-burnt bricks nor hard-burnt tiles will crumble by mere exposure to the Winter weather above ground, though soft bricks or tiles will scarcely endure a single hard frost. Too much stress cannot be laid upon the importance of using hard-burnt tiles only, as the failure of a single tile may work extensive mischief. Writers seem to assume, that the freezing of the ground about the drains will displace the tiles, and so destroy their continuity, and this may be so; though we find no evidence, perhaps, that at three or four feet, there is any disturbance of the soil by freezing. We dig into clay, or into our strong subsoils, and find the earth, at three feet deep, as solid and undisturbed as at twice that depth, and no indication that the frost has touched it, though it has felt the grip of his icy fingers every year since the Flood. With these suggestions for warning and for encouragement, the subject must be left to the sound judgment of the farmer or engineer upon each farm, to make the matter so safe, that the owner need not have an anxious thought, as he wakes in a howling Winter night, lest his drains should be freezing.

Finally, in view of the various considerations that have been, suggested, as well as of the almost uniform authority of the ablest writers and practical men, it is safe to conclude, that, in general, in this country, wherever sufficient outfall can be had, four feet above the top of the tiles should be the minimum depth of drains.

CHAPTER VIII
ARRANGEMENT OF DRAINS.

Necessity of System.—What Fall is Necessary.—American Examples.—Outlets.—Wells and Relief-Pipes.—Peep holes.—How to secure Outlets.—Gate to Exclude Back-Water.—Gratings and Screens to keep out Frogs, Snakes, Moles, &c.—Mains, Submains, and Minors, how placed.—Capacity of Pipes.—Mains of Two Tiles.—Junction of Drains.—Effect of Curves and Angles on Currents.—Branch Pipes.—Draining into Wells or Swallow Holes.—Letter from Mr. Denton.

As every act is, or should be, a part of a great plan of life, so every stake that is set, and every line laid in the field, should have relation not only to general principles, but also to some comprehensive plan of operations.

Assuming, then, that the principles advocated in this treatise are adopted as to the details, that the depth preferred is not less than four feet—that the direction preferred is up and down the slope—that the distance apart may range from fifteen to sixty feet, and more in some cases, according to the depth of drains and the nature of the soil—that no tiles smaller than one and a half inch bore will be used, and none less than two inches except for the first one hundred yards, there still remains the application of all these principles to the particular work in hand. With the hope of assisting the deliberations of the farmer on this point, some additional suggestions will be made under appropriate heads.

ARRANGEMENT MUST HAVE REFERENCE TO SYSTEM.

The absolute necessity of some regularity of plan in our work, must be manifest. Without system, we can never, in the outset, estimate the cost of our operation; we can never proportion our tiles to the quantity of water that will pass through them; we can never find the drains afterwards, or form a correct opinion of the cause of any failure that may await us.

We prefer, in general, where practicable, parallel lines for our minor drains, at right angles with the mains, because this is the simplest and most systematic arrangement; but the natural ravines or water-courses in fields, seldom run parallel with each other, or at right angles with the slope of the hills, so that regular work like this, can rarely be accomplished.

If the earth were constructed of regular slopes, or plains of uniform character, we could easily apply to it all our rules; but, broken as it is into hills and valleys, filled with stones here, with a bank of clay there, and a sand-pit close by, we are obliged to sacrifice to general convenience, often, some special abstract rule.

We prefer to run drains up and down the slope; but if the field be filled with undulations, or hills with various slopes, we may often find it expedient, for the sake of system, to vary this course.

If the question were only as to one single drain, we could adjust it so as to conform to our perfect ideal; but as each drain is, as it were, an artery in a complicated system, which must run through and affect every part of it, all must be located with reference to every other, and to the general effect.

Keeping in mind, then, the importance of some regular system that shall include the whole field of operation, the work should be laid out, with as near a conformity to established principles as circumstances will permit.

ARRANGEMENT MUST HAVE REFERENCE TO THE FALL.

In considering what fall is necessary, and what is desirable, we have seen, that although a very slight inclination may carry off water, yet a proportionably larger drain is necessary as the fall decreases, because the water runs slower.

"It is surprising," says Stephens, "what a small descent is required for the flow of water in a well-constructed duct. People frequently complain that they cannot find sufficient fall to carry off the water from the drains. There are few situations where a sufficient fall cannot be found if due pains are exercised. It has been found in practice, that a water-course thirty feet wide and six feet deep, giving a transverse sectional area of one hundred and eighty square feet, will discharge three hundred cubic yards of water per minute, and will flow at the rate of one mile per hour, with a fall of no more than six inches per mile."

Messrs. Shedd and Edson, of Boston, have superintended some drainage works in Milton, Mass., where, after obtaining permission to drain through the land of an adjacent owner, not interested in the operation, they could obtain but three inches fall in one hundred feet, or a half inch to the rod, for three quarters of a mile, and this only by blasting the ledges at the outlet. This fall, however, proves sufficient for perfect drainage, and by their skill, a very unhealthful swamp has been rendered fit for gardens and building-lots. In another instance, in Dorchester, Mass., Mr. Shedd informs us that in one thousand feet, they could obtain only a fall of two inches for their main, and this, by nice adjustment, he expects to make sufficient. In another instance, he has found a fall of two and a half inches in one hundred feet, in an open paved drain to be effectual.

It is certainly advisable always to divide the fall as even as possible throughout the drains, yet this will be found a difficult rule to follow. Very often we have a space of nearly level ground to pass through to our outfall; and, usually, the mains, in order that the minor drains may be carried into them from both sides, must follow up the natural valleys in the field, thus controlling, in a great measure, our choice as to the fall. We are, in fact, often compelled to use the natural fall nearly as we find it.

It is thought advisable to have the mains from three to six inches lower than the drains discharging into them, so that there may be no obstruction in the minor drains by the backing up of water, and the consequent deposition of sand or other obstructing substances. Wherever one stream flows into another, there must be more or less interruption of the course of each. If the water from the minors enters the main with a quick fall, the danger of obstruction in the minor, at least, is much lessened. A frequent cause of partial failure of drains, is their not having been laid with a regular inclination. If, instead of a gradual and uniform fall, there should be a slight rising in the bed of a drain, the descending water will be interrupted there till it accumulate so high as to be above the level of the rising. At this point, therefore, the water must have a tendency to press out of the drains, and will deposit whatever particles of sand or other earthy matter it may bring down.

Drains must, therefore, be so arranged, that in cutting them, their beds may be as nearly as possible, straight, or, at least, have a constant, if not a regular and equal fall.

ARRANGEMENT MUST HAVE REFERENCE TO THE OUTLET.

All agree that it is best to have but few general outlets. "In the whole process of draining," says an engineer of experience, "there is nothing so desirable as permanent and substantial work at the point of discharge." The outlet is the place, of all others, where obstruction is most likely to occur. Everywhere else the work is protected by the earth above it, but here it is exposed to the action of frost, to cattle, to mischievous boys, to reptiles, as well as to the obstructing deposits which are discharged from the drains themselves. In regular work, under the direction of engineers, iron pipes, with swing gratings set in masonry, are used, to protect permanently this important part of the system of drainage.

It may often be convenient to run parallel drains down a slope, bringing each out into an open ditch, or at the bottom of some bank, thus making a separate outlet for each. This practice, however, is strongly deprecated. These numerous outlets cannot be well protected without great cost; they will be forgotten, or, at least, neglected, and the work will fail.

Regarding this point, of few and well-secured outlets, as of great importance, the arrangement of all the drains must have reference to it. When drains are brought down a slope, as just suggested, let them, instead of discharging separately, be crossed, near the foot of the slope, by a sub-main running a little diagonally so as to secure sufficient fall, and so carried into a main, or discharged at a single outlet.

It may be objected, that by thus uniting the whole system, and discharging the water at one point, there may be difficulty in ascertaining by inspection, whether any of the drains are obstructed, or whether all are performing their appropriate work. There is prudence and good sense in this suggestion, and the objection may be obviated by placing wells, or "peep-holes," at proper intervals, in which the flow of the water at various points may be observed. On the subject of wells and peep-holes, the reader will find in another chapter a more particular description of their construction and usefulness.

