And is there not abundant evidence that the whole of this Maryland story is typical of what has been going on throughout the country?  Charges are made that the Anti-Saloon League has expended vast sums of money in its campaigns; money largely supplied, it is often alleged, by one of the world’s richest men, running into the tens of millions or higher. r do not believe that these charges are true.  More weight is to be attached to another factor in the case—­the adoption of the Amendment by Congress while we were in the midst of the excitement and exaltation of the war, and two million of our young men were overseas.  Unquestionably, advantage was taken of this situation, there can be little doubt that the Eighteenth Amendment would have had much harder sledding at a normal time.  And it is right, accordingly, to insist that the Amendment was not subjected to the kind of discussion, nor put through the kind of test of national approval, which ought to precede any such permanent and radical change in our Constitutional organization.  This is especially true because National Prohibition was not even remotely an issue in the preceding election, nor in any earlier one.  All these things must weigh in our judgment of the moral weight to be attached to the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment; but there is another aspect of that adoption which is more important.  The gravest reproach which attaches to that unfortunate act, the one which causes deepest concern among thinking citizens, does not relate to any incidental feature of the Prohibition manoevres.  The fundamental trouble lay in a deplorable absence of any general understanding of the seriousness of making a vital change in the Constitution—­incomparably the most vital to which it has ever been subjected—­and of the solemn responsibility of those upon whom rested the decision to make or not to make that change.  Even in newspapers in which one would expect, as a matter of course, that this aspect of the question would be earnestly impressed upon their readers, it was, as a rule, passed over without so much as a mention.  And this is not all.  One of the shrewdest and most successful of the devices which the League and its supporters constantly made use of was to represent the function of Congress as being merely that of submitting the question to the State Legislatures; as though the passage of the Amendment by a two-thirds vote of Congress did not necessarily imply approval, but only a willingness to let the sentiment of the several States decide.  Of course, such a view is preposterous; of course, if such were the purpose of the Constitutional procedure there would be no requirement of a two-thirds vote.* But many members of Congress were glad enough to take refuge behind this view of their duty, absurd though it was; and no one can say how large a part it played in securing the requisite two-thirds of House and Senate.  Yet from the moment the Amendment was thus adopted by Congress, nothing more was heard