| OCR Text |
Show I PUBLIC SERVICE OF CHARLES E, HUGHES TOLD SERIALLY I The appointment of Charles E. Hughes as a justice of the supreme court of the United States, unlike some of the appointments made during dur-ing the present administration, met with universal acclaim. His eminent fitness for the .office vas conceded by all. From the first, he made clear his belief and desire that his judicial work was to be his life work, worthy of the utmost energy and ability at his command, and in unmistable ways lie made known his desiro that friends and opponents alike should cease to think of him in any political connection. connec-tion. He wished to remain upon the supreme court; ho believed he ought to remain there; and at on time did he deviate in any degree from that wish and that belief. The result arrived at in any pan ticular case by a judge on the bench should not be looked upon by any one as a reason for giving or withholding with-holding of support for that judge when he becomes a candidate for office. of-fice. The outcome of a judicial pro-1 ceedings cannot with propreity be regarded re-garded as a reason for political reward or punishment of a judicial officer open-mindedly participating therein, In the course of duty. Yet, there are some who seek to do this as to Judge Hughes, at least, so far as one case, is concerned. And the unfairness of, the criticism in that case can be easily eas-ily demonstrated. Before Justice Hughes became a member of the supreme su-preme court, the law in the so-called Danbury Hatters case had already been determined. Justice Hughes took no part in that decision. Later, when Justico Hughes was a member of the court, the case came back for the court to determine whether or not the trial court had applied the law to the facts. There was really no doubt about that questions, and of course justice Hughes gave his assent to the decision of the unanimous court, though he did -not write the opinion. But the supreme court of the United States is unlike other courts in this, that it is concerned not only in the adjudication of the controversies between be-tween litigants, but its prime function func-tion is the interpretation and construction construc-tion of our fundamental law, the construction con-struction of the United States and, aB has been pointed out by Van Hoist, the constitution of the United States and ,as has been pointd out by Van Hoist, in his "Constitutional Law of the United States," in his determination determina-tion of constitutional questions, the judge must always keep in mind the point of view of the statesman. So, another writer has said, "Save Washington, Hamilton and Lincoln, no Americnn stands higher than (Marshall (the second chief justice of (the supreme court of the United States) as a constructive statesman In the work of the evolution of tho Union." Politics No Conclderatlon in His Court Decision. During the six epoch-making years Justice Hughes was in the supreme court, from his opinions, then, on constitutional con-stitutional questions, we may learn, and it is entirely proper to discuss, his views as to the powers and functions func-tions of the national government. And, fortunately, these views were rtot expressed to get votes, but are gleaned from tho opinions of a judge, deciding a case fairly and impartially, and arc without any ulterior purpose. pur-pose. The monumental and distinctive service rendered by Justice Hughes in the supremo court was in the so-called so-called "State Rate Cases," an cpocal series of controversies which arose, by reason of the attempt of the states to regulate transportation rates, and thus brought into the forefront again the old question of the limitations of state and national governments. It is not too much to say that these controversies subjected our dual system sys-tem of state and national sovereignty to the most severe strain and test since the civil war. . The decision of these cases involved not only the prodigious labors of the perusal of an unprecedentel quantity of printed records and exhaustive briefs, incident to the examination of the intricate questions of valuation, rates, returns, fixed charges, depreciation, depre-ciation, repairs, intangible and physical physi-cal property, franchises and the like, on which largely depended the determination deter-mination of the reasonableness or confiscatory character of hundreds of orders of state commissions affecting thousands of rates over diverse areas, but also the preparation of opinions which necessarily undertook the task of making concrete, understandable, workable and consistent, tho practical applications of the general principles of state and national authority, hitherto hith-erto stated in the most general terms In the federal constitution and expounded ex-pounded in terminology hardly less general, by Marshall