Geskiedenis Podcasts

Charles Evans Hughes

Charles Evans Hughes

Hoofregter van die VSA Behalwe dat hy in 1930-1941 as hoofregter gedien het, was hy goewerneur van New York (1907-1910), hooggeregshofregter (1910-1916), Republikeinse presidentskandidaat (1916), staatsekretaris (1921- 1925) en regter van die Wêreldhof (1928-1930). Sy opkoms in die openbare lewe was hoofsaaklik te wyte aan sy intelligensie, pligsbesef, kapasiteit vir harde werk en selfvoorsiening.

Hughes, 'n voorbarige kind, het op drie en 'n half jaar geleer om te lees. Voordat hy ses was, het hy verse uit die Nuwe Testament gelees en voorgelees, hoofrekene gedoen en Frans en Duits bestudeer. Na slegs drie en 'n half jaar van formele skoolopleiding, studeer hy op die ouderdom van dertien van die hoërskool. Nadat hy Phi Beta Kappa aan die Brown -universiteit voltooi het, het Hughes na die Columbia Law School gegaan, waar hy die eerste plek in sy klas was. Toe hy die balie -eksamen in New York in 1884 aflê, het hy tot 99 % die hoogste graad gekry, 99 1/2 persent. Hy het 'n fotografiese geheue en kon in 'n oogopslag 'n paragraaf lees, 'n verhandeling in die aand. Hierdie vermoëns het van Hughes 'n formidabele teenstander in die kroeg gemaak-hy het bykans dertig jaar lank reg beoefen-en het bygedra tot sy sukses as politikus, regter en onderhandelaar.

Vir Hughes het plig beteken om waardige dinge te doen en dit goed te doen. Hy ry homself genadeloos. Sy pligsbesef het hom tot openbare diens gelei en hom in staat gestel om uit te blink in byna alles wat hy onderneem het. Hughes het geen persoonlike of politieke adviseurs gehad nie, geen gunstelinge nie, geen vertrouelinge nie. Herbert Hoover het eenkeer gesê dat hy die mees selfstandige man is wat hy ooit geken het. Hy het sy eie oordele gemaak op grond van sy eie ontledings. By die werk was hy georganiseerd, intens en ernstig en het hy min tyd gehad vir lekkernye. Die kant van hom het aanleiding gegee tot 'n afsydige, koel en humorlose openbare beeld. Tuis het hy egter warmte en humor getoon; hy was 'n sensitiewe man en 'n sorgsame pa van drie kinders.

Hughes was naby aan die verkiesing tot president in 1916. 'n Verandering van minder as vierduisend stemme in Kalifornië sou hom die staat se verkiesingsstemme en die presidentskap gegee het. As Hughes nie so 'n sober publieke beeld voorgehou het nie (of as hy die steun van goewerneur Hiram W. Johnson verkry het), sou hy waarskynlik verkies gewees het.

As staatsekretaris in die Harding- en Coolidge -administrasies het Hughes 'n aparte vredesverdrag met Duitsland beding toe die senaat nie die Verdrag van Versailles kon bekragtig nie. Hy was ook voorsitter van die Washington Ontwapeningskonferensie in 1921-1922, ondersteun die deelname van die VSA aan die Wêreldhof en hou Amerikaanse erkenning van die Sowjetunie terug. Alhoewel hy twee presidente gedien het wat die politieke kapitaal gemaak het om Woodrow Wilson se visie op internasionalisme te verwerp, het hy 'n buitelandse beleid gevoer wat die internasionale verantwoordelikhede van die Verenigde State erken. In Latyns -Amerika het hy 'n manier gesoek om Amerikaanse ingryping te verminder terwyl hy 'n tradisionele opvatting van die nasionale belang verdedig. In Europa het hy 'n konstruktiewe rol vir die Verenigde State aangevoer, terwyl hy formele verbintenisse vermy het wat die kongres sou betrek of die openbare mening sou opwek.

As hoofregter het Hughes die Hooggeregshof gelei tydens een van sy moeilikste tydperke. Hy was voorsitter van die transformasie van die basiese rol van die hof van verdediger van eiendomsreg tot beskermer van burgerlike vryhede, en skryf die belangrikste opmerkings van die tydperk oor vryheid van spraak en pers-Near v. Minnesota, Stromberg teen Kalifornië en DeJonge teen Oregon. Hy het ook suksesvol gekant teen president Franklin D. Roosevelt se plan om die Hooggeregshof in 1937 te 'pak'.

The Reader's Companion to American History. Eric Foner en John A. Garraty, redakteurs. Kopiereg © 1991 deur Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Alle regte voorbehou.


Charles Evans Hughes

Ons redakteurs gaan na wat u ingedien het, en bepaal of hulle die artikel moet hersien.

Charles Evans Hughes, (gebore 11 April 1862, Glens Falls, New York, VS - oorlede 27 Augustus 1948, Osterville, Massachusetts), regsgeleerde en staatsman wat as mederegter van die Hooggeregshof van die Verenigde State gedien het (1910–16), Amerikaanse minister van buitelandse sake (1921–25) en 11de hoofregter van die Verenigde State (1930–41). As hoofregter het hy die Hooggeregshof gelei deur die groot twis wat ontstaan ​​het oor die New Deal -wetgewing van president Franklin D. Roosevelt.


Dan Ernst: Charles Evans Hughes se lewenslange respek vir die howe

Terwyl die debat oor Franklin D. Roosevelt se verpakkingsplan sewe en sewentig jaar gelede gewoed het, het die president se woordvoerders politieke hooi gemaak deur aan te haal uit 'n toespraak wat hoofregter Charles Evans Hughes jare vroeër as goewerneur van New York gelewer het. 'Ons is onder 'n grondwet', het Hughes aan 'n gehoor van 2 000 in 'n teater in Elmira gesê, 'maar die grondwet is wat die regters sê.'

Ignoreer die oorspronklike konteks, soos die woordvoerders van FDR, en die aanhaling pas maklik in hul argument ten gunste van die plan. Regters het nie die bestaande grondwet gevind of verklaar dat hulle dit gemaak het nie. By die maak van hulle s'n het die verjaarde regters van die Hughes Court die waardes van 'n vervloë tydperk gebruik. Amerika sou beter bedien word deur regters wie se waardes in die moderne tyd ontstaan ​​het.

As die woordvoerders die maat van die president se belangrikste regterlike teëstander wou neem, eerder as om punte aan te teken, sou hulle dit beter gedoen het om die konteks van die aanhaling te oorweeg. Hughes het probeer om steun te verleen vir die Wet op Kommissies op Openbare Utilities van 1907, 'n baken in die geskiedenis van regulering. Sake het die wet gekant, tensy dit hulle die reg verleen om die besluite van die kommissie in 'n appèl by die regbank te heroorweeg. Hughes het aangedring op minder indringende geregtelike hersiening:

Hughes bepleit geregtelike beperking in die hersiening van bevele van administratiewe agentskappe, nie nog wetgewing nie, ek het gedink aan sy subtiele begrip van regterlike mag en geregtelike legitimiteit die afgelope naweek toe ek James F. Simon se boek gelees het FDR en hoofregter Hughes (Simon & Schuster, 2012). Simon se boek, wat vanmiddag die onderwerp van 'n simposium by die New York Law School sal wees, wissel tussen FDR en Hughes. Vir my is Simon se behandeling van Hughes ten minste meer oortuigend, want hy toon aan dat die regsgeleerde nooit die trou aan die regbank wat hy by Elmira bevestig het, afgesweer het nie. Toe 'n skerp verdeelde Hooggeregshof en die verpakkingsplan van Roosevelt die "onafhanklikheid en agting van die regbank in gevaar stel", het Hughes gesorg dat sy ideaal van die regbank as 'n bewaarplek van die rede sou voortbestaan. Hy het die ideaal behou - en, soos ons vandag kan sê, 'gewen' - deur sy eie advies te volg: hy het sy hof onttrek uit 'vrae wat naby openbare ongeduld lê' deur besluite te neem wat kontroversiële wetgewing van grondwetlike uitdaging ondersteun.

