EXCESS OF WATER CONSIDERED. 221 



I have stated thus much for the purpose of saying that draining should not be entered upon 

 because it is the fashion in England or elsewhere, or because it is so much dwelt upon by- 

 theoretical writers. I have stated three distinct cases where draining will surely remedy the 

 evil — the existence of too much surface water ; and yet I say that it is, even in these cases, a 

 question of time. The farmers of this country pursue their vocations for profit, and when a 

 great and expensive improvement is in contemplation, it should be considered with reference 

 to time, though the improvement can not be questioned. The building of a house is an improve- 

 ment, and yet a prudent farmer will not enter upon that work till its cost has been calculated ; 

 the ability to meet the expense at the time, and the prospect in future of its remunerating the 

 outlay. Fancy farmers, who have plenty of money, may do many things for the sake of doing 

 them, or for the sake of falling in with the hue-and-cry of the day. So varied are the circum- 

 stances of the condition of the different parts of our country, and even of New-York, that it is 

 not safe to lay clown special and absolute rules, for the husbandry must be governed and controlled 

 by those circumstances, or improvements made at times favorable for the execution of the project. 

 There is no practice which is better established than that of draining, in the three cases I have 

 mentioned, and yet the remarks I have made are founded upon principles equally just and true. 

 Too much may be paid for a real improvement. If we were to follow the opinion of many writers, 

 even writers of prize essays and lectures, from across the Atlantic, we should regard all the lands 

 of New- York and New-England as demanding draining. What are the facts which have con- 

 tributed to the currency of this doctrine 1 1. The great success of draining in England and Scot- 

 land. 2. The large quantity of rain which falls in this country. Looking first at the effects and 

 necessity of draining in England and Scotland, and seeing also that there are many places where 

 more rains fall in the State of New-York than in England, the inference is very natural that 

 the soil must be wet, and require draining also. But there is another element which has more 

 influence, or as much as the quantity of rain which actually falls ; it is a foggy atmosphere. 

 Insular situations, like that of Great Britain, Newfoundland and Nova-Scotia must necessarily 

 be obscured by fogs. A wind blowing from a warmer region to a colder, will condense the 

 moisture it holds suspended — it is a law of nature. Evaporation from the surface scarcely 

 occurs ; and although less rain falls, still the condition of the country is such that it dries very 

 slowly ; less rain, therefore, will suffice to create a wet cold surface than where the state of the 

 atmosphere is different. In New-York, even though the sum total of rain exceeds that of 

 England, yet in consequence of the dryness and clearness of the atmosphere, our lands are 

 comparatively dry and are not surface soaked and cold, as might at first be suspected. 



To illustrate the differences of climate in regard to the quantity of rain which falls, I will 

 refer to a few results which have been obtained, by which the reader will see England and 

 Scotland in contrast with our country. In London and its vicinity the quantity of rain which 

 falls annually is 23 inches ; in Edinburgh, 24 ; in Liverpool, 34 ; in Manchester, 36 ; in Kes- 

 wick, 76. In this country the quantity at different places, is as follows : New- York, 42 

 inches ; Flatbush, L. I. ,43 ; Jamaica, 39 ; Clinton, 38 : the two first places is the average for 

 20 years ; the last for 16 years. For Pompey, for 15 years, 29 inches j Cherry-Valley, 14 