The position of the outlet must, evidently, be at a point sufficiently low to receive all the water of the field; or, in other words, it must be the lowest point of the work. It will be fortunate, too, if the outlet can be at the same time high enough to be at all times above the back-water of the stream, or pond, or marsh, into which it empties; and high enough, too, to be protected by solid earth about it. In any case, great care should be taken to make the outlet secure and permanent. The process of thorough-drainage is expensive, and will only repay cost, upon the idea that it is permanent—that once well done, it is done forever. The tiles may be expected to operate well, for a lifetime; and the outlet, the only exposed portion of the work, should be constructed to endure as long as the rest.

It is true that this portion of the work may be reached and repaired more conveniently than the tiles themselves; but it must be remembered that the decay of the outlet obstructs the flow of the water, produces a general stagnation throughout the drains, and so may cause their permanent obstruction at various points, hard to be ascertained, and difficult to be reached. Considering our liability to neglect such things as perish by a gradual decay, as well as the many accidental injuries to which the outlet is exposed, there is no security but in a solid and permanent structure at the first.

To illustrate the importance attached to this point in England, as well as to indicate the best mode of securing the outlet, the drawings below have been taken from a pamphlet by Mr. Denton. Fig. [37] represents the mode of constructing the common small outlets of field drainage.

Fig. 37.—Small Outlet.

The distinguished engineer, of whose labors we have so freely availed ourselves, remarks as follows upon the subject:

"Too many outlets are objectionable, on account of the labor of their maintenance: too few are objectionable, because they can only exist where there are mains of excessive length. A limit of twenty acres to an outlet, resulting in an average of, perhaps, fourteen acres, will appear, by the practices of the best drainers, to be about the proper thing. If a shilling an acre is reserved for fixing the outlets, which should be iron pipes, with swing gratings, in masonry, very substantial work may be done."

Figures [38] and [39] represent the elevation and section of larger outlets, used in more extensive works.

Fig. 38.—Large Outlet.

Fig. 39.—Large Outlet.

It is almost essential to the efficiency of drains, that there be fall enough beyond the outlet to allow of the quick flow of the water discharged. At the outlet, must be deposited whatever earth is brought down by the drains; and, in many cases, the outlet must be at a swamp or pond. If no decided fall can be obtained at the outlet, there must be care to provide and keep an open ditch or passage, so that the drainage-water may not be dammed back in the drains. It is advised, even, to follow down the bank of a stream or river, so as to obtain sufficient fall, rather than to have the outlet flooded, or back-water in the drains. Still, there may be cases where it will be impossible to have an outlet that shall be always above the level of the river or pond which may receive the drainage water. If the outlet must be so situated as to be at times overflowed, great care should be taken to excavate a place at the outlet, into which any deposits brought down by the drain, may fall. If the outlet be level with the ground beyond it, the smallest quantity of earth will operate as a dam to keep back the water. Therefore, at the outlet, in such cases, a small well of brick or stonework should be constructed, into which the water should pour. There, even if the water stand above the outlet, will be deposited the earth brought along in the drain. This well must at times, when the water is low, be cleared of its contents, and kept ready for its work.

The effect of back-water in drains cannot ordinarily be injurious, except as it raises the water higher in the land, and occasions deposits of earthy matter, and so obstructs the drains. We have in mind now, the common case of water temporarily raised, by Winter flowage or by Summer freshets.

It should be remembered that even when the outlet is under water, if there is any current in the stream into which the drain empties, there must be some current in the drain also; and even if the drain discharge into a still pond, there must be a current greater or less, as water from a level higher than the surface of the pond, presses into the drains. Generally, then, under the most unfavorable circumstances, we may expect to have some flow of water through the pipes, and rarely an utter stagnation. If, then, the tiles be carefully laid, so as to admit only well-filtered water, there can be but little deposit in the drain; and a temporary stagnation, even, will not injure them, and a trifling flow will keep them clean. Much will depend, as to the obstruction of drains, in this, and indeed in all cases, upon the internal smoothness, and upon the nice adjustment of the pipes. In case of the drainage of marshes, and other lands subject to sudden flood, a flap, or gate, is used to exclude the water of flowage, until counterbalanced by the drainage-water in the pipes.

Fig. 40.—Outlet Pipe with Flap to Exclude Flood-water.

We are quite sure that it is not in us a work of supererogation to urge upon our farmers the importance of careful attention to this matter of outlets. This is one of that class of things which will never be attended to, if left to be daily watched. We Americans have so much work to do, that we have no time to be careful and watchful. If a child fall into the fire, we take time to snatch him out. If a sheep or ox get mired in a ditch, we leave our other business, and fly to the rescue. Even if the cows break into the corn, all hands of us, men and boys and dogs, leave hoeing or haying, and drive them out. And, by the way, the frequency with which most of us have had occasion to leave important labors to drive back unruly cattle, rendered lawless by neglect of our fences, well illustrates a national characteristic. We are earnest, industrious, and intent on doing. We can look forward to accomplish any labor, however difficult, but lack the conservatism which preserves the fruit of our labors—the "old fogyism" which puts on its spectacles with most careful adjustment, after wiping the glasses for a clear sight, and at stated periods, revises its affairs to see if some screw has not worked loose. A steward on a large estate, or a corporation agent, paid for inspecting and superintending, may be relied upon to examine his drainage works, and maintain them in repair; but no farmer in this country, who labors with his own hands, has time even for this most essential duty. His policy is, to do his work now, while he is intent upon it, and not trust to future watchfulness.

We speak from personal experience in this matter of outfalls. Our first drains ran down into a swamp, and the fall was so slight, that the mains were laid as low as possible, so that at every freshet they are overflowed. We have many times, each season, been compelled to go down, with spade and hoe, and clear away the mud which has been trodden up by cattle around the outlet. Although a small river flows through the pasture, the cows find amusement, or better water, about these drains, and keep us in constant apprehension of a total obstruction of our works. We propose to relieve ourself of this care, by connecting the drains together, and building one or more reliable outlets.

GRATINGS OR SCREENS AT THE OUTLET.

There are many species of "vermin," both "creeping things" and "slimy things, that crawl with legs," which seem to imagine that drains are constructed for their especial accommodations. In dry times, it is a favorite amusement of moles and mice and snakes, to explore the devious passages thus fitted up for them, and entering at the capacious open front door, they never suspect that the spacious corridors lead to no apartments, that their accommodations, as they progress, grow "fine by degrees and beautifully less," and that these are houses with no back doors, or even convenient places for turning about for a retreat. Unlike the road to Hades, the descent to which is easy, here the ascent is inviting; though, alike in both cases, "revocare gradum, hoc opus hic labor est." They persevere upward and onward till they come, in more senses than one, to "an untimely end." Perhaps stuck fast in a small pipe tile, they die a nightmare death; or, perhaps overtaken by a shower, of the effect of which, in their ignorance of the scientific principles of drainage, they had no conception, they are drowned before they have time for deliverance from the straight in which they find themselves, and so are left, as the poet strikingly expresses it, "to lie in cold obstruction and to rot."

In cold weather, water from the drains is warmer than the open ditch, and the poor frogs, reluctant to submit to the law of Nature which requires them to seek refuge in mud and oblivious sleep, in Winter, gather round the outfalls, as they do about springs, to bask in the warmth of the running water. If the flow is small, they leap up into the pipe, and follow its course upward. In Summer, the drains furnish for them a cool and shady retreat from the mid-day sun, and they may be seen in single file by scores, at the approach of an intruding footstep, scrambling up the pipe. Dying in this way, affects these creatures, as "sighing and grief" did Falstaff, "blows them up like a bladder;" and, like Sampson, they do more mischief in their death, than in all their life together. They swell up, and stop the water entirely, or partially dam it, so that the effect of the work is impaired.

To prevent injuries from this source, there should be, at every outlet, a grating or screen of cast iron, or of copper wire, to prevent the intrusion of vermin. The screen should be movable, so that any accumulation in the pipe may be removed. An arrangement of this kind is shown in Fig. [40], as used in England. We know of nothing of the kind used in this country. For ourself, we have made of coarse wire-netting, a screen, which is attached to the pipe by hinges of wire. Holes may be bored with a bit through even a hard tile, or a No. 9 wire may be twisted firmly round the end of it, and the screen thus secured.

