'the Farmer Is of More Consequence Than^he Farm, and Should Be First Improved."

We all agree with the Hibernian " that the roads were jist bad enough and can't be no wusser." But you have published already papers containing excellent advice both theoretical and practical on improving our country roads that it seems hopeless to expect to say anything new, and an attempt to rehash at this time may seem superfluous, but the tremendous importance of the matter to every one,especially to those whose homes are far from market and society, is a partial excuse for coming in and threshing the old straw over, if perchance we get an idea or attract some person's attention. We have been told the thing of first importance was good grade. Water as the worst enemy of roads must be disposed of quickly; high, narrow road beds won't do if holes are allowed to remain by the side to soak under, they soon rut and destroy the beaten track. Now about the course of the road. We all want our roads straight, if it is possible. If we can have them, even at great deal more cost, to run on section lines between farms as at present, all right, it is better for convenience of owners of fields for fencing, etc., and more than all we are accus fir so good. But don't let us go over a sharp hill"of sand or clay, and have that hill to spend our whole work on year after year world without end, and have no time to work elsewhere, and have a dangerous gully on one or both sides of the track on this precious hill. Oh how costly it is. Let us remember it is no further round an ox bow lying down than over it standing up, and lots easier traveling, and who ever saw a bad road on a side hill? Swamps are not generally as bad, they can easily be drained, if not, let us go round; but we prefer to go straight for obvious reasons if it don't cost too much, always keeping in mind that the measure of a load on a journey is the steepest hill or the worst place.