Transcripts For CSPAN The Contenders Charles Hughes 20240712

Tweets. A. M. Easternt 8 00 on washington journal and American History tv on cspan3. Hughes is what we claim we want in a president ial candidate and president. The man who did get it a man , named Charles Evans hughes. He had been governor of new york and a Supreme Court justice. He had all but won the election. When Woodrow Wilson went to bed that Election Night, he thought he was beaten. If he had been elected, how American History goes on in several Different Directions on suffrage for women, civil rights, what you do in Foreign Policy. He is the one you could write novels about. You had Charles Evans hughes, who was on the Supreme Court. He left the Supreme Court. He ran for president. Then he went back to the Supreme Court. One of the finest minds on the court. A fellow justice called hughes the greatest in a great line of Supreme Court justices. Why hughes . Jackson said that hughes looks like god and talks like god. [laughter] Charles Evans hughes the republican president ial nominee soon after the national convention. Tonight, the contenders look at the life and legacy of Charles Evans hughes who was a twoterm governor, secretary of state, and twice a Supreme Court justice. Of all of this he was perhaps , best known as the chief justice during the new deal. The contenders is live this evening just across from the capitol. He inaugurated this building when it first opened in 1935. Let me introduce you to our two guests this evening who are joining us to talk about the life and legacy of Charles Evans hughes. My first guest is an historian, david pietrusza, and Bernadette Meyler is a professor at Cornell Law School. That is his alma mater. Lets just jump into the election. I want you to set the stage for us. 1916, Woodrow Wilson wants to be reelected. Europe is at war. Frame what was going on in the country and the president ial campaign. President wilson said it would be a tragedy if his administration was framed by poor by Foreign Policy or was defined by foriegn policy. It turned out to be just that. America starts his term focusing on the progressive era, the income tax, lowering the tariffs, the Federal Reserve system. Changes after 1914. We have the war in europe. America is fighting to stay out. But there is a question of preparedness for the war. Are we prepared if anything happens . Are we being tough . Are we weak . The secretary of state resigns from wilsons cabinet because he thinks were being too tough. It is really a question of war and peace in europe, war and peace in mexico. Aside from all the domestic issues. War overshadows everything. Charles evans hughes was on the Supreme Court. How does he get from the Supreme Court to the nominating process . He gets there somewhat reluctantly because he enjoyed his position as associate justice on the court, and he was quite satisfied with his role there. But then he felt called by duty after several candidates did not pan out for the republicans. He felt called to accept the nomination for president. In a sense, he was not a particularly gungho candidate. What was the Republican Party like . It fractured in 1912. There was the great Teddy Roosevelt William Howard taft split. Teddy ran as the Bull Moose Party candidate. There is a real question. Are they going to be able to put the Republican Party back together again . Do you take roosevelt . Roosevelt is still radioactive with the old guard. If you take someone too conservative, then the progressives will not come back. Even though there party has been dying on the vine. You have got to pick someone who is respected by both sides. Someone who is not some wild man from the prairies or from the west like johnson, someone who was not a conservative like root, and the man to do it, also the man who has been out of politics since 1910, he was on the Supreme Court. He was not part of the 1912 battle. That is mr. Hughes. And he is respected by just about everyone in the party. What were his politics at the time . His politics were mildly progressive. He is not a wild man from the west like norris. But what he is, he had moved from the practice of law. He was never interested really in being part of politics. When he first comes to new york and establishes his law practice, they ask, would you like to run for judge . No. Would you like a judicial appointment . No. But he is asked to investigate the gas monopoly in new york city. It is really gouging the customers. It is six companies. It has been going on since 1880. They come to him and they say, do you want to take over this investigation . No, i really do not. But he does. He asks how much time he has to prepare testimony for the hearings. They say a week. And with the great brilliance this man had, he was able to pull it all together, not do it in a bombastic way go through , all the papers, grill the executives on the stand, bring the whole thing down. Ultimately what this leads to is a Public Service commission in new york state, and to have the gas rates and electricity rates cut by a third, and then he moves on to fixing the insurance agencies in new york state and he really becomes a national figure. This is 1906 until just before 1906. He is a progressivetype candidate who is opposed to the machine of the democrats in tammany, because they are protecting these monopolies, but also the massive new york state political machine. Boss plat, and and Teddy Roosevelt would defer to the bosses to some extent. Hughes wins the governorship and puts forward a whole bunch of reforms. Then he moves on to the court for the first time. Today it would be unimaginable for someone to resign from this position and run for a National Elected office. What was the reaction of the time . Was it a surprise . How was it viewed . I think some were surprised, but i think the office of the Supreme Court justice was not quite what it has become now. I think part of the reason people would be shocked if a justice resigned today is that the appointment process is so much more difficult to get through and so much more difficult to confirm any justice. Justices are appointed young and expected to stay for the rest of their working career. His first appointment as justice was actually quite uncontentious. His second one was almost the beginning of the contentiousness within the appointment process. It occurred fairly soon after there were new rules on the Senate Debate for nominees and garnered a lot of criticism from progressives, actually. We are on the plaza of the Supreme Court. Beautiful early october night here. We will be here for two hours tonight for our series, the contenders, 14 men who ran for the presidency and lost but changed political history. Charles evans hughes made his mark through many positions, but particularly in his role as chief justice. In the second half of our program, we will focus on that whole contentious era with the Court Packing and the new deal. He was at the helm during that. Lots of interesting things to talk about. We will open up our phone lines for each of these programs and allow you to offer your questions and observations as part of our discussion. Where was the Republican Convention that year . I think it was in chicago, maybe philadelphia, i am not sure there were two conventions. There were two conventions going on within a block of each other. That is the real interest in geography that year. The republicans are through a series of ballots. I think hughess third on the first ballot. He moved up until he is nominated on the third ballot. Meanwhile, the progressives are meeting just a short ways away, and what they are doing is debating who they can accept. T. R. Is basically saying i am not going to do it. He throws out a couple of names. Leonard wood, a big army general, an advocate of preparedness. He has gotten in trouble with the Wilson Administration. Or henry cabot lodge. Neither one is acceptable to the progressives. He is throwing out that poison pill. At the end, the only one they can agree on, a progressive, to any extent, is hughes. But they still are in a great tiff, and they kind of dissolve the party. The party just evaporates. They go away. They do not run a third party. This is one of the great things of the legacy of hughes race. We take the Republican Party for granted as a continuing thing since 1916, since lincoln. It did not have to be in 1916. If he is not a guy willing to put it back together, maybe the progressives go back in again and we do not know what happened. Maybe the republicans go the way of the whigs. Maybe the progressives replace it. Who can say . The thing is, hughes takes the position. He did not want to do it. He is uncertain what to do. He walks away from the Supreme Court judge ship. What he had said when he had taken it and they were talking in 1912, he would be the compromise candidate to avoid the Taft Roosevelt split. He said no, no, no, i will not do it. The democrats cannot fully criticize nominating a judge for the presidency. And there is a reason for that. In 1904, they take alton b. Parker off the Supreme Court of the state of new york and run him for the presidency. Does he get the nomination on the first ballot . Parker . No, hughes. No, he gets it on the third ballot. How difficult was it . Do they come to the court and sit down with him and say here is our offer . Even not reluctant candidates would not go to the convention. There was a nominating process. A week later, they have a speech and, surprise, you are our nominee. The fellow doing it that year was warren harding. The chair of the convention. He was really undecided. His family members, his closest associates are not sure what he is going to do. There had been people in the early days of the republic who resigned from the court to take a position. There was a david davis bid to a judicial Senate Nomination back in illinois. But not since then, and not since hughes. Can you tell us how was he as a National Campaigner . That campaign is probably the worst thing he ever does. In his life really. Not just his public career. He excels at everything. That campaign, he is getting off the mark slowly. He is doing a dance. It is the dance that jack kennedy and Richard Nixon do in 1960. We have the black vote in the north, the southern white vote. What do we do . Kennedy carries both. The same thing occurs with the peace votes and the prowar people in 1916. Wilson runs a campaign he kept us out of war. And its hughes doing this dance. And he ends up