Up to the last short sentence _we_ have just quoted from the decision so familiar to us, Hughes quotes at length and without omission. Hughes is in Court for those “state legislatures” and state sovereignties, which Marshall’s decision finds to be legislatures and sovereignties wholly inferior in ability to the “conventions” of the American people, named in the Fifth and Seventh Articles by exactly the same name--“conventions.” How does the great lawyer of 1920 find, in this Marshall decision, support for the unique idea that these state, governments are omnipotent over every right of the American citizens who sit in those “conventions”? His remarkable claim is that the state governments he represents have omnipotent ability to command or interfere with anything in America, except one thing. It is his claim that these governments have omnipotent ability to interfere with the citizens of America, with the Constitution of America, with the government of America, with anything in America, _except_ that they cannot interfere with that one thing for which the Revolution was fought, the Statute of ’76 enacted and the Constitution established. In the view of Hughes, that one thing apparently is the right of every state to have the same number of Senators. Our indignation is entirely dispelled when we realize that he sincerely believes this nonsense. Our mirth is merely increased when we find him quoting, at some length, this decision of Marshall, evidently under the impression that the decision supports the nonsense. But, we wonder why, at the particular point which we have reached in the Hughes quotation from Marshall, the former puts “stars” instead of the next paragraph in the Marshall decision? Certainly, when the great lawyer of 1920 has such faith in the omnipotence of his government clients over us their “subjects,” it cannot be that there is anything in the missing Marshall paragraph to disturb that faith! Yet, as we read the missing paragraph, with which we are quite familiar, doubt assails us. _Is_ the great lawyer of 1920 sincere or does he know that the position of his clients in relation to the Eighteenth Amendment is nonsense?