diseases an important step toward the eradication of a prolific source Contagious of such diseases. A penalty of not less than $25 or more than of animals $100 is inflicted if such animals are not cremated or buried within 12 hours after death. Each period of 12 hours after the first 12 constitutes a separate offense with like penalty. Road supervisors look after the public highways with reference to the requirements of this law. A law in Nebraska ['01 ch.5] provides that the owner of swine which die of disease shall have the carcasses buried within 24 hours after death at least 18 inches deep, or have them burned on the premises where the animals died under penalty of $10. Pennsylvania ['01 ch.88] requires that the owners shall dispose of the carcasses by any one of the following methods: complete cremation; boiling in water, or heating with steam at the temperature of boiling water, for at least two hours; burying so as to be completely covered, the carcass first to be covered with three inches of lime. Carcasses of such animals must be disposed of within 24 hours under penalty of not less than $10 or more than $100. Indemnity. Massachusetts formerly provided for an indemnity of $40 for animals killed if they were owned in the state for the preceding six months. A new section to this act ['01 ch.252] adds: “. or if such animal has been inspected and proof satisfactory to said board has been furnished to it, by certificate or otherwise, of the freedom of such animal from disease." In Minnesota ['01 ch.322] when an animal is adjudged to be diseased and is killed, the value of the animal, less the value of the carcass, is determined and is paid for as follows: one third by the state, one third by the town, village or city where the animal was kept, and one third by the owner. The maximum indemnity is $40. Formerly one fifth was paid by the town, village or city where the animal was kept, and four fifths by the state. The New York law ['01 ch.321] also provides appraisement and indemnity for owners of slaughtered animals. The law of South Carolina ['01 ch.425] expressly states that no compensation shall be paid to owners of animals destroyed. The state live stock inspector of Tennessee ['01 ch.132] is authorized to order the killing of animals whenever he may deem it necessary for the public safety, but before doing so he must appoint appraisers to pass upon the value of the animals and fix the amount of indemnity. In Ver Irrigation mont ['01 ch.96] indemnity may be claimed for such animals as may at the time of importation have been examined under the regulations of the Board of Agriculture and pronounced free from disease. The veterinarian of West Virginia ['01 ch.21] may authorize destruction after appraisement is made and forwarded to the secretary of the State Board of Agriculture. $5000 is appropriated for payment of the appraised value of animals killed. When the appraised value of animals so destroyed exceeds the sum of $5000, the amount is paid pro rata. The Wisconsin law ['01 ch.440] provides for the killing and appraisement of animals, but no payment as indemnity shall exceed $50; and the owners of such slaughtered animals receive no compensation until the Live Stock Sanitary Board has satisfied itself that the infected premises have been disinfected in such manner as to prevent the spread of the disease. In the matter of the payment of claims, the following are excluded: animals owned by the United States and the state of Wisconsin, or any county, city, town or village; animals brought into the state in violation of this law; animals known to be afflicted with a contagious or infectious disease when coming into the possession of present owners; cases where the owner has been guilty of negligence and has wilfully exposed animals to disease. IRRIGATION1 ELWOOD MEAD M.S. C.E. EXPERT IN CHARGE OF IRRIGATION INVESTI- The more important legislation during 1901 covering irrigation and water rights dealt with the organization of irrigation districts and the creation and improvement of state systems of administering water resources. Irrigation districts. Colorado enacted a law ['01 ch.87] for the organization and operation of irrigation districts based on the district irrigation law of California as amended and reenacted in 1897 [Cal. '97 ch.189]. Under the law, lands susceptible of irrigation from the same source of water supply or the same irrigation works may be united into an irrigation district having power to acquire or construct See also Comparative Summary and Index, 1901, no. 5199-243. irrigation works and to own water rights, the money for Irrigation which is to be raised either by direct assessment of the real property within the district or by the issuance of district bonds. Although shorter, the Colorado law is similar to that of California, yet there are several differences, of which the more significant are as follows: in California those voting on the organization of a district are only required to be qualified electors of the county in which it is proposed to organize the district [Cal. '97 ch.189 §8], while under the Colorado law they must, in addition, be owners of real estate within the proposed district [Col. '01 ch.87 §2]. By a law passed in Idaho ['01 p.191] in addition to being an elector in accordance with the general election laws of the state, as in California, and a landowner within the proposed district, as in Colorado, a legal voter of the district must be a resident in it. These provisions clearly do much to eliminate the opportunity existing under the California act for imposing burdens on taxpayers. which a majority of them do not sanction. In California the water rights apportioned by the district to the landowners within the district can be assigned either in whole or in part [Cal. '97 ch.189 §18], while the Colorado law provides that water rights