Transcripts For CSPAN3 The Contenders Charles Hughes 20240712

The man who didnt get it, charles hughes, Supreme Court justice, all but won the election in 1915. In fact, when president Woodrow Wilson went to bed the night Election Night, he thought he was beaten. If he would have been elected how American History goes in several different directions, on suffrage for women, civil rights. What does he do on Foreign Policy . Germany baited us into war. Hes the one you could write novels about. Charles evans hughes who is on the Supreme Court and then left the Supreme Court when he ran for president and then went back on the Supreme Court. One of the finest minds on the court. Fellow justice called Charles Evans hughes, the greatest in our great line of chief justices. Why hughes . Robert jackson provided part of the answer when he was attorney general. Jackson said that hughes, quote, looks like god and talks like god, end quote. 1916 footage of charles hughes, that years president ial nominee campaigned soon after the Republican National convention. Tonight the contenders looks at the life and legacy of Charles Evans hughes who, in addition to being a republican president ial nominee, was a twoterm new york governor, secretary of state and twice a Supreme Court justice. Of all this, he is perhaps best known for his role as the chief justice during the years of fdrs new deal. The contenders is live this evening from the United States Supreme Court, just across from the capital in washington, d. C. Then chief Justice Hughes inaugurated this building when it first opened to the court in 1935. Let me introduce you to our two guests, first two guests of the evening, who are joining us to talk about the life and legacy of Charles Evans hughes. David petrusia is an historian. 1920 the year of six president s and bernadette m meiler is a professor at Cornell Law School, hughes alma mater, thank you for being here. Thank you. Europe is at war. Frame what was going on in the country and in the president ial campaign. Woodrow wilson said when he ran it would be a tragedy if his administration was framed by Foreign Policy, and it turned out to be just that. Lowering the tariffs, the Federal Reserve system changes after 1914 with the war in europe, america is fighting to stay out. Theres a question of preparedness for the war. And so its really a question of war and peace in europe, war and peace in mexico, aside from all the domestic issues, but war overshadows everything. Charles evans hughes is serving as a Supreme Court justice. He enjoyed his position as associate justice on the court and was quite satisfied with his role there but then felt called by duty after several candidates didnt pan out for the republicans. He felt called to actually accept the nomination for president. But in a sense, he wasnt a particularly gungho president ial candidate. What was the Republican Party like at that stage . Its fractured in 1912. The great Teddy Roosevelt taft split. Tr runs as the candidate. Theres a question, a real question that year, are they going to be able to put the Republican Party back together again . And do you take Roosevelt Roosevelt is still radioactive with the old guard. If you take someone whos too conservative, then the progressives will not come back, even though their partys sort of been dying on the vine for the previous four years. Youve got to pick someone who is respected by both sides, someone whos not some wild man from the prairies or from the west like a bora or a johnson. Somebody whos not a conservative like root. And the man to do it, and also the man whos been out of politics since 1910 because hes out on the Supreme Court. He has not been a part of the 1912 battles is mr. Hughes. He is respected by just about everyone in the party. What were his politics at the time . His politics at the time were mildly progressive. As i say, hes not like a wild man from the west, like a lafollette or norris. He has 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 say would you like to run for judge . No. Would you like an appointment to a federal judgeship . No. But he is asked to investigate the gas monopoly in new york city, which is really gouging the customers. Its six companies. Its been going on since 1880. They come to him and they say you want to take over this investigation . He said, no, i really dont. I really dont. But he does. He says how much time do i have to prepare for the testimony, for the hearings . A week. A week. And with the great brilliance this man has, hes able to pull everything together, not do it in a bombastic way but simply go through all the papers, grill the executives on the stand. Ultimately it leads to a commission in new york state and you have gas rates and electricity rates in the city by onethird and then he moves on to fixing the Insurance Agency in new york state and really becomes a national figure. This is 1906 through 19 just before 1906 and he is a progressive type candidate who is opposed to the machine of the democrats in the city because they are protecting these monopolies. But also the massive new york state political machine. Boss platt who even ruled when Teddy Roosevelt was on. Tr would defer to the bosses, to some extent. Hughes wins the governorship, puts forward a whole bunch of reforms and then moves on to the court for the first time. Today it would be almost unimaginable for someone to resign from this position in the building behind us to run for National Elective office. What was the reaction at the time . Was it a surprise . How was it viewed . I think some were surprised. But also i think that the office of Supreme Court justice wasnt quite what it has become now. I think part of the reason people would be so shocked today if a justice resigned is that the appointments process is so much more difficult to actually get through and its much more difficult to confirm any justice. So justices are appointed young and are expected to stay for the rest of their working career. Now hughes first appointment as justice was actually quite uncontentious. His second one was almost the beginning of the contentions within the appointments process. It occurred fairly soon after there were new rules about Senate Debate on nominees and it garnered a lot of criticism from progressives actually, surprisingly, given his career as governor of new york. We are, as you can see, out on the plaza of the Supreme Court, a beautiful early october night here. Were going to be here for two hours tonight for the contenders series, which is 14 men who ran for the presidency and lost, but changed political history. Charles evans hughes made his mark through his many positions but particularly in his role as chief justice. In the second half of our program well focus on that whole contentious era with the Court Packing and the new deal. He was really at the helm of the court during that period and lots of interesting things to talk with you about. Later on well open up the phone lines as weve done for each of the programs and invite you to offer your questions and observations as part of our discussion. Where was the convention that year . I think it was in chicago. Maybe in philadelphia. Im not sure. The interesting thing is theres two conventions going on blocks apart from each other. Thats the real interest in geography that year. The republicans go through a series of ballots. I think hughes is third on the first ballot. He moves up until hes nominated on the third ballot. Meanwhile meanwhile, the progressives are meeting just a short ways away and what they are doing is debating who they can accept, who they can accept. Tr is basically saying, im not going to do it. And he throws out a couple of names. Leonard wood, who is a big advocate a general, army general, advocate of preparedness. Hes gotten into some trouble with the Wilson Administration. Or henry cabbott lodge. Neither one of these guys is acceptable to the progressives. So hes sort of throwing out that poison pill. What happens is at the end, the only personal that they can agree on, the progressives, is to any extent, is hughes. But they still are in a great tiff and they kind of dissolve the party. The party just evaporates. But they go away. They dont run a third party. This is one of the great things of the legacy of hughes race in 1916. We take the Republican Party for granted as a continuing thing since lincoln and all this. It didnt have to be in 1916. If hes not the guy willing to put it together, maybe the progressives go back in again and we dont know really what happens with the Republican Party. Does it go the way of the wigs . Do the progressives replace it . Who can say at that point . But the thing is that hughes takes the position, didnt want to do it, really is uncertain what to do, but walks away from the Supreme Court judgeship. He had said when he had taken it and when they were talking in 1912, would you be the compromise candidate to avoid the Taft Roosevelt split . No, no, no, i wont do it. Then finally he does it. The democrats cannot fully criticize nominating a judge for the presidency and there is a reason for that. Because in 1904 they take alton b. Parker off the Supreme Court of the state of new york and run him for the presidency. Did he get the nomination on the first ballot . Parker . No. Oh, hughes . No, he gets it on the third ballot. How difficult was it i mean they come to the court and sit down with them and say heres our offer . I think they just called him on the phone. Someone called him on the phone. Of course, back then, candidates, even nonreluctant candidates, would not go to the conventions. There was a formal nominating process. Weeks later they would have a big speech and sort of like, surprise youre our nominee. The fellow doing it that year was Warren Harding who had been chair of the convention. But hes really undecided. Really, even his family members and his closest associates are not sure what hes going to do. Now, there had been people in the early days of the republic who had resigned from the court to take other positions. There had been a david davis on the court in the70s and 80s of the 19th century who took a senatorial nomination out in illinois, but not since then. And certainly not since hughes. Can you speak, if you are also familiar with this, hughes had been a politician before he came to the court. How was he as a National Campaigner . That campaign is probably the worst thing he does in his life. His life, really. Not just his public career. Because he excels at everything. But that campaign, hes getting off the mark slowly. Hes doing a dance. Its the dance that jack kennedy and Richard Nixon do in 1960. Its like weve got the black vote in the north, weve got the southern white votes. What do we do . Kennedy carries both. The same thing occurs with the peace votes and the prowar people in 1916. Wilson runs the campaign. He kept us out of the war. And hughes really is doing this dance. And he ends up losing both sides really. He ends up losing the prowar people, and he ends up losing the people who want to stay neutral. Hes branded as being progerman. You see these editorial cartoons. Hes lumped with William Randolph hurst. With the irish nationalists and all this. And in the end of the day, the germanamerican vote goes to wilson. He doesnt elucidate the Campaign Themes very well. Hes fighting things like the tariff, which is not a popular issue for the republicans that year. There are labor issues. There are labor issues which are very important that year. Theres two big things which cross him up. They do not work well for him. Even though as governor of new york, he has an admirable record. He establishes workers comp boards, cases. That whole system, first in the country. Theres all sorts of labor regulations put in place for the first time. So hes really a champion of labor. But there, theres two things that happen. On the infamous california trip which well get into later, theres two things that happen. One thing which is never talked about is he blunders into San Francisco where the chamber of commerce is trying to break the unions. And they are particularly trying to do it in the restaurants. They want them to be open shops. In other words, you dont have to join the union to be there. And they force the restaurants to put up open shop signs. Where do they schedule his appearance . In a restaurant with the open shop sign right on the door. This sets off working men not only in california but around the country. Union Members Around the country. And also, in september, there is a threatened National Rail strike. And the administration and the Congress Passes the adamson act, which establishes an eighthour day. First thing first time nationwide. And that constitutionality is threatened later. But hughes opposes it. And again, this cuts into his labor vote. So is hes got problems, and he really doesnt really doesnt isnt able to really come out and say what he would do better than wilson. Here are the phone numbers. Well get to calls in six, seven minutes. 2027370001 for those of you in the central or eastern time zones. 2027370002 if you live in the mountain or pacific time zones. In addition to labor issues, there were also womens suffrage issues. At that time women still did not have the right to vote on a national level. Can you tell us about that aspect of the campaign . Definitely. Well, wilson had already changed his position to some extent on womens suffrage. Initially, he was quite opposed to the notion that women would have the vote and both of his wives actually were also of his view on this matter. At some point one of his daughters, though, became quite active in the Suffrage Movement and his views were gradually shifting. However, at the time of the Election Campaign in 1916, he still believed that womens suffrage should be decided on a state by state level rather than by a national amendment. Hughes went far beyond that to and far beyond a lot of the republicans to claim that there should actually be a womens suffrage amendment. This is kind of puzzling because, in fact, the states in which women could vote largely went for wilson rather than hughes which is somewhat paradoxical given hughes support. There may be various reasons for that, one of them being this issue of the war and the womens Peace Movement which was opposed to the war. 12 states at that time had given women the right to vote. For his support of womens suffrage, a group of supporters of Charles Evans hughes form a fan club, i guess, who campaigned for him. They went by the name of the hughesettes, which seems pretty modern, when you think about it. Weve got some interesting things to show you. One of the nieces of someone who was a hughesette has put together a campaign of hughesettes website which tells the story of her aunts story in the campaign. Its elizabethfreeman. Org. Were showing you some of the history of her aunt as a hughesette, campaigning for Charles Evans hughes in the 1916 election. Just to further explain your position, Charles Evans hughs law firm, private practice, still exists today in new york city. We went there and talked to one of the senior partners, who talked a little bit about Charles Evans hughes and his support for womens voting. Were also very proud of an original edition of the independent weekly magazine which came out the week after Justice Hughes received the republican nomination for the presidency. Thats mrs. Hughes on the cover, who was obviously a very important person in Justice Hughes life. And in particular with respect to this issue of the magazine. Shes on here because of his support of womens suffrage, which she supported as well. Something we learned in the magazine that we werent aware of beforehand, and which isnt often talked about with respect to Justice Hughes, is that the Republican Party platform in 1916 was simply that each state would have the right to determine whether or not women would have the right to vote. Justice hughes gave a speech which is reprinted in this magazine after that in which he said that he was going to go beyond the Republican Party platform and support the susan b. Anthony amendment to the constitution, which would provide women the right to vote throughout the United States and wouldnt give each state simply the right to determine whether or not women could vote. And from that we will move to Election Night, because we know some of you will have questions about this, the outcome. I read that Woodrow Wilson went to bed on Election Night thinking that hed lost. He thought he had lost. And he was i wouldnt say he was resigned to it, certainly not he was almost about ready to either give up the presidency very nobly or in a huff. Its your call as how you want to describe it. But he has a plan where, okay, ive lost, im getting out. Back then, president s did not take office in january. They had to wait until march. You had a big interim and you had a situation where the country was drifting towards war. So what do you do . His plan was he would appoint hughes as secretary of state, getting the jump on Warren Harding, because the secretary of state was second in line to the presidency. Once hughes was shuffled aside or secretary of state lansing was shuffled aside for hughes, then thomas marshall, the Vice President , would resign. And then wilson. So sort of a threepoint plan. And hughes would become the president until he formally took his term. Well, what happened is that it was an incredibly close election. Oh, yes. Back to that. But wilson won. 23 electoral votes. It is about a quarter million, i think, of popular votes. It is not that close in the popular total. But what it is, it is so close in california. Thats the key. It is decided by about 13 electoral votes. That is what the situation was in california. On the second incident which occurs in california. And really the particular nature of the incident is kind of overplayed because, again, back to that Progressive Party convention which kind of dissolves and leaves the field open to hughes. Theyre in a bad mood. Theyre really not resolved as to who theyre going to be endorsing. One of the people with a really bad temper is governor Hiram Johnson of california. Johnson is running for the senate in california, United States senate. Hes got a primary and he is a very ornery guy. Hughes, because of the limitations of the travel in those days, has to get out to the coast early, and then back to the east coast where all the votes are later towards the end where it is crucial. So he swings through california. He does this before the primary. Johnson is the governor. Hes not the candidate the california Republican Party is so split and they cannot make any decisions on who will escort who, who will chair the meeting. It is it is worse than palestinians and israelis. It is the feelings are so bad. And finally what happens is, theres an incident in long beach, california where hughes who has still not met johnson, goes in to rest at the hotel there, doesnt know that johnson is there. Johnson knows that hughes is there. They leave the hotel, they never meet. And it is blamed that hughes has alienated johnson in this. But really, johnson could have made the move. He knew. He could have gone over, and in fact right after that, hughes through an intermediary, invites johnson to chair a meeting, introduce him in sacramento. Johnson refuses. And hughes loses the state by about 3,000 votes. They dont know until the next friday, friday after the tuesday of election, that he has lost the state. They dont know hes lost the election until that friday. But meanwhile, Hiram Johnson wins the primary and he wins the state of california by Something Like 300,000 votes. He wins it by immense amount. So a lot of people blame Hiram Johnson. They blame that specific incident. But in fact the first meeting of the progressives when johnson goes back to california, they endorse him, but then they split up. They split up and they hold separate meetings, well be for hughes, well be for wilson. He couldnt have swung all the progressives if he wanted to, but he might have swung more than 1,600. In the end in the womens vote, we mentioned there were 12 states. Wilson won 9 of the 12. That says about Charles Evans hughes that he wasnt so of a political tactician as he was running a convention . I think he was much more of a principled person and a principled lawyer than a politician in certain respects. So i think part of as i mentioned before, part of the reason that the some of the women didnt vote for him was because of the perception that he would bring america to war whereas wilson had promised or they felt that wilson had pledged to remain at peace. But really also i think one of the things that the Hiram Johnson incident really outlines and shows about hughes character is that he wasnt really very interested in currying favor with other politicians or within people within the party machine. So i think that this is shown very demonstrably in his gubernatorial career where he tries to oust some people who have issues within the administration and thats met very disfavorably because people think that the people deserved loyalty from the Republican Party. And so he really just wasnt interested in playing a lot of political games. I think that that hurt him in the election. For our two guests, lets begin taking some of our viewers calls. Our first call of the evening from rootstown, ohio, this is duncan. Hello, duncan. Whats your question . Caller hi. I was curious about any bad things Charles Evans hughes might have said about Woodrow Wilson, any bad things he might have done in the first term of his presidency. Any bad things he said about Woodrow Wilson . He certainly criticized the lack of preparedness for wilson in terms of not having an army and a 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 i think 1912 or regime, and then the country devolves into chaos. If you see the movies viva via. And you just see one revolution replacing another right on wilson is concerned that, say, general huerta not impose another dictatorship on mexico and sends marines into veracruz to block german arm shipments. Theres incidents, crazy incidents over why they come in. Its like a flag flew here or not there. But the troops come, they go. Mexico gets worse and worse. And then in 1916, you get the columbus new mexico incident pancho villa kills american nationals after raiding a border town, and america sends the Expeditionary Force into mexico under black jack pershing. But thats another disaster. Theres a lot to criticize about mexico. Theres a lot to criticize about preparedness in the Wilson Administration. These are the two things which hughes plays on. Syracuse is up next. This is curtis. Welcome to the conversation, curtis. Caller good evening. Thank you for the contenders. I just wanted to talk about a very important decision that Charles Evans hughes wrote and ill get through this quickly. The National Industrial recovery act was ruled unconstitutional in 1935 and later that year the National Labor relations act was passed. And then they thought that was going to be ruled unconstitutional but it came to the high court in jones and lofton steel in 1937. I think the high court was under pressure to change their positions from ruling new deal laws unconstitutional and hughes wrote that decision that ruled National Labor relations act constitutional. I think the moral of that story is that even the high court can be put under political pressure to change their position. Thank you very much. Thanks very much. Knowing well spend a lot more time on it, just a brief answer . Sure. Thank you. You raise a Crucial Point and a crucial contention among historians the question of whether the switch in time that saved the nine, which is what defeated the scheme that Franklin Roosevelt proposed, was actually politically motivated or consistent with the evolution of the justices including roberts and chief Justice Hughes and well get into that later. Louisville, kentucky, shawn. Good evening to you. Caller thank you. I was calling im a student at law school im wondering what chief Justice Hughes court have on fdrs view . Thanks for the contenders. Thanks very much. Basic outlook of the new deal programs overall was . So, at the beginning of the new deal, as the prior caller mentioned, they were striking down a lot of new deal legislation, and the thing is that there was kind of a split between certain of the justices, some on the right called the four horsemen, and then others of the justices like Justice Brandeis who were quite far to the left. Hughes and roberts were in a sense swing votes so that they basically would decide whether to uphold or strike down various new deal regulations. Then in 1937 there was this fairly radical switch or at least a switch that was perceived as radical where the new deal programs were upheld. Well talk about Charles Evans hughes, the man. We heard from the outset, from the current chief justice, that he looked and sounded like god. Would you add a little more color around how tall was he . He was 511. Interesting enough, he was very slight as a young man. Very thin. As an adult, as a young man he weighed 127 pounds, and the guy who cleaned up the Insurance Agency, they would not write insurance policy for him. They gave him the physicals and say, we cant find anything wrong with him, but hes just too thin. We wont give him a Life Insurance policy. He lived to be about 85 and was very vigorous, very active. Ultimately, he reached an adult weight of about 173 pounds, which he would measure very carefully. He would do this in an interesting way. At breakfast he would have a pile of toast in front of him, and if he was putting on too much weight, he would remove a slice of toast. And if he didnt weigh enough, he would put another slice on. But this fellow who was supposedly so slight and not vigorous was a Great Mountain climber. When he is solicited by the state legislature in new york to after hes done the gas inquiry, he goes and hes im burned out and need a vacation. Hes climbing the alps, and if he wasnt in Public Service so much, taking up all his time and costing him a great amount of money, this is a point which is very important. This guy keeps coming back to Public Service again and again and again. After he was knocked out of the presidency, he might have said, to hell with you people ive done my time. Ive fixed this. Ive fixed that. And ive done this and ive done that, and its 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 didnt pale out. Even before he became the great crusader, he was not taking on the big cases. He should have been speaking about his earning powers. One of his great rival that is worked for hearst in the 1906 campaign against hughes said at the time he became chief justice that his Public Service had cost him 6 million. Okay . 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. Somebody once said, huey long, that was firstclass brains, Robert Penn Warren said that. It was the same with hughes. 6 years old, he goes off to school and then he comes home, and he says im not learning that much there, dad. I could learn more here. Yes, son . And heres how im going to do it. He has the charles e. Hughes plan the study, which he lays out hour by hour how hes going to do it and he does it home schooled. A couple years later moves around again. Maybe hes going back to school. Same thing. Stays out of school. Basically is home schooled before home schooling was cool. He completes his high School Studies on his own when hes about 12 or so. Hes too young to get into college. He has to roam around new york city for a year before he can go in. There are stories where i think when hes secretary of state or governor, whatever, it doesnt matter, hes handed a threepage memo before he goes into the meeting. He reads it as hes walking, go into the meeting. A stenographer tribes what he says. It is off by one word. Wow. You see stories like that over and over again. Graduated from college at 19 and went on it to Cornell Law School. Im wondering if theres a sense of him at cornell these days. There is. Actually, he taught at Cornell Law School for two years. He gave up a very lucrative practice in new york under the which was supervise bid his fatherinlaw, in order to take a health break at cornell and also to become an academic. He ultimately wound up leaving Cornell Law School partly because his fatherinlaw thought that his grandchildren shouldnt be raised in such a remote location. He later in life said among his happiest times were his times at Cornell Law School and teaching. He was a graduate of columbia, pardon me. Wrong and important for all you columbia and Cornell Law School graduates out there. We have a clip of him we want to show so you can get a sense of his style very much of the period, but he was considered quite a great orator so lets listen to what he sounded like. Bigotry, 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, for they undermine the very foundation of our democratic effort. And were going back to telephone calls. Lets listen to a call from boston. This is frederick. Youre on the air, frederick. Hi. Id 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 was his family where did the family get their money . Born in 1862, glenns falls, new york. What do you think about his family . His father was a baptist, and this was very important. His family was not particularly affluent, and he grew up in fairly humble circumstances. He was quite influenced by the baptist background that he enjoyed from growing up in this family. And, in fact, his father had really hoped that he would become a religious man himself. Ultimately, he was disappointed that he decided to go into law instead of religion. But his background actually did influence his jurisprudence later on, at least some argue that, because he was quite favorable to religious liberty claims and wrote several opinions that upheld a very strong view of the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Wilmington, indiana next. This is daniel. Daniel, youre on. Caller thank you. Im glad you could take the time out and let us get in on the conversation. I actually have a question about if mr. Hughes would have been elected president , if the Federal Reserve would have been created under his administration, and if it hadnt had been, where we might be today . Would the Federal Reserve have been create under Charles Evans hughes . It would not, because it already existed. There you go. So on to our next question from south bend, indiana. Frank . Caller yes. Wilson ran on a platform of he kept us out of war. In july of 1916 there was a tremendous explosion in new york harbor called black toms island, and after the war, the world court ruled that the german agents had, in fact, caused the explosion. In the 1970s, the German Government finally paid the United States an indemnity. Can you comment on the role of the Wilson Administration in covering up that explosion and its effect on the election . Ill hang up and listen on the tv. That was a massive explosion of this ship, which it actually damaged part of the statue of liberty, shattered windows as far north as 42nd street. The Wilson Administration did downplay this because it was trying to keep us out of war at in the point. Now, it was very difficult for hughes that year, because hes 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. Theres a great prosperity. So hes fighting that, and hes also fighting the fact that we really are at peace. The troubles which occurred after the sinking of the lusitania are the German Government comes to its senses momentarily and ends its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. Its not until after the election that it resumes that. There is tremendous sabotage going on in the country. Theres funding of progerman groups. One of the problems wilson has during the war, during the election is they bring up a meeting they had with four progerman people, one of whom was a fellow named jeremiah oleary, an irish nationalist. This is one of the big issues, too, regarding the 1916 campaign. Why is there antienglish sentiment would be among the irish population, and the irish, it wasnt just 400 years of ill feelings, it was that they were still under the british flag at that part. They wanted their independence. Hughes is facing all of these problems, and the question is what is he going to do about them . The troubles arise after that election, particularly in regard to the zimmerman note, which is unveiled where germany is plotting or trying to entice mexico into attacking us and take the lost provinces back. Before we leave this section, on hughes personal, id like to talk about his spouse, Antoinette Carter. Can you tell us a little bit more how they met . Do you know about this . I do not. Ill tell you a little bit. Actually was the daughter of a senior partner at the law firm, and lets listen tie current partner at that law firm talking about Antoinette Carter and well talk about their marriage. Another thing we wanted to highlight at the Charles Evans hughes Conference Center was the importance of mrs. Hughes in Justice Hughes life. Weve selected for that reason a wedding invitation, their wedding invitation and a photograph of the two of them in their prime. Mrs. Hughes was the daughter of walter carter, who was the senior partner in the hughes law firm. And as lore would have it, Justice Hughes met mrs. Hughes as a Office Holiday party where she was there with her father. She was a very educated woman and influential in his life. He also had three daughters who together with mrs. Hughes, i think, or we believe had a great affect on his views, including his support of womens suffrage among other things. And last week we learned in our program that the partners were not partners in politics. Mrs. Deb stayed home while jean deb was campaigning all the time. What about these two as a political couple . Getting back to their marriage, their courtship is very slow. They meet a few times. Its like every few months or something, and because she is the bosss daughter, he wont go near her. When people say he married the bosss daughter, thats really a distortion of what happened. Its only until he is partners, full partners with carter that the courtship really begins. She is theres particularly if you read in there about their retirement together, how close a couple they are. Theyre very, very deeply in love, and she is really the first spouse which in a fullfledged Campaign Mode goes around the country, on the train with him in 1916, almost like an eleanor roosevelt, going into mines and stuff like that, stuff that really wasnt done then. Another call. This is from fort worth. This is jack. Youre on the air, jack. Caller hi. My question pertains to Charles Evans hughess perspective on racism that was prevalent within the United States at that time. His perspective on racism. Well, he was actually pretty progressive on race. In his first term, as associate justice, he actually wrote an opinion that suggested that it wasnt valid for railroads to fail to create first class accommodations for africanamerican passengers, even if they didnt have enough passengers to fill those accommodations. So he was actually more egalatarian on race than a lot of contemporaries. Later on as chief justice he would be author and supporter of various opinions that undermined the separate but equal doctrine and paved the way for brown versus the board of education. The next phone call is from lacrosse, wisconsin. This is mike. Caller i had a question maybe a little bit off the beaten path. It pertains to the two parties, evans party and wilsons party about the evolution of the personal income tax there and the tax debt. Which party was against it, and which was for it, if i may ask . The income tax comes about as part of the revenue act of, i think, 1913. And thats important because that is part of the underwood tariff. The democrats lower the tariff, and when they do that, they have to make up the revenue somewhere and pass the 16th amendment. That all folds into the income tax, so i would say on the whole because the republicans are the tariff party that the democrats are in favor of the income tax more than the republicans. In terms of hughes specifically, hughes is opposed to the income tax. Why . Because he says he reads it, and hes a lawyer. Hes always a lawyer, and hes always reading every word no matter where those words go. He says, shall tax all revenue. All revenue. And he says, that means theyre going to be able to tax the taxfree bonds of the municipalities and the states and destroy the balance of federalism. He opposes the 16th amendment, but on those very narrow grounds and i believe that new york state, as a whole, rejects the amendment in the ratification process. Baltimore, this is joseph. Youre on the air, joseph. Caller hi, good evening. Good evening. Caller in light of the Public Television programs this past week on prohibition, how was he did he have any attitude or input into that ugly affair . Hes talking about the pbs programs on prohibition. What was his own position on that . Neither he nor wilson would be regarded as dries. He started he started to take a sip during the insurance investigation to steady his nerves at night. People said he was the human icicle. He was bloodless and humorless but he was highstrung. He was never a big drinker. Theres a story told at the havana conference of the latinamerican nations around 1924 or so, as hes the secretary of state, as to whether hell serve booze or not. He sets it out there and walks over and takes the first one. Hes not a prohibitionist. None of the Great National leaders we can think of really are with any enthusiasm at all. Its time for us to dive now into more of his Supreme Court years. At this point well say goodbye to david petrusza. Well see him later on tonight and do a deep dive into the Supreme Court years. To begin our discussion, well show you some film of president Franklin Roosevelt in 1937. His take on what is commonly known as the courtpacking plan. After that you see our current chief Justice John Roberts talking about his perspectives on hughes role during this episode. As we begin, a newsreel from that time introducing us to each of the members of the Supreme Court in 1937. Associate Justice George sullivan born in england 75 years ago. Immigrant on the u. S. , he became senator from utah. Heres butler of minnesota, 71. Only Supreme Court catholic. The democratic appointee of president harding. Willis vander van from wyoming, 78. Senior justice. 26 years on the bench. James clark mcreynolds of tennessee, 75. Confirmed bachelor. A democrat appointed by wilson, has voted against every new deal measure. Only three justices are pleasing to new deal liberals. Benjamin nathan cardozo, 67, descendant of the jewish rabbi, who presided at the inauguration and appointed by president hoover. Harlan fisk stone of new york, 64. Former dean of columbia universitys law school. Schoolmate of calvin coolidge. The oldest justice, Justice Brandeis of kentucky, 80, of distinguished jewish ancestry. So liberally opposed that wilson didnt appoint him attorney general but appointed him to the court. Holding the balance of power are two justices, owen roberts at 61, the youngest justice, long a conservative. Since this fight began liberal in seven decisions. And Charles Evans hughes, 75. The 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. Newsreel cameras record his fireside chat, his second such appeal within six days. He tells the people that his plan would protect them from using power by the Supreme Court. Those opposing the plan have sought to arouse prejudice and fear by crying, saying i am seeking to pack the Supreme Court and that a baneful precedent will be established. What do they mean by the words packing the Supreme Court . Let me answer this question with a bluntness that will end all honest misunderstanding of my purpose. If by that phrase packing the court, it is charged that i wish to place on the bench spineless puppets who would disregard the law and decide specific cases as i wish them to be decided, i make this answer. That no president fit for his office would appoint and no senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm that kind of appointees to the Supreme Court of the United States. We want a Supreme Court which will build justice under the constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men. The Court Packing plan was a very serious threat. It was proposed by an immensely popular president with huge majorities in both houses of congress and targeted a very unpopular court. As fdr put it, quote, the people are with me, end quote. Hughes proceeded cautiously but with determination. His letter to the Senate Judiciary committee demolished fdrs efficiency arguments, such as the contention that the large number of denials showed that the court was not keeping up with its work. And echoing John Marshalls views about how a court should function, hughes explained adding more justices would makeg more justices would make the court far less efficient as put in his letter, there would be more judges to hear, for jumps to confer, more judges to discuss, more judges to be convinced and to decide. Hughes chose not to directly criticize fdrs effort to change the courts jurs prisprudence b expose it for what it was by disputing window dressing. And it worked. Perspective from the time and contemporary prospective on the Court Packing part of history weve learned so much about as we grew up in this country. Were going to learn more about that in the biography of Charles Evans hughes 1916 republican nominee for president. He failed in that bid but narrowly against Woodrow Wilson, and we are learning more about his contributions to society and joined by a new guest at our set right here outside on this beautiful october night in front of the Supreme Court building. Paul gwinnett, served general 2005 to 2008. Thanks for being with us. Great to be here. And burnet myler with us throughout the Program Professor cornell university. Glad to have you. Im going to ask to start, we said he had two terms on the court. 1910 appointed associate justice at the time the youngest. In 1930, president hoover reappointed him. This time at chief. What was the difference as justice on court during that 20year period . Did he come back as a different person . I think he did. He obviously had some incredible experiences in the interim. Everything from obviously the failed president ial run but also service as secretary of state, service on the socalled world court in the hague. He comes back to the job as chief justice, somebody who certainly had many more different experiences, considerable executive branch experience. All of which, im sure, influences him as a justice. Can you tell us a bit about the court in 1930 . Yes. Well, the court actually in 1930 was sort of much less conservative, actually, than it became in 1935 and 1936. So around 1930 when hughes joined and to are the years that were directly following that, the court didnt really strike down that much economic and, economic legislation. It upheld various kinds of state economic legislation in particular, and then towards the middle of that decade, it sort of shifted a bit in its decisionmaking to the right. And as a leader, as a chief in those early days what was he like . I think somebody who took to the administrative parts of the chief justices job right away. That makes sense. Sometimes you have people, certainly in the modern era becoming chief justice mostly served in judicial capacities, but heres something run the state of new york and is a great administrator. I think he took to those aspects of the job almost immediately and the other aspects of the job hitting the ground running. After all, hed already been an associate justice and this is only the second time in the nations history to this point somebody whos been an associate justice goes on to serve as chief justice. In many ideas the ideal chief justice and hits the ground running. At that point was he a broker of opinions . Was he a reliable vote on one side or the other . I think from the beginning he was somebody who was harder to type cast than some of the other justices on court, and he was coming into a court that as you point out was not as kind of bitterly divided as it became, but still a divided court, and from his first days on the court he was essentially near the center of the court. I want to take a couple questions and this brings up another point which is he was really loathed to dissent. He wanted to encourage harmony in the court, and he tended to write the most important opinions himself but also authored very few dissents both as an associate justice and chief justice because he wanted to encourage equity on the court as chief Justice Marshall on the court. And a few questions first and then develop into more. Welcome to the discussion. Caller thanks for taking my call. Great program. Appreciate it. If if wasnt he considered godlike, too, because of the decisions he made that were not entirely on the conservative end, more the liberal end . Tried to find a medium ground, and then, when roberts started turning to start voting for the medial programs, was he pushed by hughes or was the hughes kind of following along . Thank you for that. Thanks for watching. So i think that hughes actually was much more of a swing vote than roberts was. So roberts tended to vote more with the conservative block of the court or with the four herse horsemen. Hughes assigned himself more liberal pns often. Some think that was a disingenuous move designed to portray himself as somewhat more liberal in orient than was. I want to return to one thin said about him being a godlike presence. He was call add jovian presence on the court, partly about his administrative capacity as has been discussing, and he held conference, judicial conference, in a pretty authoritative and authoritarian manner. Announce his views at first and then have the other justices go around and discuss the case, but he held a pretty tight, pretty tight reins over the discussion within conference and over the court in general. Can we contrast that with what we know of the current chief justices style . I think there certainly are a lot of similarities and not necessarily in the point of the way the conference is contacted on a daytoday basis, but i think Justice Hughes, actually in between the time he was justice and chief justice wrote a book on the Supreme Court which is itself kind of a unique thing to get a window into the Supreme Court from somebody whos already served as an associate justice and at the time that hes writing this book or giving lectures doesnt know hes going to be the chief justice. And he talks about the role of the chief justice in that book and talks about the limits on what a chief justice can do, because at the end of the day, you are the chief justice of the United States, but youre only given one vote. And you do have to lead in way that i think is more subtle than the kind of leadership you would have as a governor or even a secretary of state. And i think he did manage to do a remarkable job of leading the court especially in kind of the administrative areas or just moving into this building, leading by example in that way. Since youve referenced it, take a minute and talk about this building. Up until this period of time the court actually met across the street in the United States capitol building, and tell the story how they came to have their own building . They decided they wanted to have their own building, and i think that in and of itself is something thats quite symbolically interesting, because if you think about the court until they move into this building, they are in Constant Contact with the legislatures and theyre literally passing each other in the halls of congress. And theres something, i think, very important symbolically to having a separate judicial building thats physically separate from congress across the street, and has a separate presence. There were, of course, criticisms as there always are anytime theres a public building. You can see, this is ornate and a beautiful building. I think my recollection is, though, it ultimately came in under budget. Quite remarkable. But nonetheless, there was some criticism, why do they need to build this marble temple . William howard taft, had been president , became chief justice argued that the court needed its own building, didnt live to see it, and Charles Evans hughes, first chief justice to move in here. Do you know anything whether i read very controversial at the time and not all justices wanted to come in and work in here . And i think thats partially because youre talking about justices, some of whom are traditionalists. And it was a depression. Its the depression. Its an expensive the optics of moving into this beautiful temple, has its own kind of political dimension, but part of it is just, it was break with tradition. I think from modern perspective seems like a terrific break in a break that was maybe long overdue. The pediment, which were looking at, actually the architect included a depiction of Charles Evans hughes in the pediment, and i think over the next fall we might be able to get a shot of that so you can see how the architects of this building depicted him. Were going listen to mount joy, pennsylvania. This is harry. Caller yeah. I used to see studiesy about the Supreme Court and in the 1935 decision in some of the new deal cases i think three major laws were struck down by unanimous Supreme Court decisions. Unanimous. That included liberals, and from what i understand when roosevelt made his Court Packing speech, Louis Brandeis was, offended guy, because he was one of the more elderly members of the court over 80 years old, and i used to work on roberts and from what i understood the votes on the case of 1937 were taken before, in separate cham fwbers the court in 1936, votes taken for the case to decide the 1937 memorandum by felix frankford from what i understand. Thanks for letting me be on the show. Thanks very much. That caller provided a nice segue to get into the whole Court Packing era. Set the stage for us, please. What happened in the, i want to get back to this callers question, actual ly its the crx of the Court Packing a lot of the new deal measures were being struck down by this Supreme Court and sometimes by a unanimous court, and what grounds . The grounds first, exceeding Congress Powers under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is actually quite relevant today. The source for passage of obamas health care plan, or the tax power, and its also the source of a lot of legislation that is passed right now. So under the new deal, the court basically was not as expansive in its interpretation of what the Congress Power could do for the, for congress, and thought that often the states autonomy was infringed upon by congressional enactments. Another ground for invalidation was under substantive due process or liberty of contract, read into the fourth, 14th amendment or the 5th amendment. So the new deal court or the hughes court had been striking down a lot of new deal legislation, and fdr in frustration after his reelection basically proposed this plan whereby the courts membership would be increased, if justices didnt retire in a timely fashion. So under his plan, there would have been up to six new justices placed upon the court. Now, this gets into the question that was asked by the caller about whether Justice Roberts, who was the chief person who supposedly changed rhys vote had changed his vote before this Court Packing scheme was promoted or not . And one argument is that once roosevelt won the election, the court really felt that there would be a lot of pressure to uphold and sustain new deal legislation, and that it could no longer be striking down as many laws. So one argument is just that the Court Packing scheme itself was almost irrelevant, or wasnt the real catalyst that roberts felt he had to change his vote simply because of rooseveltal reelection and this great democratic consensus behind him. Give us a sense, paul, how engaged the country was in this . Was this hugely controversial or a washington story . This was definitely not a washington story. And i think it helps to kind of understand the stage completely, which is, think about fdr at this point. Hes just been reelected for his second term. He has all hes dealing with the great depression. Nobodys worried whether its the great recession. This is the great depression. Hes trying to deal with it. Dealing with it innovatively, passing this legislation and its getting struck down by the court. Hes also in his second term. Now, by the time hes done with his fourth term he will have appointed more Supreme Court justices than anybody other than george washington. The other president , george washington. Any other president. At this point hes like jimmy carter. Hes been a fullterm president and hasnt put anybody on the court. Hes very frustrated with the court. Hes very frustrated with the fact that theyre striking down his legislation. Hes of the view that they are really out of touch with the whole country. And thats part of the reason the country as a whole really focuses on this, and i think a lot of that frustration, both with what the courts doing with the age of some of the justices, all of that boils over into the Court Packing plan, and i think its very interesting to debate whether, as you say, whether the plan was really necessary, whether that really explains the courts change in approach in some of these important areas but fair to say its a bit of a black eye to fdrs historical legacy that he let his frustrations boil over and made this proposal. Take a call from salem, oregon. Kirk watching out there. Hello, kirk. Caller yes. Good afternoon. Its still afternoon here. I appreciate your taking my call. This is, i presume, primarily a question for professor myler. Im many curious to know what you might know regarding the personal reship, tie d shrelati between Justice Hughes and the family from new york, seward was lincolns secretary of state, and also part of the reason im calling is ive been puzzling for some time back in that era as the speech by Justice Hughes was indicating the antiracists of the community were the republicans, and that seems to have switched in around the time of Woodrow Wilsons presidency, and when he embraced w. A. B. Do roy. Curious what you might know about that. A great question. Im not as familiar with the relationship with seward. So ill have to defer to others on that, but the there is a very interesting story about hughes and race. He invited booker t. Washington to an event, and it was somewhat a controversial invitation. He personally escorted him to a table. Hughes pretty much retained a fairly uniformed position on race throughout his career where he was in favor of at least greater equality. Im not sure to what extent full equality, but against the backdrop of this change that youre pointing out, where previously republicans had been much more in favor of racial equality and then the democrats also sort of took on that mantle. And returning to the Court Packing plan, Charles Evans hughes was how involved in lobbying or setting the stage for it being defeated . I think he was integrally involved and as chief Justice Roberts pointed out, a famous miss from the court itself to congress and at least as i understand the story, that was something that Justice Brandeis was very much in favor of and suggested and the chief justice was very direct in the same kind of i think skill set that he brought to bear in investigating the Gas Companies back in the day, i mean, he was good with numbers. Used the numbers, looked at the courts docket, its caseload and as chief Justice Roberts indicated really kind of took apart a neutral case for what fdr was proposing and really laid bear kind of the more obvious motivation for the Court Packing claim. How common in todays relationship between the court and legislature would it be for a missive to be sent from the court to congress . It does happen. In fact, the chief justice, i dont know whether this was the practice back in the day of chief Justice Hughes but its become the practice that basically every year there is a, essentially a state of the judiciary letter that the chief justice sends over to congress. And sometimes it can be pointed. For a number of years both chief Justice Rehnquist and chief Justice Roberts made a point of explaining that they were less than happy with the current state of judicial pay. So there continued to be these kind of issues between and among the branches, but i also think that probably the way the chief justice, chief Justice Hughes handled the Court Packing scheme probably took Court Packing off the table as a realistic option going forward, and i think thats one of his great contributions. So i completely agree with paul, but i just wanted to also add two things. One of which is that some people dp criticize hughes at the time for essentially issues an advisory opinion, because one part of his letter chief Justice Roberts referred to do the court, importantly also signed, or was, he consulted with brandeis about, so there was kind of u nam imtty among the court. One part of the letter, hearing cases in a panel system wouldnt actually probably be constitutional, and that seems like an advisory opinion, and interestingly in the book that paul referred to before about the Supreme Court, hughes had condemned other justices for trying to issue advisory opinions. So there is some controversy about that letter, i think. Next call is from st. Josephs, missouri. Daniel. Caller hi. Thank you for taking my call. Kind of a followup to the cornell professors comment that owen roberts prior to the Court Packing plan aligned himself for with the horsemen, the conservative wichk the court and after the Court Packing plan arguably owen roberts was a part of the switch in time to save nine. From what i read, roberts would never admit that. Does either one of you know whether he, why he really did change his voting pattern . Do you know if he changed his voting pattern after in a . Well, the only person that knows for sure is Justice Roberts. And hes no longer with us. I think this is one of the reasons, i think, from an academic standpoint Court Packing is so interesting as a historical episode, is there are a lot of competing theories. They are supported at a detailed level, but we dont really know for sure, and i do think its fair, though, that if you look at Justice Roberts voting patterns, there does seem to be a fork in the road and there does seem to be a real change that corresponds with the Court Packing scandal and, really, these three cases that emerged any other a critical time that go in a very different direction. Anymore to add . He definitely protested he wasnt influenceed by politics at all, but its hard to believe that based only the record. We talked ak the fact that this court opened in 1935, a beautiful building. Wondering, you spend a lot of time in that courtroom as solicitor general. Is the courtroom he operated in as chief justice essentially the same today . A couple minor differences. There have been changes of the size of the, or the shape of the bench from time to time over the time period, but it is remarkably similar to the courtroom over which he would have presided. We also have a historic photograph thats from the Supreme Court historic society, but it was somewhat ill licitly taken. Well show it to you as well. Looking at that, the court in session. You dont see that very often. Sure dont. And while were talking about it, we didnt mention in his biography and years in between his first and Second Service on the court, he was a private practice lawyer, much sought after, and arguedwil some 50 cases before the court. Having had that experience, my question is, what was an oral argument like in his court . Its really, i think a very good point, and its something that i think is very similar to the situation we have now with chief Justice Roberts. You know . We have somebody in chief Justice Roberts who argued nearly 40 cases when he was before he came on to the bench, and clehief justice had him bea. 50 arguments in his private practice. A lucrative private practice, thats part of point made about the sacrifices that he made for Public Service, but he comes to the court as somebody who not only has appreciation for the job of the court, because hes previously served as an associate justice, but he has some sympathy and understanding of the role of counsel as well. And i think hes somebody who was certainly willing to ask questions of counsel, but also i think had a real appreciation that counsel had prepared for the argument, they had points they wanted to make and was also ready and willing to listen to counsel at argument as well. Pittsburgh. This is tim. Welcome to our conversation, tim. Caller yes. Thank you. I have a question for your guests about the circumstances of Justice Hughes ascending to the court as chief justice in 1930. And yom know if the story is true, so i hoped your guests would be able to confirm it. That the conventional wisdom after taft had died was that Charles Evans hughes were not agree to serve as chief justice, because doing so would mean that he son would have to resign at solicitor general, and then to everyones surprise, Charles Evans hughes sr. Decided to take the job and his son had to resign as solicitor general . Well, you probably know some of the history of your predecessors. What can you tell us . I have heard this story, and i do not know whether its true, because ive heard different versions of this story, and i so i you may have a perspective as to the truth of it. I will say this, though which is to say, i think if somebody, you know, if the president really thought, president hoover, really thought that Charles Evans hughes would not take the job and not interested in chief justice seems like a naive assumption, because hughes had an interest in the chief justice job going way back. When first put on the court as associate justice, he was appointed with some understanding. Theres a letter to this effect, that he may be elevated very early when there was an opening at that point, and he wasnt. He was passed over for chief Justice White. Of course, president taft was the one who passed him over and theres suspicion that president taft might have had an eye on the chief justice job that he ultimately got and actually kind of more favorably disposed to appoint the older Justice White rather than the young, robust Justice Hughes. So i definitely heard the story. It certainly had to be a difficult moment around the family dinner table, since theres no question that chief Justice Hughes, accepting the job, meant that his son would have to give up solicitor general job, which is a very plum job, but i think its a little naive to think he was going to turn it down. Some thought so at the time but probably misled in various ways. One more thing about the fact he may have had aspiration for the chief justice seat much earlier. Some talk he would appointeds at chief justice rather than associated justice when first appointed to the court and being passed over might have been one of the reasons he was more ready to take the president ial nomination rather than not. This is mark from ohio. Hello, mark. Caller yes. One thing i wanted to talk about is i had a problem with the Supreme Court judges. Being 80, 90 years old. I feel they are way out of touch with the american people. And theres a whole lot of things that goes on. Them being in different types of groups, like the kkk and stuff like that, and they still have the same beliefs that everybody has else in this country. And there ought to be apointed by different president s we ought to be able to vote them in. I think it would be a little more fair than the way they are in now, and be more a part of this country than just just like they are gods or something. You know . Okay, mark. Thanks for your question. He talks about Supreme Court justices not knowing much about the rest of us in society, being out of touch. Id like to hear from both of you on this oonch. I think this is what motivated fdrs Court Packing plan. Saying some of the older justs had antiquated notions an the economy and the society that needed to be superseded and they were too out of touch and why all of the justices took offense at his plan. I think thats right. Certainly ideas that maybe we need a retirement age, maybe we need term limits. Maybe we need some way either making the justices more responsive or either limiting the length at which they serve. Its interesting. These are topics that then attorney hughes addresses in his book about the Supreme Court, and he talks about the various pros and cons and certainly cognizant there are, can be difficulty. Sometimes justices will stay on longer than maybe they should, but he concludes, anyways, at the end of the day, the Current System we have is the best system you could have, and es specially it comes to things like vindicating peoples individual rights that is a virtue not a vice that the justices are somewhat removed from everyday politics. Inside this Supreme Court, there are two very large conference rooms. East and west conference rooms. Used often for public events, and there are portraits of each of the chief justice whose have served. Were going to show you the portrait of Charles Evans hughes that is here inside the court, and as we look at that, i would like bernie myler for you to talk about the, the most significant opinions he offered . Well, he did offer a number of very significant opinions. One opinion that is significant i think and underdiscussed is against alabama. This was an opinion he issued early on when associate justice and it involved striking down a punage law. Even though slavery had been abolished under the 13th amendment it wasnt clear whether there could be labor required in response to debt or in compensation of debt and so he struck down this law that that had allowed for punage and sort of said it wasnt relevant that the party involved was africanamerican but instead that anyone shouldnt be subjected to this requirement of labor for dit. So th for debt. One important decision and of course a lot of important decisions leveled during his time as chief justice and among them were decisions on both sides of the spectrum in terms of striking down economic legislation or upholding it. One case i think was especially crucial, because it signaled his willingness to understand the flexibility that was required by economic legislation pretty early on in his term, was that hes of Home Building and Loan Association against blazedale. A case involving minnesota mortgage moratorium act where the time for repayment of mortgages was extended and basically there claim was that this violated the states responsibility not to impair the obligations of contract, and what chief justice hall sorry. Not chief justice hall. Chief Justice Hughes said in this case was basically that contracts have to be understood withined context of the Public Interest. So one of the themes he kept coming back to was the way in which individuals rights had to be maintained but it had to be within the context of a protection of the Public Interest more generally. Anything youd like to add . Those are great opinions to highlight. I think the great thing is, he was the chief justice for a number of years. He certainly wrote more than his fair share of the opinions. So theyre definitely opinions we could point to. I would mention a couple. Most obviously the west soviet hotel and the steel cases are the ones that essentially are the pivot points for the switch in time. So those are certainly very important opinions, but i also think that there are some, what i would describe more as Civil Liberties opinions that he wrote near gerns minnesota, a very important case that really is the very first important First Amendment cases as part of the courts. Now its hard to imagine the Supreme Court of the United States without the First Amendment. The an important part of the docket. Near this is the First Amendment for juice prujurisprudence and assembly with laws that try too target people for being members of unpopular groups, and the court has kind of waxed and waned but in many respects i tht the dejong decision was really ahead of its time. Los angeles our next caller and lon is on the air. Caller hi. I would like to ask your panel with both Charles Evans hughes and fdr being a part of the new york aristocratic elite, both progressive governors. One took the path of elected, highest elected office. The other one went the judicial route. What kind of rapport was there between them . And i was just wondering behind closed doors if theres any evidence of any courtality, or was fdr regarded by hughes as a traitor to his class . Also, i was just thinking of this while i was living to your discussion. Was there a point at which hughes realized in a even though he was an elected governor, that he realized that from his arrest, aristocratic background, he couldnt aspire to running for president , even though perhaps he wanted to be president . Im thinking of George Nathanael viceroy of india who had the ability to be Prime Minister but because he was from that aristocratic class had no hope of elected office. Those two questions and ill take your answer off the air. Thanks. The relationship between fdr and Charles Evans hughes . Can you speak to it . So i think that certainly hughes swore in fdr on several occasions, and so there was an amity between them, but at the same time i think the Court Packing scheme various tensions between the court and the president at that toint point in time didnt lead to a very amicable friendship between the two men and, also, hughes himself was somewhat reserved in terms of social life within d. C. He and his wife only would entertain or agree to attend dinner parts other saturday nights, because he felt it would contravene his very austere modes of preparing for his Judicial Practice if he actually went out any other time. So he wasnt as much of a figure in the washington social scene as one might imagine. The only thing id add, too. Really, it wasnt from quite the same aristocratic roots as roosevelt. Upbringing exceptional from an educational point. Both parents remarkable individual, but i dont think it was a youth of great luxury, great wealth, and i think most of the wealth that he accomplished over his career accumulated over his career, was really through his own law practice and his own endeavors. So i do think there were differences personalitywise and backgroundwides as well. Next call from stockton, california. Carol, go ahead, please. Caller hi. Stockton. I thought so. Go ahead. Caller the question was, a sense that the Supreme Court Justice Hughes was there until was he on, still the chief justice in 1948 or did he retire before his death in 1948 . Which would have made him around 85 years old at the time. Thats right. Well, we thank you very much. Youve jumped in to the last part of his life, which well spend a little more time, but when did he retire from the court . 1941. 1941. Right, exactly. He stepped down when he still had a few years left and i think that something not unintentional. He had, in his time on the court had seen some justices get to the end of their time and have difficult issues when they should leave. When he first came to the court very closely Justice Holmes and came back to the court as chief justice, even though hed been away some 20 years, Justice Holmes was still on the bench and one of the things he had to do was eventually dliv eeliver news to justice holms that his colleagues had decided it might be time for Justice Holmes to move on and it might be one of the most difficult things he probably had to do as chief justice, especially because of the closeness between the two men and im sure it was one of the most difficult things that Justice Holmes had to deal with. What was his relationship like with brandeis . He had a quite amicable relationship with gran dyes personally. One of the indicia of that is the fact brandeis was willing to sign on to his letter or agree to support this letter that he wrote and, against the Court Packing deal, and i think that brandeis objected to basically a lot of hughes judicial philosophy and was much more liberal than hughes, but at the same time respected him as an intellect and this goes back to a theme weve come upon a lot which is just that his formidable intellect and ability to question various litigants and cases was really admired by all the other justices. I node to aeed to ask, youv described his formidable intellect. Would you want to argue one of his cases before the cart . Oh, i think it would be fascinating. Some of the other justices on the course, the four horsemen, difficult from the bench. Im not sure it would be all roses, but i think a remarkable experience, and obviously youre talking about not just the opportunity to argue in front of chief Justice Hughes but also Justice Brandeis, justice cardoso. There were real lions and formidable lions across that court. A couple mechanic questions about the court. Today about 8,000 petitions to have cases heard. They hear about 1 out of 100. 70 case as year. What was the work load of the court then . It wasnt that many more cases that they were hearing then, but the petitions for cert much lower. I think Something Like, when roosevelt proposed the Court Packing scheme, there had been Something Like 890 petitions in the prior year and only 100something granted. One of his grounds for complaints against the courts that they didnt have enough energy to hear more cases. Now, you know, we have a much greater disproportion between the number of cases that are, petitions and the number granted. Or the arguments, generally an hour today. Were they at that time . I think still typically that, more constrained. The early days of the court, arguments would go on for days, but by the time of chief Justice Hughes the arguments were more limited. I also think just to followup on the very good point made. I mean, i think one of the stories of the Supreme Court as its developed over history and more and more of its docket has become discretionary. So at the time that chief Justice Hughes was on the court, one of the things he did was he moved are the court more in the direction of having greater discretion over which cases to take and initially that was a source of at least potential controversy that they were exercising their discretion not to hear some cases. Of course, by todays numbers, it seem s quaint. Half our left to go in our twohour look at the contender. Featuring this week Charles Evans hughes. Republican nominee for president in 1916. Unsuccessful in his quest, although a close election against Woodrow Wilson, who was vying for his second term. And then Charles Evans hughes, talking about, went on to serve as chief justice, his second term on the Supreme Court, and was very much at the center of things during fdrs Court Packing scheme. Ind nola, mississippi. Anita, hello, youre on the air. Caller hi. To the professor, i hope you have a happy and healthy baby and i try to catch your show every friday night. My question is, hughes, just as hughes sounded like a man for progression and i hear you wax and wane about how he wanted the blacks to step forward. Curious to wonder what you all would think about women stepping forward and them being on the court now . And what he would think about the wrongdoings going on in the court today . So i think thats a really interesting question about his attitude towards women. I mean, so we heard a little earlier that he was in favor of female suffrage much earlier than a lot of other people. I think his attitude was women was somewhat ambiguous. As governor of new york, actually, he was an advocate for a lot more progressive legislation than he was later. Some argued he had to turn more towards the right later in his career. Among the kinds of legislation he was interested in at that point was to protect women and children, lakerers, but some opposed those kinds of measures, because they thought they were paternalistic, and even in his later time on the court, and as chief justice in a, t he use logic about protecting women against unfair labor practices. Not just protecting anyone, any laborer but that women might need special protection. So on the one hand, he was in favor of allowing women more autonomy, but on the other hand had a somewhat paternalistic viewpoint. Clutchia, tennessee, this is bud dising Charles Evans hughes. Caller hello and thank you for a wonderful program. I would like to know the opinion from your panelisting what you believe Charles Evans hughes might make both politically and judicially whats going on on wall street right now . Well, can you project . Well, i mean you know, everybodys got their own perspective whats going on at wall street right now but i think Charles Evans hughes was in some respects one of the great early reformers. If you think about the trajectory of his career, he didnt seek out Public Service, you know, for sort of its own sake or as something really won elected office. He kind of came to Public Service through his law practice and through an opportunity to kind of investigate industries where there was a lot of corruption and i think this is something that was a hallmark of his career. I think even in his president ial run its probably consistent with the idea that he wasnt necessarily the worlds best back slapper or knew how to build alliances with people, because a think he was very focused on getting rid of corruption and not caring if that meant a few sacred cows got slaughtered in the process. You mentioned his was one of the first controversial appointments as the chief justice, and i read that beth sides were he would be probusiness . Yes pap very interesting and somewhat paradoxical concern given both his earlier term on court and also his time as governor. So as governor and i think paul is quite right he was very reformed. I think of him sometimes as combining Teddy Roosevelts reformed mindedness with Woodrow Wilson the internationalism. He seemed to have an early career as a reformer, but people were very concerned his time as a private attorney and his time in private practice had let led him into probusiness alliances that would make him indisposed to regulate companies anymore. So i think that the main issue was the time he had spent in private practice. Although i think that that concern was not really warranted given his earlier career. Take a call from toledo and then a clip about Charles Evans hughes and race. Toledo, tony, youre on the air. Caller hello. Thanks for taking my call. This particular question may be posed, probably directed towards the professor of the George Town University law school. Professor, sir, how do you feel mr. Hughes would have responded to unelected officials on an International Organizational scale such as the rockefeller funded United Nations being able to dick kate International Law as opposed to an elected official who would use the congress to pass particular laws . Thank you. Well, thats a great question, and its one where i think that the chief Justice Hughes would have i think very kind of nuanced views and not something whereyoud say, oh, boy, hed really be hostile to the international organizations, because, of course, this is somebody who came to the chief justiceship after serving on the International Court in the hague. So hes been sort of an nattiest, if you will, and it in his writings he has been less critical of the idea that International Law is our law. In fact, in his book he specifically says, International Law is our law. On the other hand, i think he would ultimately say, though, that our own elected officials have the ultimate say over what the scope of our laws are and i think he would have had a view that congress had quite a wide scope to embrace International Law principles but if congress wanted to say that certain principles of International Law did apply to the United States, then that would be the last word. Can i Say Something . Sure. I think thats exactly right and he says that congress has the last word, but International Law can fill in the gaps in certain respects, but i also think he was kind of ahead of his time in promoting u. S. Involvement in the court of international justice. He was not only a judge on that court, also advocated the u. S. Assuming, or adopting jurisdiction or being under the jurisdiction of the permanent court. Weve had a, a few callers who have asked about Charles Evans hughes and race. Were going to return to Hughes Hubbard and reid law firm, his law firm, still exists in new york city, for a story that hughes kels in his autobiography. In the Charles Evans hughes Conference Center weve tried to select things which wee flect important periods or stages in Justice Hughes life and weve collected a number of Different Things including original books that Justice Hughes authored. Most notably, the autobiography we find to be especially interesting. My favorite story in here is one that Justice Hughes tells of a visit he scheduled when he was the president of the Baptist Society in new york city. He asked booker t. Washington, the notable civil rights activist at that time, and religious person himself to come and speak to the assembly. And when booker t. Washington and his wife arrived Justice Hughes escorted mr. Washington and his wife to his own table and sat him there. Which at that time unfortunately was a very controversial thing to do. And Justice Hughes took advantage of that to speak to the assembly about the importance of diversity and tolerance. He was very disappointed that a group of religious people would themselves be intolerant to having booker t. Washington at his table. We have about 22 minutes left to go in our twohour look at the leitch and legacy of Charles Evans hughes, the contender. A man who sought the presidency and lost but changed American History. Weve brought back our, one of our first guests. He joins us still on the plaza of the Supreme Court and, david, one aspect of his life we havent spent time on and we should is his term as secretary of state in this pivotal postworld war i years. Would you briefly tell us what contributions he made in that role . Yes, absolutely. Hes regarded not only as one. Great chief justices, hes regarded as one of the great secretaries of state. When he leaves, regarded as one of the top three. John quincy adams, secretary suhr, mentioned before and himself. What he does, inherits a great mess because of the failure of the league of nations and talk about him in International Affairs and International Law he was for the league of nations, for the american United States of america to enter the league, but he was not about to see sovereignty to the league of nations, specifically opposed to article 10 of the league of nations, which committed the United States basically to go to war if the league decided we going to defend boundaries. Say, of the British Empire in india or ireland or in the mess created in europe an the treaty of verify sow. Rch versaud. It was impossible. Warren harding saw it quicker than he did, maybe, but hughes recognizesed truth of that. It was really a fools error to go back there. The senate was nothing going to approve that. He thought about resigning. E he stays. He pioneers an International Argument in a groundbreaking navy treating which chap s rati of 10106. The United States, United Kingdom and japan. Scraps a lot of tonnage of heavy battleships and 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. Also he moves on to other treaties in the far east. He gets japan to give the problems of shanshanpeng, a maj accomplishment and a think peel wouldnt believe but going into that decade, the United Kingdom, britain, was united in treaty, that is, if they were attacked or the other attack attacked they would go to war and the other party was with japan and a fear in the United States actually 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, four power pact and not successful in the immigration treaty with japan, which was in 1924, and was the japanese exclusion act. He tried quite hard to get that emile orat emi eemile ra e emilorated and not able to do that. This is charlie. Youre on the air. Caller thank you. A wonderful series and that goods are in for cspan. Who was the person in the 1916 election under republican, on the republican side that ran against hughes . I had heard, had the other person been the nominee, they would have beaten wilson. Well, am i supposed to take that one . Yes. If i am, really the contenders that year were senator fairbanks who had been Vice President under theodore roosevelt, senator burton of ohio. Ella hugh root, the conservative, outright conservative candidate. I would hesitate to stay that any number, any one of those would have rahn better race than hughes. I think that really the deck was kind of stacked it being so close. If you change any one thing. If maybe you dont have that railroad strike. Which impacted the voting in ohio, as oh, as much as Hiram Johnson did in california. You just dont know, but i dont know if you could say it was any one stronger candidate, if he had been the candidate. If he had been so strong he would have won the nomination. For all three of our guests, were going to go one at a time and in between call, time for us to wrap this conversation up and to think about Charles Evan Hughes legacy. How the world might have been different if he hadnt been here. What our country might have been like if he hadnt served. Im going to take a call and then going to start with you. So that there will be a little chance to think about that. Puerto rico, this is gerald. Caller yes. Good evening. I want the panelists to, please, explain why the hughes court decided to disregard the judicial precedence specifically the ruling in schechter and carter in order to recognize for the first time a fundamental right to organize unions and in the case of National Labor Relations Board versus jones and lackland Steel Corporation . That is, could you, please please harmonize Justice Hughes judicial reasoning . Thank you very much. Well, sure. Ill give it a try. I do think that there is way to reconcile those opinions because another caller pointed this out earlier. Its easy to think about these decisions on both sides of the famous switch in time as being 54 one way and all of a sudden theyre 54 the other. The story is much more complicated than that. Schechter poultry was a unanimous decision. Every member of the court said there was something wrong with the statute at issue there. Schechter poultry is still on the books as precedent. It leaves lawyers kind of scratching their head. Ed birth of whats calmed the nondelegation doctrine and from time to time lawyers still try to fit cases into the nondelegation doctrine because schechter poultry is still on the books but that was a different doctrine at issue when the nra comes to court. Precedent setting and breaks 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 activity. And its something that i think had, i was, bedevilled the court. Very difficult distinctions to draw. If you look at that pre1937 Commerce Clause jurisprudence it is a categorical approach, really did require some very thin, very difficult distinctions and so i think in that sense those decisions were not so satisfying that they were decisions that were not that easy. I mean, i think the Court Essentially ultimately became f persuaded that wouldnt work. And first part, bernadette myler. The most important part of hughes legacy relates to what paul just talked about which is that basically the hughes court wound up creating the modern commerce power, or allowing for the commerce power to be construed broadly and so much of the regulatory system of, that were under right now or that we can enjoy really derives from Congress Power under