find an announceinent that on Monday at Washington, the United States Supreme Court reudered a decisión in effeci reversing the decisión of the Suprerae Court of this State in tho Salem railroad aid bond suit. The decisión made was in the suit of EdwABD B. TALCOTT (defendant in error) vs. The Township of Pine Grove, and the Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District o: Michigan, which was in favor of the bondholder and against the town. The Detroit Tribune, from which we quote, says : " The grounds on which tho decisión is based are that the Unitec States Suprome Court is bound by the decisión of State courts only on loca questions peculiar to themsolves, or on questions respecting the constrution o their own constitutions or laws." Anc this in face of the fact that the Supreme Court of this State did decide the act as in violation of the State Constitution. - Tho other paragraphs or grounds of decisión are just about as clear. It is scarcely worth while to criticise the result so long expected. We aro nol a court of review, neither can we pack the court so as to procure a reversal of the decisión ; but it is not too much to aay that it drives another nail in the coffin o Stato rights, and that with a few more such, State courts will be of little use. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court of tho State will sit quietly by and see supervisors and collectors levy and collect taxes to pay bonds ithas hele issued under a void law, and therefore void and valuoless from the beginning or whether the United States Marsha will be sent out to levy and collect taxes under a writ from a United States Court In the Supreme Court last week, Judge Campbell announced the decisión in a case appealed from Manistee County Home Insurance Comvany, plaintiff in error, vs. Davis & Stronaclc. The court below refused to allow the cause to be transferred from the Manistee Circuit Court to the Circuit of the United States for the Western District of Michigan, and the Supreme Court aflirmed tho decisión with costs. The cpurt holds that foreign corporations - meaning of course corporations chartered under or by the laws ol other States as weil as foreign countries - can only do business inthls State on the terms and conditions prescribed by the Cl í. _ Í. _ 1 mi . btate laws. The State may prescribe its own own conditions or exclude thein entirely - a Corporation not being a " citizen " in tñe sense that will give it any privileges or rights not defined by the laws. Assuming to do business in this State it accepts the conditions imposed and must abide the consequences. Right. If Ihe courts of other States will stand as firm for State rights as the Michigan Supreme Court, both Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States will have to cali a halt in their strides toward centralization. M. H. Clark, publisher of the Grand Eapids Democrat, has issued a card announcing to the public, or rather " to the electors of the Pifth Congressional district " that he, like Barkis, " is willin," that is, willing to accept a nomination for Congress. We have not seen his " card," but his " platform " is condensed by an itemizer for a dailv exchange, as follows : " protection of the laboring classes, repudiation of monopolies, economy in public afïairs, a legal tender currencv." It is not .too much to say that this creed smacks just a little of the deiaagogue, and not a little of a lack jf appreciation of true and safe financial principies. For a man expecting a Democratie nomination for Congress to prate about making anvthing but gold and silver a permanent ' legal tender " is a burlesque of Democracy. Clark is a clever fellow and an enterprising newspaper mau, but with such a platform of bis own making there ought not to be another Demoorat in the Fifth Congressional district who will consider him a fit man to send to Congress. How Claek can " protect the laboring classes " with an inimitable and depreciated " legal tender currency " - miscalled money - is beyond our comprehension.