Die hantering van die senaat met die benoeming van Hughes as hoofregter in 1930 was onverwags baie kneusplekke, niks soos die akklamasie wat Hughes geniet het toe hy in 1910 vir die eerste keer in die hooggeregshof aangewys is nie. Progressiewe Republikeine en demokrate het hom in die steek gelaat omdat hy die hof in 1916 as president verkies het. George Norris van Nebraska betreur Hughes se kliënte, 'korporasies van byna onbekende rykdom'. Maar regter Louis D. Brandeis, 'n progressiewe tribune, was bly om hom as sy hoof te hê. Vir 'n geruime tyd het Hughes se voorganger William Howard Taft 'regtig sy greep verloor' op die hof, het Brandeis aan Felix Frankfurter gesê. Die mede -regters Willis “V [an] D [evanter] en Pierce Butler het hom bestuur.” Hughes, daarteenoor, het dadelik die leiding uitgeoefen wat die hof vereis het. Alhoewel Hughes se "sterk gevoel vir die reputasie van die hof" hom geneig het om presedente te onderskei wat Brandeis wou laat oorheers, het dit ook daartoe gelei dat die hoofregter die regtervleuel van die hof "saggies trap" het. 'In werklikheid,' het Brandeis aan Frankfurter gesê, 'is die stertvere van Butler en sommige daarvan heeltemal uitgeruk.'

Hulle het gou teruggegroei. Aangesien 'n verslegtende ekonomie staats- en federale regerings daartoe gelei het om nuwe wetgewing aan te neem, het Hughes gesukkel om die skeiding tussen die konserwatiewe en liberale vleuels van die Hof die gesag van sy hof in die gedrang te bring. Simon meen Hughes het grootliks daarin geslaag tot 1936. Sy opinies wat 'n resolusie van die kongres handhaaf, verhoed dat skuldeisers hul skuld in goud invorder, en het regter James McReynolds uit die bank laat uitroep: 'Dit is Nero op sy ergste. Die Grondwet is weg. ” Tog verenig Hughes sy hof agter 'n mening wat 'n wetgewende kenmerk van die honderd dae, die National Industrial Recovery Act, verwerp. Eers in 1936, beweer Simons, het Hughes beheer oor sy hof verloor. By die besluit oor die lot van die New Deal se belangrikste landbouprogram en die minimumloonwet van New York vir vroue, het regter Owen Roberts die kompromieë verwerp wat Hughes aangegaan het en by die konserwatiewes Butler, McReynolds, Sutherland en Van Devanter aangesluit.

In lesings wat as 'n privaat praktisyn in die 1920's gelewer is, het Hughes die negentiende-eeuse hooggeregshof getugtig vir drie 'self-toegediende wonde' Dred Scott, die Legal Tender Cases en Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & amp Trust (wat 'n federale inkomstebelasting gesluit het). Namate die termyn in Junie 1936 geëindig het, meen Simon dat Hughes moedeloos was oor sy versuim om die konserwatiewe meerderheid daarvan te weerhou om “nuwe wonde aan die aansien van die hof te bring”. Gedurende sy loopbaan het Hughes daarop gemik om die reg en die regering te bevry van die "gemors en intriges van die politiek", nou word hy deur een van die FDR se korrespondente afgemaak as "niks anders as 'n 'wykspoliticus' nie.

Simon dink dat Hughes tydens 'n oornagbesoek aan die plaas van Roberts in Pennsylvania in die somer van 1936 sy gasheer aangemoedig het om die konserwatiewes te laat vaar. As dit die geval was, het hy opgetree om die Hof te beskerm, goed voor die herverkiesing van die FDR in November 1936 of die onthulling van sy plan vir pakpak in Februarie 1937. Voor die ontploffing van die bom het Roberts reeds toegegee deur te stem saam met Hughes en die liberale om te handhaaf. In die staat Washington se minimumloonwet vir vroue het hy voortgegaan om saam met hulle te stem in die uitdagings van die National Labor Relations Act en die Social Security Act. Terwyl administrasie -amptenare die onafwendbare politieke aard van die oordeel uitspreek en Roosevelt die Hooggeregshof getugtig het as 'n onstuimige perd wat nie met die ander takke van die regering sou saamtrek nie, het Hughes 'n geregtelike kalmte gehandhaaf. As die samelewing deur die 'prosesse van die rede' beheer wil word, 'het hy voor die American Law Institute gesê,' moet dit die instellings onderhou wat hierdie prosesse beliggaam. '

Toe die termyn geëindig het, het Felix Frankfurter gedink dat Hughes eerder vir sy 'politieke kronkels' geklaag moes word, maar hy het die een na die ander ontvang. Die skouspel van ''n sintetiese stralekrans. . . op die kop geplaas van die mees polities berekenende mense, ”skryf hy Stone,“ maak my. . . 'Puke.' "Maar ná sy aanstelling in die hof in Januarie 1939 sou selfs Frankfurter lof vir Hughes se leierskap van die broeders hê.

Simon sluit sy behandeling van Hughes af met die volgende waardering:

Gister het die joernaliste Robert Barnes en Scott Clemens die bevinding van 'n Washington Post ABC News peiling dat die helfte van die Amerikaanse publiek van die hooggeregshof verwag dat die uitdagings van die Wet op Pasiëntbeskerming en Bekostigbare Sorg hoofsaaklik op grond van hul 'partydige politieke opvattings' beslis. Charles Evans Hughes het 'n vergelykbare bedreiging vir die legitimiteit van die regbank beëindig met beslissende en skerp leierskap van sy hof. Sal 'n hoofregter wat ook 'n professionele lewe deurgebring het "op eerbied vir die howe" dit vandag doen?


Charles Evans Hughes en grondwetlike oorlogsmagte

Matthew Waxman, die professor Liviu Librescu in die regte en voorsitter van die Hertog -program oor regte en nasionale veiligheid, het lank reeds geweet dat die frase geskep is deur Charles Evans Hughes, sr., 'N briljante regsgedagte wat twee afsonderlike pligte uitgevoer het. die Amerikaanse hooggeregshof. Maar ongeveer vier jaar gelede het Waxman begin wonder oor die presiese konteks waarin dit ontstaan ​​het.

Hughes was 'n mede -regter van 1910 tot 1916, toe hy bedank om president te word, en daarna weer as hoofregter dien, van 1930 tot 1941, en bedank ses maande voor Pearl Harbor. Wat Waxman interesseer, was waarom Hughes (klas van 1884) oorlogsmagte toegespreek het toe Hughes nooit in die hof gesit het terwyl die land in oorlog was nie.

Hierdie vraag het uiteindelik gelei tot Waxman se fassinerende stuk navorsing, gepubliseer as 'n 79-bladsy Columbia Law Review artikel getiteld "Die mag om suksesvol oorlog te voer."

Dit blyk dat Hughes nie die woorde tydens een van sy terme in die hooggeregshof geskryf het nie. Hy het dit ook nie reggemaak tydens sy tydperk as regter aan die Permanent Court of International Justice in Den Haag (1928 tot 1930) nie. Ook nie terwyl hy as goewerneur van New York (1907 tot 1910) of as Amerikaanse minister van buitelandse sake (1921 tot 1925) gedien het nie.

Hy skryf eerder die frase as 'n private burger. Hierdie woorde - tesame met verskeie ander talismaniese frases wat nou oor die algemeen die gesag van die hooggeregshof verleen het - was eintlik deel van 'n toespraak wat Hughes op 'n aand van 5 September 1917 in Saratoga Springs, New York, tydens 'n American Bar Association -konferensie gelewer het.

Die toespraak is aangevuur deur grondwetlike debatte oor 'n nasionale konsep en ander kwessies wat nou ietwat "anachronisties" is, merk Waxman op. Soos Waxman se navorsing onthul, bly Hughes se benadering om vrae oor grondwetlike oorlogsmagte aan te pak, egter verhelderend en relevant, selfs in 'n tyd waarin die VSA te kampe het met oorloë teen staatlose terrorisme.