This has thus far, been our own poor and unsatisfactory mode of protecting our drains. It is only better than none, but it is not permanent, and we hope to see some successful invention that may supply this want. So far as we have observed, no such precaution is used in this country; and in England, farmers and others who take charge of their own drainage works, often run their pipes into the mud in an open ditch, and trust the water to force its own passage.

OF WELLS AND RELIEF PIPES.

In draining large tracts of land of uniform surface, it is often convenient to have single mains, or even minors, of great length. Obstructions are liable to occur from various causes: and, moreover, there is great satisfaction in being certain that all is going right, and in watching the operation of our subterranean works. It is a common practice, and to be commended, to so construct our drains, that they may be inspected at suspicious points, and that so we may know their real condition.

For this purpose, wells, or traps, are introduced at suitable points, into which the drains discharge, and from which the water proceeds again along its course.

These are made of iron, or of stone or brick work, of any size that may be thought convenient, secured by covers that may be removed at pleasure.

Where there is danger of obstruction below the wells, relief pipes may be introduced, or the wells may overflow, and so discharge temporarily, the drainage water. These wells, sometimes called silt basins, or traps, are frequently used in road drainage, or in sewers where large deposits are made by the drainage water. The sediment is carried along and deposited in the traps, while the water flows past.

These traps are large enough for a man to enter, and are occasionally cleared of their contents.

When good stone, or common brick, are at hand, occasional wells may be easily constructed. Plank or timber might be used; and we have even seen an oil cask made to serve the purpose temporarily. In most parts of New England, solid iron castings would not be expensive.

The water of thorough-drainage is usually as pure as spring-water, and such wells may often be conveniently used as places for procuring water for both man and beast, a consideration well worth a place in arrangements so permanent as those for drainage.

The following figures represent very perfect arrangements of this kind, in actual use.

Figs. 41 & 42.—Well with Silt Basin, or Trap, and Cover.

The flap attached to a chain at A, is designed to close the incoming drain, so as to keep back the water, and thus flush the drain, as it is termed, by filling it with water, and then suddenly releasing it. It is found that by this process, obstructions by sand, and by per-oxide of iron, may be brought down from the drains, when the flow is usually feeble.

SMALL WELLS, OR PEEP-HOLES.

By the significant, though not very elegant name of peep-holes, are meant openings at junctions, or other convenient points, for watching the pulsations of our subterranean arteries.

In addition to the large structures of wells and traps, such as have been represented, we need small and cheap arrangements, by which we may satisfy ourselves and our questioning friends and neighbors, that every part of our buried treasure, is steadily earning its usury. It is really gratifying to be able to allow those who "don't see how water can get into the tiles," and who inquire so distrustfully whether you "don't think that land on the hill would be just as dry without the drains," to satisfy themselves, by actually seeing, that there is a liberal flow through all the pipes, even in the now dry soil. And then, again,

"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley."

and drains will get obstructed, by one or other of the various means suggested in another place. It is then convenient to be able to ascertain with certainty, and at once, the locality of the difficulty, and this may be done by means of peep-holes.

These may be formed of cast iron, or of well-burnt clay, or what is called stone-ware, of 4, 6, or 10 inches internal diameter, and long enough to reach from the bottom of the drain to the surface, or a little above it.

The drain or drains, coming into this little well, should enter a few inches above the pipe which carries off the water, so that the incoming stream may be plainly seen. A strong cover should be fitted to the top, and secured so as not to cause injury to cattle at work or feeding on the land. The arrangement will be at once seen by a sketch given on the following page.

Figs. 43 & 44.—Small Well, or Peep-hole, and Cover.

In our own fields, we have adopted several expedients to attain this object of convenient inspection. In one case, where we have a sub-main, which receives the small drains of an acre of orchard, laid at nearly five feet depth, we sunk two 40-gallon oil casks, one upon the other, at the junction of this sub-main with another, and fitted upon the top a strong wooden cover. The objections to this contrivance are, that it is temporary; that it occupies too much room; and that it is more expensive than a well of cast iron or stone-ware of proper size.

In another part of the same field, we had a spring of excellent water, where, "from the time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary," people had fancied they found better water to drink, than anywhere else. It is near a ravine, through which a main drain is located, and which is now graded up into convenient plow land.

To preserve this spring for use in the Summer time, we procured a tin-worker to make a well, of galvanized iron, five feet long and ten inches diameter, into which are conducted the drain and the spring. A friendly hand has sketched it for us very accurately; thus:

Figs. 45 & 46.—How to Preserve a Spring in a Drained Field.

The spring is brought in at a by a few tiles laid into the bank where the water naturally bursts out. The pipe b brings in the drain, which always flows largely, and the pipe c carries away the water. The small dipper, marked d, hangs inside the well, and is used by every man, woman, and boy, who passes that way. The spring enters six inches above the drain, for convenience in catching its water to drink.

By careful observation the present Winter of 1858-9, the impression that there is some peculiar quality in this water is confirmed, for it is ascertained that it is six degrees warmer in cold weather than any other water upon the farm. The spring preserves a temperature of about 47°, while the drain running through the same well, and the other drains in the field, and the well at the house, vary from 39° to 42°.

We confess to the weakness of taking great satisfaction in sipping this water, cool in Summer and warm in Winter, and in watching the mingled streams of spring and drainage water, and listening as we pass by, to their tinkling sound, which, like the faithful watchman of the night, proclaims that "all is well."

POSITION AND SIZE OF THE MAINS.

Having fixed on the proper position of the outlet, for the whole, or any portion of our work, the next consideration is the location of the drains that shall discharge at that point. It is convenient to speak of the different drains as mains, sub-mains, and minors. By mains, are understood the principal drains, of whatever material, the office of which is, to receive and carry away water collected by other drains from the soil. By minors, are intended the small drains which receive the surplus water directly from the soil. By sub-mains, are meant such intermediate drains as are frequently in large fields, interposed across the line of the minors, to receive their discharge, and conduct their water to the mains.

They are principally used, where there is a greater length of small drains in one direction than it is thought expedient to use; or where, from the unequal surface, it is necessary to lay out subordinate systems of drains, to reach particular localities.

Whether after the outlet is located, the mains or minors should next be laid out, is not perhaps very important. The natural course would seem to be, to lay out the mains according to the surface formation of the land, through the principal hollows of the field, although we have high authority for commencing with the minors, and allowing their appropriate direction to determine the location of the mains.

This is, however, rather a question of precedence and etiquette, than of practical importance. The only safe mode of executing so important a work as drainage, is by careful surveys by persons of sufficient skill, to lay out the whole field of operations, before the ground is broken; to take all the levels; to compare all the different slopes; consider all the circumstances, and arrange the work as a systematic whole. Generally, there will be no conflict of circumstances, as to where the mains shall be located. They must be lower than the minors, because they receive their water. They must ordinarily run across the direction of the minors, either at right angles or diagonally, because otherwise they cannot receive their discharge. If, then, in general, the minors, as we assume, run down the slope, the mains must run at the foot of the slope and across it.

It will be found in practice, that all the circumstances alluded to, will combine to locate the mains across the foot of regular slopes; and whether in straight or curved lines, along through the natural valleys of the field.

In locating the mains, regard must always be had to the quantity of water and to the fall. Where a field is of regular slope, and the descent very slight, it will be necessary, in order to gain for the main the requisite fall, to run it diagonally across the bottom of the slope, thus taking into it a portion of the fall of the slope. If the fall requires to be still more increased, often the main may be deepened towards the outlet, so as to gain fall sufficient, even on level ground.

If the fall is very slight, the size of the main may be made to compensate in part for want of fall, for it will not be forgotten, that the capacity of a pipe to convey water depends much on the velocity of the current, and the velocity increases in proportion to the fall. If the fall and consequent velocity be small, the water will require a larger drain to carry it freely along. The size of the mains should be sufficient to convey, with such fall as is attainable, the greatest quantity of water that may ever be expected to reach them. Beyond this, an increase of size is rather a disadvantage than otherwise, because a small flow of water runs with more velocity when compressed in a narrow channel, than when broadly spread, and so has more power to force its way, and carry before it obstructing substances.