losing both sides really. He ends up losing the prowar people and the people who want to stay neutral. He is branded as being progerman. You see these editorial cartoons from William Randolph hearst, with the irish nationalists and all of this. And at the end of the day, the germanamericans vote goes to wilson. He does not elucidate the Campaign Themes well. She is fighting things like the tariff he is fighting things like the tariff. It is not a popular position for the republicans that year. There are labor issues. There are labor issues that are very important. There are two things that cross him up. Even though as governor of new york, he has an admirable record. He establishes cases, that entire system, the first in the country. Theres also labor regulations put in place for the first time. He is really a champion of labor. But there there are two things that happened. On the infamous california trip, which we will get into later, there are two things that happen. The one thing that is never talked about, he blunders into san francisco, and the chamber of commerce was trying to break the unions, particularly in the restaurants, wanted them to be open shop. In other words, you do not have to join the union to work there. They wanted the restaurants to offer up open shop signs. Where did they schedule in his appearance . In a restaurant, an open shop sign right on the door. This is a problem not only in california, but around the country. Union Members Around the country. Also, in september, there is a National Rail strike threatened. The administration and Congress Passes the adamson act, which establishes the eighthour day, first time nationwide. The constitutionality is threatened later. Hughes opposes it. Again, this cuts into his labor vote. So he has got problems and he really does not he is not able to come out and say what he would do better than wilson. Here are the phone numbers. We will get to calls in about six, seven minutes. In addition to labor issues, there were also womens suffrage issues. Women did not have the right to vote at the national level. Can you tell us about that aspect of the campaign . Wilson had already changed his position to some extent on womens suffrage. Initially he was opposed to the , notion women would have the vote. Both of his wives were actually of this view. One of his daughters though became quite active in the suffrage movements, and his views were gradually shifting. At the time of the Election Campaign in 1916 he still believe womens suffrage should be decided on a statebystate level. Rather than by a national amendment. Hughes went far beyond that. And far beyond all the republicans. He claimed that there should be a womens suffrage amendment. And this is puzzling because the states in which women could vote actually went for wilson rather then hughes, which is somewhat paradoxical given his support. There could be many reasons for that, one of them being this issue of the war and the womens peace movement. 12 states have given women the right to vote at that time. For his support of womens suffrage, a group of supporters of Charles Evans hughes formed a fan club, campaigned for him, and they went by the hughesettes. Kind of modern if you think about it. We have some interesting things to show you. One of the nieces of the hughesettes has put together a hughesettes website. Alisha freeman we are showing. Org. You some history of her aunt in the 1916 election. Just to also further explain your position, his law firm where he practiced in private practice does exist today. We went there and spoke to one of the Senior Partners to talk a little bit about Charles Evans hughes and his support for women voting. Also very proud of the original edition of the independent weekly magazine, which came out the week after Justice Hughes got the republican nomination for the presidency. That is miss issues mrs. Hughes, she is on here in support of womens suffrage, which she supported as well. Something in the magazine one of , and the things we were not aware of the Republican Party platform in 1916 was that each state would have the right to determine whether or not women would have the right to vote. Justice hughes gave a speech in which he said he would go beyond the Republican Party platform and support the susan b. Anthony amendment to the constitution that would give women the right to vote throughout the United States and would not give each state the right to determine whether each woman could vote. And from that we will move to the election. I know that some of you will have questions about the outcome. I read that Woodrow Wilson went to bed on Election Night thinking he had lost. I would not say he was resigned to it. He was about ready to either give up the presidency nobly or in a huff. It is your call. He has a plan where it is like, ok, i have lost. I am getting out. Back then, president s did not take office in january. You had a big interregnum. You had a situation where the country was moving towards war. What do you do . His plan was he would appoint hughes as secretary of state, getting the jump on warren harding, because secretary of state was second in line to the presidency. Once hughes or secretary of state lansing was shuffled aside for hughes, then thomas markle, then the Vice President would resign and then wilson it was sort of a threepoint plan then hughes would become president until he formally took his term. What happened was it was an incredibly close election. Oh, yes. Incredibly. Tell us about the electoral vote. It was about a quarter of a million popular vote. Not that close in the popular total. What it is, it is so close in california. That is the key. It is divided by 13 electoral votes, and that is what the situation was in california. On the second incident that occurs in california, and really the particular nature of the incident is overplayed, because again, back to that Progressive Party convention which kind of dissolved and left the field open to hughes. Theyre in a bad mood. They are not resolved as to who they would be endorsing. One of the people with a bad temper was the senator Hiram Johnson from california. He is a very ornery guy. Hughes, because of the limitations of travel in those days hughes has to get to the , east coast. He swings through california before the primary. Johnson is the governor. The californian Republican Party is so split. They cannot make any decisions of who will escort who, who will chair the meeting it is worse than the palestinians and israelis. The feelings are so bad. Finally what happened is, there is an incident in long beach, california where hughes who has still not met johnson goes in to rest in a hotel, does not know johnson is there. Johnson knows hughes is there. They leave the hotel. They never meet. It is claimed that hughes had alienated johnson in this. Really johnson could have made the move. He knew and he could have gone over. Right after that, hughes through an intermediary invites johnson to chair a meeting and introduce him in sacramento. Johnson refuses. And hughes loses the state by about 3000 votes. They do not know until the next friday after the tuesday of the election that he lost the state. They do not know he lost the election until that friday. Meanwhile, Hiram Johnson wins the primary in the state of california by Something Like 300,000 votes, an immense amount. So, a lot of people blame Hiram Johnson, they blame that specific incident, but in fact in the first meeting of the progressives when johnson goes back to california, they endorsed him, but then they split up. They split up and hold separate meetings we will be for hughes, we will be for wilson. He could not have swung all the progressives if he wanted to, but he might have swung more than 1600. In the end, you mentioned the women vote. Wilson won nine of the 12 states where women could vote. What does it say about Charles Evans hughes, that he was not as much of a political tactician . I think he was much more of a principled person and a principled lawyer than a politician in certain respects. I think part of what i mentioned before, part of the reason some of the women did not vote for him because of the perception that he would bring america into war. Wilson had promised pledged to remain at peace. But one of the things about the here and johnson Hiram Johnson incident that it shows about hughess character is he was not interested in currying favor with other politicians or people within the party machine. It is shown very demonstrably through the gubernatorial career, he tries to oust some people who have cinecures within the administration, and that is met disfavorably because people think they deserve loyalty from the Republican Party. He really was not interested in playing political games. I think that hurt him the dashcam in the election. We have our first call of the evening from duncan. Hello. Hello. I was curious about any bad things Charles Evans hughes might upset about woodrow Woodrow Wilson. Might have said about Woodrow Wilson. Any bad things he might have said about Woodrow Wilson . He criticized wilson for preparedness, not having an army and navy up to speed, in case war came. He was also very critical of the wilson policy in mexico. Where you have the revolutions overthrowing the diaz administration and the country devolves into chaos. If you see the movies, viva via or viva zapata. You just see one revolution replacing another. Wilson is very concerned that general guerta not impose another dictatorship in mexico. He sends marines into veracruz to block german arms shipments. There is there are these crazy incidents over will they come in, the flag flew here or not there. But the troops come, go. Mexico gets worse and worse. And then you get the columbus, new mexico incident where pancho villa killed some american nationals. America sends the Expeditionary Force into mexico. That is another disaster. There is a lot to criticize about mexico. Theres a lot of criticism about preparedness and the Wilson Administration. These are things that hughes played on. Syracuse is up next. Welcome to the conversation. This is curtis. Thank you. I just wanted to talk about a very important decision that hughes wrote about. I will get through this quickly. The National Industrial recovery act was ruled unconstitutional in 1935 and a year later the National Labor relations act was passed and they thought that was going to be ruled unconstitutional, but then it came to the high court in 