Addresses of Charles Evans Hughes, 1906-1916

Contents

PAG]

Introduction to First Edition xliii

By Jacob Gould Schurman, LL.D.

Telegram Accepting the Nomination of the

Republican Convention 3

Address in Accepting the Republican Nomination for President, at Carnegie Hall, July- Si. 1916 8

I. — Public Office and Party Principles.

I. — Reply to Committee Appointed to Notify him of his Nomination for Mayor of New York City, October 9, 1905 49

II. — Speech in Response to Formal Notification of his Nomination as the Republican Candidate for Governor, at the Republican Club, New York City, October 3, 1906 55

III. — Inaugural Address, Albany, N. Y., January 1 , 1907 65

iii iv Contents

PAGE

IV. — Speech at the Dinner of the Republican Club of the City of New York, October i8, 1907 70

V. — Correspondence with James S. Leh-

maier of New York City 83

VI. — Address before the Republican Club of the City of New York, January 31, 1908 86

VII. — Address at the Union League Club Meeting in the Auditorium at Chicago, Saturday, February 22, 1908 108

II. — Regxjlation of Public-Service Corporations.

I. — Message to the Legislature, January 2, 1907, Recommending the Passage of a Public-Service Commissions Law. . 135

II. — Speech at the Banquet of the Utica

Chamber of Commerce, April i, 1907 146

III. — Speech at the Glens Falls Club, April

5.1907 159

IV. — Speech at the Banquet of the Buffalo

Chamber of Commerce , April 18,1 907 172

V. — Speech before the Elmira Chamber of

Commerce, May 3, 1907 179

VI.— Veto of the Two-Cent Fare Bill 1 93

Contents v

PAGE

III. — Occasional Adi/resses.

I. — Speech at the Banquet of the Albany Republican Organization, February 27,1907 203

II. — Speech at the National Arbitration and Peace Congress, New York City, April 15.1907 209

III. — Address at the Unveiling of Tablets at the Hall of Fame, New York University, May 31, 1907 217

IV. — Address at the Jamestown Exposition on Jefferson Memorial Day, July 5, 1907, in Connection with the Reunion of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence 228

V. — Address at Chautauqua, August 24,

1907 241

VI. — Speech at the Dedication of the Mc- Kinley Monument in Buffalo, September 5, 1907 253

VII. — Address at the Dedication of the Monument to General Greene at Gettysburg, September 27, 1907 257

VIII. — Speech at the Jamestown Exposition

on New York Day, October 10, 1907. . 261 vi Contents

IX. — Address at the Dedication of the Monument to General Franz Sigel, New York City, October 19, 1907 273

X. — Speech at the Opening of the Civic Forum at Carnegie Hall, New York City, November 20, 1907 281

XI, — Speech at the Meeting in the Interest of Tuskegee Institute, Held at Carnegie Hall on the Evening of January 17, 1908 293

XII, — Address Delivered at Youngstown,

Ohio, September 5, 1908 299

XIII. — Address before the New York State Bar Association. January 14, 191 6: Some Aspects of the Development of American Law 331

Introduction To The Second Edition

BY JACOB GOULD SCHURMAN

This new edition of Governor Hughes's Addresses, while omitting a few earher speeches of local or transient interest, is enriched by the following additions:

(i) Telegram to the Republican Convention in Chicago accepting the nomination as Candidate for the Presidency, June lo, 191 6;

(2) Address formally accepting the Presidential Nomination Delivered in Carnegie Hall, New York City, July 31, 191 6;

(3) Address Delivered at Youngstown, Ohio, September 5, 1908, being the "Key-note'* Speech in the Republican Presidential Campaign of that year; and

(4) Address before the New York State Bar Association, January 14, 191 6, on Some Aspects of the Development of American Law.

This last address, unlike the other three, is the utterance of a Justice of the Supreme viii Charles Evans Hughes

Court of the United States. But while the address bears the high marks of its origin, I felt as I heard it delivered, and I feel now on reading and re-reading it that, though it could have been written only by a philosophical and learned jurist, no jurist could have produced it who was not also endowed with the qualities of a statesman and who had not enjoyed the experience of a practical administrator in one of the highest executive offices in the country.

