OCR Interpretation

The day book. (Chicago, Ill.) 1911-1917, July 27, 1916, LAST EDITION, Image 4

Image and text provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1916-07-27/ed-1/seq-4/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

What is the attitude of Chas. E.
Hughes on the great economic and
social questions that determine the
welfare of the American nation and
the liberties of the citizens of Amer
ica? Since -his nomination Hughes has
made a number of public statements,
but except gor a clear-cut endorse
ment of a high protective tariff and
some very indefinite statements re
garding the desirabliity of general
welfare legislation, he has confined
himself to the verbal exposition of
his "Americanism."
This question of his real attitude
is the one to which above all others
the American people should have an
accurate, unbiased answer. Not only
is this the most important campaign
since the days of Lincoln, but there
is an even more important reason
why in 'the case of Hughes the exact
truth is vital.
'the American people have, at the
urgent insistence of Theodore
Roosevelt, already chosen one pres
ident, Wm. Howard Taft, from the
federal bench and later overwhelm
ingly repudiated him for his reac
tionary subserviency to big business.
They are now asked, again by
Roosevelt, to choose another presi
dent from. the federal bench. The
question must therefore be asked
is Hughes another Taft?
Fortunately the answer to this
question can be given, free from all
bias, by an analysis of Hughes' rec
ord as a justice of the U. S. supreme
court. This is the best possible test,
for during the six years since Hughes
was appointed to the supreme court
by Taft nearly every important eco
nomic and social question has had
to be considered, either directly or
indirectly by this court.
The accuracy and validity of this
test is apparent from the case of
Taft If the American people had
analyzed Taft's decisions as a federal
judge, exalting the rights of proper
ty above human rights, instead of
accepting the encomiums of Roose
velt upon Taft as the great progres- 0
sive, there can be little doubt that
there would have been no Payne
Aldrich tariff and no Ballinger scan
dal. In makingtjiis analysis of Hughes'
record in thVsupreme court I have
taken every case in which he deliv
ered the opinion of the court or dis
sented, all of the cases in which he
concurred with the majority of the
court against a dissenting opinion,
and the most important cases in
which he participated in the unani
mous opinion of the court. Alto
gether 219 cases are involved, of
which Hughes personally wrote
either majority or minority opinions
in 148.
In these cases his opinions on mo
nopolies, labor, public utilities, rail
road rates, public lands and all the
other big questions about which the
people have been in conflict with
privilege, are clearly revealed. They
are the true index of his views and
must override any statements of
policy which he may make in the
vote-getting excitement of the cam
paign. What do these decisions show?
They show that
During his entire six years on the
supreme bench, Hughes dissented
from the majority of the court 29
times out of the 1,412 opinions hand
ed down during that period. Thus in .
97 cases out of 100 he stood on the w
platform with the other justice. In
four cases he wrote his own dissent
ing opinion. In the other hundreds
of cases he either went with the ma
jority or concurred in the dissent of
some other justice.
The cases in which he handed
down the opinion of the majority of

xml | txt