'N Ontdekking in die argiewe

Terwyl Waxman in die toespraak van Hughes ingegrawe het, het hy uiteindelik sy studente -navorsingsassistent, Ian MacDougall '14, na die Columbia Rare Book and Manuscript Library gestuur, waaraan Hughes sy argiewe geskenk het. Daar vind MacDougall 'n dik lêer met die naam 'Oorlog', gevul met die navorsing wat Hughes vir die toespraak gedoen het, met sy handgeskrewe aantekeninge.

'Die lêers was 'n uitstekende argeologiese hulpmiddel om uit te vind wat Hughes werklik dink,' sê Waxman. 'Hy wou hê dit moet 'n indrukwekkende toespraak wees. Hy wou hê dat dit uithouvermoë sou hê. Wat dit het. ”

Die agtergrond vir hierdie toespraak was ongewoon. Die vorige November het Hughes, die Republikeinse kandidaat, 'n noue presidentsverkiesing verloor teen die sittende Woodrow Wilson. 'Op die verkiesingsaand', sê Waxman, 'het Hughes eintlik gaan slaap om deur sy adviseurs gesê te word dat hy gewen het.'

Maar destyds het dit 'n paar dae geneem voordat stemme getel is, gaan hy voort. "Hughes het Kalifornië met minder as 4 000 stemme verloor, en dit het die kieskollege in Wilson se guns geswaai."

Nadat die kongres in April 1917 oorlog verklaar het, het president Wilson die Wet op selektiewe diens onderteken, met 'n verpligte konsep, asook sekere wetgewing wat ontwerp is om die ekonomie in die oorlog te reguleer. Hoewel die grondwetlikheid van sulke maatreëls vandag as vanselfsprekend aanvaar sou word, verduidelik Waxman dat dit destyds as radikaal beskou is en dat die geldigheid daarvan sterk bestry is. (Dit was voor die New Deal, toe die Hooggeregshof sy interpretasie van die handelsklousule verbreed het, sodat die kongres 'n baie vryer hand gegee het ten opsigte van ekonomiese regulering.)

'N Belangrike toespraak

In sy ABA -toespraak het Hughes dus 'n sterk grondwetlike verdediging van kontroversiële optrede deur die president van die opponerende party onderneem. Boonop, sê Waxman, 'het ek regtig moeilik daaraan om te dink enigiemand vandag wat dieselfde politieke, juridiese en intellektuele gesag kan spreek as wat hy in 1917 gehad het. ”

Die dag na die toespraak is Hughes se sienings op die voorblad van Die New York Times in 'n artikel wat ook lang gedeeltes van die adres self bevat het. Kort daarna publiseer die ABA die hele toespraak, met voetnote, as 'n artikel van 18 bladsye in sy jaarverslag. Hughes se toespraak is ook opgeneem in die kongresrekord.

In die toespraak het Hughes aangevoer dat gedeeltes van die Grondwet in oorlogstyd makliker kon en moes word. Aan die ander kant sou die uitgestrekte magte van die regering terugkeer na normale omvang sodra die oorlog geëindig het.

'Ons is 'n baklei Grondwet, 'het hy aangevoer in 'n ander gedeelte wat gereeld aangehaal word, en dit' marsjeer ', wat beteken dat dit moet ontwikkel om aan veranderende behoeftes te voldoen. Hughes het geredeneer dat die kongres se uitgestrekte oorlogsmagte implisiet was in die Grondwet se 'Noodsaaklike en Behoorlike Klousule', wat die Kongres die bevoegdheid gegee het 'om alle wette te maak wat nodig en geskik is vir die uitvoering van alle ander bevoegdhede van hierdie Grondwet.'

Destyds, verduidelik Waxman, het Hughes 'n middelpad gelei tussen diegene wat daarop aangedring het dat die Grondwet 'n onbuigsame spanningsbaadjie aan regeringsbevoegdhede opdwing, en diegene wat aangevoer het dat dit bloot opgehou het om te geld tydens oorlogstyd.

Waarom die woorde voortleef

Later, toe Hughes hoofregter geword het, het hy sekere reëls uit die toespraak opgeneem, insluitend die een oor die 'mag om suksesvol oorlog te voer' in die teks van 'n uitspraak uit 1934 wat hy oor 'n vredestyd gepubliseer het - waarin hy die analise van die noodgeval wat deur die Groot Depressie aangebied word aan diegene wat deur oorlog aangebied is.

Uiteindelik, in 1948 - twee maande na Hughes se dood - het regter Harold Burton, in 'n kontraksaak in oorlogstyd, Lichter teen die Verenigde State, het lang gedeeltes van Hughes se ABA -toespraak in sy uitspraak aangehaal.

"Ek het nog nooit 'n ander brondokument gesien nie, wat nog te sê 'n stuk wat deur 'n privaat burger geskryf is, wat so lank in 'n hooggeregshof se mening aangehaal is," merk Waxman op. 'Dit is amper asof [Burton] probeer om Hughes se toespraak amptelik in die Hooggeregshof -rekord in te lees, en dit gee die impimatur van presedent.

Daarbenewens, merk hy op, het Hughes gedink dat die uitgestrekte kontoere van die oorlogsmagte weer normaal sou word sodra die vrede herstel is. In die praktyk het dit egter selde gebeur. Daar is gevind dat dreigemente van nasionale veiligheid voortduur nadat wapenstilstand onderteken is en voor die uitbreek van vyandelikhede opduik. In die lig van die immer teenwoordige bedreiging van terrorisme, is die grens tussen "vredestyd" en "oorlogstyd" al hoe duideliker as ooit.

Maar die belangrikste bewerings van die toespraak, volgens Waxman - dat ons 'n 'strydende grondwet' het wat die buigsaamheid verleen om 'suksesvol oorlog te voer' - bly geldig en tydloos. 'Ons grondwet het gegroei uit die ervaring van die Revolusionêre Oorlog,' sê hy. 'Dit is opgestel deur groot Amerikaanse teoretici wat geweet het dat die lewensvatbaarheid van die demokratiese republiek op lang termyn afhang van die doeltreffendheid daarvan in oorlog.'

Lees Matthew Waxman se Columbia Law Review artikel, "Die mag om suksesvol oorlog te voer."


Walliese geskiedenismaand: Die man wat amper president geword het. en 'n buitengewone jaar vir Walliese Amerika

Huldeblyke aan Denis Healey na sy onlangse dood het hom soms die beste premier genoem wat ons nog nooit gehad het nie.

Charles Evans Hughes, 'n tweede generasie Walliese Amerikaner met wortels in die Suid -Walliese valleie en 'n mate van kennis van die Walliese taal, kan tereg onder die beste presidente gelys word wat Amerika nog nooit gehad het nie.

Baie van diegene wat hom geken het en saamgewerk het, het geglo dat hy ten minste 'n uitstekende bewoner van die West Wing van die Withuis sou gewees het.

'N Kragtige liggaam en groot geestelike en fisiese energie

Trouens, Hughes het amper in 1916 president geword. In Junie daardie jaar, op 54 -jarige ouderdom, is hy aangeneem as die Republikeinse kandidaat om die Demokratiese president, Woodrow Wilson, wat 'n tweede ampstermyn soek, te beveg. Hughes se benoeming toon dat hy teen daardie tyd reeds 'n wesenlike impak op sy land gehad het.

Sedert hy in die eerste dekade van die twintigste eeu nasionale bekendheid in Amerika begin bereik het, was Hughes die fokus van baie belangstelling en respek.

Joernaliste en die publiek was gefassineer deur, in die woorde van die Wallies-Amerikaanse tydskrif The Cambrian, sy "kragtige liggaam en groot geestelike en fisiese energie" en, nie die minste nie, sy ikoniese baard. Nie verrassend nie, miskien was hy in die volksmond bekend as "Whiskers".

Hughes se baard was baie geliefd onder die pers en tekenaars, wat dit 'n 'nasionale baken' gemaak het. Hierdie meer quixotiese voorbeeld van Walliese impak leef voort.

Die Amerikaanse hooggeregshof wys tans 'n uitstalling getiteld 'The Power of Image: Charles Evans Hughes in Prints, Photographs and Drawings'.