The theme of this address is the recent development of American law. In certain fields that development has been so notable that it is said to mark a new era. Two in particular are signalized: (i) the exercise of the power of Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce, and (2) the establishment in Nation and State of administrative agencies with both legislative and quasi-judicial powers of vast importance.

The abounding activity of Congress in the field of interstate commerce is almost entirely included in the legislation of recent years, during which plans of regulation involving new exertions of Federal power have followed each other in swift succession. Those acts of Congress Mr. Justice Hughes as a member

Introduction to Second Edition ix

of the Supreme Court has been called upon to interpret and apply. His judicial opinions have won for him the encomiums of the Bar and they have commanded the confidence of the general public. If he becomes President of the United States his mastery of this whole field of new and important legislation will be an invaluable qualification both for executive work and political leadership.

The other development of recent American law has had to do with the creation of administrative commissions vested with subordinate legislative and judicial functions. The essential business of those bodies is to translate general legislation into regulations wisely adapted to particular cases. An administrative commission must sit continuously and must be divorced from practical politics. And the conditions of its benefiting rather than hurting the community are that it shall be guided by special knowledge, flexibility, disinterestedness, and sound judgment in applying broad legislative principles to the intricate situations created by expanding enterprise. Those were the ideals that recognizedly animated Governor Hughes in the creation of the Public Service Commissions of the State of New York and in the appoint-

X Charles Evans Hughes

ment of the members. In this field of the modem development of American law he has been one of the most original and successful leaders. These two developments of modern American legislation, it is next pointed out, increase both the difficulty and the importance of the work of the Courts. With Congress constantly expanding the implications of the commerce clause, and the States through the agency of commissions and otherwise constantly pressing their action to the constitutional limit of State power, it is plain that "our dual system of government is being subjected to a new and severe strain." Take transportation, for example. The commerce that is interstate is also intrastate; it has "no separate existence in economics and is not separately maintained by transportation companies or by those engaged in trade." Who can say again, when an employee of a railroad company, like the Pennsylvania, is engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce? The railroad has economically but one value; yet for legal purposes it must be apportioned to different jurisdictions. It is the case "of many governments, within one nation, dealing with portions of an activity which has economic unity."

Introduction to Second Edition xi

But difficult though it is to carry out the will of Congress over the activities within its control without encroaching upon the State field, Mr. Hughes remains convinced of the necessity of autonomous local governments. He even says that "if we did not have States we should speedily have to create them." Fortunately we have a Union of States each autonomous in its local concerns. And "necessary local autonomy" must be as jealously safeguarded as "unity of control in national concerns."

But one of the cardinal principles of our constitutional law is that, "within its sphere as defined by the constitution, the Nation is supreme." Where the exercise of a power by the Federal Government is authorized "there is no reserved power to nullify it." This principle is obviously essential to the maintenance of national integrity, and it is, says Mr. Hughes, "continually calling for new applications. " Thus regulations required in the exercise of the judgment committed to Congress for the protection of interstate commerce cannot be made nugatory by the mere commingling of interstate and intrastate transactions. The supremacy of national power, when lawfully exercised, does set limits xii Charles Evans Hu2:hes

£3'

to the activities of the States. In the past this Federal power has been in large measure dormant; its exercise "has awaited the revelation of a national need and the presence of a gradually forming national sentiment." It is 9.0W recognized that many matters are of such a nature "that but one authority can be exercised over them, and the Federal power must be exercised or none at all."

There are, however, "a host of local necessities which may fall under the jurisdiction of the States even though interstate commerce be incidentally affected, at least "until Congress should act and by the exertion of its constitutional authority supersede State laws by its own requirements." And of course there are those matters which as being exclusively local lie outside the sphere of Federal power and come solely under the jurisdiction of the States.

Clearly this expounder of the law is a vigorous Nationalist. Yet he would not impair the just and proper local autonomy of the States. Nor indeed would he leave it to the Courts exclusively to draw the line between State and Federal jurisdiction. He makes an original and statesmanlike plea for "wise co-operation " between the State and National authorities. "I suggest," he adds, "that the resources of

Introduction to Second Edition xiii

accommodation have not been exhausted; indeed, they have scarcely been touched." Often the differences between State and Federal laws "are due more to accident or lack of forethought than to difference in deliberate purpose. " When Congress has legislated on a subject within its province why should not variations in State statutes be examined, with a view to harmonizing the legislation? The "various administrative commissions" might be utilized for the prevention of unnecessary divergencies in legislation or for the formulation, after careful analysis and sympathetic consultation, of the outstanding and apparently irreconcilable differences in legislative policy. "I should think," says Mr. Hughes in concluding his discussion of this original and valuable suggestion for the conciliation of State and Federal interests and the unification of State and Federal law, "I should think that many of our difficulties might be solved by perfecting the machinery of administration with the direct purpose of promoting harmony of action in dealing with those activities which are conducted in the world of affairs as parts of the same enterprises."

Besides the constitutional adjustment of National and State power, modem legislation xiv Charles Evans Hughes

is constantly raising questions involving the application of the historic clauses of our bills of rights securing life, liberty, and property. Here, also, says Mr. Hughes, "our system is under an increased strain as efforts to impose new obligations are brought to the constitutional test."

The obviously proper course for the Courts to pursue is to ascertain the spirit and original object of the bill of rights. There was no intention, for example, by the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to fossilize procedure — to confine State practice to archaic forms. That would be "to deny every quality of the law but its age and to render it incapable of progress or improvement." The object was to preserve and enforce the primary conceptions of liberty and justice with reference particularly to personal freedom, property, and other fundamental rights. The prohibition "was not intended to override legislative action by the views of Judges as to its wisdom." The Amendment was "the affirmation of individual rights deemed to be fundamental. " It is a perversion of the spirit and purpose of the Amendment when it is understood as denial of "legislative authority to enact reasonable measures for the promotion of the

Introduction to Second Edition xv

safety, health, morals, and welfare of the people." Some restriction upon the enactment of substantive legislation the Amendment does indeed empower the Courts to impose. But this interposition of judicial scrutiny the people desire in the interests of liberty and justice. And in the opinion of Mr. Hughes,

"it is not a function likely to be disturbed so long as Judges in the discharge of their delicate and difficult duty exhibit a profound knowledge and accurate appreciation of the facts of commercial and industrial activity, and by their intelligence and fidelity in the application of the Constitution according to its true intent commend its guarantees to the judgment of a fair-minded people jealous alike of public rights and individual opportunities."

The sentence just quoted from Mr. Hughes is one of great significance. He had already declared that the bill of rights was not to be used by the Courts as an instrument for restricting authorized legislative power or sound legislative discretion. The guarantee of individual rights deemed to be fundamental, the Fourteenth Amendment does however empower the Courts to nullify legislation which invades those fundamental rights. But xvi Charles Evans Huo^hes even in the exercise of this authorized judicial scrutiny the Judges, Mr. Hughes declares, must be conversant with the signs of the times, must know and appreciate the facts and conditions of contemporary business and industry, and possess a sympathetic insight into the problems — practical, economic, and ethical — which arise out of those conditions and relations. In other words Mr. Hughes declares that while the people desire the exercise of legislative power to be scrutinized by the Courts in order to conserve the essentials of liberty, they desire it on the understanding that the Judges are not only able and learned jurists but also intelligent and fair-minded men thoroughly conversant with, and sympathetically appreciative of, the economic and industrial conditions and problems of this twentieth century.

Mr. Hughes thus conceives the Courts as he conceives the Executive and Legislative powers as agencies of progress, all alike engaged in modifying and gradually adapting their inherited structure, functions, and activities to the new needs and ideals of modern life and civilization. And in this very connection he finely expresses his ideal for the Courts:

Introduction to Second Edition xvii

" I like" he says " to think of the Courts as in the truest sense the expert agents of democracy, — expressing deliberate judgment under conditions essential to stability, and therefore in their proper action the necessary instrumentalities of progress."

Those who know Charles E. Hughes need no assiirance that as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States he strove by his own work to reaHze this progressive ideal. And the proof of his success lawyers read in the opinions he rendered. I am sure that only a Judge's experience of the highest activities of which the human mind is capable in wrestling with obsciu-e problems of right and justice could have suggested to Mr. Hughes this noble definition of the judicial function:

"It calls for a statesmanlike appreciation of past, present, and future, through which alone the Judge can meet his responsibilities as the interpreter of legislation in the expanding life of democracy."

In conclusion Mr. Hughes adverts to two tendencies in legislation which are a menace to the Courts. In the first place there is the tendency to assign to the Courts administrative duties which do not belong to them; and, secondly, Judges are sometimes denied appropriate authority.

xviii Charles Evans Hughes

This latter tendency betrays "a regrettable distrust" of Judges. It is probably a part of the democratic dislike of experts which John Stuart Mill noted long ago as a characteristic of Americans. At any rate, says Mr. Hughes, "there can be no respect for the law without competent administration, and there can be no competent administration without adequate power."

As regards the other danger to the Courts — assigning to them administrative duties — it doubtless "arises from distrust of powerful administrative agencies." Mr. Hughes characterizes it as "the wrong way to reach the right result." It is bad for the Coiurts and bad for the administrative boards or commissions. The transference of administrative business to the Courts would overwhelm them while imdermining the administrative agencies. The Judge, who had also been Governor and who had established the Public Service Commissions of New York, had learned from reflection and experience the respective functions of Courts and administrative agencies, and knew that the one could not be substituted for the other without injury to both. Hence he declares with a somewhat heightened emphasis:

Introduction to Second Edition xix

"It can not be too strongly insisted that if we are to have these important administrative instrumentalities properly perform their duty, they should stand on their own footing, and that the public should realize that their safeguard is not in injecting the Courts into the work of administration, to the confusion of both, but in maintaining an enlightened policy and in insisting upon proper standards of official conduct."

The Address before the Bar Association was delivered while Mr. Hughes sat on the Supreme Court. The Youngstown Speech was delivered before his appointment to that Court and while he was serving his first term as Governor of New York. It was everywhere regarded as the ablest and most effective speech made in the Presidential campaign of 1908. It is reprinted here partly on account of its intrinsic excellence, but mainly because it shows Mr. Hughes's position on National questions, some of which are still vital.

Most of the issues raised by Mr. Bryan, however, were, like Mr. Bryan's own Presidential candidacy, so completely disposed of by Governor Hughes in this speech that no one but the political historian has to-day any interest in them. His plans for the reform of the rules of the House of Representatives, for

XX Charles Evans Hughes

the control and dissolution of corporations, for the guarantee of bank deposits, and similar nostrums have gone the way of his "reform" of the currency by the free coinage of silver and of the railroads by government ownership. As to Air. Bryan's own candidacy Governor Hughes scathingly observes:

"If all that Mr. Bryan has favored during the past twelve years had been enacted into law we should have been overwhelmed with disaster and would regard it as our chief business in the future to find a way of escape from the meshes of ill-considered legislation in which we would have been entangled. It is fortunate for him as well as for us that he was defeated, and whatever may be his present political potentiality may be ascribed to the fact that hitherto he has not been permitted to carry out his program."

As to the tariff Governor Hughes recognized the need of revision. But he stood as firmly for the protective principle in 1908 as he stands for it in 19 16. And Governor Hughes's argument against the tariff policy of the Bryan Democracy seems equally applicable against that of the Wilson Democracy. Let the reader judge by the following extract:

"The Republican Party stands for the policy of protection. It maintains its historic position in

Introduction to Second Edition xxi

defense of American standards of living and of the American scale of wages. The Democratic Partyseeks, as Mr. Bryan construes its platform, to overthrow protection and to establish a revenue tariff. Instead of a readjustment of protective rates and a fair arrangement of schedules consistent with the long established policy of the country under which our trade has been developed and our industrial activities have attained their notable expansion, he insists on an overthrow of the entire system of protection, thus threatening the dislocation of trade and the most serious disturbance of industry. He seeks not tariff revision, but tariff revolution."