1937. Jones and laughlin steel. I think the high court was under pressure to change their position from ruling new deal laws unconstitutional, and hughes wrote that decision. That ruled that the National Labor relations act was constitutional. I think the moral to that story is even the high court can be put under political pressure to change their position. Thank you very much. Thank you. Were going to spend more time on that later. A very brief answer. It is a Crucial Point and a Crucial Point of contention among historians, the question of what defeated the Court Packing scheme that Franklin Roosevelt had proposed. Was actually politically motivated . Was this consistent with an evolution of some of the justices, including chief Justice Hughes. I think we will get into that later. Louisville, kentucky, what is your question . I am a student at u of l log school law school. I am just wondering what were hughess views on the new deal . What were his views . And thank you for the contenders. Their basic outlook of the new deal programs was . At the beginning of the new deal, as the prior color mentioned they were striking , down a lot of new deal legislation. Some of the justices called the four horsemen, and others of the justices, like brandeis, were quite far to the left. Others were swing votes. They would decide to uphold or strike down various new deal legislations. Then in there was a fairly radical switch where the new deal programs began to be upheld. We will talk a little bit more about Charles Evans hughes the man. He was described as looking and sounding like god. Would you add more color around this . He was 511. Interestingly enough, he was very slight as a young man, very thin. He weighed 127 pounds. The guy who cleaned up the Insurance Agency they would not , write an insurance policy for him. They would give him the physical and say, we cannot find anything wrong with him, but he is just too thin. So they would not give him a lifeinsurance policy. He lived to be about 85. So he was very vigorous, very active. He reaches an adult weight of about 173 pounds. Key would measure this very carefully. At breakfast he would have a pile of toast in front of him. If he was putting too much weight, he would remove a slice of toast. If he did not weigh enough, he would put another slice on. But this fellow was so slight and not vigorous was a Great Mountain climber. When he was solicited by the state legislature in new york, after the gas inquiry, he goes and says i need a vacation. He is climbing the alps. If she was not in Public Service so much, taking all of his time and costing him a great amount of money. This is a point that is very important. This guy keeps coming back to Public Service again and again and again. And after he was knocked out of the presidency, he might have said, to hell with you people. I have done my time. I have fixed this and that and done this and that, it has cost me money again and again and again. When he was governor, he bore his own expenses on so many of the trips. In the Supreme Court, that did not pay a lot. Even before he became the great crusader, he did not take the big cases. He should have been coming into his peak earning powers. One of his great rivals worked for hearst and said at the time he became chief justice, Public Service had cost hughes 6 million. Ok . She gave up so much he gave up so much in terms of time and money to serve the public in job after job, which he did so well. Now, his intellect, his brains. He had this firstclass brain. Robert penn warren said that. It was the same with hughes. 6 years old, he goes off to school. Goes out there for a while he and he comes home, he says i am not learning that much there, dad. I can learn more here. Yes, son . And here is how i am going to do it. He has a plan of study. And he lays out his plan of study hour by hour how he is going to do it and he does it. Home schooled. A couple years later, he moves around again, maybe he is going to go back to school. Same thing. Stays out of school. He is basically home schooled before home schooling was cool. He completes highschool studies on his own. He is too young to get into college. He has two rome to roam around new york city for a year before he can go in. There are stories where i think when he was secretary of state or governor, whatever. It does not matter. He was handed a threepage memo before going into a meeting. He reads it as he is walking, going into the meeting. The stenographer transcribes what he says. It is off by one word. You see stories like that over and over again. Graduated from college at graduated from college at the age of 19, he goes on to Cornell Law School. Actually, he taught at Cornell Law School for two years and he gave up a very lucrative practice in new york which was supervised by his fatherinlaw in order to take a health break and also to become an academic. He ultimately wound up leaving Cornell Law School, partly because his fatherinlaw thought his grandchildren should not be raised in such a remote location. He often said amongst his happiest times were the times at the Cornell Law School. He was a graduate of columbia. I apologize. Columbia Law School Graduate there. We have a clip of him we want to show so you can get a sense of him. He was considered quite a great orator. Lets listen to what he sounded like. Rancor and bigotry and racial animosities and intolerance are the deadly enemies of true democracy. There can be no friendly cooperation if they exist. They are enemies more dangerous than any external force. They undermine the very foundation of our democratic effort. And were going to go back to telephone calls. Lets listen to a call from boston. This is frederick. You are on the air, frederick. I would like to ask a question about where Charles Evans hughes was born. And also, did he come from a family of money . And if he did where did his , family get the money . Born in 1862 in new york. His father was a baptist. This is very important. His family was not particularly affluent. They grew up in humble circumstances. He was quite influenced by the baptist background he enjoyed from going up. In fact, his father hoped to hoped he would become a religious man himself. He was disappointed that he decided to go into law instead of religion. His background did influence his jurisprudence later on. Some argue that. He was quite favorable to religious liberty claims and wrote several opinions where he upheld a very strong view of religion under the second amendment. This is daniel. Welcome. Thank you for taking the time to let us get in on the conversation. I have a question about if he had been elected president , if the Federal Reserve would not have been created under his administration, and if it had not have been, where might we be today . Would the Federal Reserve have been created under Charles Evans hughes . It would not, because it already existed. There you go. On to our next question from south bend, indiana frank . Wilson ran on a platform against the war, and there was a tremendous explosion in new york harbor, it was called black toms island, and after the war, the court ruled that german agents had in fact caused the explosion. In the 1970s the German Government finally paid the government an indemnity. I was wondering if you can comment on the role of the Wilson Administration in covering up that explosion and its effect on the election. I will hang up and listen on the tv. That was a massive explosion of a ship that actually damaged part of the statue of liberty, shattered windows as far north as 42nd street. The Wilson Administration did downplay this, because they were trying to keep us out of the war at this point. Now, it was very difficult for hughes that year, because he is fighting two things. The country is very prosperous. There was a slight downturn after the adoption of the underwood tariff, but with the war, neutral parties tend to do very well in wartime. There is great prosperity. He is fighting back. He is fighting the fact that we really are at peace. The trouble that had occurred after the sinking of the lusitania, the German Government comes to its senses momentarily and ends its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. It is not until after the election that it resumes that. There is tremendous sabotage going on in the country. There is funding of progerman groups. One of the problems wilson has is they bring up a meeting he had with four progerman people. One of them was named jeremiah oleary, an irish nationalist. This is one of the issues of the 1916 campaign. Which is that, why there would be antienglish sentiment it would be among the irish population. They were still under the british flag. They wanted their independence. Hughes was facing all these problems. The question is, what is he going to do about it . The trouble arises after that election, particularly in regard to the zimmermann note, where germany is plotting, trying to entice mexico to attack us and get their lost provinces back. Internet antoinette carter, do you know more about how he and his wife met . I do not. She was the daughter of a senior partner yes. We will come back and hear more about their marriage. Another thing we want to highlight was the importance of mrs. Hughes in his life. We have selected their wedding invitation, their wedding invitation, and a photograph of the two of them in their prime. She was the daughter of walter carter, the senior partner in the hughes law firm. Justice use Justice Hughes met her at an Office Holiday party. She was there with her father. She was a very educated woman, influential in his life. He also had three daughters who together with mrs. Hughes, i think they have a great effect on his views, including womens suffrage among other things. Last week we learned in our program, the partners were not partners in politics. We learned that in our eugene debs program last week. There were out campaigning all the time. Getting back to their courtship their courtship is , very slow. They meet a few times. Like every few months or something. And because she is the bosss daughter, he will not go near her. People say, you married the bosss daughter . It is really a distortion. It is only when he is a full partner that the courtship really begins. Particularly if you read about their retirement together, how close a couple they are. They are really deeply in love. She is really the first spouse who in a fullfledged campaign mode, they go around the