and his successors succes-sors in tho constructive statesmanship statesman-ship of the supremo court of an earlier day. To what particular -member of tho court should this work be entrusted? en-trusted? Obviously to the youngest member, Charles E. Hughes, who had shown such mastery of similar problems prob-lems In his work against the gas monopoly and tho insuranco scandal. Held Power of Congress Dominant. Being entrusted with the duty of preparing the opinions in these cases, Hughes went about the task, as ho had gone about all his previous tasks. Tho problems was this: "Shall national na-tional control in a national sphere bo affirmed, clarified and made effective, or must it now break down, because of the complexity of present-day conditions? con-ditions? To solve this problem, Hughes first became acquainted with every fact in the voluminous recordB which could in any way bear upon tho solution of the problem. Then ho brought to bear upon it his judicial conception of the ability of our fundamental funda-mental law, unchanging thought It be, to meet the changing conditions in every field of activity, including railroad rail-road regulation. The result was that his opinions in these cases in clarion tones announced and applied the doctrine doc-trine that tho authority of congress over interstate commerce and interstate inter-state rates is paramount, dominant, exclusive. This dominance is held to extend to every part and phase of interstate in-terstate commerce and to every agency and instrumentality by the use of which it Is anywhere carried on. It cannot be denied, thwarted or limited lim-ited through any indirection or through tho mero complexity of the transportation business and the inevitable inevit-able commingling of intrastate with interstate operations and properties. Interstate commerce is national, and tho nation is supreme within the national na-tional ileld. I Tho task of judicial clarification and definition thus performed by I Hughes Is an undertaking In con-' istructive statesmanship second only, 'to that performed by Marshall, and his opinions In these state rate cases thus become the chart and compass of a revitalized and adequate nationalism. nation-alism. Hughes Never Sought Public Office. Charles E. Hughes never in his life sought public office or service,! and never accepted any except as he) was called to them by the people. His personal desire was to remain on the bench, but he is a firm believer be-liever In the principle that' the chief ( magistracy of the republic should neither be sought nor declined by any American citizen." Especially did Justice Hughes feel that in the present pres-ent crisis of our national affairs, when he seemed the only man who could, unite the two great political parties,! the Republican and Progressive parties, par-ties, did his fellow citizens have a right to summon him to the presidency. presi-dency. However much these two parties differ as to details, they both stand for the same principles of government. gov-ernment. Their division four years ago allowed the Democratic party to gain control of the government, Their division four years ago allowed the Democratic parly to gain control of J tho government, though it then and now only represents a minority of tho people. To unite them and thus again restore the leadership of this nation to a majority of its people, Hughes was firmly convinced that he had no right to place his own present preference prefer-ence for a prosent post of service above the right of the people -to draft him for the presidency at this critical time. So he freely gave up his life position, the highest to which a man limits, can attain, and became the leader of the reunited Republican parly. Ho stands as the candidate of that party wholly and solely for a vitalized vital-ized and adequate nationalism. What that means, in rotation to our fundamental funda-mental law, we have already learned. What it means, as applied to tho great politcal issues now beforo the people, shall be the concluding chapter In this series. As a Justice of the Supreme Court, in administering his functions aa such, in construing and interpreting our fundamental law, Justice Hughe.1 always stood for a vitalized Nationalism National-ism which consisted in tho establishing establish-ing of the paramountcy of national to stale railroad regulation and extending extend-ing the application of the commerce clause of the constitution to achieve reforms of evils flourishing in tho twilight zone between th nuthority of slate and nation. Mr. Wilson stands for the doctrine of stales rights as Interpreted by a southern Democracy, which is antagonistic antag-onistic to nationalism. He denounced, several years ago, tho invocation of the commerce clause to permit per-mit Federal regulation of child labor, and only last July, in deference to