But, as I pointed out in the Introduction to the first edition of these Addresses, Governor Hughes is unique among our pubhc men in laying emphasis on administration as the chief function of Government. He declared that if we could secure the administration of every office in accordance with the fair intent of the statute creating it or with constitutional requirement we should find almost all our problems solved. He was not likely therefore in 1908 to overlook the fact that the campaign was a contest for the Presidency — for the office of the Chief Executive of the Nation. Mr. Bryan was an accomplished orator, a restless agitator, a fecund compotmder of legislative panaceas, an artistic xxii Charles Evans Hughes

constructor of party platforms. "But," said Governor Hughes, "first and chiefly we are electing a President, the Executive of the Nation. " He is to be a man of deeds, not of words; his business is administration, not talking or even writing. And though in a Presidential contest the parties may also submit their "legislative proposals," who can foresee what the problems confronting the nation in the next four years may be? The man whom the voters elect to the Presidency must be wise and strong enough to deal with these unforeseen contingencies. In his hands lies the safety of the Republic, in his keeping is its honor', his is the obligation to defend and maintain the National rights. Listen to Governor Hughes's own words:

"There are a thousand exigencies in the affairs of this great Nation which cannot be foreseen or attempted to be controlled by any platform. The sagacity, steadiness of character, firmness, and sound judgment of the Chief Executive must be the security of the Nation in many a trying emergency."

And again:

"The quality of the National Administration on its executive side will depend entirely upon the man who is chosen to be President. Whatever else we may do

Introduction to Second Edition xxiii

or fail to do, that we can determine in our vote for Presidential electors. The character of our diplomacy, the concerns of our insular possessions, the management of our vast internal business, and the many intricate questions which lie within the range of executive discretion are in the hands of the President for the weal or woe of the Nation."

The passage just quoted from Governor Hughes's Youngstown Speech of 1908 is an appropriate and illuminating introduction to his Telegram and Address of 191 6 in acceptance of the Republican nomination for the Presidency. These also emphasize the necessity of vigorous administration and firm and unflinching maintenance of all the rights of American citizens on land and sea.

"America first and America efficient," that was the key-note of the formal Address of Acceptance.

It was a memorable address. The day, July 31st, had been the hottest of the year; and the heat continued with scarcely any abatement through the evening. Mr. Hughes spoke an hour and a half, yet he showed neither in voice nor manner nor appearance the slightest indication of fatigue. Carnegie Hall was crowded to its utmost capacity and no one left till the end. I never saw a speaker xxiv Charles Evans Hughes

listened to with closer or more intense attention; and the enthusiasm and repeated cheering showed he had won his audience.

The great day of assize had come for the Wilson Administration. Its record of more than three years was to be passed in review and critically examined for the American people by a great expert investigator. Air. Hughes applied a severely practical test. He paid little attention to what the President had said and written. Words are empty. What alone interested Mr. Hughes was what the Administration had done. And of the acts of the Chief Executive he characteristically placed foremost the making of appointments. Similarly, in his speech in Detroit, August 7th, Mr. Hughes, without mentioning any names said :

"Some men want to be judged by their words, but I judge them by the men they appoint to office. "

And again in his speech in Chicago, August 8th, he declared more specifically:

"One of the very serious charges which must be laid against the present Administration is the charge of putting incompetent men into important positions. I say that if I am elected President of the United States I propose that every man that I put in charge

Introduction to Second Edition xxv

of an important department shall be a man eminently fit to discharge the duties of that department."

Readers of Mr. Hughes's fonnal Speech of Acceptance of the Presidential Nomination will find it permeated with this conception of administrative responsibility. Almost at the beginning he observes that it was the first duty of the Executive "to command the respect of the world by the personnel of our State Department and our representation abroad." But this obligation was not performed. The Interests of the Nation were sacrificed by the appointment of inexperienced persons "to meet partisan demands." And in Santo Domingo, where we had a special trust, the American representative was requested by the Secretary of State in Washington to let him know "what positions you have at your disposal with which to reward deserving Democrats."

