MAN OF THE MOMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 23 February 1935, Page 13 (Supplement)

MAN OF THE MOMENT

AMERICA’S CHIEF JUDGE

(By

H.E.C.)

In his 40 years of public and judicial experience it is doubtful if the Chief Justice of the United States, Mr. Charles Evans Hughes, has ever had more flood-, light shed upon his reasoning and actions than in the past few days. It fell to the Supreme Court to decide whether a statute passed by Congress was within the meaning of the Constitution of the Republic. It was by no means the first occasion that such a question had been referred to the Court, and time after time the Court has not hesitated to run counter to the temper of the country as reflected by Congress. This week the judgment was bound to affect very seriously the financial plans of the Administration for bringing about the economic recovery of the United States. Other questions linked with the Administration’s policy had been decided by the Court. The decisions were not unanimous, and it was left to Mr. Hughes to cast the deciding vote. That position arose in regard to the judgment delivered this week, and whatever may be thought of the decision it is interesting to note the training and experience of the man who had to accept the chief responsibility for it. Mr. Hughes is an old man. He was bom in 1862, took his B.A. degree when he was 19 years old and obtained the M. A. degree three years later. His first appointment was as a teacher in the town of Delhi, New York State, but he was also studying law. He qualified when he was 20, and two years later was admitted to the New York Bar, where he practised for seven years. In 1891 he was appointed Professor of Law at Cornell University, a position he held for two years. He resigned to re-enter practice, but retained a special lectureship at the university and at the New York Law School.

His ability at the Bar was recognised and he became interested in State politics. He was elected Governor of New York State in 1906 and was reelected in 1908. While holding that office he reformed the public service by introducing a Public Service Commission, and he was responsible for an improvement in the industrial laws by which greater protection was accorded women and children working in factories.

His appointment as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court in the year 1910 seemed to have ended his political career, but in 1916 he resigned his judgeship to contest the Presidental election as a Republican against Mr. Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat candidate. Mr. Wilson was elected and Mr. Hughes resumed practice in New York, where he became attorney for many of the larger industrial and financial corporations.

When President Harding took office in 1921 he appointed Mr. Hughes Secretary of State, or as it would be termed in Great Britain, “Foreign Secretary,” of the United States. In that capacity Mr. Hughes represented America in the discussions upon the limitations of armaments. One of the results of that inquiry was the Washington Naval Treaty, Whereby Britain, the United States and Japan limited naval armaments for a term of years.

Mr. Hughes was one of the first statesmen outside Great Britain to recognise that the reparation payments Germany was called upon to make were beyond her power unless the incidence and method of payment were considerably altered. He obtained the consent of other Powers to an examination of the position by experts, out of which was evolved What became' known ; as the “Dawes Plan” for the • settlement of reparations. As Secretary of State Mr. Hughes worked consistently for international peace, though he supported America’r refusal to join the League of Nations. He said on one occasion, that he did not think peace could be maintained by the League exerting _ economic pressure or military force, . but only along a path opened by the will of the peoples con-, cemed; that is to say, through agreement and not by force. The latest peace movements in Europe appear to show that Mr. Hughes’ opinion was sound. But while his ability, impartiality and public spirit were recognised, Mr. Hughes had nothing of the magnetic personality that is of such assistance to the political leader. He could not arouse enthusiasm even in the party to which he belonged, and after three years in office he resigned, retired from office and from active politics. His reputation was perhaps greater in other lands than in his own. He was appointed a member of the Hague Court of Arbitration and, later, a Judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Two years after his retirement from office he represented the United States at the Pan-American Conference held at Havana, where he was successful in assuaging jealousies between some of the South American countries, and in convincing the conference that the policy or the United States in Latin-American affairs was not aggressive. This was in 1928, the peak year of prosperity in the United States—the year when poverty was thought to have been banished permanently and when American wealth and influence were likely to dominate not only Latin-America but even Europe and Eastern Asia. It is a tribute to his sane judgment that at such a time Mr. Hughes could allay fears in South America that, his country desired to interfere with the economic liberty of less advanced. nations.

He was then 66 years of age, and it seemed as though his practice and such appointments as a cultured and dignified representative of the Republic would occupy him to the end of his days. In 1930, however, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Court in which 20 years earlier he had been an Associate Justice. Such appointments in the United States, must have the approval of the Senate, and there was hesitation in accepting Mr. Hughes. The judgments of the Supreme Court had so often run counter to the'decisions of Congress that it had been seriously proposed to take that authority from the Court, it being claimed that it was not contained in the Constitution but had been usurped by John,Marshall, the first Chief Justice. The malcontents considered that Mr. Hughes, with his long record as an attorney for large organisations, would keep the Supreme Court as conservative as ever, while already there were signs that laws and principles hitherto thought immutable might require amendment or abandonment. Mr. Hughes has proved anything but a reactionary, and criticism of the powers of the Supreme Court by Congress has quite subsided. For a man nearly 73 years of age to carry the responsibility of Chief Justice is a tribute to his mental and physical fitness. For him to do so with success at a time when constitutional rights and even wider questions of principle are coming forward for review and answer is still more remarkable—especially in a country that once subscribed to the slogan “too old at 40” for executive positions. .