We have seen, in considering the size of tiles, that in laying the minor drains, their capacity to carry all the water that may reach them is not the only limit of their size. A one-inch tile might in many cases be sufficient to conduct the water; but the best drainers, after much controversy on the point, now all agree that this is a size too small for prudent use, because so small an opening is liable to be obstructed by a very slight deposit from the water, or by a slight displacement, and because the joints furnish small space for the admission of water.

Mains, however, being designed merely to carry off such water as they may receive from other drains, may in general be limited to the size sufficient to convey such water, at the greatest flow. It might seem a natural course, to proportion the capacity of the main to the capacity of the smaller drains that fall into it; and this would be the true rule, were the small drains expected to run full.

If our smallest drain, however, be of two-inch, or even one and a half inch bore, it can hardly be expected to fill at any time, unless of great length, or in some peculiarly wet place. Considering, then, what quantity of water will be likely to be conducted into the main, proportion the main not to the capacity of all the smaller drains leading into it, but to the probable maximum flow—not to what they might bring into it, but to what they will bring.

If the mains be of three-inch pipes, other things being equal, their capacity is nine times that of a one-inch pipe, and two and a quarter times the capacity of a two-inch pipe.

A three-inch main may, then, with equal fall and directness, be safely relied on to carry nine streams of water equal each to one inch diameter, or two and a quarter streams, equal to a two-inch stream. The three-inch main will, in fact, from the less amount of friction, carry much more than this proportion.

The allowance to be made for a less fall in the mains, has already been adverted to, and must not be overlooked. It is believed that the capacity of a three or four-inch pipe to convey water, is in general likely to be much under-estimated.

It is a common error, to imagine that some large stone water-course must be necessary to carry off so large a flow as will be collected by a system over a ten or twenty-acre field. Any one, however, who has watched the full flow of even a three-inch pipe, and observed the water after it has fallen into a nearly level ditch, will be aware, that what seems in the ditch a large stream, impeded as it is by a rough, uneven bottom, may pass through a three inch opening of smooth, well-jointed pipes. When we consider that a four-inch pipe is four times as capacious as a two-inch pipe, and sixteen times as large as a one-inch pipe, we may see that we may accommodate any quantity of water that may be likely anywhere to be collected by drainage, without recourse to other materials than tiles.

When one three or four-inch pipe is not sufficient to convey the water, mains may conveniently be formed of two or more tiles of any form. A main drain is sometimes formed by combining two horse-shoe tiles, with a tile sole or slate between them, to prevent slipping, as in fig. 47.

Fig. 47.

Fig. 48.

Main Drain of two or more Horse-shoe Tiles.

The combinations represented in the above figures, will furnish sufficient suggestions to enable any one to select or arrange such forms as may be deemed best suited to the case in hand. Where the largest obtainable tile is not large enough, two or more lines of pipes may be laid abreast.

POSITION OF THE MINOR DRAINS.

Assuming that it is desirable to run the small drains, as far as practicable, up and down the slope, the following directions, from the Cyclopedia of Agriculture, are given:

"There is a very simple mode of laying out these (the minor drains), which will apply to most cases, or, indeed, to all, although in some its application may be more difficult. The surface of each field must be regarded as being made up of one or more planes, as the case may be, for each of which the drains should be laid out separately. Level lines are to be set out, a little below the upper edge of each of these planes, and the drains must be then made to cross these lines at right angles. By this means, the drains will run in the line of the greatest slope, no matter how distorted the surface of the field may be."

Much is said, in the English books, about "furrows," and the "direction of the furrows," in connection with the laying out of drains. Much of the land in England, especially in moist places, was formerly laid up by repeated plowings, into ridges varying in breadth from ten to twenty feet, so as to throw off, readily, the water from the surface.

These ridges were sometimes so high, that two boys in opposite furrows, between the ridges, could not see each other. In draining lands thus ridged, it is found far more easy to cut the ditches in the furrows, rather than across or upon the ridges. After thorough-drainage, in most localities, these ridges and furrows are dispensed with. The fact is, probably, only important here, as explaining the constant reference by English writers to this mode of working the land.

Whether we shall drain "down the furrows," or "across the ridges," is not likely to be inquired of, by Americans.

The accompanying diagram represents a field of about thirty acres, as drained by the owner, B. F. Nourse, Esq., of Orrington, Me., a particular description of which will be found in another place.

The curves of the ends of the minors, at their junction with the mains, will indicate their course—the minors curving always so as to more nearly coincide, in course, with the current of water in the mains.

THE JUNCTION OF DRAINS.

Much difficulty arises in practice, as to connecting, in a secure and satisfactory manner, the smaller with the larger drains. It has already been suggested, that the streams should not meet at right angles, but that a bend should be made in the smaller drain, a few feet before it enters the main, so as to introduce the water of the small drain in the direction of the current in the main. In another place, an instance is given where it was found that a quantity of water was discharged with a turn, or junction with a gentle curve, in 100 seconds, that required 140 seconds with a turn at right angles; and that while running direct, that is, without any turn, it was discharged in 90 seconds. This is given as a mere illustration of the principle, which is obvious enough. Different experiments would vary with the velocity, quantity of water, and smoothness of the pipe; but nothing is more certain, than that every change of direction impedes velocity.

Thus we see that if we had but a single drain, the necessary turns should be curved, to afford the least obstruction.

Where the drain enters into another current, there is yet a further obstruction, by the meeting of the two streams. Two equal streams, of similar velocity and size, thus meeting at right angles, would have a tendency to move off diagonally, if not confined by the pipe; and, confined as they are, must both be materially retarded in their flow. In whatever manner united, there must be much obstruction, if the main is nearly full, at the point of junction. The common mode of connecting horse-shoe tile-drains is shown thus:

Fig. 50.—Junction of Drains.

Having no tiles made for the purpose, we, at first, formed the union by means of common hard bricks. Curving down the small drain toward the direction of the main, we left a space between two tiles of the main, of two or three inches, and brought down the last tile of the small drain to this opening, placing under the whole a flat stone, slate, or bricks, or a plank, to keep all firm at the bottom. Then we set bricks on edge on all sides, and covered the space at the top with one or more, as necessary, and secured carefully against sand and the like.

We have since procured branch-pipes to be made at the tile-works, such as are in use in England, and find them much more satisfactory. The branches may be made to join the mains at any angle, and it might be advisable to make this part of both drains larger than the rest, to allow room for the obstructed waters to unite peacefully.

Fig. 51.
Branch Pipes.

The mains should be from three to six inches deeper than the minors. The fall from one to the other may usually be made most conveniently, by a gradual descent of three or four feet to the point of junction; but with branch-pipes, the fall may be nearly vertical, if desired, by turning the branch upward, to meet the small pipe. It will be necessary, in procuring branches for sole-tiles, to bear in mind that they are "rights and lefts," and must be selected accordingly, as the branch comes in upon the one or other side of the main.

The branch should enter the larger pipe not level with the bottom, but as high as possible, to give an inch fall to the water passing out of the branch into the main, to prevent possible obstruction at the junction.

DRAINAGE INTO WELLS, OR SWALLOW HOLES.

In various parts of our country, there are lands lying too flat for convenient drainage in the ordinary methods, or too remote from any good outlet, or perhaps enclosed by lands of others who will not consent to an outfall through their domain, where the drainage water may be discharged into wells.

In the city of Washington, on Capitol Hill, it is a common practice to drain cellars into what are termed "dry wells." The surface formation is a close red clay, of a few feet thickness, and then comes a stratum of coarse gravel; and the wells for water are sunk often as deep as sixty feet, indicating that the water-table lies very low. The heavy storms and showers fill the surface soil beyond saturation, and the water gushes out, literally, into the cellars and other low places. A dry well, sunk through the clay, conducts this water into the gravel bed, and this carries it away. This idea is often applied to land drainage. It is believed that there are immense tracts of fertile land at the West, upon limestone, where the surface might readily be relieved of surplus water, by conducting the mains into wells dug for the purpose. In some places, there are openings called "sink-holes," caused by the sinking of masses of earth, as in the neighborhood of the city of St. Louis, which would afford outlets for all the water that could be poured into them. In the Report of the Tioga County Agricultural Society for 1857, it is said in the Country Gentleman, that instances are given, where swamps were drained through the clay bottom into the underlying gravelly soil, by digging wells and filling them with stones.

