too free a sweep; yet my right to change this waste into a grain field will not be questioned. My warranty deed is my right thus to improve my land, though it be "to the detriment of my neighbor." He should have foreseen the contingency of a removal of these woods. On like principles a land owner may remove an excess of water so as to raise corn and not rushes. In the removal of woods my neighbor may not have an immediate remedy for his ills, but the effect of my ditches may be turned to good account by continuing them, and thus improving his land as I have mine. My warranty deed is my right to cultivate my own land, and this right carries the right to cultivate it in the best manner. The lower man should have taken judicial notice that water runs down hill, and that in this progressive age ditches may be cut and tiles laid.

But it is said that this court decision follows the English Common law; and now being settled by a decision, it is not open for further consideration. In this progressive age nothing is settled until it is settled right. Judge Taney once judicially settled the status of the African race. The common law was held to forbid the bridging of navigable streams. Harbors could only be made where the water was salt and affected by the tides. The Dartmouth college decision was held to so cover railroad corporations as to shield them from legislative control. These have all been overturned by the march of events, and this Appellate court decision is not necessarily immortal. For fifty years the farmers of Illinois knew no such rule. The public roads have been improved by side ditches which dropped the water into the first depression. In 1873 there was placed in the road law a provision that a land owner may drain on the public road by giving timely notice, and this stands through all revisions. Blackstone in his commentaries does not class this kind of drainage as a nuisance or trespass to lower lands, but he does its opposite, where the lower man neglects to "scour" a ditch, and thus sets back the water to the harm of the upper man. If this court rule is common law, as claimed, then it may be further said that a rule for the dark ages when drainage was exceptional, is not necessarily the true rule, since drainage has become so large a part of good agriculture.

Action of the General Assembly.—Early in the last session, bills were introduced into each House to overturn this court decision. These were defeated, but late in the session there passed with much unanimity a bill of the following title, which became a law: "An act to permit owners of land to construct drains for agricultural purposes." Sec. 1 of this act reads as follows: "That the owner or owners of land in this State shall be permitted to construct drains for agricultural purposes, only, into any natural water-course or any natural depression whereby the water will be carried into any natural water-course, or any drain on the public highway, if the road commissioners consent thereto, for the purpose of securing proper drainage to such land, without being liable in damages therefor to any other person or persons or corporation." This was intended to establish the right of "individual drainage."

But we are told that the courts will not respect this law, for the reason that it seeks to legalize trespass.

Here we join issue with our objectors and stand by this declaratory law. It embodies the general opinion and practice of the people; it is plainly conformable to the physical laws of nature and the requirements of civilization. Lands are held subject to laws thus grounded, and these considerations will not tolerate laws or decisions the very opposite.

These declarations are not much more radical than a declaration that we stand by the law of gravity as constitutional.

The public are busy in overturning this court decision by everywhere disregarding it. The few who stopped draining in deference to the court, have resumed under shelter of the statute. If all violators should be prosecuted with vigor, tile-making might decline, but courting would be lively. Courts and judges must be multiplied, and every lawyer in the State would have fat business for the next ten years. Some judge will soon give us a precedent in accordance with reason, and this will settle the matter as effectually as did one taste of the tree of knowledge reveal good and evil. It will soon be seen that individual interest is best promoted by general and free drainage—that presumption should be in its favor, and that one man should not be clothed with power to stop others from making improvements.

New laws.—The next legislative work on drainage should be to revise and consolidate the law. On some points the law is duplicate, and on one triplicate. It is generally demanded that the law shall be less cumbrous and more summary. This can be done to some extent when it shall be found that the courts favor drainage. So far they have had a very tender feeling for complaints. When drainage shall be acknowledged to be lawful, laudable, and necessary, like plowing, laws may be greatly simplified and made more effectual.

River districts.—Illinois being generally level, many of our inland streams waste a large amount of land by overflow and drift. Roads, crops, and bridges are insecure. To a large extent this may be remedied by straightening the channels, and hereafter keeping them in repair and clear of drift wood. If the lands along these rivers, which would receive benefits from this work, were made into a district and classified according to benefits, the burden on them for proper improvement would not be great, and it is believed that dollars would be realized for cents expended. This waste is growing worse year by year. Enough land could be reclaimed along the Kaskaskia, Little Wabash, Big Muddy, Saline, and Henderson to more than make a New England State. The State may well afford to do the engineering and give an enabling act, that the people interested may organize as they decide to improve their respective rivers. When so improved, it will become practicable to more effectually drain the district by lateral works.

Illinois being so generally level, and much of our black soil resting on clay, here is to be the favorite field for the ditcher and tile-maker. Invention has an inviting field, and already foreshadows rich results. Your association, though a private one, touches the public interest very broadly. You reveal and make possible new sources of wealth, which promises to agriculture a new era of development. You may do much to settle true principles and proper public policy, so that this great drainage enterprise may move along harmoniously. The law-maker and the tile-maker are necessary factors in this grand march of improvement.

Other valuable papers were read which we shall take occasion to publish at some future time.

Better Management Needed.

A little forethought on a farm is a good thing. It saves time, money, and much of the vexation that is liable to come without it. Like the watchman on a ship a good farmer must always be looking ahead. He must be quick in his judgment of what should be done at the present time, and he should have a good perception to show him the best thing to do for the future.

It is a mistaken idea that many possess who think there is no brain work needed on a farm. Farmers are usually looked upon as an ignorant class of people, especially by many of the city friends who often do not see the large, sympathizing feelings that lie hidden beneath the rough exterior of country people. They are in many cases better educated than they look to be, and they have a chance to use all the education they have at their command in the performance of the many and different kinds of duties that are to be done in the occupation of agriculture. There is much work to be done and it