The more we average Americans consider, however, the Congressional record of 1917 and the story of the subsequent five years, the more do we understand the curious mental attitude which has led Webb and those of his Tory faith, who believe that the new Amendment is in the Constitution, to think that governments could make that command to and that grant of power over the citizens of America. Our consideration leads us to think that none of these men have ever read or grasped the meaning of the words expressing a knowledge so often shown by our Supreme Court: The people who adopted the Constitution knew that in the nature of things they could not foresee all the questions which might arise in the future, all the circumstances which might call for the exercise of further _national_ powers than those granted to the United States, and after making provision for an Amendment to the Constitution by which any needed additional powers would be granted, they reserved to _themselves_ all powers not so delegated. (Justice Brewer, Kansas v. Colorado, 206, _U. S._ 46 at p. 90.) We are sorely afraid that Webb and the Congress of 1917 and all upholders of the new Amendment have made exactly the same vital mistake which had been made, in that reported case, by the counsel who there represented the very same government which repeated the mistake in 1917. That counsel had contended for the proposition that there are “legislative powers affecting the nation as a whole [the citizens of America] which belong to, although not expressed in the grant of powers” in the First Article. The answer of the Supreme Court was decisive on the mistake of that counsel and the mistake of the 1917 request from Congress to the state governments. The answer was that the proposition