In Fig. [7], at page 82, is shown a "fault" in the stratification of the earth; which faults, it is said, so completely carry off water, that wells cannot be sunk so as to reach it.

Mr. Denton says that in several parts of England, advantage is taken of the natural drainage existing beneath wet clay soils, by concentrating the drains to holes, called "swallow-holes." He says this practice is open to the objection that those holes do not always absorb the water with sufficient rapidity, and so render the drainage for a time, inoperative.

These wells are liable, too, to be obstructed in their operation by their bottoms being puddled with the clay carried into them by the water, and so becoming impervious. This point would require occasional attention, and the removal of such deposits.

This principle of drainage was alluded to at the American Institute, February 14, 1859, by Professor Nash. He states, that there are large tracts of land having clay soil, with sand or gravel beneath the clay, which yet need drainage, and suggests that this may be effected by merely boring frequent holes, and filling them with pebbles, without ditches. In all such soils, if the mode suggested prove insufficient, large wells of proper depth, stoned up, or otherwise protected, might obviously serve as cheap and convenient outlets for a regular system of pipe or stone drains.

Mr. Bergen, at the same meeting, stated that such clayey soil, based on gravel, was the character of much of the land on Long Island; and we cannot doubt that on the prairies of the West, where the wells are frequently of great depth to obtain water for use, wells or swallow-holes to receive it, may often be found useful. Whenever the water-line is twenty or thirty feet below the surface, it is certain that it will require a large amount of water poured in at the surface of a well to keep it filled for any considerable length of time. The same principle that forces water into wells, that is, pressure from a higher source, will allow its passage out when admitted at the top.

We close this chapter with a letter from Mr. Denton. The extract referred to, has been here omitted, because we have already, in the chapter preceding this, given Mr. Denton's views, expressed more fully upon the same subject, with his own illustrations.

It should be stated that the letter was in reply to inquiries upon particular points, which, although disconnected, are all of interest, when touched upon by one whose opinions are so valuable.

"London, 52 Parliament Street, Westminster, S. W.

"My Dear Sir:—I have received your letter of the 17th August, and hasten to reply to it.

"I am gratified at the terms in which you speak of my roughly-written 'Essays on Land Drainage.' If you have not seen my published letter to Lord Berners, and my recent essay 'On the Advantages of a Daily Record of Rain-fall,' I should much like you to look over them, for my object in both has been to check the uniformity of treatment which too much prevails with those who are officially called upon to direct draining, and who still treat mixed soils and irregular surfaces pretty much in the same way as homogeneous clays and even surfaces, the only difference being, that the distance between the drains is increased. We have now, without doubt, arrived at that point in the practice of draining in this country, which necessitates a revision of all the principles and rules which have been called into force by the Drainage Acts, and the institution of the Drainage Commission, whose duty it is to administer those Acts, and to protect the interests of Reversioners.

"This protection is, in a great measure, performed by the intervention of 'Inspectors of Drainage,' whose subordinate duty it is to see that the improvements provisionally sanctioned are carried out according to certain implied, if not fixed, rules. This is done by measuring depth and distance, which tends to a parallel system (4 feet deep) in all soils, which was Smith of Deanston's notion, only his drains were shallower, i.e., from 2 to 3 feet deep.

"Some rules were undoubtedly necessary when the Commissioners first commenced dispensing the public money, and I do not express my objection to the absurd position to which these rules are bringing us, from any disrespect to them, nor with an idea that any better course could have been followed by the Government, in the first instance, than the adoption of the 'Parkes—Smith frequent drain system.' This system was correctly applied, and continues to be correctly applied, to absorbent and retentive soils requiring the aeration of frequent drains to counteract their retentive nature; but it is altogether misapplied when adopted in the outcropping surfaces of the free water-bearing strata, which, though equally wet, are frequently drained by a comparatively few drains, at less than half the cost.

"The only circumstance that can excuse the indiscriminate adoption of a parallel system, is the fact, that all drains do some good, and the chances of a cure being greater in proportion to the number of drains, it was not necessary to insist upon that judgment which ten years' experience should now give.

"My views on this point will perhaps be best understood by the following extract from an address I recently delivered. [Extract omitted, see p. 161].

* * * "I use one and a half inch pipes for the upper end of drains (though I prefer two-inch), one half being usually one and a half and the other half two-inch. This for minor drains; the mains run up to 9 or 10 inches, and even 18 inches in size, according to their service.

"There is no doubt sufficient capacity in one-inch pipes for minor drains; but, inasmuch as agricultural laborers are not mathematical scholars, and are apt to lay the pipes without precise junctions, it is best to have the pipes so large as to counteract that degree of carelessness which cannot be prevented. The ordinary price of pipes in this country will run thus: + meaning above, and-below, the prices named:

1½ inch 15s. +
2 " 20s. -
3 " 30s.
4 " 40s. +
5 " 50s. +
6 " 60s. +

"The price of cutting clays 4 feet deep, will vary from 1d. to 1½d. per yard, according to density and mixture with stone; and the price of cutting in mixed soils will vary from 1½d. to 6d., according to the quantity of pick-work and rock, and with respect, also, to the price of agricultural labor. (See my tabular table of cost in Land Drainage and Drainage Systems.)

"I should have thought it would have been quite worth the while of the American Government to have had a farm of about 500 acres, drained by English hands, under an experienced engineer, as a practical sample of English work, for the study of American agriculturists, with every drain laid down on a plan, with the sizes of the pipes, and all details of soil, and prices of labor and material, set forth.

"I am, dear Sir,
"Yours very faithfully,
"The Hon. H. F. French, Exeter. "J. BAILEY DENTON."

CHAPTER IX
THE COST OF TILES—TILE MACHINES.

Prices far too high; Albany Prices.—Length of Tiles.—Cost in Suffolk Co., England.—Waller's Machine.—Williams' Machine.—Cost of Tiles compared with Bricks.—Mr. Denton's Estimate of Cost.—Other Estimates.—Two-inch Tiles can be Made as Cheaply as Bricks.—Process of Rolling Tiles.—Tile Machines.—Descriptions of Daines'.—Pratt & Bro.'s.

The prices at which tiles are sold is only, as the lawyers say, primâ facie evidence of their cost. It seems to us, that the prices at which tiles have thus far been sold in this country, are very far above those at which they may be profitably manufactured, when the business is well understood, and pursued upon a scale large enough to justify the use of the best machinery. The following is a copy of the published prices of tiles at the Albany Tile Works, and the same prices prevail throughout New England, so far as known:

Horse-shoe Tile--Pieces.Sole-Tile--Pieces.
2½inchesrise$12per 1000.2inchesrise$12per 1000.
3½ " " 15 " 3 " " 18 "
4½ " " 18 " 4 " " 40 "
5½ " " 40 " 5 " " 60 "
6½ " " 60 " 6 " " 80 "
7½ " " 75 " 8 " " 125 "

Few round pipe-tiles have yet been used in this country, although they are the kind generally preferred by engineers in England. The prices of round tiles would vary little from those of sole-tiles.

Tiles are usually cut fourteen inches long, and shorten, in drying and burning, to about twelve and a half inches, so that, with breaking and other casualties, they may be calculated to lay about one foot each; that is to say, 1,000 tiles may be expected to lay 1,000 feet of drains.

To assist those who desire to manufacture tiles for sale, or for private use, it is proposed to give such information as has been gathered from various sources as to the cost of making, and the selling prices of tiles, in England. The following is a memorandum made at the residence of Mr. Thomas Crisp, at Butley Abbey, in Suffolk Co., Eng., from information given the author on the 8th of July, 1857:

"Mr. Crisp makes his own tiles, and also supplies his neighbors who need them. He sells one and a half inch pipes at 12s. ($3) per 1,000. He pays 5s. ($1.25) per 1,000 for having them made and burnt. His machine is Waller's patent, No. 22, made by Garrett and Son, Leiston, Saxemundham, Suffolk. It works by a lever, makes five one and a half inch pipes at once, or three sole-tiles about two-inch. The man at work said, that he, with a man to carry away, &c., could make 4,000 one and a half inch pipes per day. They used no screen, but cut the clay with a wire. The machine cost £25 (about $125). At the kiln, which is permanent, the tiles are set on end, and bricks with them in the same kiln. They require less heat than bricks, and cost about half as much as bricks here, which are moulded ten inches by five.