Hughes het ook geweldige gawes gehad wat hom in staat gestel het om 'n briljante advokaat en regsgeleerde te wees. Die skerpheid van sy intellektuele kragte was legendaries, net soos sy fotografiese geheue, uitstekende beheersing van detail, onafhanklikheid van oordeel, eerlikheid en onverganklikheid.

In 1916 het sy party geglo dat sy vermoë en integriteit baie by Amerikaanse kiesers sou val. 'In intellektuele en morele krag het Hughes kop en skouers gestaan ​​bo die diensbare politici wat moontlik na die benoeming wou streef', skryf Dexter Perkins in sy 1956-boek Charles Evans Hughes en American Democratic Statesmanship.

Hughes het so 'n uitnemendheid bereik deur 'n kragtige kombinasie van natuurlike vermoë en groot werkvermoë. Hy is gebore op 11 April 1862 in Glens Falls, New York, waar sy pa, David Charles Evans, 'n Baptiste -predikant was en sy ma 'n onderwyser.

Die jong Charles Evans Hughes het 'n loopbaan in die regte begin

David was oorspronklik van Tredegar en was 'n predikant van godsdiens daar en elders langs die Heads of the Valleys, sowel as 'n drukker in Merthyr Tydfil, voordat hy in die 1850's na Amerika emigreer.

Die jong Charles Evans Hughes het 'n loopbaan in die regte begin en is in 1884 in die balie toegelaat.

Tussen 1884 en 1906 het hy 'n vooraanstaande loopbaan as regspraktisyn geniet en het hy in 1888 die regsfirma Hughes Hubbard gestig, wat vandag nog floreer as een van Amerika se voorste regsfirmas. Hy was ook 'n kort tydperk professor in die regte aan die Cornell -universiteit in die middel van die 1890's.

Hughes se toenemende prominensie en profiel in die Republikeinse Party is aansienlik verbeter in 1905 en 1906, toe hy baie suksesvol as advokaat vir die staatsregering in New York opgetree het in hul pogings om misbruik in die staat se gas- en versekeringsondernemings uit te skakel.

Die jaar daarna word hy, met 'n groot meerderheid, verkies tot goewerneur van New York, en verslaan die Demokratiese kandidaat, persmagnaat William Randolph Hearst (eienaar van St Donat's Castle in die 1920's en 1930's). Hughes het twee termyne as goewerneur gedien.

In die politiek was Hughes 'n liberale Republikein, of Progressief, om die term van daardie tyd te gebruik.

Hy was een van 'n aantal staatsbestuurders wat in die beginjare van die twintigste eeu op hervormingsplatforms verkies is, wat probeer het om die oormaat van kapitalisme, in die vorm van ongereguleerde groot sake, te beheer en korrupsie in die nywerheid en politiek uit te skakel.

Sy verkiesing as goewerneur is dus 'n belangrike element in die geskiedenis en lotgevalle van Progressivisme.

Hughes was 'n redelik suksesvolle goewerneur. In 1910 aanvaar hy 'n uitnodiging om 'n mede -regter van die Hooggeregshof te word.

Hier begin 'n lang en vooraanstaande loopbaan as regsgeleerde, oor twee afsonderlike periodes, wat sy posisie as een van die grootste en belangrikste figure in die geskiedenis van die Amerikaanse hooggeregshof verseker het.

Ses jaar later moes hy uit die hof bedank omdat hy vir president gestaan ​​het.

Geslaan deur 'n snor

Die verkiesing van 1916 het wêreldwyd groot belangstelling gewek omdat die VSA destyds nog nie die Eerste Wêreldoorlog betree het nie. Die komende verkiesing het die spekulasie verhoog of die VSA uiteindelik by die Geallieerdes sou aansluit, hoewel albei die twee hoofkandidate anti-oorlogsplatforms aangeneem het.

Dat Hughes die seun van 'n Walliese Baptiste -predikant was, het begryplik vir opwinding in Wallis en onder Walliese Amerikaners gesorg. Selfs die bekende spotprenttekenaar van Western Mail
J M Staniforth het betrokke geraak. In 'n karakteristieke geestige en skerp spotprent wat op die dag van die verkiesing, 7 November, verskyn het, word Amerikaners sterk aanbeveel om 'n 'nuwe handelsmerk' (Hughes) te kies, want 'dit kom uit Wallis'.

As Hughes gewen het, sou hy 'n merkwaardige Walliese trio van wêreldleiers voltooi het wat terselfdertyd die hoogste amp in hul onderskeie lande behaal het. Dit was die tyd toe Billy Hughes en David Lloyd George onderskeidelik premier van Australië en Brittanje was.

Op die verkiesingsaand 1916 het baie Amerikaners gaan slaap in die oortuiging dat Hughes gewen het. Die volgende oggend het ten minste twee New York -koerante, die Herald and the Tribune, en die (London) Times berig dat hy die oorwinning behaal het. Maar teen die tyd dat die finale uitslae binne 'n paar dae later was, was dit duidelik dat die Amerikaanse stempubliek met die 'ou handelsmerk' gegaan het en Wilson met 'n baie klein marge gekies het. Hughes is met 277 stemme van die kieskollege verslaan teen 254. Hy het 'n haarbreedte 'misgeloop, soos verskeie destydse kommentators dit gestel het. (Miskien sou 'deur 'n snor' meer gepas gewees het, gegewe sy beroemde huurmoedigheid.)

Die Western Mail beskryf syne as die man wat amper president geword het

Van toe af sou Hughes hoofsaaklik onthou word as die man wat amper president van die VSA geword het. Dit is presies hoe die Western Mail hom beskryf het terwyl hy sy dood in Augustus 1948 aangemeld het.

Maar Hughes het meer invloed op Amerika gehad tydens sy 86-jarige lewe as net dit. 'N Eulogie aan hom in die New York Times beweer dat hy na sy nederlaag twee en dertig jaar vroeër' uit die openbare lewe sou kon tree, verseker van 'n gerespekteerde nis in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis '. In plaas daarvan het dit voortgegaan, 'gedurende die volgende moeilike 25 jaar het hy op 'n oproep na 'n oproep gereageer vir verdere uitstekende diens wat hom as een van die groot Amerikaners van sy tyd gevestig het'.

Hughes het aan die voorpunt van die Amerikaanse lewe gebly. Hy was 'n baie gerespekteerde minister van buitelandse sake, een van die vier belangrikste poste in presidensiële kabinette, tussen 1921 en 1925. In 1930 keer hy terug na die Hooggeregshof as hoofregter. In hierdie amp verseker hy, in die woorde van Mark Drakeford, "'n reputasie as die vooraanstaande juris van sy generasie met 'n meesterskap wat ongeëwenaard is in die geskiedenis van die hof".

'N Buitengewone jaar vir Walliese Amerika

Die lang en besonderse loopbaan van Hughes is 'n volledige artikel in hierdie reeks oor wat Wallis vir die wêreld gedoen het. Maar om te beklemtoon en te simboliseer wat Walliese emigrante en hul afstammelinge vir Amerika gedoen het, is dit die moeite werd om te onthou dat Hughes een van verskeie Walliese Amerikaners was wat aansienlik prominent was in die Amerikaanse lewe in die dertigerjare. Hulle impak is veral in een jaar, 1937, baie skerp in fokus gebring.

Daardie jaar was in baie opsigte die hoogtepunt van 'n leeftyd van hoë prestasiepieke vir Hughes. (Miskien sou hy die metafoor waardeer het, want in sy jonger dae was hy 'n ywerige wandelaar en bergklimmer wat gereeld die Switserse Alpe besoek het.)

In die eerste helfte van 1937, in die sogenaamde Hooggeregshof-kontroversie of 'konstitusionele krisis', het hy afgesien van wat die meeste historici nou as president Franklin D Roosevelt se verkeerde plan beskou om die hof te "pak" met regters wat gunstiger sou wees vir sy hervorming van die New Deal -program.

Die Hooggeregshof is in die dertigerjare oorheers deur twee Walliesers

Die hof het sommige van die wetgewing wat Roosevelt ingestel het, as ongrondwetlik verklaar om die massa werkloosheid en wydverspreide armoede en nood wat die ekonomiese depressie van die dertigerjare veroorsaak het, te verlig. Dit was Roosevelt se grootste nederlaag tydens sy 12 jaar as president.

