Supreme Court wisely writes no opinion in “National Prohibition Cases”--In each of four numbered paragraphs, Court states its own negation of one challenge made to new Amendment--All four challenges are negatived in seventeen lines of statement--First two challenges trifling and purely technical--Third challenge based on rights of the citizens of some particular state--Fourth challenge to “extent” of Fifth Article “grant” of power by “conventions” to “conventions” and “legislatures”--This challenge asserts “grant” which advocates of Eighteenth Amendment must and cannot prove--Court negative amazingly accurate--All counsel have argued incessantly about “extent” of power “granted” by Fifth Article--Court negatives in statement which speaks of power “reserved” in Fifth Article--Concept of “grant” disappears--Court knows what “conventions” knew, when they made Fifth Article, when they insisted on Tenth Amendment Declaration expressly stating the distinct reservees of the two existing powers “reserved” in Fifth Article--Supreme Court of Marshall’s day knows it and Supreme Court of 1907 knows it--“Citizen or Subject?”--Eighteenth Amendment answers “Subject”--Real Constitution answers “Citizen”--“Conventions” insisted on plain statement of correct answer--Counsel of 1920 do not know it--Their four challenges make plain that fact--All challenges based on error that governments of state citizens are attorneys-in-fact for citizens of America--In Virginia Convention and in Supreme Court, Marshall explains that powers of state governments “proceed not from the people of America” but from the citizens of each respective state--No counsel of 1920 knows this important fact. XXIV. GOVERNMENTS CLAIM AMERICANS AS SUBJECTS _Page 371_