political exigency, reversed his position posi-tion and assented to the passage of the child labor law under tho commerce com-merce clause as originally proposed by the Republicans. Nationalism Broad as the Constitution It is but natural that as candidate for the presidency, Mr. Hughes should stand for tho same sort of nationalism national-ism as applied to tho issues in this campaign which he stood in the Interpretation Inter-pretation of the Constitution. Ho stands for a nationalism that involves the making of the United States im-prognablo im-prognablo to attack by a foreign foe. On this question he stands where he has always stood as shown by a comparison com-parison with his utterances now and in 190S. In this he Is in accord with his party, which placed and maintained main-tained the navy in second world rank until Democratic ascendency allowed tho sea force to fall Into fourth if not fifth place. Mr. Wilson steadfastly opposed adequate ade-quate national defense until last July when ho became an apparent eleventh-hour convert to preparedness, i ' i ii i -n-rar-i-i -n yielding to an overwhelming public sentiment. His chango of heart camo in -time to save tho Navy Bill from . Democratic slaughter, but was too late to prevent the passage of a fotally Inadequate Army bill, which already is pronounced a failure. Mr. Wilson proposes pro-poses to keep Daniels, the pacificist, at the head of tho navy, and Baker, the pacificist, at the hoad of the army, and promises the pacifists that it is entirely posslblo that much of tho money authorized navy construction may never be spent at all. Mr. Hughes stands for a nationalism that means the protection of Americans Ameri-cans and American rights and business busi-ness interests abroad. This stand is that of tho Republican party In promise prom-ise and performance. Mr. Wilson has not protected American Ameri-can life and proporty abroad and does not promise to do so if re-elected. Ho caused the Democratic party to amend its present platform so as to exempt Mexico from any promise to protect Americans abroad. Mr. Hughes stands for a nationalism that will keep us neutral toward European Euro-pean belligerents. Earnest belief of the fulfillment of this promise Is afforded by his attitude as Investigator, governor gover-nor and judge, which became nota'blo as the embodiment of stern Impor-tiality. Impor-tiality. Mr. Wilson also promises neutrality. The value of his promise may bo measured with all fairness by his action ac-tion in the past, having talked neutrality neu-trality but alternately lent support to one or the other of the contending nations. Mr. Hughes stands for a natiqnalism that will benefit the entire country by a nonseclional protective tariff, guaranteeing continuous employment to all American workmen, fostering of American industries and safeguarding safeguard-ing the markets of all American farmers. Began His Career by Destroying Protective Tariff. Mr. Wilson commenced his career as president by destroying tthc protective protec-tive tariff, but later restored protection protec-tion to certain articles, i to the benefit of certain sections of the country and consequent discrimination - against other sections of the country and particularly par-ticularly of the west.- He makes no promise to establish a protectivo tariff, and while he is now an eleventh-hour convert to tho idea of a tariff commission, that is only a temporary tem-porary body which may be abolished after election as he had congress abolish abol-ish the Taft non-partisan tariff commission. com-mission. Mr. Hughes stands for nationism in the administration of the nation's business. busi-ness. He promises to abolish the "pork barrel" and establish a budget system of estimale and expenditure, making for economy in government. His record.shows that he made jood l a similar promise as govornor of New Y5r Wilson promises no reform in southern spoilsmen and failed to establish a budget system. . Mr. Hughes stands for of "atInal that means the oxtonsio c th merit rule in public se rvico and lobar lo-bar political spoilsmen from nee. He made good a similar promise as goei-nor goei-nor thus incurring tho enmity of ma-chine ma-chine party men. ,.. Wilson Promises No. Change in Policy. Mr. Wilson promiso no change In his policy, which has permitted the south-ern south-ern spoilsmen to run riot In the public pub-lic service, but he has brought down upon his administration the censure of the National Civil Service Reform League, of which ho was a vice-presi-deth until 1913. If you are In favor of nationalism as opposed to sectionalism in the domestic do-mestic policy of our government, it you are in favor o-Qonsistent nationalism nation-alism as opposed to weak vacillation in our foreign policy, vote for Charles E. Hughes for president of the United States tomorrow. |
