>> so, at the beginning of the new deal, as the prior caller mentioned, they were striking down a lot of new deal legislation, and the thing is that there was kind of a split between certain of the justices, some on the right called the four horsemen, and then others of the justices like justice brandeis who were quite far to the left. hughes and roberts were, in a sense, swing votes so that they basically would decide whether to uphold or strike down various new deal regulations. then in 1937 there was this fairly radical switch, or at least a switch that was perceived as radical, where the new deal programs were upheld. >> we'll talk about charles evans hughes, the man. we heard from the outset that he looked and sounded like god. would you add a little more color?

how tall was he? >> he was 5'11". interesting enough, he was very slight as a young man. very thin. as an adult, as a young man he weighed 127 pounds, and the guy who cleaned up the insurance agency, they would not write an insurance policy for him. they gave him the physicals and say, we can't find anything wrong with him, but he's just too thin. we won't give him a life insurance policy. he lived to be about 85 and was very vigorous, very active. ultimately he reached an adult weight of about 173 pounds, which he would measure very carefully. he would do this in an interesting way. at breakfast he would have a pile of toast in front of him, and he was putting on too much weight, he would remove a slice of toast. and if he didn't weigh enough, he would put another slice on. but this fellow who was supposedly so slight and not vigorous was a great mountain climber. when he is solicited by the

state legislature in new york to -- after he's done the gas inquiry, he goes and he's -- i'm burned out and need a vacation. he's climbing the alps, and if he wasn't in public service so much taking up all his time and costing him a great amount of money, this is a point which is very important. this guy keeps coming back to public service again and again and again. after he was knocked out of the presidency, he might have said, to hell with you people! i've done my time. i've fixed this and that and done that and done that, and it's cost me money again and again and again. when he was governor he bore his own expenses on so many of the trips. in the supreme court, that didn't pay a lot. even before he became the great crusader, he was not taking on the big cases. he should have been come sbug his peak earning powers. one of his great rival that is

worked for hearst in the 1906 campaign against hughes said at the time he became chief justice that his public service had cost him $6 million. okay? he gave up so much in terms of time and money to serve the public. in job after job, which he did so well. now, his intellect. his brains. somebody once said, huey long, that was first class brains, robert penn warren said that. it was the same with hughes. 6 years old he goes off to school, goes out there for awhile, and then he comes home, and he says i'm not learning that much there, dad. i could learn more here. yeah, son. and here's how i'm going to do it. he has the charles e. hughes plan the study, which he lays out hour by hour how he's going

to do it and he does it home schooled. a couple years later moves around again. maybe he's going back to school. same thing. stays out of school, and he's basically home schooled before home schooling was cool. he completes his high school studies on his own when he's about 12 or so. he's too young to get into college. he has to roam around new york city for a year before he can go in. there are stories where i think when he's secretary of state or governor, whatever, it doesn't matter, he's handed a three-page memo before he goes into a meeting. he reads it walking into the meeting, and a stenographer transcribes what he says, it is off by one word. you see stories like that over and over again. >> graduated from college at the age of 19 and went on it to cornell law school. i'm wondering if there's a sense of him at cornell these days. >> there is.

actually he taught at cornell law school for two years, and he gave up a lucrative practice in new york under the -- which was supervised by his father-in-law in order to take a health break at cornell and also to become an academic. he ultimately wound up leaving cornell law school partly because his father-in-law thought that his grandchildren shouldn't be raised in such a remote location. he later in life said among his happiest times were his times at cornell law school and teaching. >> he was a graduate of columbia. wrong and important for all your columbia law school graduates out there. we have a clip of him we want to show so you can get a sense of his style very much of the period, but he was considered quite a great orator so let's listen to what he sounded like. >> bigotry, racial animosities

and intolerance are the deadly enemies of true democracy. there can be no friendly cooperation if they exist. they are enemies more dangerous than any external force, for they undermine the very foundation of our democratic effort. >> and we're going back to telephone calls. let's listen to a call from boston. this is frederick. you're on the air, frederick. >> caller: hi. i'd like to ask a question about where charles evans hughes was born, and also did he come from a family of money, and if he did, where was the family -- where did the family get their money? >> born in 1862, glenns falls, new york. what do you know about his family? >> his father was a baptist, and this was very important. his family was not particularly affluent, and he grew up in fairly humble circumstances. he was quite influenced by the

baptist background that he enjoyed from growing up in this family, and, in fact, his father had really hoped that he would become a religious man himself. ultimately, he was disappointed that he decided to go into law instead of religion. but his background actually did influence his jurisprudence later on, at least some argue that, because he was quite favorable to religious liberty claims and wrote several opinions that upheld a very strong view of the free exercise of religion under the first amendment. >> wilmington, indiana next. daniel, you're on. >> caller: thank you. i'm glad you could take the time out and let us get in on this conversation. i have a question about if mr. hughes would have been elected president, if the federal reserve would have been created under his administration, and if it hadn't had been, where we might be today? >> would the federal reserve have been created under charles evans hughes? >> it would not, because it already existed. >> there you go.

