questioning the rule thus laid down. Again, in 1886, in a later case (Trustees v. Schroll, 120 Ill. 509, 12 N. E. Rep. 243), the question arose as to a small lake, no larger than the one in controversy, and the same rule was applied there as in the case of Lake Michigan; and it was held that the title of the riparian owner stopped at the water line; and the case of Seaman v. Smith, supra, was cited as furnishing the authority and reasoning for the rule. Nor was this a mere casual or incidental remark in the course of an opinion. The opinion is some seven pages in length, and over four pages are devoted to a discussion and decision of this question. It was the principal and paramount question, fully reasoned out and obviously carefully considered. We quote as follows: "It is equally well settled that grants of land bounded by streams or rivers above tidewater carry the exclusive right and title of the grantee to the center of the stream, usque ad filum aquæ, subject to the easement of navigation in streams navigable in fact, unless the terms of the grant clearly depote the intention to stop at the edge or margin of the stream. 3 Kent Comm. 427; 2 Hil. Real Prop. 92; Ang. Water-Courses, § 5; Jones v. Soulard, 24 How. 41; State v. Milk, 11 Fed. Rep. 389; Canal Appraisers v. People, 17 Wend. 596; Child v. Starr, 4 Hill, 369; Seaman v. Smith, 24 Ill. 521: Rockwell v. Baldwin, 53 Ill. 19; Braxon v. Bressler, 64 Ill. 488; Ice Co. v. Shortall, 101 Ill. 46. But an entirely different rule applies when land is conveyed bounded along or upon a natural lake or pond. In such case the grant extends only to the water's edge. Angell, Water-Courses, §§ 41, 42; 3 Kent, Comm. 420, note a, citing Bradley v. Rice, 13 Me. 201, and Waterman v. Johnson, 13 Pick. 261. See also, Warren v. Chambers, 25 Ark. 120; State v. Milk, (U. S. Cir. Ct. Dist, Ind., Gresham, J.,) 11 Fed. Rep. 389; citing Wheeler v. Spinola, 54 N. Y. 377; Mansur v. Blake, 62 Me. 38; State v. Gilmanton, 9 N. H. 461; Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160; Fletcher v. Phelps, 28 Vt. 257; Austin v. Railroad Co., 45 Vt. 215; Boorman v. Sunnuchs, 42 Wis. 233; Delaplaine v. Railway Co., Id. 214; and Seaman v. Smith, 24 Ill. 521. See also Nelson v. Butterfield, 21 Me, 229; West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 7 Allen, 158; Canal Appraisers v. People, 5 Wend. 423; Jakeway v. Barrett, 38 Vt. 316; Primm v. Walker, 38 Mo. 99; Wood

v. Kelley, 30 Me. 47." And again: "Indeed, the controlling distinction between a stream and a pond or lake is that in the one case the water has a natural motion- a current-while in the other the water is, in its natural state, substantially at rest. And this is so, independent of the size of the one or the other. The flowing rivulet of but a few inches in width is a stream as certainly as the Mississippi. And when lands are granted by the proprietor of both land and stream, bounding such grant upon the stream, the grantee acquires right and title to the thread or middle of the stream. This right is grounded upon the presumption that the grantor, by making the stream the boundary, intended his grantee to take to the middle of the stream; and this presumption will prevail until a contrary intent is made to appear. Rockwell v. Baldwin, 53 Ill. 19. The right spoken of does not rest upon the principle that when a grant is bounded on a stream the bed of the stream to the thread or middle passes as incident or appurtenant to the bordering land, for the bed of the stream is land, though covered with water, and land cannot pass as appurtenant to land. As is said in Child v. Starr, 4 Hill, 369; 'A conveyance of one acre of land can never be made, by any legal construction, to carry another acre by way of incident or appurtenance to the first.' The riparian proprietor, claiming to the thread or middle of the stream, must show the bordering water to be a stream, and that his grant, in terms or legal effect, is bounded upon or along such stream-that the stream is made the boundary." These quotations show that there was no mere inadvertent or casual remark, but that it was the distinct and well considered as it was also the unanimous decision, of the highest court of the state. We do not think it sufficient to overthrow the force of this decision to say that the common law of England was different a proposition which, in passing, we may say we doubt; nor that there was another question in the case also referred to in the opinion, which fully justified the decision, and that, therefore, the discussion and decision of this question were unnecessary; for that other question was put after this in the opinion, and was evidently intentionally made subordinate to this. Believing that the law of Illinois has been determined by its supreme court, we think that determination

is conclusive on this court. As strengthening the views we have expressed, may also be noticed the opinions of the circuit and district judges in this very case, on separate trials (see 16 Fed. Rep. 823), both announced before the decision in 120 Ill. and 12 N. E. Rep., and agreeing that, under the laws of Illinois, the title of the riparian owner stopped with the water. The long judicial experience of those judges, and their familiarity with the laws of Illinois, give to these opinions great weight. We therefore dissent from the conclusions of the court.