"Two girls were loading bricks into a horse-cart, and two women receiving them, and setting them in the kiln. They made roof-tiles with the same machine, and also moulded large ones by hand. The wages of the women are about 8d. (sixteen cents) per day."

At the exhibition of the Royal Agricultural Society, in England, the author saw Williams' Tile Machine in operation, and was there informed by the exhibitor, who said he was a tile-maker, that it requires five-sevenths as much coal to burn 1,000 two-inch tiles, as 1,000 bricks—the size of bricks being 10 by 5; and he declared, that he, with one boy, could make with the machine, 7,000 two-inch tiles per day, after the clay is prepared. Of course, one other person, at least, must be employed to carry off the tiles.

Mr. Denton gives his estimates of the prices at which pipe-tiles may be procured in England, as follows—the prices, which he gives in English currency, being translated into our own:

"When ordinary agricultural labor is worth $2 50 per week, pipes half one and a half inch, and half two-inch, maybe taken at an average cost of $4 38 per 1,000. When labor is $3 00 per week, the pipes will average $5 00 per 1,000, and when labor is $3 50, they will rise to $5 62."

He adds: "In giving the above average cost of materials, those districts are excluded from consideration, where clay suitable for pipes, exists in the immediate vicinity of coal-pits, which must necessarily reduce the cost of producing them very considerably."

Taking the averages of several careful estimates of the cost of tiles and bricks, from the "Cyclopædia of Agriculture," we have the price of tiles in England about $5 per 1,000, and the price of bricks $7.87, from which the duty of 5s. 6d. should be deducted, leaving the average price of bricks $6.50. Upon tiles there is no such duty. Bricks in the United States are made of different sizes, varying from 8 × 4 in. to the English standard 10 × 5 in. Perhaps a fair average price for bricks of the latter size, would be not far from $5 per 1,000; certainly below $6.50 per 1,000. There is no reason why tiles may not be manufactured in the United States, as cheaply, compared with the prices of bricks, as in England; and it is quite clear that tiles of the sizes named, are far cheaper there than common bricks.

What is wanted in this country is, first, a demand sufficient to authorize the establishment of works extensive enough to make tiles at the best advantage; next, competent skill to direct and perform the labor; and, finally, the best machinery and fixtures for the purpose. It is confidently predicted, that, whenever the business of tile-making becomes properly established, the ingenuity of American machinists will render it easy to manufacture tiles at English prices, notwithstanding the lower price of labor there; and that we shall be supplied with small tiles in all parts of the country at about the current prices of bricks, or at about one half the present Albany prices of tiles, as given at the head of this chapter. It should be mentioned here, perhaps, that, in England, it is common to burn tiles and bricks together in the same kiln, placing the tiles away from the hottest parts of the furnace; as, being but about half an inch in thickness, they require less heat to burn them than bricks.

In the estimates of labor in making tiles in England, a small item is usually included for "rolling." Round pipes are chiefly used in England. When partly dried, they are taken up on a round stick, and rolled upon a small table, to preserve their exact form. Tiles usually flatten somewhat in drying, which is not of importance in any but round pipes, but those ought to be uniform. By this process of rolling, great exactness of shape, and a great degree of smoothness inside, are preserved.

TILE MACHINES.

Drainage with tiles is a new branch of husbandry in America. The cost of tiles is now a great obstacle in prosecuting much work of this kind which land-owners desire to accomplish. The cost of tiles, and so the cost of drainage, depends very much—it may be said, chiefly—upon the perfection of the machinery for tile-making; and here, as almost everywhere else, agriculture and the mechanic arts go hand in hand. Labor is much dearer in America than in Europe, and there is, therefore, more occasion here than there, for applying mechanical power to agriculture. We can have no cheap drainage until we have cheap tiles; and we can have cheap tiles only by having them made with the most perfect machinery, and at the lowest prices at which competing manufacturers, who understand their business, can afford them.

In the preceding remarks on the cost of tiles, may be found estimates, which will satisfy any thinking man that tiles have not yet been sold in America at reasonably low prices.

To give those who may desire to establish tileries, either for public or private supply, information, which cannot readily be obtained without great expense of English books, as to the prices of tile machines, it is now proposed to give some account of the best English machines, and of such American inventions as have been brought to notice.

It is of importance that American machinists and inventors should be apprised of the progress that has been made abroad in perfecting tile machines; because, as the subject attracts attention, the ingenuity of the universal Yankee nation will soon be directed toward the discovery of improvements in all the processes of tile-making. Tiles were made by hand long before tile machines were invented.

A Mr. Read, in the "Royal Agricultural Journal," claims to have used pipe tiles as early as 1795, made by hand, and formed on a round stick. No machine for making tiles is described, before that of Mr. Beart's, in 1840, by which "common tile and sole (not pipes or tubes) were made." This machine, however, was of simple structure, and not adapted to the varieties of tiles now used.

All tile machines seem to operate on the same general principle—that of forcing wet clay, of the consistency of that used in brick-making, through apertures of the desired shape and size. To make the mass thus forced through the aperture, hollow, the hole must have a piece of metal in the centre of it, around which the clay forms, as it is pushed along. This centre piece is kept in position by one or two thin pieces of iron, which of course divide the clay which passes over them, but it unites again as it is forced through the die, and comes out sound, and is then cut off, usually by hand, by means of a small wire, of the required length, about fourteen inches.

Tile machines work either vertically or horizontally. The most primitive machine which came to the author's notice abroad, was one which we saw on our way from London to Mr. Mechi's place. It was a mere upright cylinder, of some two feet height, and perhaps eight inches diameter, in which worked a piston. The clay was thrown into the cylinder, and the piston brought down by means of a brake, like an old-fashioned pump, and a single round pipe-tile forced out at the bottom. The force employed was one man and two boys. One boy screened the clay, by passing through it a wire in various directions, holding the wire by the ends, and cutting through the mass till he had found all the small stones contained in it. The man threw the masses thus prepared, into the cylinder, and put on the brake, and the other boy received the tiles upon a round stick, as they came down through the die at the bottom, and laid them away. The cylinder held clay enough to make several, perhaps twenty, two-inch pipes. The work was going on in a shed without a floor, and upon a liberal estimate, the whole establishment, including shed and machine, could not cost more than fifty dollars. Yet, on this simple plan, tiles were moulded much more rapidly than bricks were made in the same yard, where they were moulded singly, as they usually are in England. It was said that this force could thus mould about 1,800 small tiles per day.

This little machine seems to be the same described by Mr. Parkes as in general use in 1843, in Kent and Suffolk Counties.

Most of the tile machines now in use in England and America, are so constructed, as to force out the tiles upon a horizontal frame-work, about five two-inch, or three three-inch pipes abreast. The box to contain the clay may be upright or horizontal, and the power may be applied to a wheel, by a crank turned by a man, or by horse, steam, or water power, according to the extent of the works.

We saw at the Exhibition of the Royal Agricultural Society, at Salisbury, in England, in July, 1857, the "pipe and tile machine," of W. Williams, of Bedford. It was in operation, for exhibition, and was worked by one man, who said he was a tile maker, and that he and one boy could make with the machine 7,000 two-inch tiles per day, after the clay was prepared in the pug mill. Four tiles were formed at once, by clay passed through four dies, and the box holds clay enough for thirty-two two-inch tiles, so that thirty-two are formed as quickly as they can be removed, and as many more, as soon as the box can be refilled.

The size, No. 3, of this machine, such as we then saw in operation, and which is suitable for common use, costs at Bedford $88.50, with one set of dies; and the extra dies, for making three, four, and six-inch pipes, and other forms, if desired, with the horses, as they are called, for removing the tiles, cost about five dollars each.

This, like most other tile machines, is adapted to making tiles for roofs, much used in England instead of shingles or slates, as well as for draining purposes.

There are several machines now in use in England namely: Etheridge's, Clayton's, Scragg's, Whitehead's, and Garrett's—either of which would be satisfactory, according to the amount of work desired.