country on a train, almost like a protoeleanor roosevelt. Stuff that was not done then. You are on the air, jack. My question is about Charles Evans hughess perspective on racism at the time. His perspective on racism. He was actually pretty progressive on race. His first term as associate justice, he actually wrote an opinion that suggested it was not valid for railroads to fail to create firstclass accommodations for African American passengers, even if they did not have enough passengers to fill those accommodations. He is actually more egalitarian than a lot of his contemporaries. Later on he would be a supporter of decisions that would undermine the separate but equal doctrine and pave the way for brown vs. Board of education. This is mike. I have a question that may be a little bit off the beaten path. This is about the institution of the personal income tax. The harrison tax. Which party was against it, and which party was for it, may i ask . Income tax comes about as part of the revenue act of 1913, i think, and that is important because that is part of the underwood tariff. The democrats lower the tariff. They have to make up the revenue. They passed the 16th amendment. That all folds into the income tax. I would say because the republicans are the terror of the party, that the democrats the tariff party, that the democrats hughes that is opposed to the income tax. He reads it and he is a lawyer. He is always reading every word, no matter where those words go. And he says all revenue. And he says that means theyre going to be able to tax the tax refunds of municipalities and states and destroy the balance of federalism. He opposes the 16th amendment. I believe that new york states rejects the amendment. Youre on the air, joseph. Good evening. In light of the other Television Programs this week on prohibition, did he have any attitudes or feelings about that ugly affair . Great question. Is talking about the pbs series about prohibition. Neither he nor wilson would be regarded as drys. He started to take a step during the insurance investigation. He said it was his nurse. This humanizes him. He was very high strung. He started taking a drink then. He was never a big drinker. There is a story told at the havana conference of latin american nations around 1924 or so. He asked the secretary of state whether he will serve booze or not. He walks over there and takes the first one. He is not a prohibitionist. It is time for us to dive into more of his Supreme Court years. We are going to say good bye for now to david. We will see him later on. To begin our discussion, we will show you president Franklin Roosevelt in 1937, his take on what was commonly called the Court Packing plant. After that, you will see chief justice john roberts. First, a newsreel from that time introducing us to each of the members of the Supreme Court in 1937. Associate justice sutherland. It became a senator from utah. The only Supreme Court catholic. A democrat who supported president harding. From wyoming 78. 56 years on the bench. James reynolds of tennessee, 75. Confirmed bachelor. Has voted against every new deal measure. Benjamin Nathan Benjamin nathan cardozo, a 67 67, appointed by president hoover. Arlen of new york, a former dean of the University Law school. Justice brandeis of kentucky. Wilson dared not appoint him attorney general, but did reported him to the court. The did appoint him to the core. And Justice Roberts. At 61, the youngest justice. Long a conservative. And Charles Evans hughes, 75. Chief justice since 1930. Sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal. President roosevelt goes on the air in an appeal for Popular Support for his plan to reorganize the federal judiciary. It is his second such appeal within six days. He tells the people that his plan would protect them. Those opposing the plan have sots to so prejudice and fear by saying i am seeking to pack the Supreme Court. What did they mean by packing the Supreme Court . Let me answer this question with a bluntness that will and all honest misunderstanding of my purpose. Is by that phrase it is charged if by that phrase is charged i wish to place on the bench spineless puppets to disregard the law and decide specific cases as i wish them to be decided, i make this answer. That no president s bid for his office would appoint and no senate of honorable men bid for their office would confirm that kind of appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States. We what a Supreme Court that will do justice under the constitution and not over it. In our courts, we want a government of laws and not of men. The court lacking the Court Packing plan was a very serious threat. It was proposed by an immensely popular president s. As fdr put it the people are with me. Hughes proceeded cautiously, but with determination. He demolished fdrs efficiency argument. He showed that the court was keeping up with this work. Hughes explain that adding more justices would make the court far less efficient. There would be more judges to hear, more judges to confer, more judges to been to discuss, more judges to be convinced and to decide. Hughes chose not to directly criticize fdr, but to expose the effort for what it was by refuting the efficiency window dressing. And it worked. That was a prospectus for anytime and also contemporary perspectives from the fdr era and the Court Packing history we have learned so much about as we grow up in this country. We are going to learn more about the biography of Charles Evans hughes, 1916 republican nominee for president. He failed in that big a very narrowly against Woodrow Wilson. Were learning more about his contributions to society. Were joined by two guests on this beautiful october night in front of the Supreme Court building. My first guest served as the u. S. Solicitor general, and bernadette is with us throughout this program. I am going to start because he had two terms on the court. In 1930, president hoover appointed him. What is the difference between staying as a justice on the court within a 20year period . He had some incredible experiences in the interim. Obviously the president ial run, but also serving as secretary of state, serving on the socalled world court in the hague. He comes back to that job as chief justice, as a man who certainly had many more difference experiences. Can you tell us a bit about the court of 1930 . Sure. The core was much less conservative than it became the court was much less conservative than it became in 1935 and 1936. The court did not really a strike down that much economic legislation. It up held economic legislation in particular. Towards the middle of that decade, it shifted a bit. What was he like as a leader in those early days . I think he is someone who took to the administrative parts of the chief justice job right away, and that makes sense. You have someone in the modern era becoming chief justice to have mostly served in judicial capacities, but here is someone who has run the state of new york. He is a great administrator. He took to that aspect of the job immediately. He also took to the other aspects of the job. After all, he had already been an associate justice. This is only the second time in the nations history up to this point or someone who has been an associate justice goes on to serve as chief justice. In that respect, he was the ideal to justice and he hits the ground running. Was he i great broker of opinion . I think from the beginning, he was someone harder to typecast than the other justices on the court. He was coming into a court that was not as bitterly divided as it became, but still a divided court. He was essentially near the center of the core. This also brings up another point. He los to dissent. He wants to create harmony. Andhe loathes to dissent. He wanted to encourage harmony on the court like marshall, chief justice marshall. Lets take a couple calls and then we will delve more deeply into this. Welcome to the discussion. Thank you for taking my call. Great program. Was he not consider the godlike too because he would try to find a medium ground . Was he pushed by hughes or did hughes follow along . Thank you for watching. I think hughes was much more of the swing vote than roberts was. Roberts tended to vote with the conservative bloc. Hughes tended to be a little bit more on both sides. At least he signed himself on to more opinions. Some people think that was a disingenuous move designed to portray himself as being a more liberal orientation than he was. It was called a jovian presents on the court, and that was about his administrative capability we have been discussing. He held a judicial conference in a pretty authoritarian manner. He he would go around and discuss the case after saying his views first. P kept a pretty tight leash on the discussion he kept a pretty tight leash on the discussion. What we know about his style . I think there are a lot of similarities, and not necessarily the point of the way the conferences were conducted on a daytoday basis. But the chief Justice Hughes wrote a book on the Supreme Courts. That was a unique thing to get a window into the Supreme Court for someone who was already served as an associate justice. We know he is going to be the chief justice. He talks about the role of the chief justice in that book and the limits of what the chief justice can do, because at the end of the day, you are the chief justice of the United States, but you only get one vote and you have to lead in a way that is more subtle than the leadership you have when youre a governor or even secretary of state. He did manage to do a remarkable job of leading the court. Leading by example. Lets take a minute and talk about this building. Up until this time, the court met across the street at the United States capitol building. Have the court come to have the run building . They decided they wanted to have their own building. That is symbolic and interesting. If you think about the court, they are in Constant Contact with the bread centers, and they are passing each other in the halls of congress. There is something important symbolically of having a separate judicial building with a separate presence. There were, of course, criticisms. As you can see, this is an ornate and beautiful building. Recollection is it came in my recollection is it came in under budget, which is remarkable. William howard taft who had been president and became chief justice argued that the court needed its own building. He did