ENGINEERING FOR CEMETERIES.

O. C. SIMONDS.

[Supt. of Graceland Cemetery, Chicago, Ill.

I was very much surprised yesterday when Mr. Skeels called upon me to say something to the engineers, and so made no special preparation, and I will talk to you in a haphazard way about engineering in cemetery matters. That is what Mr. Skeels asked me to speak of, and if I fail to touch upon any point of interest, I will be very glad if you will interrupt me with any questions.

In the first place, the land selected for cemetery purposes should, for manifest reasons, be of a porous nature, and have a good natural drainage. After the land is selected the first thing in order is to locate the drive ways. These should be located so as to make it as convenient as possible for a person to reach any given point from the entrance of the cemetery, and that would make it necessary that the drive ways, starting from the entrance, should branch out in easy curves, following the lay of the land to some extent, and dividing the whole area into sections, elliptical in shape and having the shorter axis in every 100 feet. We have been taught how to lay out curves of various kinds, circular, parabolic and other geometrical curves, but when a person comes to lay out curves in a park, he ought not to attempt to show his skill in laying out geometrical A curve laid out by the eye is always more pleasing

curves.

than one based on geometrical principles. Of course topography will influence the drive ways, so a map is necessary. The best instruments to use in obtaining such a map are the transit and stadia-the method with the stadia being more correct than where it is divided into rectangles.

After locating in a general way the drives, the method usually employed now to exactly locate the drive way, is to take a bundle of sticks, putting them about where you would like to have the drive. I usually put the sticks on one side and stand away, having a man to move the sticks until I get a drive way satisfactory to my eye. After you get one line it is a simple matter to measure across and locate the other line. The width of drives is usually from twenty to thirty feet. Twenty feet is rather narrow, because people are always attempting to turn, and that scarcely gives room to turn, without encroaching on the sides. Thirty feet I consider ample.

In regard to grades. Gilmore recommends a longitudinal grade of not less than one foot in 125, and not more than six feet in 100. If possible, get some fall or rise to a street so that the water will run lengthwise, and you will always find that you can keep your streets drier, than if you have the center line perfectly level, and it is more pleasing to the eye. Avoid all useless curves. Never put in a circle so a person feels he is going out of his way.

After the drive ways are located and the grades are established, it will be necessary to grade the land on either side no doubt. You should try to avoid grading as far as possible, because if you use the natural surface you have the natural soil, and if you disturb it you never can get quite so good soil as you have to begin with.

If

Frequently we use too much engineering in cemeteries. we look along a drive, we see something that looks like a railroad embankment. We should always try to imitate nature, and get natural curves. Mr. Strauss, the leading landscape gardener in his day, said one time that the surface of the drive should be tangent to the roadway. For instance, if the section adjoining the road is higher than the roadway, the immediate surface along the drive should be concave. Start out level and gradually rise up. If the ground is lower than the street, of

course the surface should be tangent and gradually fall. However the drives should be in the low land if possible. You always measure the height of land with the driveway as a basis. If the land is higher than the drive, "this is high, nice land," but if lower than the drive, you get a low piece of ground. This is of advantage in draining the sections also, and of course the drives will need drainage by means of sewers, and so you take care of all the water in one location.

After the drives and sections are graded, the next thing in order will be planting trees. That is not usually considered a matter of engineering, but nearly all men are called upon at some time to plant trees, and so I will just state a few points that should be taken notice of. You should always avoid planting a tree lower than it stood before being moved. It looks bad to see trees standing in holes, and not only looks bad, but is bad. It is bad in appearance, and if you cover the roots afterwards, it is almost certain to die. A tree needs air. The first thing I would say then in planting a tree, would be not to plant it too low. About Chicago it is very common to plant trees of large size. They are usually dug out with a large mass of earth attached and that is rolled onto a wagon something like a stone truck. The trunk of the tree is bent over and rests on a support by the hind axle. The danger here is that the bark will be injured where it rests on this support, and still trees are moved very successfully in that manner. We have moved some trees of quite large size, nearly three feet in diameter, in a different way.

The trees have been undermined and timbers run through underneath. Then laying timbers under these, and the whole tree has been raised up in its upright position with jack screws, just as you would raise a house, and then the tree has been moved, just as you would move a house, with capstan and chains. Some trees we moved had a spread of sixty feet, and grew with almost as much vigor as though they had not been moved. These trees I speak of now were only moved a short distance. There is danger in moving such a large tree in an upright position, that the wind may blow it over, and so in moving the last large tree I had a hole made right through the tree. Many people seem to think that because if you injure the heart of a