New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-09-09
THE CANDIDATE.

CHARLES g. HUGHES rh. Sts',.ma,, q, Slo4
ir r. ufI..r.s ~ toe iurist by William J.
Hanson J.,io. Itt ~, 0' p pu,-
To- a 90.
With acknowledgements 20 Johnson s
cpirram upon Chesterfield, there may
be those who would ask n Mr. Hughes
has been statesman among JUN t''
or IS 90 Dc merely n jurist amonS
statesmen. II so. here is their an
swcr. IL is given individuality. from
.,be records Of the supreme Court,
and 10 is set forth with judicial au-
thori,v. hv q competent and eminent
member Of the bar and of the bench.
And a:art from any temporary ana
special purpose which it may serve IL
should be q valuable reminder of what
IS too often ignored or misunderstood,
namely. the great part which both IN
diyidual iurists and courts collective
'v have played in the work Of Amer
can constructive statcsmaus mp.
Probably the most important act
ever performed iu the establishment
OF our foreign policies and IN the de-
velopment of our foreign relationships
was John Jays charge 10 the Rich
mopd Grand Jury in May. 1898. The
significance Of John Marshalls decl-
sions. a few wears later. has long been
q commonplace of American history.
The bred Scott decision, so often mis-
quoted and misrcpresentcd, was NJ
orally cpochal The manner in which
the Legal Tender decision was OBJ
tanned has been the subject Of much
criticism. but the immense bench
cence of the decision stands un-
questioned. Elsewhere in our history
other judicial decisions form land
marks Of constitutional development
and progress.
The last six years. the six years OF
Mr.. HugheS's service on the bench OF
the Supreme Court. have been quite
comparable in interest and importance
with any preceding era Of judicial ac-
tivity. In the constantly increasing
compleXity OF our social and political
organism there IS a corresponding IN
crease of compleXity Of legislation,
and this in turn entails a common
surate increase Of difficulty and OF I'M
rortance in judicial Interpretation and
application Of the laws. The last
word on contracts was not spoken IN
the famous Dartmouth College case.
on the contrary. there have been de-
cisions on contract cases since then
which Lave quite overshadowed that
in Significance. Nor did WarShalps
judgments by any means detnltlvely es-
tahlish the bounds and mctes between
state rights and national sovereignty.
IL was indeed, with these two
classes Of topics that Mr. Justice
Hughes and his colleagues were most
conspcuously called upon 70 deal; and
II was I'm his attitude toward them
that he manifested his highest quail
ties Of constructive and progressive
craftsmanship. There had grown up
The indolcnt and covardly fiction Of
twilight zone" bordcrland between
state and nation in which powers and
rights had an cqUivocal and indie
terminabie status. To Mr.. HuChes's
alert. energetic and courageous mind
such q conception was obnoxious. II
might require both labor and valor 20
determine i'm some cases precisely
where the line Of demarcation between
state aud nation ran. but IL could be
done and II should be done; and when
ever NJ Hughes had tho doing Of t.
il was done His inclinatiouS. because
Of both his political antecedents and
his constitutional studies. were
strongly toward the national side
Yet such was the clarity OF his vision.
and such his stalwart Immortality,
that he was more than once the cham
ricn Of The powers and functions Of
the state against Federal interference.
More notable still was his advanced
and enlightened course in dealing with
those economic social. industrial and
fiscal questions which in late years
have risen to first place in Importance
10 the vital welfare of the nation. In
this predominant department Of his ju-
dicial work he showed himself no slave
10 "strict construction" or TO precc-
dent. No economic theory was to him
like the laws Of tho Modes and Per
slams No governmental policy was