In 'n onlangse artikel in Click on Wales vertel Mark Drakeford die verhaal van 'die grootste twis tussen 'n president en die Hooggeregshof' en het ons daaraan herinner dat Hughes nie die enigste Wallieser was wat betrokke was nie. Sy naaste bondgenoot in hierdie uiters belangrike konstitusionele krisis was nog 'n hooggeregshofregter, Owen J. Roberts.

Terwyl Roberts se dood in Mei 1955 berig het, het die Western Mail teruggekyk na die dertigerjare as die tyd toe die Hooggeregshof deur twee Walliesers oorheers is.

"Gedurende die hele 1937," skryf Drakeford, "was die Grondwet van die Verenigde State wat hierdie twee Walliesers gesê het dit was."

Die vegtende Wallieser

Mederegter Owen Josephus Roberts was dikwels bekend as die 'vegende Wallieser'. Soos Hughes, is hy in die hooggeregshof aangestel in 1930. Hy is gebore in Germantown, Philadelphia, op 2 Mei 1875. Sy oupa, William Owen Roberts, emigreer in 1808 uit die Llanbedrog -gebied na Pennsylvania.

Roberts, 'n derde generasie Walliese Amerikaner, was altyd trots op sy Walliese afkoms en was baie geïnteresseerd in Wallis en Walliese oorsake in Amerika. Hy noem sy plaas in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, “Bryn Coed”.

Hy was bekend daarvoor dat hy sy huis oopgemaak het vir besoekende Walliese mense en dat hy 'n immer gewillige en vrygewige gasheer was.

Roberts het tot 1945 as regter van die Hooggeregshof gedien en was president van die American Philosophical Society in 1952. Pragtig en waardig in voorkoms, gedurende 1935 en 1936 word daar wyd gepraat van hom as Republikeinse kandidaat om Roosevelt in die presidentsverkiesing van 1936 te beveg, maar hy is in die hooggeregshof as nuttiger beskou.

Die mees gehate man in Amerika

'N Ander seun van Walliese emigrante wat in 1937 ook baie in die nuus was - en baie verder - in 1937, maar om verskillende redes, was John Llewellyn Lewis. Hy is een van die belangrikste arbeidsleiers in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis en die duidelikste voorbeeld van die aansienlike Walliese bydrae tot die Amerikaanse arbeidersbeweging. Sy lewe is ook 'n Amerikaanse lappie-tot-rykdom-verhaal.

Van geringe oorsprong, het hy opgestaan ​​om nie net aanbidding, roem en bekendheid te bereik nie, maar ook rykdom, mag en invloed. Baie van sy tydgenote en historici beskou hom as een van die magtigste mense in die VSA in die middelste dekades van die twintigste eeu.

Daar is baie geskryf oor Lewis en sy loopbaan, prestasies en nalatenskap, positief en negatief. Hy was 'n komplekse, charismatiese, selfs teenstrydige figuur. Soos Charles Evans Hughes, was Lewis se fisiese teenwoordigheid die bron van eindelose kommentaar. Een waarnemer beskryf hom in 1936 as "miskien die kleurrykste persoonlikheid in Amerikaanse aangeleenthede vandag" en as "'n enorme man met 'n skok van swart hare, wollerige wenkbroue, vuiste soos hamme- wat hy gereeld by hecklers gebruik het en" geen goedere ”.

Lewis het grootgeword in 'n Walliessprekende kulturele omgewing

Lewis is gebore in Lucas County, Iowa, in 1880. Sy ouers was Walliese emigrante, sy vader 'n mynwerker en plaasarbeider. Lewis grew up in a Welsh-speaking cultural milieu seeped in the mining and union traditions his family brought over from Wales but it’s not clear to what extent these remained an influence on him. He seems not to have made much of his Welshness but he was certainly aware of his roots, as his frequent visits to Wales show. Occasionally he expressed pride in his Welsh heritage. Some contemporaries even associated his fighting spirit and championing of labour as proof that he was “a chip off the old Cymric block.”

In the late 1890s and early 1900s Lewis worked in local coal mines in Lucas and in mining and construction in the Western states. In 1908 he and his family moved to the new mining town of Panama, in south-central Illinois. Lewis had already gained minor office with the United Mine Workers of America in 1901, and at Panama he began a career in unionism.

From 1911 onwards, Lewis’ rise was rapid, culminating in his becoming President of the UMWA in 1920. He held that office for the next 40 years, eventually retiring from the UMWA in 1960. He died nine years later having spent the last years of his life in relative obscurity.

Moving labour from the fringe of the economy to its core

The UMWA struggled in the 1920s and early 1930s. During the savage depression years of the 1930s and after Franklin D. Roosevelt became President, the political climate became far more favourable to labour. A great orator, negotiator and strike tactician, Lewis built the UMWA into a powerful, financially secure union that succeeded in winning increased wages for miners and improving their conditions.

He also devoted his considerable energies to successfully establishing permanent unions among workers in the hitherto unorganised mass production industries, notably steel and automobiles, who were being ignored by the craft union dominated American Federation of Labor.

Between 1935 and 1940 Lewis served as President of the newly formed Committee of Industrial Organization (as it was initially known) which was expelled by the AFL in March 1937. Lewis was the architect of the CIO’s dramatic growth in the late 1930s. Lewis, according to his biographers Melvyn Dubovsky and Warren Van Tyne, succeeded in moving labour “from the fringe of the economy to its core”.

In an article in Wales and Monmouthshire in August 1936, Glyn Roberts predicted that Lewis “will be heard of more and more in the next few years”. Roberts didn’t have to wait long before being proven right for it was in 1937 that Lewis truly acquired national prominence for the first time and, in some circles became “the most hated man in America”. In that year the New York Times alone devoted 99,816 column inches to his activities.

There was a vital link between Hughes, Roberts and Lewis in the historic events of 1937

He played a crucial role in many strike victories, both for his own union and the CIO, during the explosion of militant action, unofficial industrial unrest and often violent confrontations with employers that occurred in the USA from the mid 1930s onwards.

Non-unionised workers adopted a new and dramatic weapon, the sit-down (later called sit-in) strike, as they sought to force big corporations in steel and manufacturing to recognise unions. The most tumultuous of these was the General Motors sit-down strike at Flint, Michigan in February 1937. By the end of that year, the sit-down strike had enabled the United Automobile Workers to win union recognition from every car manufacturing company except Ford.

There was a vital link between Hughes, Roberts and Lewis in the historic events of 1937, even though they occupied markedly different positions on the left-right political spectrum. In 1937 the Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations, or Wagner, Act, originally passed in 1935, was constitutional.

Most historians agree that the Act made a tangible contribution to labour gains in the USA in the 1930s. It gave unions much greater protection against recession and a counter attack by employers while more than ever before in America, the government was brought into industrial conflicts between workers and their employers, with the federal power being generally on the side of the unions.

In his 1936 article on Welsh people in contemporary America, Glyn Roberts declared that there had never been a time in the history of the USA when people of Welsh birth, or born of immigrant parents, had held so many prominent and key positions in the political and economic life of the USA.

‘You cannot blind yourself to the fact that Welsh blood, Welsh ingenuity, energy and drive are making themselves felt in the currents of American life to-day as never before’, he wrote.

In their own ways Charles Evans Hughes, Owen J Roberts and John L Lewis significantly channelled and steered some of the most important of the those American currents.

Throughout their careers “Whiskers Hughes”, the “Fighting Welshman” and the “most hated man in America” made a profound and lasting impact on American history.

In 1937 they were at the forefront of perhaps the most momentous episodes and struggles their country witnessed that year and they often dominated that year’s headlines. It was a truly extraordinary year for Welsh America.

SO, WHO ARE YOU, BILL JONES?

I am Professor of Welsh History at Cardiff University and Co-director of the Cardiff Centre for Welsh American Studies.

I teach and research the cultural, economic, political and social history of Wales in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

My research specialism is the history of Welsh migration and of the Welsh overseas.

