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 down 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 I 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; Cherry-Valley, 14 
