They are the basis of the Root briefs and the other briefs _against_, as they are the basis of the Hughes briefs and the other briefs _for_, the validity of the supposed new Amendment. Not a single one of the briefs fails to _assume_, without the slightest foundation, that the state governments, not a member of which is elected by the citizens of America, _are_ attorneys in fact for the citizens of America. Wherever one brief differs from another in this respect, it is only in urging some difference in the extent of the power of attorney made to those governments by the citizens of America in the Fifth Article. For which reason, we, who have come from the days of those early Americans, strong in the knowledge that we are citizens and not “subjects,” are now satisfied that none of these modern “constitutional thinkers” can disturb our certain knowledge. It is a matter of no concern to us that some of them, because they did not have our knowledge, failed to win their litigations for their clients. It is, however, a matter of great concern to us that supporters of the Eighteenth Amendment should be found maintaining, as if it was an axiom needing no proof, that we are “subjects” of the governments they represented. We need spend very little further time in the briefs of those who so maintain. We have no patience with their Tory concept of the relation of men to governments. We KNOW that Tory concept never has been American law since the Statute of ’76. But it would not be proper to leave their briefs without one glance at some of their heresies, which are flatly contradicted by everything we have learned in our education. As a matter of fact, not one of these heresies can stand accurate and simple statement without exposing its own absurdity. Some of us are familiar with the book known as “The Comic Blackstone.” We have thought of it often as we read the briefs of those _for_ validity of the new Amendment--the government constitution of government power to interfere with the individual freedom of American citizens. There is, however, a vital difference between the book and those briefs. The book was a conscious effort to be humorous. Unconscious humor has never failed to surpass conscious and intended humor.