suggest as an improvement the change from five owners to five township lots. Some are of opinion that the large drainage works should all be constructed by a contractor and the cost raised by assessment under the drainage provisions of the Municipal Act, and that the smaller or lateral drains should be constructed as award drains, and the persons interested should be allowed the option of doing their proper share of the work or paying the estimated cost of it. Reference is also made to tile drainage. It is found absolutely necessary to put in catch basins at the upper end of all covered or tiled portions of a drain. When the drain is through quick-sand, they put in slabs to support the tile, and cover the tile with tanbark; in heavy clay, they put straw over the tile and allow it to extend upwards on both sides so as to provide seams for the descent of the water to the tile.

In the county of Oxford sittings were held at the Towns of Woodstock, and Ingersoll. The witnesses in this county favor covered drainage work, whether constructed under the Municipal Act or the Ditches or Watercourses Act. This, however, does not apply to the improvement of creeks or natural watercourses. The objection to an open drain leading into a covered portion is fully brought out in the evidence of some of the witnesses. The complaints between upper and lower municipalities as to their relative rights in natural watercourses and their assessment for improving same, are loud and frequent. The litigation regarding the extension of the Reynold's Creek is referred to. Dereham is the upper township and South Dorchester is the lower. The latter is in the county of Middlesex, and the former in the county of Oxford. The same trouble has also been shown to exist between West Nissouri and North Dorchester. The township of North Norwich has a drain crossing the town line between that township and Burford, and it is claimed that the lower township, namely, Burford, positively refuses to repair the drain within its own limits, and although the assessment has been arranged between the councils the work has not been done; and the council of North Norwich has been advised that a petition was necessary to make their proceedings legal. East and West Zorra have spent more money in drainage works than any other municipalities in the country. The estimated cost in West Zorra will reach nearly $20,000, while the cost in East Zorra will exceed that amount.

In regard to appeals from the decision of courts of revision, where two or more townships are interested in the drainage work, it is strongly urged that the Referee be substituted for the county Judge. The reasons given for desiring this change are, that the decisions will be uniform and, at the same time, given by a skilled person, and after some cases are decided engineers and councils would in future be guided by the principles adopted by the Referee. It is further claimed for this suggestion that if adopted there would, in a very short time, be no appeals and costs would thus be saved.

In the county of Middlesex sittings were held at London, Strathroy, and Glencoe. At London evidence was given respecting an upper municipality seeking an outlet in a lower. Some were of opinion that the upper should be permitted to construct a drain far enough to obtain a fall, and it should be left to the lower to continue the drain or take the consequence of overflow and damage. This principle they would extend to private owners as well. Others would restrict the right of the upper township to draining as they wished into a stream, creek or watercourse without any liability for not conveying the water to a proper outlet. The question is asked what is meant by proper outlet? The proper definition would seem to be the safe conduct of the water in a drainage work to a discharge, where no injury will arise therefrom. The difficulty experienced in the repairing of Goverment drains was pointed out and a remedy

suggested of sending on an engineer to make new estimates and bring all government drains under the provisions of the Municipal Act. Some radical changes were proposed to the drainage provisions of the Municipal Act. It was recommended to remove the power from township councils and place the construction and maintenance of all drainage works in the hands of a joint commission, some of the members of such commission to be appointed by the Government and the remainder by the county council. The assessments made by the commission should be final, except when they saw fit to reconsider and revise them on an application made to the commission for that purpose.

Regarding the Ditches and Watercourses Act, it was argued that the application is frequently made by some person who is not the owner of the land, and to check this a declaration should be required from the applicant, that he or she is the owner of the lands mentioned in the requisition; and the declaration when made should be fyled in the office of the clerk of the municipality in which the land lies. The assessment of all parties not adjoining the drain, says one, should be in money and not in work, and the same should apply to all persons seeking to make use of the drain after its construction.

The

At Strathroy and Glencoe complaints were made regarding the location and costs of drains constructed by the Government and the trouble and expense attendant upon crossing railroad lands. One witness proposed to take the power away from the municipal councils and place it in the hands of a Board of engineers to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor. Some argiculturists might be made members of the Board. Any three members of such Board should be given power to launch any drainage work. cost of the commissioners he suggests should be paid by the Government of the Province. Others again do not go so far, but would advise associating one or more practical persons with the engineer for the purpose of laying out the drainage work and the assessing therefor. These would leave the power of adopting the report and carrying out the work in the municipal councils as now. Attention is also called to hardships upon upper lands of constructing and repairing drainage work in sections. There may in some cases be three or four different assessments upon upper lands before the entire scheme is complete. Others claim that the whole scheme should be commenced, carried on and completed under one by-law, whether it be for construction or repairs. It was claimed that the engineer should in his report make provisions for the erection or enlargement of bridges on highways across drainage works, and apportion the expense between the drain and the municipality. He should also provide for water-gates in fences crossing the drainage work. The trouble of working out the law in all cases where two municipalities are interested is commented upon. Allusion is made to the holding of courts of revision and the appeals therefrom. It is pointed out that the decisions of the court of revision are not communicated in any way to the appellants, and the time for appealing to the county Judge is too short. Complaint is made that county Judges do not decide cases coming before them by way of appeal from the decisions of the court of revision within a reasonable time, and as a consequence delay is caused in commencing the work. The county council clauses of the drainage provisions of the Municipal Act are condemned.

One sitting was held at Stratford, in the county of Perth. The evidence taken here was principally from a committee appointed by the county council. It was contended that the engineer should be given the power of considering former assessments, as well as the court of revision and county Judge. In support of this it was argued, that no man should be put to the trouble and expense of appealing from the engineer's assessment to the court of revision, in order that any former assessment for drainage work on the same land should be considered

and given effect to. They consider that it would be better to have no reference at all to the Assessment Act. The duties of the Court of Revision and county Judge should be inserted in the drainage provisions of the Municipal Act. In recommending this they think it would be easier understood by members of the council and more ready of reference. They favor the Referee, not only fixing the relative assessments which each township has to pay, where two or more municipalties are interested, but also trying an appeal from the court of revision. As the Act is at present the by-law may be finally passed after the close of the court of revision and any changes made by the county Judge can be given effect to in a supplementary by-law. They are opposed to this and say that the assessment should be settled before the by-law is finally passed. If there should be appeals to the county Judge, then they claim these should be disposed of and the corrections made in the assessments carrying out his decisions, before the by-law is finally passed. Trouble was experienced between two municipalities in different countries, namely, Elma in Perth, and Grey in Huron county. In the county of Huron one sitting of the Commission was held at Clinton. Here, as at Stratford, a committee of the county council appeared and gave their testimony. They complained of water being sent from the township of Elma in the county of Perth across the town line, and the lands on the lower side of the town line in the township of Grey injured thereby. They state that the law should be made clear to enable the council of Grey without any petition, to construct drainage work through or into any other municipalities until an ultimate sufficient outlet is reached, with power to assess all lands throughout the length of the drain and also the lands in Elma for causing water to flow or in any way using it. They further claim in common with many other witnessess, that the engineer should confine the assessment to the quarter, half or other subdivision of the lot containing the portion benefited by the drainage work. One of them however dissents from this, on the ground that the owner might refuse to pay the taxes on the sub-division containing the part affected and altogether abandon it, and under a sale for taxes it might not realize the arrears, and so entail a loss on the township. They also think there should be no appeal given from the decision of the Referee. His decisions should be final and binding, whether given upon the proportion to be contributed by municipalities or other matters coming within his jurisdiction. They ask that power be given to councils to fix by by-law the fees to which township clerks are entitled in connection with the drain under any Act, and add same to the cost of the drain. Under the Ditches and Watercourses Act they consider that the old drains constructed under the award of fence viewers should be included, but favor the Act being amended enabling small drains to be dealt with as under the old fence viewers' Act. The option, they say, should be given to construct a section of the drain or pay the estimated cost in money. Should the persons interested fail to agree at the first meeting, then one witness would recommend a money assessment only and the making of the drain by a contractor. It is reported that the county Judge of Huron is of opinion and has decided that the applicant has no right under the Act to have any part of the award drain made upon his land; he simply has the right to have the drain begin at his land so as to furnish him with an outlet.

The

The litigation between the township of Stephen and the Township of McGillivray is referred to. The facts of the case are shortly as follows. township of Stephen in the county of Huron, on a petition from certain ratepayers, passed a by-law for draining part of the township of Stephen. This by-law was passed on the report of Mr. Coad, a surveyor, on a plan for opening a cut into lake Huron across the sandbar of the River Aux Sables at a bend, and dredging the river to a point some two or three hundred chains distant up

the stream to the junction of the Haycock creek in Stephen. This river forms the boundary between Bosanquet, on the west, and Stephen, McGillivray and West Williams on the east. Bosanquet is in the county of Lambton. The drainage scheme involved an assessment on lands in Stephen and Bosanquet, and also on lands in two other townships, McGillivray and West Williams, both in the county of Middlesex. The action was brought to compel McGillivray to pass a by-law to raise the amount assessed against that township and failed. The court held that it was only, if at all, when the works are done by a county council under the appropriate provisions of the Act that an adjoining township can under such circumstances be assessed.