If you could go back to one period of history, when would that be?

I’m fascinated by how Wales changed during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period of great hardships and tragedies yet also of immense dynamism and possibilities.

Being in the crowd at the 1905 Wales v All Blacks game and during the Tonypandy riots in 1910 (in a safe spot!), being present at an Evan Roberts revival meeting in 1904-05, and singing with the South Wales Welsh Choral Union at the Crystal Palace in 1872 are all very tempting.

On balance, though, I think I’d rather stay in early 21st century Wales!

What do you think is the best thing Wales has given the world?

More specifically, it has increased global stocks of passion, humour, imagination, faith, music and determination.

Welsh History Month is in association with The National Trust, Cadw, the National Museum of Wales and the National Library of Wales


Die vroeë jare

1905
Hughes leads successful investigations, particularly the Armstrong investigation of the insurance industry and gains a political reputation. President Theodore Roosevelt encourages Hughes to run for Governor of New York.

1906
Hughes is elected Governor of New York.

1910
After two terms as Governor, Hughes is appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States by President William Howard Taft.

1916
Hughes resigns from the Court to run for President against Woodrow Wilson. After a narrow defeat for the Presidency, Hughes rejoins his old partners.

1917
Allen Hubbard, a law school classmate of Hughes’ son, Charles Evan Hughes Jr., joins the firm and apprentices under the elder Hughes. He would lead the firm as senior partner three decades later.

1921-1925
Charles Evans Hughes Sr. serves as Secretary of State under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

1925
Hughes rejoins the firm as a partner.

1928
Francis Reed, a renowned corporate lawyer who also took his early paces under the elder Hughes, joins the firm. He would lead the firm from 1959 to 1974 and have an enduring influence on the firm’s culture, encouraging lawyers to keep their doors open and use each other’s first names.

1929
Charles Evans Hughes Jr., who is also a partner in the firm, resigns to become Solicitor General of the United States.

1930
The elder Hughes is appointed as Chief Justice of the United States, and his son resigns from his position of Solicitor General to rejoin the firm as a partner. Learned Hand, one of the great judges of the 20th century, is said to have once observed that the greatest lawyer he had ever known was Charles Evans Hughes, except that Hughes’ son was even greater.

1930’s
During the Great Depression, business failures and financial difficulties gave rise to major litigation and corporate reorganization. While most Wall Street firms suffered along with the economy, Hughes’ consistent emphasis on litigation paid off, and the firm grew. During that same period, the Fox Film Corporation and its nationwide chain of theaters retained the firm to handle its corporate reorganization.


The Autobiographical Notes of Charles Evans Hughes

Harvard University Press has partnered with De Gruyter to make available for sale worldwide virtually all in-copyright HUP books that had become unavailable since their original publication. The 2,800 titles in the &ldquoe-ditions&rdquo program can be purchased individually as PDF eBooks or as hardcover reprint (&ldquoprint-on-demand&rdquo) editions via the &ldquoAvailable from De Gruyter&rdquo link above. They are also available to institutions in ten separate subject-area packages that reflect the entire spectrum of the Press&rsquos catalog. More about the E-ditions Program »

Charles Evans Hughes (1862&ndash1948) was lawyer, governor of New York, Supreme Court Justice, presidential candidate in 1916, Secretary of State in the Harding and Coolidge administrations, a member of the World Court, and Chief Justice of the United States from 1930 until his retirement in 1941. To some, Hughes appeared larger than life. Robert H. Jackson once said of him, &ldquo[He] looks like God and talks like God.&rdquo But to those who knew him well, he was quite human, extraordinarily gifted, but human nonetheless. Syne Autobiographical Notes portray him as no biography could and provide comment on almost a century of American history as seen by one who played a part in shaping its course.

Hughes&rsquos notes reveal two sides of his personality&mdasha serious side when he was at work, and a genial, sometimes humorous, side when he was relaxing or with friends and family. When he writes of unofficial lifeespecially his boyhood, college years, and early years at the bar&mdashhe is raconteur telling his story with a certain amount of humor when he writes of his official life he tends to be matter-of-fact. The early chapters describe the formative influence which shaped his character: his loving but intellectually demanding parents and deeply religious training his unusual early education, which took place mostly at home and gave full scope to his precocity. Hughes&rsquos accounts of college life in the 1870s at Madison (now Colgate) and Brown University and of his career as a young lawyer in the New York City of the 1880s and 1890s are valuable portraits of an era.

Brought up to a high sense of duty, Hughes, from the start of his career, felt bound to take worthy legal cases and it was his reputation for integrity and thoroughness that led to his selection as counsel in the gas and insurance investigations of 1905&ndash1906. This was the turn of events that precipitated him into the public eye and, subsequently, into politics. The culmination of his career came in 1937 when he led the Supreme Court through a constitutional crisis and confronted Franklin Roosevelt in the Court packing battle. In the intervening thirty years, Hughes was a major figure in American political and legal circles. Syne Notas record his impressions of presidents, statesmen, and justices. His reflections on the diplomacy of the 1920s and on the causes leading up to the Second World War are of immense historical importance.

The editors have supplied an introduction to the Notas, commenting on Hughes&rsquos personality and public image, his political style and rise to fame. They have remained unobtrusive throughout, intervening only to clarify references and provide necessary details. For the rest, they let Hughes speak for himself in the crisp and clear style that reveals his unusual intelligence and the retentive and analytical mind that distinguished his conduct of affairs.


Roosevelt, Hughes, and the Battle over the New Deal: Interview with James Simon

/>This spring may see the issuance of one of the most significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions in decades as the Court weighs in on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, President Obama’s major legislative achievement. A politically polarized Supreme Court, controlled by conservatives led by Chief Justice John Roberts, will determine the fate of the controversial new law by June. The decision may well go beyond the health care act itself and alter the course of the modern federal administrative state.

Seventy-five years ago, the nation witnessed another conflict that pitted the Court against the chief executive. Then Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, a Republican, faced off against a popular Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who derided the Court for striking down several key New Deal laws including the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

Arguing that the elderly justices of the Court were overworked, Roosevelt proposed expanding the Court from nine to fifteen members by adding a new member for every justice over age 70. Hughes responded that the Court was efficient and up to date with its work while critics blasted FDR’s thinly veiled effort to pack the Court with his political allies. The Court-packing plan fizzled in 1937. After that, however, the Court upheld every New Deal law that came before it as appropriate exercises of congressional authority on social and economic issues.

In his timely new dual biography, FDR and Chief Justice Hughes: The President, the Supreme Court and the Battle Over the New Deal (Simon & Schuster), law professor and historian James F. Simon tells the story of these two dynamic, visionary American leaders from opposing political parties.

Prof. Simon places each man in the context of the time and sets the scene for their collision on the Court’s role. Before he became president, the deft politician FDR honed his skills as a lawyer, state legislator, assistant secretary of the Navy, and governor of New York. Hughes, a Republican progressive and brilliant legal thinker, had also served as governor of New York, as well as U.S. secretary of state and associate justice of the Supreme Court before his appointment as chief justice. He also was nearly elected president in 1916. As Prof. Simon writes, both FDR and Hughes continued to respect one another even at the height of the Court-packing controversy.

Prof. Simon is Martin Professor of Law Emeritus at New York Law School. He is the author of seven previous books on American history, law and politics, including two other books on American presidents and chief justices: Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President’s War Powers en What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States. He lives with his wife in West Nyack, New York.

Dean Simon recently talked by telephone from New York about his new book and its resonance for issues now faced by the president and the Court.

What inspired you to write a dual biography of Franklin Roosevelt and Charles Evans Hughes? Did it grow out of your past work?

Dit het. About fifteen years ago, I had decided to do books on American presidents and chief justices at critical times in American history. I did the research, and I limited my studies to Jefferson and Chief Justice Marshall, Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney, and FDR and Chief Justice Hughes. I wrote about Jefferson and Marshall in What Kind of Nation, which came out in 2002 and was very well received. That encouraged me to do the second book on Lincoln and Taney. And finally, I got around to FDR and Hughes, which is the most dramatic of the three.

How did you decide to cast the book as a dual biography?