the Commerce Clause. So i think that thats one of the things that hughes shephe shepherded the court through a very difficult time and allowed for this outcome to emerge where the commerce power could sort of be much more much more expansive than previously. Back to calls. This time philadelphia. Charles . Hello, charles. Caller hi. Professor, i want to thank you for your record of Public Service. But the question i wanted to ask was about chief Justice Hughes attitude towards oral arguments. Did he believe that oral arguments should be like they are today . Which are largely focused on questions, or did he have another attitude twrorowards th . He had a more balanced view of oral argument i think in the sense that he understood both the virtues of asking questions and also the virtues of having lawyers have an ample opportunity to explain their positions. I think in a sense weve moved to a ditdifferent place is tor c historically. See couSupreme Court, dominated. Some lawyers had the idea oral argument was their time and they get to give this nice pros to share with justices. I think he was of the view 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. Fred in washington, d. C. Welcome to our discussion. Fred . You there . Caller yes. Your question. Caller yes. My question is, i would like to know if any of the members of the panel can make a comment about at that time, about the justice ma justices view of and state, or at that time any of the colleagues. What was their view . The members of the panel can answer this, then. You want to take that . Sure. This was a moment in time when the notion of a wall of separation was actually coming into, into common parlance or much more preserve lengths and the hughes court was quite important in liberty. Under the hughes court both the free exercise clause and establishment clause of the First Amendment were incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. They were held to apply to the statetostate action. That allowed for a lot more suits based on violation of religious liberty than had previously occurred. David, how about if you take your crack at the question of Charles Evans hughes legacy . I think its important that he, of how we stop the Court Packing scheme, how the regulatory nature of the decisions changed. How he helped put the Republican Party back together again. I think his legacy is one of service. Of a man who time after time after again leaves his normal stated life to serve his country and does it with remarkable intelligence and integrity. And in a time of so much fractionness in our nation, i think its good to look back on positive examples and to take hope from them. I read in one biographer who said he felt the constant tug between the legal and political spheres. Did you have that same sense of him . Yes, but i think one i think after he left the secretary of stateship, someone said of him that he was our first citizen. And i think that is such a wonderful thing to say, and certainly such a true thing to say about him. But, again, he made amazing sacrifices. Amazing sacrifices, when he left the state department, he was able to earn a peak of 400,000 a year and some of the jobs he had prior to that were in the range of 12,000 a year. So part of the fact of his leaving was simply, he knew he had to take care of his family, but 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 mid1920s, at a time 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. And we have ten minutes left in our program and time for just a couple more calls, but let me ask the calls. Let me ask the same question of you, the legacy. I would say theres really two aspects of it. Obviously im approaching this more from the legal perspective. Whats already been touched on is the Commerce Clause juris prudence. I think what makes that legacy so interesting is that were still dealing with this issue. Chief Justice Hughes rejected what i would call the categorical approach to the Commerce Clause, but even he was very quick to add that the Commerce Clause was not unlimited, and that it was a limited power, and the framers had enumerated the various powers in the constitution including the Commerce Clause, and none of them gave the federal government a plenary power. He laid out the basic framework that were still wrestling with, and we still have the idea that the Commerce Clause is broad, but not unlimited. Where those limits are is still something we continue to struggle with. Thats a real part of his legacy. The other things that i would emphasize is the legacy of Judicial Independence because i do think that the Court Packing idea was probably the single greatest challenge to Judicial Independence at least in the 20th century. And i think the way he sort of fought that off, i think, is something thats, like i said, i dont think well see another Court Packing effort. Thats a great legacy. Id add to that that in his book about the Supreme Court, he addressed what he thought were the three worst Supreme Court decisions that the court had made up to that point, what he called selfinflicted wounds. One of them was a decision in the 1870s called the legal tender decision. Whats interesting about it is its a case where the court first struck down a statute. After a change in its membership, ended up upholding the statute. And in commenting on that, he said it was really the courts fault for the way they handled it. He specifically pointed out that it wasnt grants fault. He uses the wort Court Packing. He said no one could accuse president grant of packing the court. This was something in the back of his mind even before he was a chief justice. He sees a real threat to the court and fends it off. I think that is a very worthy legacy. South yarmouth, massachusetts, this is greg. Caller hello . Youre on. Caller just curious, when does chief just hughes get done being on the court . 41. 1941. Whats your followup caller i have a followup question. Was he the chief justice when kamatsu vs. Kamatsu was written . No. He was off the court at that point. Caller i was curious. He was off the court at that point. David petrusza, explain about his final years. He resigns from the court, as we said, in 1941 and lives until the next five or six years, dies at the age of 86. What were his final years like . Well, hes very old when he goes on the court, and hes very old when he gets off the court. Two years before he gets off the court he gets a real scare. Sounds almost like a stroke. In fact, its a duodenal ulcer. But he recovers his health. When he leaves the court hes fairly vigorous. He doesnt return to new york. His children are up there, but he remains in washington, d. C. He had been, you know, his marriage was really a close one, very wonderful. But at this point, he decided im going to make up for lost time, the time which i have been away from my wife all this time. But she takes ill fairly quickly. I think by the end of the war, she has passed away. Its a very tragic time for him. Its one of the few times which is ever recorded of him losing control of his emotions when she has passed. It is so painful for him. His health continues fairly strongly until 1948. He goes up to cape cod, and there he takes a sudden turn for the worse, passes away. He had a fear of i think it was to be like not to be like Justice Cardozo who had been helpless toward the end of his life. And in this, his wish was granted. His time of infirmity was a matter of days if not hours. So he passed away with all the dignity with which he had lived. We have just about four minutes left. We have a clip we talked about the fact that he swore in fdr three times, even though they had an epic battle over Court Packing. We have a clip of him swearing in Franklin Delano roosevelt. You, Franklin Delano roosevelt, do solemnly swear you will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States to the best of your ability, preserve, 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 and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States, so help me god. Charles evans hughes swearing in Franklin Delano roosevelt. And his legacy as chief justice especially during the Court Packing era is something weve discussed during this edition of the contenders. We have a couple of minutes left. Id like to go back where i started, paul, and thats to talk about the 1916 election. If he had won that and Woodrow Wilson had not won a second term specifically there, how would the world have been different . Thats a consequential question in that its always hard to try to reconstruct history . What would have been so different if some critical factor had not taken place . Wilson obviously was a president who led us through the entry into world war i and moved us forward. So i think hes somebody this history regard very well. I have to say personally, though, understanding the character of person that Charles Evans hughes was, its hard for me to think that we would be poorly served even during that critical time by somebody whos done exceptionally well in so many ways, and certainly as his latest service as secretary of state showed, hes somebody who would have been comfortable in leading us in our foreign affairs. David petrusza, what are your thoughts on that, with regard to entry into world war i . I think its exit from world war i that change would have been made. What were talking about is the peace process. Woodrow wilson botch thats spectacularly. We see how hughes handles the treatymaking process when hes secretary of state. He brings all parties in. He gets the treaties in, and he submits to the senate, passed almost overwhelmingly. Also what i neglected to mention in his postchief justiceship years is hes called in to consult on the structure for the new United Nations. At this advanced age, he strikes some things regarding the structure of the security council, puts things in, and makes it far more workable. Hes a very practical guy. And he had been interested in world justice and court rule of law internationally from an early point. If he had proposed a league of nations, theres a good chance it would have been approved by the United States of america. Other than your own book, whats one of the best books in america that you can recommend . Certainly on hughes, the merl ohpusey twovolume biography is a terrific, terrific book. Thats the book if you want to know an awful lot about mr. Hughes. And you brought a book of his letters, i understand. Yeah. Its this book he wrote. Actually a collection of six different lectures that he gave at columbia university. And as i say, its a unique insight because heres resume nations about the Supreme Court of the United States from somebody who had been an associate just and would soon be the chief justice of the United States. Its a candid look at what a lawyer thinks about the Supreme Court. Still highly readable today . Very highly readable and fascinating actually how contemporary a lot of the discussion is. The last question for you quickly is when firstyear law students come in and you teach them about there era, whats the one thing you want them to know about it . I think them to know about the switch in time and the fact that it may have been political or may not have been, and also what the consequences were. I want to say thank you to our three guests who have been here tonight on our Charles Evans Hughes Program from outside the United States Supreme Court. We appreciate your time with us as we learn more about this period of American History. People who sought the presidency and even though the grid was not successful, still had an important impact on American History. Were going to close now as we started with some archival footage from the 1916 campaign. Coming up this weekend on American History on cspan3, the contenders. Tonight on the communicators, Charlie Mitchell talks about the administrations approach to Cyber Security and how its efforts compare with previous administrations and those of other countries. The message that the u. S. Government has been really pressing on industry and Business Leaders that the top person in an organization has to really personally take responsibility for Cyber Security and show that they are interested in it and that this is a cultural value within their organization, the government is telling that to companies, and i would think that the same thing should apply to the government. Watch the communicators tonight at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. Next on American History tv, professor Gary Armstrong on the u. S. Senates rejection of the 1919 treaty of versailles to end world war i,ch