What is the missing Marshall paragraph with which we are so familiar? Lo and behold! it is our constant companion throughout our education in the days of the early Americans. It is the paragraph in which the Supreme Court, by Marshall, points out why the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 found themselves compelled to send their First Article, with its grant of _national_ power like the grant in the Eighteenth Amendment, to the “conventions,” named in the Seventh and the Fifth Articles, _because_ the state governments, the clients of Hughes, were known and recognized by everybody to be without ability to make _national_ Articles. In other words, it is the paragraph in which Marshall announces what we have learned so clearly ourselves, that “to the formation of a league, such as was the Confederation [to the making of _federal_ Articles] the state sovereignties were certainly competent. But when ‘in order to form a more perfect Union,’ it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people [the conventions of the Fifth and the Seventh Articles] and of deriving its powers directly from them was felt and acknowledged by all.” We know this paragraph of Marshall’s, omitted from the Hughes brief, to be the epitome of everything that we have heard in the “conventions” which made the Fifth Article. We remember that even Henry, from the very fact that the “conventions” of the American citizens _were_ assembled, knew that the _then_ proposed Articles did grant power to interfere with human freedom. And we remember (because he knew the inability of state governments ever to make such grants) that, on the fact that “conventions” _were_ assembled, he based his charge that the proposed Articles _were_ NATIONAL and not _federal_. We remember that the Tenth Amendment declares that the entire Constitution, including the Fifth Article, gave no power of any kind to those state governments. And so we know, what Henry knew, that the state governments did not _have_, and that _the Fifth Article did not give them_, any ability to make NATIONAL Articles, like the First Article and the Eighteenth Amendment. For which reason, we cannot (looking at the matter purely from the standpoint of lawyer’s attitude to his government clients) blame Hughes for putting the stars in his quotation from Marshall. Eager to remain free citizens, eager to have all governments recognize that we are not “subjects,” we ourselves commend, to the writer of that brief and to all who uphold the Eighteenth Amendment, the entire decision of Marshall in M’Culloch v. Maryland. For instance, we commend this clear statement of basic American law: