Search America's historic newspaper pages from 1836-1922 or use the U.S. Newspaper Directory to find information about American newspapers published between 1690-present. Chronicling America is sponsored jointly by the
National Endowment for the Humanities and the Library of Congress. external link Learn more
Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL
Newspaper Page Text
vws w. vr wviVPViP
"HUGHES DIDN'T FULLY SATISFY COMMITTEE
OF PROGRESSIVES WHO CALLED ON HIM"
BY GILSON GARDNER
Washington, July 3. Candidate
Charles E. Hughes did not fully satis
fy the committee of Progressives
who called on him in New York to
discover his position on a number
of policies regarded by them as vital.
On this committee were Raymond
Robins of Illinois, Chester Rowell of
California and James R. Garfield of
The interviews were understood to
be of a quasi-confidential character.
They were confidential to the extent
that the men who called on Hughes
agreed that they were seeking to
clear up doubts in their own minds
and were not seeking to heckle the
candidate or obtain from him state
ments for publication.
When an effort was made at the
meeting of the Progressive national
committee in Chicago, June 26, to
transmit a confidential report of
these conversations to the commit
tee, a bolt took place. John M.
Parker of Louisiana, who had been
nominated for vice president on the
Progressive ticket, objected to any
confidential report as to the qualifica
tionst of a presidential candidate.
This, he maintained, was the public's
business, and he would leave the
committee until the doors were open
ed and the doings of the committee
made public. With him went Mat
thew Hale of Massachusetts, Chester
Rowell of California, Harold Ickes of
Illinois and others.
Without violating any confidence,
it may be stated that the probing
committee sounded Mr. Hughes on
the following subjects: Conserva
tion, the seaman's law, the rights of
organized labor and woman suffrage.
On conservation the views of Mr.
Hughes were found to be satisfac
tory. Both record and theory seem
ed to be in favor of the kind of con
servation advocated by Gifford Pin-
mittee encountered a surprise. Mr.
Hughes admitted that he was for-
merly opposed to woman suffrage'
and that his record would show this.
He said he had changed his mind. He
had observed the growing demand by
the women for equal participation in
political affairs and felt that a con
tinued refusal by men to admit wbm
en to such participation might result
in the organization of women on sex
lines. This would be deplorable. He,
therefore, would favor granting the
vote to women by the most expedi
tious method possible. This would,
of course, be the federal amendment
plan -urged by the Congressional
On the two other subjects the
seaman's law and the fundamental
rights of labor Mr. Hughes did not
satisfy his callers. The Clayton act
was taken as a text for the discus
sion and Mr. Hughes was asked if he
agreed with the declaration in that
law that labor is not a commodity.
Mr. Hughes replied that such a de
claration was merely words; that no
law could alter the fact that laborers
were persons and might conspire to
do evil things whereupon they would
come under the weight of the law.
He went oh to express his disapprov
al of the secondary boycott and his
belief in the injunction, comparing'
the injunction to the jury system a
good institution which might be
abused. His ideas as to how the'
Clayton law should be interpreted
seemed to his callers as those of the
lawyer rather than the sociologist or"
The seamen's law was chosen as
one test of Hughes' opinion, because
that law involves the right of a man
under any circumstances to quit
work if the pay or other conditions'
are not satisfactory. In his discus
sion of this law Mr. Hughes laid chief
stress on the need for an American"
chotj On woman, suffrage the csa-l merchant marine and the- possible-