Rufus W. Gris-wold, M. D., of Rocky Hill, Conn., has some remarks on the destruction of shade trees as a sanitary measure, in a popular medical magazine from which we take the following: "A very intelligent physician, driving up to my door once on a time, said: 'You have got too many shade trees; I don't like them; they are unhealthy; don't you have ague?' 'Yes, badly.' 'I should expect it; you ought to have these trees cut down.' 'Ah! do you see that house yonder, completely shut in by trees?' 'Yes.' 'They don't have ague there at all! do you see that house on the corner? And the one over there? And the one next? And the two still further below?' 'Yes.' 'You see there is not a tree near one of those dwellings; into them all the sun pours and bores all day; there is not the least interruption to it.' ' Yes, I see that.' ' Well, in every one of those houses they have ague and fever worse than I do in mine.' 'I should not have thought it.' 'Not on your theory. But your theory isn't good for anything ; it doesn't hold ; you may sometimes think it proven; but if you will go to the bottom of it you will discover that it isn't worth a rush.

Given facts upon which you build up your deductions to-day, are contradicted by another equally good set of facts that present themselves to-morrow; and your conclusion as to the causes of ague vanish. It is just as reasonable to say that my neighbor has intermittent in his family because he has n't any shade, as to say that I have it in mine because of the shade. As the actual fact, neither the trees nor the lack of them has the least connection with the disease in a single house in the town.'"