attach to and follow the land to which they are apportioned [Col. '01 ch.87 §9], a provision in line with the doctrine of water ownership now accepted by those best informed in this and foreign irrigated countries by which the right to water for irrigation is inseparably attached to the land to be irrigated. The Colorado law would have been better had it provided for subjecting the organization of districts to the scrutiny and approval of some competent state official, thus avoiding the organization of districts which are both legally and financially unsound, as well as not feasible from an engineering standpoint. The workings of the California law have shown such a safeguard to be necessary and it has been provided by a law passed in Idaho ['01 p.191 §2] requiring the approval of the state engineer before a district can be organized. The Colorado law lessens opportunity for fraud and unbusinesslike procedure by placing the assessment and collection of the district funds in the hands of the regular county officials [Col. '01 ch.87 §17-20] instead of leaving it to the district officials as in California [Cal. '97 ch.189 §34-39]. Irrigation State administration. The same act that placed the organization of irrigation districts in Idaho under the state engineer also contains provisions intended to improve water administration in that state. The most important clause of this legislation is that declaring all the waters of the state to be the property of the state [Id. '01 p.191 § 9b] as is provided for Wyoming in its constitution [art. 8 § 1], by which the right of use only, with that right attached to a particular tract of land, can be acquired. Such a declaration was the first step in the organization of an administrative system in Wyoming, but it is not the whole of any administrative system. Under the Idaho statute it is the duty of the state to supervise the appropriation of water and its allotment to those diverting it for beneficial purposes, but no administrative machinery is provided for this supervision. On the contrary the law leaves it to the courts as before the statute was passed. An attempt was made in Nevada to organize an administrative system but without success. The state did, however, appropriate money for further investigation of its water resources [Nev. '01 ch.59] with a view to gathering information that will be a basis for the organization of such a system at some future date. The principal legislation in Utah was also directed toward forming a system of administering the water resources of the state [U. '01 ch.125]. It provides for one or more administrative districts in each county of the state, each to be presided over by a water commissioner whose duty it is, under the general supervision of the state engineer, to divide the water of streams and reservoirs among those entitled to its use in accordance with the priorities of their rights, but provides no means of determining those priorities. Aside from what it lacks in providing an administrative body for the determination of rights, as has been done in Wyoming and Nebraska, a shortcoming of the Utah law is in making administrative divisions conform to county lines and not to natural drainage lines, thus delegating to a number of dif ferent officials the administration of streams flowing in or through more than one county. If these divisions conformed to natural drainage lines, as in Colorado, Nebraska and Wyom ing, the administration of each stream would be under a single officer. A law was enacted in Wyoming which is significant as show. Irrigation ing the soundness of that state's system of water administration. The original Wyoming law ['90 ch.8] made the acquirement of rights to use water an administrative process and placed it in the hands of a State Board of Control presided over by the state engineer. A person desiring to acquire a right made application and proof before this board and the board issued him a permit to use the water, with due regard to the restrictions as to amount imposed by law, and to the respective rights of those who had previously been given permits. In 1900, after the law had been operating for 10 years with practically no litigation, the Supreme Court of the state decided [Farm Investment Co. v. Carpenter, 61 P. 258] that a person who had used water before the passage of the law had the option of originally appearing before either the Board of Control or the courts to have his rights determined. The defect has been remedied by the recent law [Wy. '01 ch.67], which requires original proceedings to be before the Board of Control, with appeal, as before, to the courts. Water storage commissions. A law was passed in Arizona which is an innovation in irrigation legislation [Ari. R. S.'01 p.1474]. By this law, on petition of 50 electors and freeholders, the boards of supervisors in counties having assessed valuation of $8,000,000 or over shall request the judge of the court in the district in which the county is situated to appoint five water commissioners who shall have full power to investigate by survey or otherwise, reservoir sites; to acquire sites, rights of way, etc.; to negotiate with and obtain from canal companies agreements in relation to the distribution of water; to cooperate with the national government in investigations; and to transfer to the national government any reservoir site or rights in the event that it shall undertake the construction of the reservoir. This law is an important step precedent to aid for irrigation by state or national appropriations or to the construction of irrigation works by communities or individuals. Public aid to irrigation. In 1898 Congress granted to New Mexico 500,000 acres of land for the permanent establishment of irrigation reservoirs. The Territorial Assembly in 1901 passed an act providing for the utilization of this grant ['01, |