so on it to our next question from south bend, indiana. frank. >> caller: yes. wilson ran on that he kept us out of war. in july of 1916 there was a tremendous explosion in new york harbor called black tom's island, and after the war the world court ruled that the german agents had, in fact, caused the explosion in 1970s, the german government paid the united states an indemnity. i was wondering if you can comment on the role of the wilson administration in covering up that explosion and its effect on the election? i'll hang up and listen on the tv. >> that was a massive explosion of this ship, which it actually damaged part of the statue of liberty, shattered windows as

far north as 42nd street. the wilson administration did down-play this because it was trying to keep us out of war at this point. now, it was very difficult for hughes that year, because he's fighting two things. the country is very prosperous. there was a slight downturn after the adoption of the underwood tariff, but with the war, neutral parties tend to do very well in wartime. there's a great prosperity. so he's fighting that, and he's also fighting the fact that we really are at peace. the troubles which had occurred after the sinking the lutchiana are the german government comes to its senses momentarily and ends its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare.

it's not until after the election resumes that. there is tremendous sabotage going on in the country. they're funding the pro-german groups. one of the problems wilson has during the war, during the election is they bring up a meeting they had with four pro-german people, one of whom was a fellow named jeremiah o'leary, an irish nationalist. this is regarding the 1916 campaign. why is there anti-english sentiment would be among the irish population, and the irish, it wasn't just 400 years of ill feelings, it was that they were still under the british flag at that part. they wanted their independence. hughes is facing all of these problems, and the question is what is he going to do about them? the troubles arise after that election, particularly in regard to the zimmerman though, which is unveiled where germany is plotting or trying to entice mexico to attack us and take the lost provinces back.

>> before we leave this section on hughes' personal life, i'd like to talk about his spouse, antoinette carter. can you tell us a little bit more how they met? >> not as much. >> i'll tell you a little bit. actually was the daughter of a senior partner at the law firm, and let's listen to the current partner at that law firm talking about antoinette carter and we'll talk about their marriage. >> another thing we wanted to highlight was the importance of mrs. hughes in justice hughes' life. we've selected for that reason a wedding invitation, their wedding invitation and a photograph of the two of them in their prime. mrs. hughes was the daughter of walter carter, who was the senior partner in the hughes law firm. as lore would have it, they met at a party with her father. she was a very educated woman

and influential in his life. he also had three daughters who together with mrs. hughes, i think, or we believe had a great affect on his views, including his support of women's suffrage among other things. >> and last week we learned in our program that the partners were not partners in politics. mrs. deb stayed home while jean deb was campaigning all the time. what about these two as a political couple? >> getting back to their marriage, their courtship is very slow. they meet a few times. it's like every few months or something, and because she is the boss's daughter, he won't go near her. when people say he married the boss's daughter, that's really a distortion of what happened. it's only until he is partners, full partners with carter that the courtship really begins. but she is -- there's -- particularly if you read in there about their retirement together, how close a couple they are. they're very, very deeply in

love, and she is really the first spouse which in a full-fledged campaign mode goes around the country on the train with him in 1960 almost like an eleanor roosevelt going into mines and stuff like that, stuff that really wasn't done yet. >> another call. this is from fort worth. this is jack. you're on the air, jack. >> caller: hi. my question pertains to charles evans hughes's perspective on racism that was prevalent within the united states at that time. >> his perspective on racism. >> he was pretty progressive on race. in his first term as associate justice, he actually wrote an opinion that suggested that it wasn't valid for railroads to fail to create first class accommodations for african-american passengers, even if they didn't have enough passengers to fill those accommodations. so he was actually more

egalatarian on race than a lot of his contemporaries. later on as chief justice he would be author and supporter of various opinions that undermined the separate but equal doctrine and paved wait for brown versus board of education. >> the next phone call is from lacrosse, wisconsin. this is mike. >> caller: i had a question maybe a little bit off the beaten path. it pertains to the two parties, evans' party and wilson's party about the evolution of the personal income tax there and the tax debt. which party was against it, and which was for it, if i may ask? >> the income tax comes about as part of the revenue act of, i think, 1913. and that's important because that is part of the underwood tariff. the democrats lower the tariff, and when they do that, they have to make up the revenue somewhere and they pass the 16th

amendment. that all folds into the income tax, so i would say on the whole because the republicans are the tariff party that the democrats are in favor of the income tax more than the republicans. in terms of use specifically, hughes is opposed to the income tax. why? because he says -- he reads it, and he's a lawyer. he's always a lawyer, and he's always reading every word no matter where those words go. he says, shall tax all revenue. all revenue. and he says, that means they're going to be able to tax the tax-free bonds of the municipalities and the states and destroy the balance of federalism. he opposes the 16th amendment, but on those very narrow grounds and i believe that new york state as a whole rejects the amendment in the ratification process.

>> baltimore, this is joseph. you're on the air, joseph. >> caller: hi, good evening. >> good evening. >> caller: in light of the public television programs this past week on prohibition, how was he -- did he have any attitude or input on that ugly affair? >> what was his own position on that? >> neither he nor wilson would be regarded as dries. he started -- he started to take a sip during the insurance investigation to steady his nerves at night. people said he was the humanist. he was bloodless and humorless but he was high-strung. he was never a big drinker. there's a story told at the havana conference of the latin-american nations around 1924 or so as he's the secretary of state as to whether he'll

serve booze or not. he sets it out there and walks over and takes the first one. he's not a prohibitionist. none of the great national leaders that we can think of really are with any enthusiasm at all. >> it's time for us to dive now into more of his supreme court years. at this point we'll see good-bye for now to david. we'll see him later on tonight and do a deep dive into the supreme court years. to begin our discussion, we'll show you some film of president franklin roosevelt in 1937. his take on what is commonly known as the court-packing plan. after that you'll see our current chief justice john roberts talking about his perspectives on hughes' role during this episode. as we begin, a newsreel from that time introducing us it to each of the members of the supreme court in 1937. >> associate justice george sullivan born in england 75 years ago.

immigrant to the u.s., he became senator from utah. here's butler of minnesota, 71. only supreme court catholic. the democratic appointee of president harding. willis vander van from wyoming, 78. senior justice. 26 years on the bench. james clark mcreynolds of tennessee, 75. confirmed bachelor. a democrat appointed by wilson, has voted against every new deal measure. only three justices are pleasing to new deal liberals. descendant of the jewish rabbi and appointed by president hoover. harlan fisk stone of new york, 64. former dean of columbia university's law school. schoolmate of calvin coolidge. the oldest justice, justice

brandeis of kentucky, 80, the distinguished jewish ancestry. wilson didn't appoint his attorney general but appointed him to the court. holding the balance of power are two justices, owen roberts at 61, the youngest justice, long a conservative. since this fight began liberal in seven decisions. and charles evans hughes, 75. the chief justice since 1930. sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal. >> president roosevelt goes on the air in an appeal for popular support for his plan to reorganize the federal judiciary. newsreel cameras record his fireside chat, his second such appeal in six days. he tells the people that the plan would protect them from

using power by the supreme court. >> those opposing the plan have sought to arouse prejudice and fear by saying i'm seeking to pack the supreme court and that a bayneful president would be of established. would do they mean by the words "packing the supreme court"? let me answer this question with a bluntness. if by that phrase "packing the court" it is charged that i wish to place on the bench spineless puppets who would disregard the law and decide specific cases as i wish them to be decided, i make this answer. that no president, fit for his office, would appoint and no senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm that kind of appointees to the

supreme court of the united states. we want a supreme court which will do justice on the constitution and not over it. in our courts we want a government of laws and not of men. >> the court packing plan was a very serious threat. it was proposed by an immensely popular president with huge majorities in both houses of congress and targeted a very unpopular court. as fdr put it, quote, the people are with me, end quote. hughes proceeded cautiously but with determination. his letter to the senate judiciary committee demolished the argument such as the contention showed that the court was not keeping up with its work. and echoing john marshall's views about how a court should

function, hughes explained that adding more justices would make the court far more less efficient. as he put it in his letter, quote, there would be more judges to hear, more judges to confer, more judges to discuss, more judges to be convinced and to decide. hughes chose not to directly criticize fdr's effort to change the court's jurisprudence but instead to expose that effort for what it was by refuting the efficiency window dressing, and it worked. >> that was perspectives from the time and also contemporary perspectives on the fdr era and the court packing whole part of history that we have all learned so much about as we grew up in this country. we're going to learn more about that in the guise of the biography of charles evans hughes, 1916 republican nominee for president. he failed in that bid, but very narrowly against woodrow wilson. we are learning more about his contributions to society. we're joined by a new guest at

our set outside at this beautiful october night in front of the supreme court building, paul clement, who served as u.s. solicitor-general from 2005 to 2008, now at georgetown university law school. thanks for being with us. >> it's great to be with us. >> bernadette meyer is with us. glad to have you. we said that he had two terms on the court. 1910 appointed as an associate justice, at the time the youngest, and in 1930 president hoover reappointed him this time as chief. what was the difference in him as a justice on the court during that 20-year period? did he come back as a different person? >> i think he did. he obviously had some incredible experiences in the interim. everything from obviously the famed presidential run but also served at secretary of state, served on the so-called world court in the hague. he comes back to the job as chief justice as somebody who

certainly had many more different experiences, considerable executive branch experience, all of which i'm sure influences him as a justice. >> can you tell us about the court in 1930? >> yes. the court actually in 1930 was sort of much less conservative, actually, than it became in 1935 and 1936. so around 1930 when hughes joined and for the years that were directly following that, the court didn't really strike down that much economic legislation. it upheld various kinds of state economic legislation in particular, and then towards the middle of that decade it sort of shifted a bit in its decision-making to the right. >> and as a leader, as a chief in those early days, what was he like? >> well, i think he was somebody who took to the administrative parts of the chief justice's job right away, and that makes sense. sometimes you have people

certainly in the modern era becoming chief justice who have mostly served in judicial capacities, but here's somebody that ran the state of new york. he's a great administrator, so i think he took to those aspects of the job immediately. i also think he took to the other aspects of the job kind of hitting the ground running, because after all, he'd already been an associate justice. this is only the second time in the nation's history up to this point where somebody who was an associate justice goes on to serve as chief justice. i think in many respects he's the ideal chief justice and he hits the ground running. >> at that point was he a broker of opinions and a reliable vote on one side or the other? >> i think from the beginning he was somebody who was harder to typecast than some of the other justices on the court. he was coming into a court at that that as you point out was not as bitterly divided as it became. it was still a divided court, and from his first days on the

court he was essentially near the center of the court. >> i want to take a couple calls. >> this brings up another point, which is that he was loathed to dissent. so he wanted to encourage harmony in the court, and he tended to write the most important opinions himself. he authored few dissents as an associate justice and chief justice because he wanted to encourage harmony on the court like chief justice marshall had towards the beginning of the republic. >> we'll take a couple of calls. mountain home, idaho. nick, welcome to the discussion. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. appreciate it. great program. wasn't he considered god-like, too, because of decisions he made that were not entirely on the conservative end or liberal end? he tried to find a medium ground? when he went for the new deal programs, was he pushed by hughes, or was hughes kind of

following along? thank you for the program. >> thanks for watching. >> i think that hughes actually was much more of a swing vote than roberts was, so roberts tended to rote more with the conservative bloc of the court or four horsemen. hughes was more on both sides, or at least he assigned himself the more liberal opinions more often. some thing that was a disingenuous move designed to portray himself as more liberal in orientation than he was. i just want to return about being a god-like presence. he was called a jovial presence on the court, and that was about his capacity as paul has been discussing. he held judicial conference in a pretty authoritarian manner. he would announce his views first and have the other justices go around and discuss the case. but he held pretty tight reins

over the discussion in conference and over the court in general. >> can we contrast that of what we know of the current chief justice's style? >> i think there certainly are a lot of similarities and not necessarily in the point of the way the conference is conducted on a day-to-day basis. i think justice hughes -- actually, in between the time he was justice and chief justice wrote a book on the supreme court, which is itself kind of a unique thing to get a window into the supreme court from somebody who has already served as an associate justice, and at the time that he's writing this book or giving these lectures doesn't know he's going to be the chief justice. he talks about the role of the chief justice in that book and talks about the limits on what a chief justice can do because at the end of the day, you are the chief justice of the united states. you're only given one vote, and you do have to lead in a way that i think is more subtle than the kind of leadership you would have as a governor a secretary

of state. i think he did manage to do a remarkable job of leaving the court, especially in kind of some of the administrative areas or moving into this building leading by example in that way. >> since you referenced it, let's take a minute and talk about this building. up until this period of time the court actually met across the street in the united states capitol building. tell the story of how they came to have their own building. >> they decided they wanted to have their own building, and that in and of itself is something symbolically interesting. if you think about the court until they move into this building, they're in constant contact with the legislatures, and they're literally passing each other in the halls of congress. there's something very important symbolically to having a separate judicial building that's physically separate from congress across the street and has a separate presence. there were, of course, criticisms as there always are anytime there's a public building. as you can see, this is an