I did a previous dual biography, The Antagonists, about Justices Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter, before my three books on the presidents and the chief justices. First, I think it’s dramatic to juxtapose the lives and conflicts of two American leaders. Second, with a dual biography, you’re more prone to be objective. You don’t tend to attach yourself to one life, to become enamored of your subject as biographers of a single subject tend to do. It is more difficult to do that with a dual biography.

You point out many similarities between FDR and Hughes. Hughes, a Republican, shared many of FDR’s progressive views.

They were both progressive politicians even though they were in different parties. And both were reform governors of New York. Hughes had a progressive agenda as governor. First, he was a very strong civil libertarian. Second, he did believe in government regulation of private utilities. He also was willing to challenge the entrenched bosses in the state legislature by promoting his reforms. And FDR essentially followed in Hughes footsteps when he was governor of New York.

They also had in common their personal background in the sense that they were both only children of doting parents and both were Ivy League-educated.

But the differences were also quite interesting. Roosevelt grew up in a gilded existence in Hyde Park on a beautiful estate, and he had tutors and servants. He went to Groton, a rich boy’s prep school. He and his family vacationed in Europe most summers. So it was a luxurious childhood, whereas Hughes was the son of an itinerant Baptist preacher in upstate New York and [his family] was of modest means. He was a prodigy and had a photographic memory. He was tutored by his parents and self-educated. He was elected to Phi Beta Kappa at Brown in his junior year, graduated at the top of his class at Columbia Law School, and recorded the highest grade on the New York bar exam. He then became a brilliant lawyer and investigator of corruption and mismanagement in the utilities and insurance industries.

In contrast, Roosevelt was an indifferent student at Harvard and Columbia Law School. After passing the New York bar, he was an uninspired young lawyer. He had not yet found his true calling, which was politics. He ran for the state legislature at the age of 28 and showed even then the talent of one of the greatest politicians in our history. Even though he came from a very wealthy background, he demonstrated an extraordinary ability to communicate with ordinary people.

Roosevelt was sworn in as president in 1933, and immediately took bold steps to lift the country out of the Great Depression. That’s where the clash came. Hughes was by then chief justice, and he had to deal with a polarized Court, not unlike the Court today, and that Court struck down a number of New Deal statutes, which infuriated Roosevelt.

Some readers will be surprised by Hughes’ political accomplishments. He not only ran for president as a Republican in 1916, but he was almost elected over Woodrow Wilson.

Ja. With four thousand more votes in California, he would have been president. In that campaign, he showed that he was not a natural politician. He was very stiff on the stump, in contrast to Roosevelt who excelled in public speaking and was a natural campaigner.

And Hughes served as an effective secretary of state under President Harding with many accomplishments, including the Disarmament Conference of 1921.

Hughes convened the Disarmament Conference in 1921 with the great naval powers -- the United States, Great Britain and Japan -- and he was able to negotiate a treaty in which all three nations dramatically reduced the tonnage of their warships. That had never been done, and it was a great triumph for him. He was a excellent secretary of state.

Even in the most tense periods of their relationship—when the Court struck down New Deal laws and FDR was openly angry—it seems FDR and Hughes always respected one another.

It’s very clear that Roosevelt respected Hughes. When Roosevelt first ran for the New York legislature, he declared that Hughes’s progressive record as governor was outstanding. Before Hughes administered the presidential oath to Roosevelt in 1933, the two men exchanged letters expressing their respect for each other. Roosevelt told Hughes that he had long admired his public service. Hughes responded graciously and said he looked forward to their association “in the great American enterprise.”

Why did the Court strike down various New Deal statutes and what was Chief Justice Hughes role?

The first major anti-New Deal decision was in 1935 when the Hughes’ Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act, basically the foundational legislation to spur the industrial economy. Hughes wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court, which is often forgotten. He brought together the four ideological conservatives known as “The Four Horsemen,” as well as the liberal justices: Brandeis, Cardozo and Stone. He wrote that the Congress had delegated too much authority to the president, and that in promulgating this law, they had exceeded their power to regulate interstate commerce.

In a second major decision, the Court struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act which, like the National Industrial Recovery Act, was a pillar of the New Deal. The AAA was passed to spur the agricultural economy. This time the Court was divided. In a 6-3 decision, The Court struck down the AAA, and [the majority] included Hughes and Justice Owen Roberts, who were considered non-ideological centrists. The majority ruled that the Congress had exceeded its power to spend for the general welfare, declaring that the regulation of agricultural production resided with the states. The liberal dissenters were very critical of this decision.

Can you talk about Roosevelt’s reaction to the anti-New Deal decisions and his thoughts on reforming the Supreme Court?

Roosevelt had been eyeing the Court warily since these anti-New Deal decisions in 1935 and 1936. He had been privately brooding and trying to find a way to persuade the Court not to thwart the popular will. He thought the American people were clearly in favor of this legislation.

When he was re-elected by a landslide in 1936, he decided to act. He proposed what he called a “Judicial Reform Bill” that he said would give new energy to the Court. It would have allowed him to appoint a new justice for each sitting justice over seventy years old. It turned out that six justices, including Chief Justice Hughes, were over seventy. Had the bill passed, Roosevelt would have been able to add six justices, making a total of 15.

Hughes wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and said that the Court was abreast of its calendar. The justices knew how to do their work, Hughes said, and were doing it very well. After that letter was made public before the Committee, the air came out of Roosevelt’s plan, and it was defeated. Most people gave the Hughes’ letter great credit for the rejection of what was then termed Roosevelt’s Court-packing plan.

It seems that Hughes’ letter was a watershed moment in American legal history.

Roosevelt said he lost the battle but won the war. Hughes, I think, not only won the battle over the Court-packing plan, but he also won the war by protecting the integrity of the Court from a powerful and popular president. It was true that within three years, Roosevelt was able to appoint five new members to the Court, which then rejected every challenge to New Deal legislation. But that would have been true even had he not proposed his Court-packing scheme.

After the Court-packing plan failed, the Court sustained the New Deal measures that came before it -- yet it didn’t overrule the earlier anti-New Deal decisions. How were the later acts found constitutional in the face of the earlier cases?

Beginning in 1937, the Court gave broader authority to Congress than the conservative majority was willing to do in the anti-New Deal decisions. Hughes wrote an extremely important decision in 1937 which gave broad authority to regulate interstate commerce as long as there was a close and substantial relation of the activity within a state to interstate commerce. Hughes led the Court into the modern constitutional era in which the Court was deferential to Congress on economic and social legislation but was much more careful in protecting individual civil rights and liberties. Those are the hallmarks of the modern Supreme Court since 1937.

Although not overruled, isn’t the precedential value of the anti-New Deal decisions very limited now?

Yes, and it’s particularly relevant today as the Court deliberates over the Affordable Care Act and is looking at Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Even though the Court did not overrule those earlier decisions, they nonetheless from 1937 to 1995 were deferential to Congress in finding economic and social legislation constitutional. In a couple of cases, one in 1995 and one in 2000, the Court found that the Congress had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause. But both of those cases, as pointed out in Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion, involved noneconomic activities and were within the prerogative of the locality or the state. One had to do with the possession of guns around a public school and the other dealt with the effect of the Violence Against Women Act. Both congressional actions were struck down.

But the Affordable Care Act is more in line with the precedents going back to 1937 with an activity which is clearly economic and clearly dealing with a national economic problem. I think the precedents are very much in favor of the Roberts Court sustaining this statute. That doesn’t mean the Court will do so. You could tell that the questioning [during oral argument] by the most conservative members of the Court was very hostile to the Solicitor General’s argument they aggressively challenged him. Certainly, if they strike down the health care law and it’s five to four with the five Republican appointees voting to strike it down and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it, we won’t have seen anything like that since the New Deal days.

We haven’t seen such a partisan division of the Court since 1937. There were truly four ideological conservatives on the Court in the early 1930s, as there are today, [but] the difference is that the chief justices are different. Chief Justice Hughes was a centrist who came from a progressive background, and, although a Republican, he came out of the progressive wing of the Republican Party, whereas Chief Justice Roberts is an ideological conservative fully embedded in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And whereas Hughes tried to bring the two sides together and sometimes successfully, Roberts has consistently aligned himself with the most conservative members of the Court on the most polarizing issues of the day, such as campaign finance reform in Citizens United. He has not been shy about voting with the ideological conservatives.

Hughes looked to the Court to be above partisan politics, and he went out of his way to make it so. He discouraged decisions that would appear to be politically partisan. We’ll have to see what happens with the Roberts Court and the health care law.

President Obama recently said that, if the Court finds the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, that would be the result of judicial activism. And then a federal judge in Texas has asked the Department of Justice to submit a memo to the president that states that the federal courts have the authority to declare congressional acts unconstitutional.

I suspect that judge was doing a bit of grandstanding. It’s not a major judicial development. He cannot demand a response from the Justice Department to the president of the United States. He might get one, but the president doesn’t have to respond to him. He’s just playing to the gallery.

It’s a very polarizing issue and the president invited it to some extent by calling out the Court before its decision by saying, if the justices strike down this law or even a part of it, they’re going to be categorized as an activist Court, and I think he’s right. Usually presidents, even FDR, wait for the decision to come down before they attack the Court, but President Obama anticipated a decision, and that’s very unusual. That’s probably what got that judge in Texas riled up.

The president has made statements publicly when he thinks the Court has been out of line. You will recall his State of the Union address in 2010 with the justices in front of him when he criticized the Burgers Verenigde decision for opening the floodgates to special interests, and it turns out he’s right. That doesn’t necessarily mean the decision was wrong, but it’s changed the political environment.

This may not be a fair question, but if you can speculate, where do you think Charles Evans Hughes would come down on Burgers Verenigde and the Affordable Care Act cases?

I can’t answer on Citizens United, because the Hughes Court did not deal with any issue like campaign finance reform.

On the health care law, I think Hughes would find the law constitutional based on his opinions and votes in challenges to Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce from 1937 until his retirement in 1941. Beginning with his opinion in the 1937 decision, NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin, he took a very broad of Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce and he consistently voted in favor of upholding congressional economic and social legislation from 1937 and until his retirement in 1941. I would say, to be consistent with his opinion and his votes, he would uphold the Affordable Care Act.

And Hughes cared about projecting an image of the Court as being impartial and above politics. I think he would have hesitated before voting with the four most conservative members of the Court, which would project political partisanship. So I think Hughes would be in favor of upholding the Act.

What did you learn about the last meeting between Hughes and FDR in June 1941 upon Hughes’s retirement?

They were primarily talking about Hughes’s successor. Hughes told FDR that he should nominate Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, a Republican, to be chief justice. Roosevelt agreed with him. This was just before [the American entry into] World War II, and the idea of bipartisanship was certainly on Roosevelt’s mind.

When Hughes retired, Roosevelt wrote him a heartfelt letter truly regretting that Hughes was retiring. He respected Hughes greatly, and their friendship endured after Hughes’ challenge to the Court-packing plan. I don’t think they saw each other again after Hughes retired.

Hughes was at Roosevelt’s funeral as shown in the last photograph in my book. It shows Hughes very distraught over the death of Roosevelt, which suggests both respect and affection for the man he had challenged in 1937.

Hughes should rank among the greatest chief justices in history, after John Marshall and Earl Warren. He was not only a great judicial craftsman and a great lawyer, but also an effective leader of a polarized Court. He survived the Court-packing battle and remained leader of the Court even after Roosevelt appointed five new justices to the Court who were loyal New Dealers. That’s quite a tribute to Hughes’ leadership.

You’re a renowned law professor and you’ve written narrative histories that have been praised for their storytelling and readability. How did you decide to write history in addition to your work as a law professor?

I was a writer before I became a law professor. I was a journalist and wrote the law section for Time Magazine. And I worked for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch before that. That may have helped me in writing about law for a general reader, all before I became a law professor.

And I’ve always been interested in history. I majored in history in college and I teach constitutional law and history. It was natural for me, after I became a constitutional law professor, to look to subjects for books that involved constitutional history and politics. I’m also interested in the human dynamics in how justices decide cases. This book on FDR and Chief Justice Hughes gave me a wonderful opportunity to delve into all three: law, politics and the human dynamic in making our constitutional law.

Do you have any other thoughts on what you hope readers will take away from this story of FDR and Charles Evans Hughes?

There are clearly lessons to be learned for today as we await the decision on the health care law, but I think the FDR-Hughes story is important in itself as a great story about two remarkable American leaders.


Collection inventory

Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) was an American lawyer and politician who served as Governor of New York, U.S. Secretary of State, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Charles Evans Hughes was born in Glen Falls, New York on April 11, 1862. His parents David Charles Hughes, a Methodist preacher, and Mary Connelly, a Baptist minister's daughter, were deeply religious. An intelligent child, Hughes began attending Madison College (presently Colgate University) at the age of fourteen before transferring to Brown University. He graduated first in his class from Columbia Law School and began practicing law in 1884. While working at the firm Chamberlin, Carter, and Hornblower, Hughes met his future wife, Antoinette Carter, the daughter of Walter S. Carter, a senior partner in the firm.

Hughes established himself politically by leading investigations into corporate corruption and the insurance industry. In 1906 he was elected Governor of New York. Four years later, President William Howard Taft appointed Hughes to the United States Supreme Court. Hughes left his Associate Justice position to run on the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1916, but lost to Woodrow Wilson. After a few years in private practice, Hughes served as Secretary of State from 1921 to 1925 under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. During his tenure, Hughes focused on various international efforts to avert another great war.

In 1930, President Herbert Hoover named Hughes the eleventh Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Hughes court faced the Great Depression and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's court-packing plan. While in this position Hughes also oversaw the opening of the Supreme Court building in 1935. He resigned his post in 1941. Hughes died in Cape Cod, Massachusetts on August 27, 1948.

Works Written by Hughes

Scope and Contents of the Collection

Die Charles Evans Hughes Letters are a collection of 65 outgoing and two incoming items written between 1894 and 1934. As a lawyer, New York State Governor, Secretary of State under Warren G. Harding, and Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Hughes answered letters from constituents, politicians (Martin H. Glynn, George B. McClellan), editors (Hamilton Holt, Louis Wiley), and clergymen (S. Parkes Cadman, Samuel Cavert, Smith T. Ford, Paul Hickok, Charles MacFarland, Robert E. Speer). Most of the letters are responses to recommendations for various appointments (Joseph Buffington, Joseph Carlino, Edward H. Fallows, McClellan, Wiley) as well as social and speaking invitations (G. Lennox Curtis, Ford, D. W. Hakes, Roy F. Fitzgerald, Winfield Jones, Mrs. J. E. Norcross, Clarence J. Owens, Amasa Parker, D. H. Pierson, Palmer C. Ricketts). In addition to a number of letters of introduction (Princess Bibesco, Diplomatic and Consular Office), there are also several responses to congratulatory messages received upon Lodge's assumption of various appointments (John Barrett, Ford, Lilla Day Monroe, William R. Rose).

Arrangement of the Collection

The collection contains one series, Correspondence, which is arranged chronologically. There is also an alphabetical Index to the Correspondence located at the end of the finding aid.

Restrictions

Access Restrictions

The majority of our archival and manuscript collections are housed offsite and require advanced notice for retrieval. Researchers are encouraged to contact us in advance concerning the collection material they wish to access for their research.

Gebruik beperkings

Written permission must be obtained from SCRC and all relevant rights holders before publishing quotations, excerpts or images from any materials in this collection.


Using the Collection

Skaars boek- en manuskripbiblioteek

Restrictions on Access

The following boxes are located off-site: Boxes 6-57. You will need to request this material from the Rare Book and Manuscript Library at least three business days in advance to use the collection in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library reading room.

This collection has no restrictions.

Terms Governing Use and Reproduction

Single photocopies may be made for research purposes. The RBML maintains ownership of the physical material only. Copyright remains with the creator and his/her heirs. The responsibility to secure copyright permission rests with the patron.

Preferred Citation

Identification of specific item Date (if known) Charles Evans Hughes papers Box and Folder Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University Library.