Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/358

 336

The Green Bag

The Central Law joumal of St. Louis, speaks of the "excellent appointment," and continues:—

the present generation—-the citizen who personally opposes vice and is a punisher of small crimes, but shows no indignation at the larger forms of legalized robbery."

"Strong, independent, clear-headed and com paratively young. Justice Hughes should add con siderable strength to the Supreme Bench for many years. . . . He is the people's candidate and, because of that fact alone, the Supreme Court's prestige and hold upon the people have been materially strengthened."

Such objections, of course, do not deserve to be treated seriously, for they show a painful lack of intelligence if Col. Bryan is to be a<> credited with any degree of sincerity in expressing himself. The Boston Advertiser well observes that these criticisms "do not reﬂect in any way on Governor Hughes, but they do reﬂect decidedly on Mr. Bryan." For Mr. Bryan shows how warped is his judgment:—

The Legal Intelligencer of Philadelphia, referring to Governor Hughes as a sound lawyer and man of unusual moral courage, says that:— “His professional attainments are very generally recognized; as was said by Senator Root, ‘He measures up to the high standard of the Court‘. . . His legal training and professional attainments, his broad experience in public life and as a man of aﬁairs, and his sympathy with the best popular ideals ‘aﬁord reason to believe that he will measure up to the high standard of the Court’ and that his judicial career will be one of exceptional usefulness and distinction."

It is with amusement that one learns of the grounds for Mr. William Jennings Bryan's objections. Mr. Bryan’s bigoted denunciation, to Yale students, of their fathers’ "ill-gotten

gains," years ago, was not more ludicrous than his fantastic conception of Mr. Hughes as the friend and ally of predatory wealth. Says Mr. Bryan:— "It will be remembered that he vetoed the bill for the reduction of railroad rates after a New York Legislature, and a Republican Legislature, at that, had passed the reduction bill. This measure gave to the congested population of New York the two cent rate now enjoyed by the more scattered populations of the Western States, and his veto of it is conclusive proof that he obeys the dictates of the railway managers instead of listening to the voice of the public."

Mr. Bryan is known to be a doctrinaire of advanced socialistic views, but the striking thing about this criticism is not so much the fact that it shows him unable to view current affairs dispassionately and sensibly, as its revelation of his complete lack of a sense of humor. He goes on to draw a grotesque portrait of Mr. Hughes as the friend of Rockefeller, the beneﬁciary of campaign contributions from trust magnates, the

opponent of the income tax and the friend of monopoly.

Finally, to cap the climax:—

"He is a shining illustration of that peculiar type of citizen developed in this country during

"The strict impartiality and poise of the new Justice cannot be shown better than in the very instance that Bryan selects for speciﬁc impeach ment of the New York man. He says that Governor Hughes ‘was the ﬁrst to oppose the income tax.’ As a matter of record he was one of ‘the ﬁrst’ to champion the principle of the income tax; but he was too honest to wink at a manifest menace in the amendment as it has been drawn. Bryan. evidently, would swallow the proposition whole. spite of its inconsistencies of phraseology."

The Hearst attack was pitched in much the same way. President Taft well answered both calumnies when he deprecated the “cant of the demagogue" and the "disposition of public journals" to make unjust charges against men in public life. Not only are the newspapers of the country, on the whole, pleased with Mr. Hughes’ acceptance, but their admiration for him is so great that many express an evident willingness to see him at some future time promoted to Chief Justice, or elected President of the United States. The latter contingency, it is declared, is by no means an impossible one. Thus the Minneapolis journal says:—— "it is possible that his peculiar talents may be required in the White House. It is not probable, because his is not the only talent and personality available. But it is easy to conceive a conjunction of events that might render Mr. Hughes the most available man. The people will keep Charles Evans Hughes in mind, and, if they need him, will not hesitate to draft him."

"Other Justices of the Supreme Court," says the Boston Globe, "have aspired or conspired to be President, and it cites the examples of John McLean, Salmon P. Chase, David Davis, and Justice Field. And the Providence journal considers that "no in superable obstacle exists between the Supreme Court and the Presidency.”