The Pensacola journal., 1916-10-04
HARD ON HUGHES.

Democratic editors neeu waste Io iiloiN
time in pointing out the inaccuracies OF
Hughes charges, for that task has now
been undertaken by the Republican news
papers, which are plainly alarmed lest then
candidates frenzied attempts to deceive
the people will weaken his cause, and
hoping by an eleventh-hour access OF frank
ness to gain the victory byEa simple party
appeal i
Nowhere can more devoted follower OF
Hughes be found than The Evening Post,
OF New York; and when The Post comes |
out against Hughes, things have reached
a pretty pass indeed. The Post does not
desert Hughes, understand; being Repub-
lican organ, The Post must needs swallow |
whatever pill that party prescribes as
physic for the body pohtic-but the unfor-
tunate sufferer makes voluble comment
on the bitterness of the dose.
Speaking about Hughes recent criticism
of the Federal Reserve Act, The Post re-
grets that the Indictment is mot put forth
with any great clarity or force, and un-
fortunately adds The Post, "is swept un
der the candidates general assumption
that any measure enacted by the Demo-
cratic party must ipso facto be an objection
able measure"
Among the other remarkable phenomena
in this campaign, it may be interesting to
remark in passing that while Hughes thinks
nothing the Democrats have done is good,
the Republican press thinks nothing
Hughes says is right.
The five grounds on which Hughes crit
icised the Federal Reserve Act are: ID The
law as passed was based on a proposed
statute by Republicans and was therefore
not Democratic law" (2) It's form, in
the first draft, was very faulty. (3) The
removal of the most Objectionable feature
was due to a Republican inhuence-Senator
Root (4) The war panic of 1914 was
averted, not by the Federal Reserve, but
by the Republican Aldrich-Vreeland law.
(5) The present law is potential imitation
measure.
Bear in mind that the following comment
is not discussion by The Journal, but a
summary of what The Evening Post of
New York, Republican newspaper sup
porting Hughes, says in reply to the above
charges.
we regret that these considerations, !"
says The Post, referring to the FIVE criti-
cisnls, have not been presented in a broad
and statesmanlike way" and then pro-
ceeds to tear Hughes argument to tatters.
While the Federal Reserve does bear
some resemblance 10 the draft prepared in
1911 by Republican Senator Aldrich and
the Monetary Commission of congress-
TACT, by the way, never disputed Ly the
authors of the present measure-the gen
eral framework as proposed by Aldrich
was not adopted for the law, finally as en-
acted, is quite different in the matter Of or
ganization, distribution of powers, and dis
trct management. That the original draft
was faulty was inevitable-the 1911 pro-
posals were equally faulty; to correc,
errors is the purpose of debate and con
sideration; and ''that Mr.. Roots attack or
the whole measure +. was the cause O.
the defects in the original text is not true,
says The Post
True, the admittedly makeshift 'sAldrich
Vreeland Emergency Currency Law
served to allay the war panic of August
1914, and the Federal Reserve did not. bu
the reason was that the stop-gap emer
gency law was in operation at the time an,
the Federal Reserve was not The sspoten
tial imitation" argument "applies witt
much greater force to the Aldrich pro