The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1916-08-04

former actions are better gauge OF
their inclinations than words, howev-
err specious.
Mr.. Hughes, the Republican candi-
date for President, must be judged in
this light; not by what he or his spon-
sors may say in their campaign
speeches and literature, but by the
public records of himself and the men
who are responsible for his romina-
ton. Mr.. Hughes spent the past six
years on the Supreme Court bench.
He has been in a position that pre-
cluded political activity or express
sion, so that he has been in no way
identified with the issues on which the
change of the governments admins
tration was effected, nor the issues
that have arisen under the present
administration. No act or word of
his is known by which his attitude on
anything that has occurred in those
years may be judged.
He was appointed to the Supreme
Court bench by President Taft in
1910, and in 1912 no one knew how, if
he had been free of the inhibitions of
his position, he would have stood or
acted on the issues that divided and
rent the Republicans; whether he
would have been on the side of the
reactionary manipulators Of the
steamroller that forced the nomina-
ton of Mr.. Taft for a second term,
or with the boilers that followed Col
onel Roosevelt off into a new party.
Where was Mr.. Hughes in that cru
cial moment of the Republican party?
No man knows with which side he
would have aligned himself. We may
only judge by his public record i'm
mediately prior to his appointment by
Mr.. Taft.
Colonel Roosevelt, after most fla
GRAVITY deceiving and betraying the
Progressive party that blindly idol
lied and followed his every direction,
Endorsed Mr.. Hughes nomination in
an attempt to "save his face" in a
most ludicrous failure to seize the re-
dictionary Republican nomination for
himself, and to carry his betrayed and
Disguised followers with him. But
what has Mr.. Hughes ever done to
assure any sincere Progressive that
he is in any way, shape or form, in
sympathy with single progressive
idea?
, Was his attitude as Governor of
New York, in opposing the ratifca-
ton of the income tax amendment by
the Legislature of that State in ac-
cord with any expressed view of the
Progressive party? Did it not rather
expose subserviency to plutocracy
and big money and an effort to shield
the rich from just taxation?
In vetoing a bill to reduce the
street car fares to Coney Island, the
common peoples pleasure and recrc
alton grounds, from ten to five cents,
was he in harmony with progressive
ideas, or did he show his solicitude
for rich monopolizing corporation
and cold repugnance for the strug-
Cling masses of humanity?
Did his act Of vetoing a twe-cent
passenger fare bill tally with sin
gle idea of progressive declarations,
or did it show an anxiety to uphold
the railroads in a policy of exacting
"all the traffic will bear" from the
people?
Is there any hint Of progressiveness
or consideration for the people in his
one Of the highest judicial
honors the nation affords to accept
the nomination of a convention con
trolled by the reactionary bosses Of
the Republican party, who stand for
the old repudiated condition of trust
and Wall Street domination, special
privileges, "fat-frying' campaign
contributions and corporation intimi-
dalton of employee voters?
Is there any shadow of sincerity or
'progressiveness in Mr.. Hughes eu-
phonious declaration of "undiluted
Americanism" or of Colonel Roose-
velt's Endorsement of him, in the face
of the hyphenated German-American
Alliances claim that it brought about
his nomination?