live to see at. I read that this was very controversial at the time. I think that was partially because youre talking about justices to are traditionalists. And the depression. I do think part of it is it was a break with tradition. Death from a broader perspective, it seemed like a terrific break and a brick that was overdue. The architect included a picture of Charles Evan Hughes. I think over the next call we might get a shot of that so you can see how the architects depicted him. This is harry. I used to study the Supreme Court. I think three major laws were struck down by unanimous Supreme Court. That included the liberals. From what i understood, when roosevelt made his Court Packing speech, he was one of the most elderly members of the court. He was over 80 years old. I used to do some work on roberts. The folks on the case in 1937 were taken before and the secret chambers of the court. Thank you for letting me be on the show. Set the stage for us. What happened in the i want to get back to this caller posing questions. Fdr became frustrated with the fact that it lot of measures were being struck down by the Supreme Court. On what ground . On the ground, first of all, exceeding congresss power under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is relevant today. It is also the source of a lot of legislation that is passed right now. Under the new deal, the court basically was not s expansion in its interpretation of what the commerce power could do for congress and thought often he states on autonomy was being infringed upon by congressional enactments. Another ground for invalidation was liberty of contract which was read into the 14th amendment or the fifth amendment. Hughes court had been striking down a lot of legislation. After his reelection, fdr basically proposed this plan whereby the courts membership would be increased if justices did not retire in a timely fashion. Under his plan, there would have been up to six new justices placed upon the court. This gets into the question that was asked by the collar whether Justice Roberts had changed his vote before this Court Packing scam was promoted. One argument is that once roosevelt won the election, the court felt there would be a lot of pressure to uphold and abstained legislation and they could no longer be striking down as many laws. The Court Packing scheme itself was almost irrelevant or was not the real catalyst that roberts felt he needed to change his vote because of roosevelts reelection. Give us a sense of how engaged in the country was. It was this a hugely controversial, or was this a washington story . This was not a washington story. It helps to understand the stage completely which is, think about fdr at this point. He has just been reelected for a second term. He has been dealing with the great depression. This is the great depression. He is trying to deal with it innovatively, passing this legislation and it is getting struck down by the court. By the time he is done with his fourth term, he will have appointed more Supreme Court justices that than anyone but george washington. At this point, he is like jimmy carter. He has been a fulltime president and has not put anybody on the court. He is very frustrated with the fact they are sort there are striking down legislation. He is with the view that they are out of touch with the country. That is the reason the country focuses on this. I think a lot of the frustration goes with what the court is doing, what the age of some of the justices. All of that well over into the Court Packing plant. I think it is fair to say it is a bit of a black eye to fdrs historical lettuce legacy that he let his frustrations boiled over and made this proposal. Good afternoon. It is still afternoon here. I appreciate you taking my call. I presume this is a question for professor Bernadette Meyler. I am curious as to what she might know regarding the tieins between the Justice Hughes and the sword family. Also, part of the reason i am calling is because i have been puzzling for some time. Back in that era there is a speech by Justice Hughes that was indicating the anti recess of the community where the republicans. That seems to have switched around the time of Woodrow Wilsons presidency when he embraced. I am curious what you may know about that. I am not as familiar with the relationship. There is a very interesting story. He invited booker t. Washington to an event and it was a somewhat controversial invitation. He escorted into a table. Hughes pretty much retain a uniform position on race throughout his career where he was in favor of greater equality, and i am not sure what extent to full equality. It is a backdrop to the change were previously republicans had been much more in favor of racial equality and the democrats also sort of took on that mantle. Returning to the Court Packing plant, Charles Evan Hughes was how involved in lobbying or setting the stage for it being debated . There was as i understand the store, it was something that justice rand that was very much in favor of and suggested. The chief justice was direct in the sense school said he brought to bear in investigating Gas Companies back in the day. He looked at the courts docket. As chief Justice Roberts indicated, he took a part a neutral case for what fdr was proposing and really laid bare a more obvious motivation. Help, and into thes relationship between the court and the legislature it does happen. I dont know if this was the practice back in the day. Has become the practice that basically every year there is essentially a state of the judiciary letter that the chief justice sent over to congress. Sometimes it can be pointed. For a number of years, they both made a point of explaining that they were less than happy with the current state of judicial pay. There continues to be these kinds of issues between and among the branches. I also think the way the chief justice and did kendall the Court Packing scheme probably took it off the table as a realistic option going forward. I just wanted to also add two things. Some people may criticize hughes at the time. One part of his letter which was also consulted, what part of the letter said hearing the panel system would not be constitutional. It seems like an advisory opinion. Hughes had condemned other justices were trying to produce advisory opinions. Next call from missouri. Thank you for taking my call. This is kind of a follow up to the cornell professor comment aligned himself more with the four horsemen who were the conservative wing of the court. And after the Court Packing plant,roberts was part of the 9. From what i read,roberts would never admit that. Do either one of you know if he did changes voting patterns . The only person who knows for sure is Justice Roberts. I think this is one of the reasons from an academic standpoint why Court Packing is so interesting. There are a lot of competing theories that are supported at a detailed level. We dont really know for sure. I think it is fair that if you look atkins Justice Roberts putting record, there does seem to be a force in the road by ago in a different direction. He did definitely protests that he was not influenced by politics at all, but it is hard to believe that. We talked about the fact that this court opened in 1935 is a beautiful building. He spent a lot of time in that courtroom. Is the court room he operated in as chief justice the same today . There are some minor differences. There are changes to the size and shape of the benz from time to time over the time. We also have a historic photograph from the Supreme Court historical society. It was somewhat illicitly taken. It is a photograph from inside the quarter while the court is in session with chief Justice Hughes presiding. As we are looking at that, you do not see that very often. While we are talking about that, we did not mention it in his biography, and between his first and Second Service on the court, he was a private practice lawyer much sought after. He argued 50 cases before the court. Having had that experience, what were his arguments like in court . I think it is a really good point. It is something very similar to the situation we have now with chief Justice Roberts. We have somebody in him who argued nearly 40 cases when he was before he came onto the bench. Had himustice hughes beat. I think that was part of the point that was made about the sacrifices he made for Public Service. He comes to the court as somebody who bought only has appreciation for the job of the court because he has previously served, but he has some sympathy and understanding as the role of counsel as well. I think he is somebody who was willing to ask questions of counsel and also had a real appreciation that kelso had prepared for the argument. They have points that wanted to make. He was ready and willing to listen to council. This is 10 from pittsburgh. I have a question about the circumstances of Justice Hughes ascending to the court as chief justice in 1930. I dont know if this story is true so i hope your guests can confirm it. The conventional wisdom after taft had died is that hughes would not agree to serve as chief justice because doing so would mean that his son would have to resign as solicitor general. Charlesbodys surprise, evan hughes sr. Decided to take his job and the sun had to be solicitor general. I have heard the story. I do not know whether it is true. I heard different versions of the story. He may have a perspective as to the truth of that. I will say this. I think if somebody if the president really thought that Charles Evan Hughes would not take the job and was not interested in being a chief justice, that seems like a naive assumption. Hughes had an interest in the job going way back. When he was first put on record as an associate justice, he was appointed with an understanding that he may be elevated very early when there was an opening at that point. He was passed over for chief justice white. President taft was the one who passed him over. I definitely heard the story. It certainly had to be a difficult moment around the family at dinner table since there is no question that chief Justice Hughes accepting the job meant his son would have to give up the solicitor general job. I do think it is a little naive to think he was going to turn it down. I think some people did think so at the time, but they were probably misled. Just one more addendum about the fact that he may have had at versions to the job earlier, there was some