Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1916-08-23
HUGHES SPEECHES.


and his first campaign speech are now
before the public.
AS no justice of the supreme court
was ever nominated for president be-
fore, Mr. Hughes is setting prece-
dent He is showing us how, In his
opinion, experience on the supreme
bench should fit one for the political
arena. He has answered one OF the
democratic arguments-the only one
he has attempted to. The democrats
protested against q nominee belne
taken from the supreme court. After
reading Mr. Hughes speeches, the
country will be convinced that his
partisan bias is better suited to pol
itical campaign than to position
which requires a judicial tempera-
ment.
1t will be surprise to the country
that a justice Of the supreme court
should be able to accumulate so much
vitriol in 50 short a term OF service.
A comparison of his speeches with
the speeches made by other men who
have been candidates will show that
none of them, not even Roosevelt,
have been more partisan or unfair IN
their attacks on an occupant OF the
White House.
Candidate Hughes is as uncandld In
the defining Of his own position as ne
is lacking in frankness in the assaults
he makes on the Presidents position.
He Endorses the platform Of his
party, which demands congressional
legislation (and a federal amendment
If necessary taking from the states
all authority over railroads, and vest
ing this authority exclusively in the
federal government. This Is revolu-
tionary, and means nothing less than
depriving the states Of all the power
they now have to protect the people
from railroad extortion. Mr.. Hughes
deals with the railroad question in
few carefully chosen words, which
can be construed as an Endorsement
| of the platform by the railroad mag
( mates, who put that plank in, but his
language gives the general public no
| intimation Of the railroad plot which
| he indorses.
| Likewise, in discussing the mer-
| chant marine, he takes the side OF the
| shipping trust against the shipping
| bill, and yet he does not explain the
| republican plan which not only pro-
tects the shipping trust from govern
| ment competition, but contemplates
| subsidies paid from the public treas
ury.
/ He takes the side of the tariff bar
ons against the consumers, and gives
no assurance that he will favor re-
| tention of the income taxes, which i'm
pose on those possessing large in
comes a part of the burden that the
republican party collected from con-
sumption through tariff duties.
Mr.. Hughes seemingly demands the
expenditure Of more money on prepar-
edness than the democratic admins
/ tration recommends, and yet he does
not explain where the money is to
! come from, or what method is to be
/ employed in raising the larger sum
i which his policy would require.
The fact that, as governor, he sent
a message to the legislature, protest
ing against the ratification of the in
come tax amendment shows his posi-
ton on this subject. The fact that
he Joined the rest Of the court in hold
ing the law constitutional did not in.
dictate any change in opinion as to the
policy Of the income tax. He could
not deny the constitutionality of the
law, however much he might oppose
it as a fiscal policy.
In his speech Of acceptance, he In
Inmates that the trust question has
II been settled, and yet he not only did
nothing to secure relief from the
trusts, but he fails to concede the mer-
it of the laws passed without his aid;
and he will have, in this campaign,
the support of all the trust magnates.
It was Perkins, for instance, who is
connected with both the Steel Trust
and the Harvester Trust, who secured
III for Mr. Hughes the Endorsement OF
= the nrOqressiVo committee.
= In the Mexican matter, Mr.. Hughes
has been grossly unfair, as we'll as
lacking in straightforwardness. AS he
has taken the part Of the explolters
% in dealing with the tariff question, the
y trust question, the railroad question
n and the shipping question, so he is
& taking the part of the explOiters In
e dealing with Mexico.
T. He would have had this nation rec
ognize Huerta, who secured his posi-
8. ton by an act Of high treason, took
q the former president captive by force
and then allowed, If he did not cause,
him to be put to death. He ruled Mex
leo with an iron hand, absorbing by
arbitrary decree the legislative power
of the congress which he overthrow.
To have recognized Huerta would have
been to set premium on treason ana
assassination, and to do so in the In
= terest of exploiters, Mexican and for
{ eign, who put their pecuniary inter-
) ests above all questions Of morals and
{ of representative government.
{ AS an illustration of the unfairness
! of his criticism of the Presidents pol
I icy in Mexico, he charges the Presi-
) dent with interference in the politics
! of Mexico, because the President was