In the county of Lambton, sittings were held at the following places: Sarnia, Petrolia, Forrest, Watford and Alvinston. The surface of the land in the greater portion of this county is level, but with an elevation above the natural water channels sufficient for all drainage purposes. In other parts the land is undulating and rolling. In the northern part of the county, such as the townships of Bosanquet, Plymton and Sarnia the trend of the surface water is in the direction of Lake Huron, but in the other townships the fall is towards the west and south-west and the surface waters find their principal outlet through both branches of the River Sydenham and their tributaries in Lake St. Clair. Part of the township of Moore drains directly into Lake Huron through Perch creek, while another section of the same township finds an outlet in the River St. Clair. A very peculiar feature, observable in this as well as in other countries in Western Ontario, is the fact of the banks of the large streams being in many instances higher than the lands adjoining. The fall on the surface of the land instead of being in the direction of the stream is in the contrary direction or away from it. This has the effect of forming so-called swamps where least expected, and the outlets of the swamps or lowland are to be found near the mouth of the stream, or in some other stream many miles distant. This fact makes drainage in many cases very expensive to the landowners at the head of the lowland, who have to resort to artificial drainage for the improvement of their land. There are large tracts of low, wet land in this country, notably in the townships of Brooke, Enniskillen, Moore, Sarnia, Dawn and Sombra, but strictly speaking there are no marsh lands such as are to be seen in the Countries of Kent and Essex,and no swamps as are to be found in the eastern countries of the Province. The nearest approach to marsh lands is in Bosanquet, where the Canada Company, some years ago, undertook to drain a large tract of land in that township which was nearly covered with water, by cutting a large drainage work from Port Frank, on Lake Huron, into and through Lake Burwell to the River Aux Sables. This work had the effect of partially reclaiming a great extent of land which otherwise would have remained useless for agricultural purposes. The more recent work of cutting a water-way from the River Aux Sables through the sandbar at what is known as the Grand Bend, and of the improvement of the river, is expected to have the effect of completely relieving these flooded lands, and of affording them a perfect system of drainage. It is understood that the soil is rich and fetile, and though the scheme has cost a large sum of money, the increased value given to the lands will far more than compensate the Company and others for the expenditure. Complaint is made by the council of the township of Sarnia, respecting an outlet claimed through a portion of the town of Sarnia, which was formerly a part of the township. The old drain in the township was an open drain, and when the corporation was extended to take in a part of the township that section of the drain, then within the corporation, was changed into a covered sewer. There is now an open drain in the township, and its only outlet is in the covered sewer which is to small to convey away the water; no amicable arrangement can be

reached between the council of the township and that of the town, regarding the increase of the capacity of the sewer so as to furnish a sufficient means of discharging the water from the open drain above.

Attention is called to the construction of drainage works by a municipal council out of the general funds of the township, or upon a petition, when it becomes necessary to enlarge or extend for outlet into another township; and it is suggested that power should be given to the Referee on the application of the council interested in obtaining relief, to make such an order as would furnish redress, and on such terms as to him would seem just and right. It is thought judicious where a drainage work affects more than the originating township, to give any other municipality affected the right to have an engineer of its own to look after its rights. The relative values of high and low lands before and after drainage is used as an argument in favor of assessing low lands higher than the upper lands. It is contended, that every facility should be given for draining lands and of conducting the water to an outlet where no injury to lands will ensue by reason of the work. For this purpose, it is said, no regard should be had to town or county lines, provided they exist across the natural face of the land or the course of the drain. It is also argued that the fact of a ravine intervening between the drainage work and lands above the ravine, which send by artificial means much more water through the ravine than came in a state of nature, should not exempt or relieve such upper lands from a proportionate share of the cost of the drainage work. Joint legislation by the Ontario and Dominion Governments is recommended to obtain relief against railway corporations.

It is contended that the Tile, Stone and Timber Drainage Act is the greatest boon conferred upon farmers by any Government. Wherever used it gives the utmost satisfaction and it is desired that more money be set apart for use under the Act. If double the amount could be obtained by a municipality it would be highly appreciated. One municipality has used up its full allowance, and the people are clamoring for more. No objection, it is urged, would be taken to a slight reduction of the interest now charged.

In the county of Kent sittings were held at Chatham, Ridgetown, Bothwell, Dresden and Wallaceburg. It was common knowledge that the south-western counties of the Province, Essex, Kent and Lambton, were those in which the Acts respecting drainage had received their fullest application, and, as a necessary result, constituted the principal field of litigation arising from the use and abuse of such laws. Within the county of Kent are large areas of marsh or flat lands and much of these have by drainage works been made into good farming lands. All the provisions of the drainage Acts of the Province have been brought into requisition in the construction of very large and other open drains, in the construction of covered drains and in reclaiming of low and marsh lands by embanking and discharging the enclosed waters by mechanical means, there not being sufficient fall for their discharge by gravitation where this method is employed.

Instances of this last class of work are the Pike Drainage Works in the Township of Raleigh, covering from four to five thousand acres of land, and the Skinner Drainage Works in the Gore of Chatham including about five thousand acres. Both of these works were inaugurated, carried on and completed under the supervision of Mr. W. G. McGeorge, P.L.S., one of the members of the Commission. A nother scheme of the same kind is the Forbes Drainage Works in the Townsh ip of Tilbury East by which about six thousand acres are reclaimed and brought in to cultivation. These works were constructed under the supervision of Mr. A ugustine McDonnell, P. L. S., of Chatham. Other smaller works of the same lass are in operation in the counties of Kent and Essex. There are still within