possibility that he would be appointed rather than associate justice when he was first appointed to the court. And being passed over i have been one of the reasons he was more willing to take the president ial nomination and not. He ultimately aspire to the chief justiceship. One thing i wanted to talk about is, i have a problem with the justice is staying on until they are 80, 90 years old. They dont have a lot in common with the people. They still have the same beliefs than what everybody else has in this country. We ought to be able to vote them in. It might be a little more fair than the way they are in now. They would be more a part of this country. It is like they are gods or something now. Thank you for your question. He talks about Supreme Court justice is not knowing much about the rest of us in society. I think this is part of what motivated fdrs Court Packing plant. Part of what he was saying is the older justices had antiquated notions about society that needed to be superseded and that they were two out of touch. I think that is why all of the justices took offense at his plan. I think that is right. There have been ideas that maybe we should need term limits, a retirement age, some way of making the justices more responsive were you there limiting the length of which they serve. These are topics that hughes addresses in his book of the Supreme Court. He is certainly confident that there can be a difficulty. Sometimes just to stay on longer than they should. The Current System we have is the best system we can have. That is especially when it comes to indicating individual rights, it is a virtue and not a device that justices are removed from everyday politics. There are two very large Conference Rooms used often for public events. There are portraits of each of the chief justices who have served. We are going to show you the portrait of Charles Evan Hughes that is here inside the court. As we look at that, i would like you, Bernadette Meyler, to talk about the opinions he offered. He did author a number of opinions. One opinion he is significant and i think this not discuss this bailey vs. Alabama. This is an opinion he issued early on when he was associate justice. It involved in striking down a peonage lot. Even though slavery had been abolished, under the 37 that it was not clear whether there could be labor in compensation to debt. He struck down a lot that had allowed for peonage and said it was not relevant that the party involved was African American but nobody should be subjected to the requirement of labor for debt. He had an output he had a lot of important decisions he offered he authored during his time of chief justice. Among them were decisions on both sides of the spectrum in terms of striking down economic legislation. One case that was crucial because it signaled his willingness to understand the flexibility that was required by economic legislation early on in his term was the case of Home Building and loan association. This was a case involving a minnesota mortgage moratorium act. Basically, the claim was this violated the states wisconsin military not to impair the liability of the contract. Chief Justice Hughes said in this case that basically contracts had to be understood within the context of the public interest. One of the things he kept coming back to was the way in which individual rights had to be maintained. That had to be in the context of the protection of the public interest. Do you have anything you would like to add . I think those are great opinions to highlight. The great thing is, he was the chief justice for a number of years. He wrote more than his fair share of the opinions. They are a opinions we can point to. Those are the ones that are pivot points for the switch in time. Those are very important opinions. I also think there are some of what i would describe a civil liberty opinions he wrote. It is now hard to imagine the Supreme Court of the United States without the First Amendment. It is an important a part of their daughter cant. Of their dockett. There is another case that recognizes the freedom of assembly and problems with laws that try to target people for being members of unpopular groups. The court has waxed and waned. In many respects, the decision he wrote was the head of its time. Hi. I would like to ask your panel, with both Charles Evan Hughes and fdr being a part of the aristocratic elite, both were progressive governors, one with the judicial route and one what the highest elected office, what kind of report was there between them . I was also wondering if there is any evidence of any cordiality or was fdr regarded by hughes as a traitor to his class . Also, i was thinking of this while i was listening to your discussion, was there a point in which hughes realize that even though he was an elected governor, he realized his aristocratic background that he could not aspire to running for president even though he wanted to be president. I am thinking of the last viceroy of india who had the ability, but because he was from the aristocratic class he had no point he had no chance. Certainly, hughes swore in fdr on several occasions. I think the Court Packing scheme and the various tensions over the relations between the court and president at that point in time did not really lead to a very amicable friendship between the two men. Also, hughes was somewhat reserved in terms of social life in washington, d. C. He and his wife would only attend a dinner party on saturday night because he felt it would contravene his austere mode of preparing for Judicial Practice if he actually went out any other time. He was not as much of a figure in the washington social scene as one might imagine. The only thing i would add, he really was not from quite the same aristocratic roots as roosevelts. His up was exceptional from an education standpoint. His parents were a remarkable individuals. I dont think it was a use of great luxury or wealth. I think most of the wealthy accomplished over his career accumulated through his own law practice and endeavors. I do think there were differences personality wise and background wise as well. The next call is from stockton, california. My question was, he said that Supreme Court Justice Hughes was he still the chief justice in 1948 or did he retire before his death which would have made him around 85 years old at the time . Thank you very much. When did he retire from the court . 1941. Exactly. He stepped down when he still had a few years left. I think that was probably something that was not unintentional. He had done his time on the court. He had seen some justices get to the end of their time and have difficulty issues on where they should leave. When he came back to the court even though he had been away for 20 years, Justice Holmes was still on the bedspread one of the things he had to do was deliver the news to Justice Holmes that his colleagues on the court had decided that it might be time for him to move on. I think that was one of the most difficult things he probably had to do as chief justice, especially because of the closeness between the two men. I am sure it was one of the most difficult both difficult things chiefs panettjustice hol. I think thatbrandeis rejected a lot of hughes philosophy and was much more liberal. He respected him as an intellect. This goes back to racing meet, along a lot. I need to ask you, you have described his formidable intellect. If you could time travel, would you want to argue a case in front of his court . I think it would be fascinating. Some of the other justices on the court or kind of difficult personalities from the bench. I am not sure it would be all roses. I think it would be a remarkable experience. Obviously, you are talking about not just the opportunity to argue in front of chief Justice Hughes, but also justice brandeis, some rail lines of intellect. Today there are about 8000 petitions to be heard. They hear about one out of 100. What was the workload of the court back then . It was not that many more cases they were hearing, but the petitions were much lower. When roosevelt proposed the Court Packing scheme, there were only 100 something that had been granted. I think that was one of his grounds for complaint against the course they did not have enough energy to hear cases. We have a much greater proportion between cases where there are petitions and granted. Arguments are generally one hour today. What were they at the time . I think there were typically more constrained. In the early days, arguments would go on for days. I also think just to follow up on the very good point that was made, i think one of the stories is that more of their documents have become more of their dockets have become discretionary. One of the things chief Justice Hughes did was move the court into the direction of having greater discretion. That was a potential controversy that they were expressing discretion to not hear some cases. These days it seems quite. We have half an hour left to go in our two our look of the contenders. It was a close election against Woodrow Wilson who was vying for his second term. Then Charles Evan Hughes went on to serve as chief justice in his second term on the Supreme Court. He was very much the center of restoring fdr policy Court Packing scheme. I hope you have a happy and healthy baby. I try to catch the show every friday night. My question is justice used sounds like a man that was for progress in. I hear you talking about how he wanted the blacks to step forward. But what you think about women stepping forward and them being on the court now. What he was think about the wrongdoings that are going on the court today. I think that its a really interesting question about his attitude toward women. We heard earlier he was in question we heard earlier he was in favor of womens suffrage. I think he was somewhat ambiguous. He was an advocate for a lot more progressive legislation that he was later. Some have argued he had a turn more toward the right leader in his career. Among legislation he was interested in interested in at the time was to protect women and children laborers. Even in his later time on the court and as chief justice, in a sense he used some what about protecting women against unfair labor practices. Not just protecting any labor, but women might need special protection. On the one hand, he was in favor of allowing women more autonomy. On the other hand, he also had a paternalistic view point. Columbia, tennessee. Thank