But this disregard of proper standards, though peculiarly disastrous in its effects on the diplomatic service, is not limited to appointments In that field. It Is equally conspicuous, says Mr. Hughes, "in appointments to important administrative positions in our domestic service." Even In the technical xxvi Charles Evans Hughes

bureaus scientists have been driven out and supplanted by politicians. Nor have the barriers of the civil service laws protected worthy officials, while statutes creating hosts of new offices have specifically exempted them from the operation of the merit system. And all this, it may be added, under a President who till he came into office was supposed to be a staunch friend of civil service reform! "This paying of political debts with pubHc office," said Mr. Hughes in his speech in Fargo, North Dakota, August loth, "is honeycombing our administrative life. I am opposed to it. If I am elected that sort of thing will have no place in my appointments." And the proof of the absolute trustworthiness of this promise is furnished by the administrative record and the list of appointments made by Mr. Hughes while Governor of New York.

One of the most effective things in the Speech of Acceptance is the discussion of the Mexican situation. "Decrying interference," says Mr. Hughes "we interfered most exaspcratingly." The course of the Administration served only to promote the existing anarchy. And no good came of it to ourselves: our citizens were murdered, their property

I Introduction to Second Edition xxvU

I destroyed, and Mexicans turned into susi: picious and resentful enemies. The Adminis- ; tration failed to realize the meaning of its \ exertions either of diplomacy or force. To 1 attempt "to control the domestic concerns of ! Mexico was simply intervention"; to invade ^ Vera Cruz "was war." Meanwhile himdreds : of Americans at Tampico were left to a terrible ; fate, from which they were rescued only by : the charitable good offices of British and \ German officers and ships. "We must," j exclaims Mr. Hughes sarcastically, "take Vera Cruz to get Huerta out of office and i trust to other nations to get our citizens out of peril." Certainly this "meddlesome interference" in Mexico reverses all soimd international principle and policy. The Administration imdertook to manage the domestic affairs of Mexico, and at the same time denied protection to American citizens in Mexico!

What course then should the Administration have pursued? Mr. Hughes answered I that question in his Speech of Acceptance. I And he expanded his answer in the Detroit Speech of August 7 th, from which the following is taken:

" We had certain things that we had a right to demand of Mexico; and there was a proper way of xxviii Charles Evans Hughes

demanding them. We should have said that we insisted upon the protection of the lives and property of American citizens. . . .

" There is no question about recognizing Huerta. That was a matter to be determined according to proper principles, according to the understanding of the Executive as to the capacity of that Government to furnish adequate protection and discharge international obligations.

"But our Administration said to Huerta: 'You get out. You can't even be a candidate. We won't allow you to run for office. We are so determined to get rid of you that you can't put yourself up to be voted for. ' And immediately after recognition was withdrawn from Huerta it was extended to that incomparable, that ideal character Villa.

"In my judgment the Administration did a very wrong thing in abandoning its proper international attitude and taking the attitude that no international lawyer could understand — that no Mexican could understand."

Thus Mr. Hughes is opposed to the American Government interfering in the domestic concerns of Mexico, but he demands that Mexico shall protect the lives and property of American citizens and the security of our border from depredations. He would give ungrudging support to any stable government in Alexico appropriately discharging its international obligations. And he declares that

Introduction to Second Edition xxix

"a short period of fimi, consistent, and friendly dealing will accomplish more than years of vacillation."

Incidentally Mr. Hughes has demonstrated that President Wilson was singularly unhappy in describing his Mexican policy as one of Watchful Waiting. It has clearly been a policy of Woeful Wobbling.

In the Speech of Acceptance Mr. Hughes passes from our Mexican relations to our Eiu-opean Relations. It is claimed that President Wilson kept us out of war. But what European belligerent wanted to take on as an additional enemy this rich and powerful Nation of 100,000,000 people? And the American people, peace-loving now as always, certainly did not desire war. Hence, as Mr. Hughes says, "we should not have found it difficult to maintain peace, but we should have maintained peace with honor." So far is it from true that the Administration has kept us out of war that, on the contrary, "the only danger of war has lain in the weak course of the Administration." Weakness, vacillation, and delay have fatefully characterized our diplomacy since the beginning of the European War. Therein lay the danger of war, — therein, and not in the objective