In the Pennsylvania convention, Wilson clearly expressed the knowledge which reads the new Eighteenth Amendment out of our Constitution, when he said: “In this Constitution, the _citizens_ of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion _they_ think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with.” (2 _Ell. Deb._ 437.) Can any man, even a modern “constitutional” lawyer, reconcile that knowledge with the thought that the Fifth Article is a grant of power to the state governments? Again in the same convention, he said, speaking of our Constitution: “Here, sir, the fee simple of power remains in the people _at large_ and by this Constitution _they_ do not part with it.” (2 _Ell. Deb._ 435.) In the North Carolina convention, Iredell, later on the Supreme Court Bench, said: “No man, let his ingenuity be what it will, could enumerate all the individual rights not relinquished by this Constitution.” (4 _Ell. Deb._ 149.) All these facts should be dwelt upon and emphasized in the briefs of the lawyers _against_ the new Article in which government attempts to exercise ungranted power and to grant new power to interfere with the individual freedom of the American citizen. And against all _our_ education in the “conventions,” it must be the burden of the briefs of the lawyers _for_ the new Amendment to uphold the amazing proposition that all the individual rights of the American citizens were, by the Fifth Article, made subject to a supposed omnipotence granted to the state governments, not a member of which is chosen by the citizens of America. CHAPTER XXII NO CHALLENGE TO THE TORY CONCEPT