you for a wonderful program. Id like to know the opinion from your panel as to what you believe Charles Evans hughes might make politically and judicially of what is going on and wall street right now . Can you project . Everybody has their own a perspective on what is going on at wall street. I do think Charles Evan Hughes was in some respects one of the great early reformers. If you think about the trajectory of his career, he did not seek out Public Service for sort of his own sake or something he really wanted elective office. He came to Public Service through his law practice and through an opportunity to investigate industries where there was a lot of corruption. I think this is something that was a hallmark of his career. Even in his president ial run, it is consistent with the idea that he was not necessarily the world was the best back flapper or do how to build alliances with people. I think he was very focused on getting rid of corruption. He did not care if a few sacred cows get slaughtered in the process. You mention his was one of the first controversial appointments of chief justice. I read as far as the two sides were concerned he would be too probusiness. This is a somewhat paradoxical concern. Given his earlier term on the court and also his time as governor, he was very reform minded. I think of him sometimes as combining Teddy Roosevelts reformminded this as Woodrow Wilsons internationalism. People were very concerned that his time as a private attorney and time in private practice have led him into probusiness alliances that would make cam exposed to regulate companies anymore. I think the main issue was the time he had spent in private practice. I think that concern was not really warranted given his earlier career. We will take a call from toledo and that we have a clip about Charles Evan Hughes and race. Thank you for taking my call. This particular question is probably directed toward paul clement. Sir, how you feel mr. Hughes would have responded to unelected officials on an international scale, being able to dictate International Law as opposed to an elected official who would use the congress to pass particular laws . Thank you. That is a great question. I think chief justice use would have had the ones to use and not something where he would say, you know, he would be hostile to the international organizations. This is somebody who came to the chief justiceship after serving on the international court. He has been sort of an internationalist. In his writings, he has been less critical of the idea that International Law is our law. In this book, he specifically says International Law is our law. On the other hand, i think he would ultimately save our own elected officials have the ultimate say over what the scope of our law is. I think he would have a view that congress had a wide scope to embrace International Law principles but congress wanted to say that principles of International Law did not apply to the United States and that would be the last word. I think that is exactly right. He says congress has the last word. International law can fill in gaps in certain respects. I also think he was a head of his time in promoting u. S. Involvement in the court of international justice. He was not only a judge on that court, but also he advocated the u. S. Adopting jurisdiction of the permanent court. We have had a few callers who have asked about Charles Evan Hughes and race. We are going to return to his law firm still existing in new york city for a story from his autobiography. In the Charles Evan Hughes conference center, we try to select things that would reflect important stages of his life. We have collected a number of things including original books that Charles Evan Hughes author. Most notably is the autobiography that we find interesting. My favorite story in here is one that Justice Hughes tells. A visit when he was the president of the baptists society in new york city. He asked to booker t. Washington to come and speak to the assembly. When booker t. Washington and his wife arrived, Justice Hughes escorted him to his own table and sat in there. At that time, that was a controversial thing to do. Justice hughes took advantage of that to speak about the importance of diversity and tolerance. He was very disappointed that a group of religious people themselves would be intolerant to having booker t. Washington at their table. We have about 22 minutes left talking about Charles Evan Hughes. We have brought back one of our first guest who is joining us on the plaza of the Supreme Court. David pietrusza, one aspect we have not spent much time on his his chair as secretary of state in his pivotal one post world war i years. Would you tell us about what contributions he made in that role . He is regarded as not only one of the great chief justices, he is regarded as one of the great secretary of state. He is regarded as one of the top three. What he does is he inherits a great mess because of the failure of the league of nations, he was for the league of it he was for the league of nations, for the United States of america that entered the league, but he was not about to see sovereignty to the league of nations. Article 10 said the United States would go to war if we were going to defend boundaries of the mass in europe. He thought that the league could be fixed. He planned to submit a cleanair bill treaty which could get through the senate when he became secretary of state. That was impossible. Warren harding saw this a little quicker than he did. Hughes recognize the truth that it was really a fools errand to go back there. He moved on from there. He stayed. He talked about resigning. He pioneers and International Disarmament in a groundbreaking navy treaty which casts the ratio of 10106. He scrapped and lot of heavy battleships. This is a good deal for the United States because with our congress, we were not about to spend the money on the military. We would have lost ground to japan in that decade. He also moves on to other treaties in the far east. He gets japan to give back to china which was a major accomplishment. Going into that decade, the united kingdom, britain, was united in treaty if they were attacked or the other party was attacked, they would go to war. The other party was japan. It was a fear that if we got embroiled in a controversy with japan, we might have to go to war with britain on that. He broke that treaty very smoothly. One thing he was not successful at was the emigration treaty with japan which was in the 1924 and was the japanese exclusion act. He tried quite hard. He was not able to do that. The senate was a great problem to him. It would be a tossup between that and france. This is charlie. What a wonderful series and thank goodness for cspan. Who was the person in the 1916 election on the republican side that ran against hughes . I had heard that if the other person had been the nominee, they would have beaten. The contenders that year were senator fairbanks who had been a Vice President under roosevelt, senator burton of ohio, the conservative candidate i would hesitate to say that any number any one of those would have run a better race than hughes. I think the deck was stacked it was close. If you change any one thing, maybe you do not have a Railroad Strike that impacted the voting in ohio. You just dont know. I dont know if you could say that anyone stronger candidate. If he had been so strong, he would have won the nomination. For all three of our guests, we will go one at a time. It is time to wrap this conversation up and think about Charles Evan Hughes legacy. How the world might have been different if he had not been here. I am going to take a call, and then i will start with you so i will give you a chance to think about that. Good evening. I would like to ask the panelists to please explain why the hughes decided to disregard the judicial precedents, particularly the ruling in schechter and carter in order to recognize a fundamental right to organize unions and labor relations. Could you please harmonize Justice Hughesjudicial reasoning . I will give it a try. There is a way to reconcile those feelings. Another caller pointed out earlier. It is easy to think about decisions as the same as being5 4 one way and then 45 the other. It is much more complicated than that. Every member of the court said there was something wrong with the statue of there. And it leaves lawyers scratching their head. It is the first call the non delegation doctrine. From time to time, lawyers for to fit cases into the not delegation doctrine. That was really eight different doctrine that was at issue when the wagner act comes before the court. I think what is precedent setting and does break from the prior decisions in that decision is really the court in the previous decisions had distinguished commerce from production or other forms of Economic Economic activity. It is something that really bedeviled the court. These are really difficult distinctions to drop. If you look at 1957 Commerce Clause, it is this categorical approach that required some very thin and difficult distinctions. I do think in that sense, those decisions were not so satisfying that they were decisions that were not that easy. I think the Court Essentially and ultimately became persuaded that looking at the Commerce Clause would not work. I think the most important part of hugheslegacy is that basically the hughes courts created the modern commerce power allowing for the commerce power to be construed broadly. So much of the regulatory system that we are under right now or that we can enjoy really derived from congresss power under the Commerce Clause. I think that is one of the things that hughes shepherded into court during a difficult time and allow for this outcome to the marriage hello, charles. I want to thank you for your record of Public Service. The question i wanted to ask was about chief Justice Hughes attitude about oral argument. He believed it should be how it is today where they are largely focused on questions or did he have another attitude toward that . He had a more balanced use of oral argument, i think. He understood both the virtues of asking questions and also the virtues of having lawyers have been of ample opportunity to explain positions. In a sense we have moved to a different place hysterically or Supreme Court arguments is dominated by the questions. At that time, justices and in his book, it is almost like they felt the need to explain why it was appropriate for them to ask questions at all. Some lawyers had the idea that oral argument was their time. I think he was of the view that it was important for the justices to have an opportunity to ask questions and it was good for the lawyer to have an understanding of what was bothering the justices about their side of the case. Friend from washington, d. C. Welcome to our discussion. My question is i would like to know if any of the members of the panel can make a comment about the justices view of that time between church and state court at that time any of their colleagues, what was their view . This was a moment in time when the notion of a wall of separation was coming inmuch moe prevalent. The hughes courts look at religion more generally. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was inc. Against the state to the due process called the 14th amendment. There were held to apply it from state to state action. That allowed for a lot more suits based on violation of religious liberty than previously heard it. How about if you take the question about it hughes legacy . I think it is important of how he stopped the Court Packing scheme, how the regulatory nature of decisions changed. How the but the Republican Party back together again. I think his legacy is one of service. If he is a man at one time after and after a gain he leaves his normal state of life to serve the country and it does it with remarkable intelligence and integrity. At a time with so much fractured his and our nation, i think it is good to look back on positive examples and to take hope from them. But i read from one biographer who said he has a constant tug between the legal and political spheres. Did you have the same sense with him . Yes. I think after he left the secretary of stateship, i think someone said he was our first citizens. I think that is a wonderful thing to say and something true to say about him. Again, he made some amazing sacrifices. When he left the state department, he was able to make a peak of 400,000 a year. Chauncy had prior to that were in the range of 12,000. Part of him leaving was that he knew he had to take care of his family. In between all of those times and even when he was off the court, if you take a look at all the organizations he was involved in including the foundation of the National Conference of christians and jews to advocate tolerance in the mid 1920s, a time when it was often in short supply, the man was a powerhouse, tireless whether he was in Public Service officially or not. He was always doing the publics work. We have 10 minutes left and our program. We have time for a couple more calls. The me ask this in question of you. I would say there are two aspects of it. I am approaching get more from the legal perspective. What has already been touched on is the Commerce Clause jurisprudence. I think what makes that legacy so interesting is we are still dealing with this issue. Chief justice rejected hughes the categorical approach which even he was very quick to add that the Commerce Clause was not unlimited. It was a limited power, the framers had enumerated the various powers in the, s the constitution and none of them gave the governments absolute power. He played out the basic framework we are wrestling with and we still have this idea that the Commerce Clause is broad but it is not unlimited. Where the limits are is something we continue to struggle with. The other thing i would really emphasize is the legacy of judicial independence. I do think that the Court Packing idea was probably the single greatest challenge to judicial independence, at least in the 20th century. I think the way he fought that off is something i dont think we will ever see another Court Packing effort. I think that is a great legacy. I would add in her book about the Supreme Court, he addressed what were the three worst Supreme Court decisions that the court had made up to that point. One of was a decision called the legal tender the legal tender decision. It was for the court first struck down a statue and after changing its membership and it up upholding the statute. He said it was the cores fault for the way they handled it. He pointed out it was not president s grants faults. He uses the word Court Packing. He said nobody could accuse grant of packing the court. This was something that was in the back of his mind before he was a chief justice. He sees the threat to the courts and defense it off. I think that is a very worthy legacy. Hi greg, you are on. When this chief Justice Hughes get done been on the court . 1941. Was he the chief justice when komatsu vs come asa was written . No, he was not. I was just curious. He was off the court at that point. How do you explain about his final years . He resigned from the court as we just said in 1941 and lives the next five or six years and it dies at the age of 86. What were his final years like . He is very old when he goes on to the court and very old when he gets off. Two years before he gets off the court he gets a real scare. It is almost like a stroke. He recovers. When he leaves the court he is fairly vigorous. What does happen, he returns to new york. His children are up there. He remains in washington, d. C. His marriage was really a close one and very wonderful. At this point, he decided he would make up for lost time. She takes still fairly quickly. I think by the end of the war she has passed away. It is a very tragic time for him. It is one of the very few times it is recorded that he has lost control of his emotions. It is so painful for him. His health continues fairly strongly until 1948. He goes up to, i believe, cape cod. There he takes a sudden turn for the worse. He passes away. He had a fear to not be like Justice Cardoso had been helpless toward the end of his life. His wish was granted. He passed away with all the dignity which he had lived. We have about four minutes left. We have a clip of him swearing in Franklin Delano roosevelt. Do you solemnly swear to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States to the best of your ability to serve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States so help you god . I Franklin Delano roosevelt do solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States. I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States and so help me god. Charles evan hughes swearing in Franklin Delano roosevelt. His legacy, especially during the Court Packing era, is something we have discussed. I want to go back and talk about the 1916 election. If he had one that and Woodrow Wilson had not won a second term, how would the world have been different . That is a very consequential question. It is hard to reconstruct how it would have been so different in some critical factor had not taken place. Wilson was a president to lead us into the entry into world war i and move us forward. I think he is somebody that history regards very well. Understanding the character of the person that Charles Evan Hughes was, it is hard for me to think we would be poorly served during that critical time by somebody who had done some exceptionally well in such a tight. I think he would be very comfortable in leading us in our foreign affairs. What are your thoughts regarding entry into world war i . I think the exit from world war i is were the change would have been made. We are talking about the peace process. Woodrow wilson boxes that tremendously. What i neglected to mention in his post justiceship years is he is called in to consult on the structure for the do you the new united nations. He put some things and and makes it far more workable. He is a very practical guide. He has been interested in world justice and rule of law internationally from an early point. If he had proposed a league of nations, there is a good chance it would have been approved by the United States of america. Other than your own book, what is one of the best books on this era that you can recommend it . Certainly on hughes, the ii volume biography is a terrific book. That is the book if you want to know an awful lot about mr. Hughes. He brought a book of his letters i understand it . It is actually a collection of six different lectures that he gave at columbia university. It is really a unique insight. Here is ruminations about the Supreme Court of the United States from somebody who had been an associate justice and soon would be the chief justice of the United States but is a candid look of what a lawyer thinks about the Supreme Court. Highly readable . A very highly readable. It is fascinating how contemporary a lot of the discussion is. Last question for you. When firstyear law students come can, what is the one thing you want them to know about it . I want them to know about the time and if he had been political or may not have been and what the consequences are. I want to say thank you to our three guests who have been here tonight on our program. From outside the United States Supreme Court, we appreciate your time with us as we learned about this. Of American History. We are going to close now has restarted with some archival footage from the 1916 campaign. Contenders saturday at 8 00 eastern. Fourterm governor of new york and first catholic candidate, al smith. On monday, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton discusses americas role in the world in a prerecorded conversation hosted by the atlantic council. Coverage begins at noon eastern on cspan, online at cspan. Org, or listen on the free cspan radio app. Cspans washington journal, everyday, we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. Author andrning, Howard University associate Political Science professor on the role of race and gender in camp in 2020 and Washington Times online opinion editor talks about the campaigns as the Political Parties head into their national conventions. Watch cspan washington journal live at 7 00 eastern saturday morning and join the discussion. 8 00 a. M. Y at eastern, washington journal and American History tv on cspan three marked the 100 anniversary of womens suffrage and ratification of the 19th amendment. We will take your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. President trump says hell agree to additional funding for the Postal Service if democrats except some of his proposals for additional coronavirus relief. During the news conference, the president answered questions about a review of the f ei eyeia investigation the russia investigation and the united arab emirates