We have in America several patented machines for making tiles, of the comparative merits of which we are unable to give a satisfactory judgment. We will, however, allude to two or three, advising those who are desirous to purchase, to make personal examination for themselves. We are obliged to rely chiefly on the statements of the manufacturers for our opinions.

DAINES' DRAIN TILE MAKER

Daines' American Drain Tile Machine is manufactured at Birmingham, Michigan, by John Daines. This machine is in use in Exeter, N. H., close by the author's residence, and thus far proves satisfactory. The price of it is about $100, and the weight, about five hundred pounds. It occupies no more space than a common three-and-a-half foot table, and is worked by a man at a crank. It is capable of turning out, by man power, about two hundred and fifty two-inch tiles in an hour, after the clay is prepared in a pug mill. Horse or water power can be readily attached to it.

We give a drawing of it, not because we are sure it is the best, but because we are sure it is a good machine, and to illustrate the principle upon which all these machines are constructed.

Pratt's Tile Machine is manufactured at Canandaigua, New York, by Pratt & Brothers, and is in use in various places in that State as well as elsewhere. This machine differs from Daines' in this essential matter, that here the clay is pugged, or tempered, and formed into tiles at one operation, while with Daines' machine, the clay is first passed through a pug mill, as it is for making bricks in the common process.

Pratt's machine is worked by one or two horses, or by steam or water power, as is convenient. The price of the smaller size, worked by one horse, is $150, and the price of the larger size, worked by two horses, $200. Professor Mapes says he saw this machine in operation and considers it "perfect in all its parts." The patentees claim that they can make, with the one-horse machine, 5,000 large tiles a day. They state also that "two horses will make tiles about as cheap as bricks are usually made, and as fast, with the large-sized machine."

Fig. 53.—Pratt's Tile Machine.

These somewhat indefinite statements are all that we can give, at present, of the capacity of the machines. We should have no hesitation in ordering a Pratt machine were we desirous of entering into an extensive business of Tile-making, and we should feel quite safe with a Daines' machine for a more limited manufacture.

SALISBURY'S TILE MACHINE.

S. C. Salisbury, at the Novelty Works, in the city of New York, is manufacturing a machine for making tiles and bricks, which exhibits some new and peculiar features, worthy of attention by those who propose to purchase tile machines. Prof. Mapes expresses the confident opinion that this machine excels all others, in its capacity to form tiles with rapidity and economy. We have examined only a working model. It is claimed that the large size, with horse-power, will make 20,000 two-inch tiles per day, and the hand-power machine 3,000 per day. We advise tile makers to examine all these machines in operation, before purchasing either.

CHAPTER X
THE COST OF DRAINAGE.

Draining no more expensive than Fencing.—Engineering.—Guessing not accurate enough.—Slight Fall sufficient.—Instances.—Two Inches to One Thousand Feet.—Cost of Excavation and Filling.—Narrow Tools required.—Tables of Cubic contents of Drains.—Cost of Drains on our own Farm.—Cost of Tiles.—Weight and Freight of Tiles.—Cost of Outlets.—Cost of Collars.—Smaller Tiles used with Collars.—Number of Tiles to the Acre, with Tables.—Length of Tiles varies.—Number of Rods to the Acre at different Distances.—Final Estimate of Cost.—Comparative Cost of Tile-Drains and Stone-Drains.

A prudent man, intending to execute a work, whether it be "to build a tower," or drain a field, "sitteth down first and counteth the cost, whether he hath sufficient to finish it." There is good sense and discretion in the inquisitiveness which suggests so often the inquiry, "How much does it cost to drain an acre?" or, "How much does it cost a rod to lay drains?" These questions cannot be answered so briefly as they are asked; yet much information can be given, which will aid one who will investigate the subject.

The process of drainage is expensive, as compared with the price of land in our new settlements; but its cost will not alarm those who have been accustomed to see the improvements made in New England upon well cultivated farms. Compared with the labor and cost of building and maintaining fences upon the highways, and in the subdivisions of lots, common in the Eastern States, the drainage of land is a small matter. We see in many places long stretches of faced walls, on the line of our roads near towns and villages, which cost from two to five dollars per rod. Our common "stone walls" in these States cost about one dollar per rod to build originally; and almost any kind of wooden fence costs as much. Upon fences, there is occasion for annual repairs, while drains properly laid, are permanent.

These suggestions are thrown out, that farmers may not be alarmed without cause, at the high cash estimates of the cost of drainage operations. Money comes slowly to farmers, and a cash estimate looks larger to them than an estimate in labor. The cost of fencing seems no great burden; though, estimated in cash, it would seem, as in fact it is, a severe charge.

Drainage can be performed principally by the same kind of labor as fencing, the cost of the tiles being a small item in the whole expense. The estimates of labor will be made at one dollar per day, in investigating this matter.

This would be the fair cash value of work by the day, perhaps; but it is far more than farmers, who have work in hand on their own farms, which may be executed in the leisure season after haying, and even into the Winter, when convenient, will really expend for such labor. Few farm operations would pay expenses, if every hour of superintendence, and every hour of labor by man and boy and beast, were set down at this high rate.

The cost of the tiles will, ordinarily, be a cash item, and the labor may be performed like that of planting, hoeing, haying, and harvesting, by such "help" hired by the mouth or day, or rendered by the family, as may be found convenient.

The cost of drainage may be considered conveniently, to borrow a clerical phrase, "under the following heads."

1. Laying out, or Engineering.—In arranging our Spring's work, we devote time and attention to laying it out, though this hardly forms an item in the expense of the crop. Most farmers may think themselves competent to lay out their drainage-works, without paying for the scientific skill of an engineer, or even of a surveyor.

It is believed, however, that generally, it will be found true economy, to procure the aid of an experienced engineer, if convenient, to lay out the work at the outset. Certainly, in most cases, some skill in the use of levelling instruments, at least, is absolutely essential to systematic work. No man, however experienced, can, by the eye, form any safe opinion of the fall of a given tract of land. Fields which appear perfectly level to the eye, will be found frequently to give fall enough for the deepest drainage. The writer recently had occasion to note this fact on his own land.

A low wet spot had many times been looked at, as a place which should be drained, both to improve its soil, and the appearance of the land about it; but to the eye, it seemed doubtful whether it was not about as low as the stream some forty rods off, into which it must be drained. Upon testing the matter carefully with levelling instruments, it was found that from the lowest spot in this little swamp, there was a fall of seven and a half feet to the river, at its ordinary height! Again, there are cases where it will be found upon accurate surveys, that the fall is very slight, so that great care will be requisite, to lay the drains in such a way that the descent may be continuous and uniform.

Without competent skill in laying out the work, land-owners will be liable not only to errors in the fall of the drains, but to very expensive mistakes in the location of them. A very few rods of drains, more than are necessary, would cost more than any charge of a competent person for laying them out properly.

Again, experience gives great facility in judging of the underground flow of water, of the permeability of soil, of the probability of finding ledges or other rock formation, and many other particulars which might not suggest themselves to a novice in the business.

The laying out of drains is important, not only with reference to the work in hand, but to additional work to be executed in future on adjoining land, so that the whole may be eventually brought into one cheap and efficient system with the smallest effective number of drains, both minors and mains, and the fewest outlets possible; with such wells, or other facilities for inspection, as may be necessary.

In the English tables of the cost of drainage by the Drainage Companies, an estimate of $1.25 per acre is usually put down for "superintendence," which includes the engineering and the supervision of the whole process of opening, laying and filling, securing outfalls, and every other process till the work is completed. The general estimate of the cost of drainage is about $25.00 per acre, and this item of $1.25 is but a small per centage on that amount. The point has been dwelt upon here, more for the purpose of impressing upon land-owners, the importance of employing competent skill in the laying out of their drainage works, than because the expense thus incurred, forms any considerable item of the cost of the whole work.

2. Excavation and Filling. The principal expense of drainage is incurred in the excavation of the ditch, whether it be for tiles or for stones. The labor of excavation depends much upon the nature of the soil to be moved.

