The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1930-02-14
The Case of Hughes

OSANa0O we" 4OUA o00AON
The Case of Hughes
Is President Hoover never right?
Is Senator Norris ever wrong? Or perhaps 1t we're
better expressed by the doubt, Is Senator Norris always
right?
Since President Hoover took office, Senator Norris in
variably has taken the opposite side in whatever the
president recommended or did. Both cannot be right.
One must be fallible. Which? When?
If it can be shown that Senator Norris is wrong In his
hostility to the president the assumption Is inevitable
that Norris has become a Observation-Disclosures the late
President Wilson would have termed a sngle-track
mind.
The opposition which Norris has stirred up to the con-
firmation Of Charles Evans Hughes as chief justice has
made pertinent the question as to which one Of the two,
the president or the senator. in this instance, Is in the
right in their antagonistic attitudes.
When Chief Justice Taft resigned, the other day, the
president promptly selected Hughes as successor to the
one nan who has held both the presidency and the chief
j~usticeship of the supreme court, the two highest honors
in the government. In that dual honor there was a
measurement Of the successor. Selection for the vacancy
implied a considerable legal and intellectual stature.
Charles Evans Hughes more than any other American
public man seemed to meet the specifications. There
seemed to be no plunge into uncertainty In his Seec-
ton. He had been on the supreme bench before. He
had been nominated and had run for the presidency and,
but for q fluke In the election, would have been elected
to the highest office in the gift Of the government. He
was the outstanding lawyer Of the nation. A world
court had selected him rs one Of its judges.
There was what seemed a general chorus of approba-
ton to his nomination. He seemed unanimously to be
conceded the very man for the post. His outstanding
services in the New York gas and insurance investiga-
tions before he ever held office, his meritorious admin
istration of the governorship of New York, his eminence
in the office OF secretary Of state In the Harding cabinet
all these were recalled with appreciation. The judi
ciary committee Of the senate voted 10 to 2 for his con-
firmation.
Only George Norris, the cynic, and Cole Blease. the
Carolina spitfire, seemed to be in opposttion-and Blease
was a cipher. Confirmation seemed to be inevitable and
speedy. Any opposition that might arise seemed In
significant and negligible.
Then all Of a sudden a storm blew up. Other sena-
tors rallied to Norris. Even Senator Tom Walsh. of
Montana. who had voted In the judiciary committee for
confirmation. turned face about and said he had recant-
ed on second consideration and would oppose confirms
ton.
What can be the matter?
The so-called progressive bloc says Judge Hughes har-
bors a dangerous philosophy Of the sanctity Of property.
They feel that he is not sufficiently human to hold such
m office as the chief justceship: he might subvert IL
berty by tipping the scales against human rights. some
day, and In favor Of that mere pelf that is termed pro-
perry.
Has he ever committed himself In any way to justify
that assumption7 No. There Is no black marx against
MI. Hughes. His gas and insurance investigations were
conducted. II they leaned at all. In favor Of the people.
In their ultimate effect they Injured to the benefit of
the corporations affected, because the reforms they In
spired were wholesome for these while b~enefiting the
people. Insurance has become . greater and q sQunder
business by reason Of the laws which Charles Evans
Hughes devised to protect the policy holders.
The hue and cry raised against MI. Hughes in the last
several days is that he represents only wealth and privi-
lego and property, that he has been counsel for some so
cases representing corporations before the supreme
court. OF course. as chief justice. he would assume no
voice in the decision Of these cases. because Of that con. |
nection with them.
Nevertheless Hughes Is made out q dangerous conser-
sative. q hide-bound sort Of fellow whom the common
people should spurn, lest he put them In chains by some
legal hocus pocus.
Nobody seems to recall that this same Hughes several
years ago was 80 inspired by the equality Of human
rights that he fought against the expulsion Of several
Communists elected to the legislature OF New York. He
held that they had been elected In conformity with law
and were entitled to the seats from which the biased
Republicans and Democrats ousted them. Had he been
. ~monomaniac on property rights it is not conceivable
that he would have given his services to the defence Of
the political rights Of these radicals. Rather. he mani
tested the spirit Of the square deal. While he did not
champion them. as Senator Wheeler, one Of those op-
posing his confirmation. might have done. had he had
tho opportunity Is In the case Of Bin Dunn, the Butte
red. he defended what he conceived to be their rights
under the law.
The case Of Hughes suggests the fate Of Elihu Root.
This other New Yorker has been IN outstanding figure
IN the political and administrative history Of the last %
years. Yet hs never could achieve the greater honors
IN the gifts Of the people because Of his legal associa-
ti0ns. he began his career BY defending Boss Tweed.
ne arch corruptionist Of Tammany. Later be served
oresr corporations IN his professional capacity. Pr
sonally he remained clean and hishminded. Roosevelt
and Taft were able to place him In important positions
nnder them By appointment and thus give the nation the
benefIt Of his high talents. Elective honos were not to
~ thought 81. because Of the popular doubt Of his
political probity II put Ia > place Of supreme authority.
yet Elihu Root gave the nation honest and invaluable
oorvjce IN every instance where hs was vouchsafed Its
oenf6lscs. II = nsas ths end a hs career uaAutnsus-