The Supreme Court "done For."

Pittsmeld, January í, mío. AIk Pond:- I am much obliged to you for giving tlie decisión of the Supreme Court in the case of Kitson vs. the Mayor of Anu Arbor. The first ground tukcu was good. Had Kitson called upon the Mayor for a licor.se to sell intoxica tin liquors he must have boen refused, because there was a positive interdict in the constitutiuii against ueh Hcenses; Kitson doing no other business was a full defense against such au action. The courts' idea that, " The legislation of the State raust be construed togother," amouuts to saying that the constituticm taken as a whole don't contain a positive interdict against legislation on such liceuses. The fundamental principio of our government is inan's right and abihty to govern hiinse.lf ; consequently his right to eat and drink, buy and sell cannot be interfered Trith, whcre both parties in any matter are areed, or in other words consent of parties sets aTide all human legislation. God has positavely said that man shall rule tho woman, but this law is set aside and the woman rules her husband, and hos people punisheJ who deals with hun. Tho courts would do weU to conform to a positive rulo of law that statutes admit of no construction, any thing in derogation of tho natural ri. of man must be followed to the letter. Yours, etc.,