"Draining on a sound clay," says the writer of a prize essay, "free from stones, may be executed at a cheaper rate per rod, in length, than on almost any other kind of soil, as, from the firmness of the clay, the work may be done with narrow spades, and but a small quantity of soil requires to be removed. The draining of wet sands or grounds, or clays in which veins of sand abound, is more expensive than on sound clays, because a broader spade has to be used, and consequently a larger amount of soil removed; and draining stony or rocky soils is still more expensive, because the pick has to be used. This adds considerably to the expense."

Great stress is laid, by all experienced persons, upon using narrow spades, and opening ditches as narrow as possible.

It is somewhat more convenient for unskillful laborers to work in a wide ditch than in a narrow one, and although the laborers frequently protest that they cannot work so rapidly in narrow ditches, yet it is found that, in contract work, by the rod, they usually open the ditches very narrow.

Indeed, it will be found that, generally, the cost of excavation bears a pretty constant proportion to the number of cubic feet of earth thrown out.

It will surprise those unaccustomed to these estimates, to observe how rapidly the quantity excavated, increases with the increased width of the ditch.

To enable the reader accurately to compute the measurement of drains of any dimensions likely to be adopted, a table and explanations, found in the Report of the Board of Health, already quoted, are given below. The dimensions, or contents of any drain, are found by multiplying together the length, depth, and mean width of the drain.

"Thus, if a drain is 300 yards long, and the cutting 3 feet deep, 20 inches wide at the top, and 4 inches wide at the bottom, the mean width would be 12 inches (or the half of the sum of 20 and 4), and if we multiply 300, the length, by 1, the depth in yards, and by 1/3, the mean width in yards, and the product would be 100 cubic yards. The following table will serve to facilitate such calculations.

Table showing the number of Cubic Yards of Earth in each Rod (5½ Yardsin length), in Drains or Ditches of various Dimensions.
Depth.Mean Width.
Inches.7 In. 8 In. 9 In. 10 In.11 In.12 In.13 In.14 In.15 In.16 In.17 In.18 In.
300.89 1.02 1.1461.27 1.401.53 1.6551.78 1.91 2.04 2.1642.29
330.98 1.12 1.26 1.40 1.541.68 1.82 1.96 2.10 2.24 2.38 2.52
361.07 1.22 1.3751.53 1.681.83 1.9862.14 2.29 2.2442.60 2.75
391.16 1.3241.49 1.6551.821.9862.15 2.32 2.48 2.65 2.81 2.98
421.25 1.4261.6041.78 1.962.14 2.32 2.4952.6742.85 3.03 3.21
451.34 1.53 1.72 1.91 2.102.29 2.48 2.67 2.8653.0553.2463.438
481.4261.63 1.8332.04 2.242.4442.65 2.85 3.0563.26 3.46 3.667
511.5151.73 1.95 2.1642.382.60 2.81 3.03 3.25 3.46 3.68 3.896
541.6041.83 2.06 2.29 2.522.75 2.98 3.20 3.44 3.6663.8954.125
571.69 1.9352.18 2.42 2.662.90 3.14 3.38 3.63 3.87 4.11 4.354
601.78 2.0362.29 2.5462.803.0563.31 3.5643.82 4.0744.33 4.584

"Along the top of the table is placed the mean widths in inches, and on the left-hand side the depths of the drains, extending from 30 inches to 5 feet. The numbers in the body of the table express cubic yards, and decimals of a yard. In making use of the table, it is necessary first to find the mean width of the drain, from the widths at the top and bottom. Thus, if a drain 3 feet deep were 16 inches wide at the top, and 4 inches at the bottom, the mean width would be half of 16 added to 4, or 10; then, by looking in the table for the column under 10 (width), and opposite 36 (inches of depth), we find the number of cubic yards in each rod of such a drain to be 1.53, or somewhat more than one and a half. If we compare this with another drain 20 inches wide at the top, 4 inches at the bottom, and 4½ feet deep, we have the mean width 12, and looking at the table under 12 and opposite 54, we find 2.75 cubic yards, or two and three-quarters to the rod. In this case, the quantity of earth to be removed is nearly twice as much as in the other, and hence, as far as regards the digging, the cost of the labor will be nearly double. But in the case of deep drains, the cost increases slightly for another reason, namely, the increased labor of lifting the earth to the surface from a greater depth."

Under the title of the "Depth of Drains," other reasons are suggested why shallow drains are more easily wrought than deeper drains. The widths given in English treatises, and found perfectly practicable there, with proper drainage-tools, will seem to us exceedingly narrow. Mr. Parkes gives the width of the top of a four-foot drain 18 inches, of a three-and-a-half foot drain 16 inches, and of a three-foot drain 12 inches. He gives the width of drains for tiles, three inches at bottom, and those for stones, eight inches. Of the cost of excavating a given number of cubic yards of earth from drains, it is difficult to give reliable estimates. In the writer's own field, where a pick was used to loosen the lower two feet of earth, the labor of opening and filling drains 4 feet deep, and of the mean width of 14 inches, all by hand labor, has been, in a mile of drains, being our first experiments, about one day's labor to three rods in length. The excavated earth of such a drain, measures not quite three cubic yards. (Exactly, 2.85.)

In work subsequently executed, we have opened our drains of 4 foot depth, but 20 inches at top, and 4 inches at bottom, giving a mean width of 12 inches. In one instance, in the Summer of 1858, two men opened 14 rods of such drain in one day. In six days, the same two men opened, laid, and filled 947 feet, or about 57½ rods of such drain. Their labor was worth $12.00, or 21 cents per rod. The actual cost of this job was as follows:

847 two-inch tiles, at $13 per 1,000 $11.01
100 three-inch tiles, at $13 per 1,000 for main 2.50
70 bushels of tan, to protect the joints .70
Horse to haul tiles and tan .50
Labor, 12 days, at $1 12.00
Total $26.71

This is 46½ cents per rod, besides our own time and skill in laying out and superintending the work. The work was principally done with Irish spades, and was in a sandy soil. In the same season, the same men opened, laid, and filled 70 rods of four-foot drain, of the same mean width of 12 inches, in the worst kind of clay soil, where the pick was constantly used. It cost 35 days' labor to complete the job, being 50 cents per rod for the labor alone. The least cost of the labor of draining 4 feet deep, on our own land, is thus shown to be 21 cents per rod, and the greatest cost 50 cents per rod, all the labor being by hand. One-half these amounts would have completed the drains at 3 feet depth, as has been already shown.

But the excavation here is much greater than is usual in England, Mr. Parkes giving the mean width of a four-foot drain but 10½ inches, instead of 14 or 12, as just given. Mr. Denton gives estimates of the cost, in England, of cutting and filling four-foot drains, which vary from 12 cents per rod upwards, according to the prices of labor, and other circumstances.

In New England, where labor may be fairly rated at one dollar per day, the cost of excavating and filling four-foot drains by hand labor, must vary from 20 to 50 cents per rod, according to the soil, and half those amounts for drains of three-foot depth.

Of the aid which may be derived from the use of draining plows, or of the common plow, or subsoil plow, our views may be found expressed under the appropriate heads. That drains will long continue to be opened in this vast country by hand labor, is not to be supposed, but we give our estimates of the expenses, at this first stage of our education in drainage.

3. Cost of the Tiles. Under the title of "The Cost of Tiles," we have given such information as can be at present procured, touching that matter. It will be assumed, in these estimates, that no tiles of less than 1½ inch bore will be used for any purpose, and for mains, usually those of three-inch bore are sufficient. The proportion of length of mains to that of minors is small, and, considering the probable reduction of prices, we will, for the present, assume $10 per 1,000 as the prices of such mixed sizes as may be used.

Add to this, the freight of them to a reasonable distance, and we have the cost of the tiles on the field. The weight of two-inch tiles is usually rated at about 3 lbs. each, though they fall short of this weight until wet.

4. Outlets. A small per-centage should be added to the items already noticed, for the cost of the general outfall, which should be secured with great care; although, from such examination as the writer has made in this country, and in England also, in the large majority of cases, drains are discharged with very little precaution to protect the outlets. Works completed under the charge of regular engineers, form an exception to this remark; and an item of 37 cents per acre, for iron outlets and masonry, is usually included in the estimated cost per acre of drainage.

5. Collars. It is not known to the author that collars have been at all used in America, except at the New York Central Park, in 1858; round pipes, upon which they are commonly used abroad, when used on any, not being yet much in use here.