the c-span radio app makes it easy to continue to follow the 2016 election wherever you are. it's free to download from the apple app store or google play. get audio coverage and up to the minute schedule information for c-span radio and c-span television, plus podcast times for our popular public affairs, book and history programs. stay up to date on all the election coverage. c-span's radio app means you always have c-span on the go. now the contenders. our series on key political figures who ran for president and lost but who nevertheless changed political history. tonight we feature former secretary of state and supreme court chief justice charles hughes who ran for president in 1916 against woodrow wilson. this two-hour program was recorded at the u.s. supreme court here in washington, d.c. this is american history tv, only on c-span3. >> hughes is what we claim we

want in both the presidential candidate and a president. >> the man who did get it, a man called charles evans hughes, governor of new york and a supreme court justice, all but won the election in 1916. in fact, when president woodrow wilson went to bed the night, election night, he thought he was beaten. >> if he'd have been elected, how american history goes in several different directions, on suffrage for women, civil rights, what does he do on foreign policy, germany sort of baited us into war. would hughes have avoided that. he is the one you could write novels about. he had charles evans hughes who was on the supreme court, and then left the supreme court when he ran for president and then went back on the supreme court. one of the finest minds on the court. >> a fellow justice called charles evans hughes the greatest in our great line of chief justices. >> why hughes? robert jackson provided part of

the answer when he was attorney general. jackson said that hughes "looks like god and talks like god." >> 1916 footage of charles evans hughes shot as that year hughes was the republican presidential nominee campaigned soon after the republican national convention. tonight "the contenders" looks at the life and legacy of charles evans hughes who in addition to being a republican presidential nominee was a two-time new york governor, a secretary of state and twice a supreme court justice. of all this he is perhaps known in his best role as the chief justice in the years after fdr's new deal. the contenders is live this evening from the united states supreme court just across from the capitol in washington, d.c. then chief justice hughes inaugurated this building when it first opened to the court in 1935. let me introduce you to our two guests. first two guests of the evening who are joining us to talk about the life and legacy of charles evans hughes.

david petrusia is a historian. his most relevant book to this period is called "1920, the year of six presidents." presidents" and bernadette thanks for being here. we'll jump right into the election. i want you to set the stage for us. 1916 woodrow wilson wants to be re-elected. europe is at war. frame what was going on in the country and in the presidential campaign. >> well, woodrow wilson had said when he ran it would be a tragedy if his administration was framed by foreign policy or defined by that and it turns out to be just that. america which starts his term focusing on the progressive era, the income tax lowering, the tariffs, the federal reserve system changes after 1914. with the beginnings of war in europe. america is fighting to stay out, but there is a question of

preparedness for the war. are we prepared in case anything happens? are we being tough? are we being too weak? secretary of state brian actually resigns from wilson's cabinet because he thinks we're being too tough. so it's really a question of war and peace in europe, war and peace in mexico. aside from all of the domestic issues. but war overshadows everything. >> and charles evans hughes is serving on the supreme court as an associate justice. how does he get from there into the nominating process? >> well, he gets there somewhat reluctantly because he enjoyed his position as associate justice on the court and was quite satisfied with his role there. but then he felt called by duty after several candidates didn't pan out for the republicans, he felt called to actually accept the nomination for president. but in a sense he wasn't a particularly gung ho presidential candidate.

>> what was the republican party like at that stage? >> it's fractured. in 1912, there had been the great teddy roosevelt/william howard taft split. t.r. runs at bull moose party candidate. and there's a question. there's a real question that year, is, are they going to be able to put the republican party back together again? and do you take roosevelt? roosevelt is still radioactive with the old guard. if you take someone who is too conservative, then the progressives will not come back, even though their party has sort of been dying on the vine for the previous four years. so you've got to pick someone who is respected by both sides, someone who is not some wild man from the prairies or from the west like a bora or a johnson, and someone who is not a conservative like root, and the man to do it, and also, the man who has been out of politics

since 1910, because he's out of the supreme court, he has not been out of the -- he's not been a part of the 1912 battles is mr. hughes, and he's respected by just about everyone in the party. >> what were his politics at the time? >> his politics at the time were mildly progressive. as i say, he's not like a wild man from the west like a lafolla or norris. but what he is he has moved from the practice of law. he was never interested really in being part of politics. when he first comes to new york and establishes his law practice they say, would you like to run for judge? no. would you like an appointment to a federal judgeship? no. but he is asked to investigate the gas monopoly in new york city, which is really gouging the customers. it's six companies. it's been going on since 1880. and they come to him and say, do you want to take over this investigation? he says, no, i really don't. i really don't, but he does --

he says how much time do i have to prepare for the testimony, for hearings? a week, a week. with a great brilliance this man has, he's able to pull everything together, not do it in a bombastic way, but simply go through all the papers, grill the executives on the stand, bring the whole thing down, ultimately what this leads to is a public service commission in new york state, and you half the gas rates and electricity rates in the city by a third. then he moves on to fixing the insurance agency in new york state and really becomes a national figure. this is 1906 through 19 -- just before 1906. he is a progressive-type candidate who is opposed to the machine of the democrats in the city tamany because they're protecting these monopolies, but also, the massive new york state political machine under boss

platt, which had ruled when teddy roosevelt was on. t.r. would defer to the bosses. to some extent. hughes moves forward, wins the governorship, puts forward a whole bunch of reforms. and then moves on to the court for the first time. >> today it would be almost unimaginable for someone to resign from this position and the building behind us to run for a national elective office. what was the reaction at the time? was it a surprise? how was it viewed? >> i think some were surprised, but also, i think that the office of supreme court justice wasn't quite what it has become now. i think part of the reason people would be so shocked today if a justice resigned is that the appointments process is much more difficult to actually get through. and it's much more difficult to confirm any justice. so justices are appointed young and are expected to stay for the rest of their working career. now, hughes' first appointment as justice was actually quite

uncontentious. his second one was almost the beginning of the contentions within the appointments process. it occurred fairly soon after there were new rules about senate debate on nominees, and it garnered a lot of criticism from progressives, actually, surprisingly given his career as governor of new york. >> we are, as you can see on the plaza of the supreme court. beautiful early october night here. we'll be here for two hours tonight in "the contender" series, 14 men who ran for the presidency and lost but changed political history. and charles evans hughes made his mark through his many positions, but particularly, in his role as the chief justice and then a second half of the program we'll focus on the whole contentious era with the court packing and the new deal and he was at the helm in the court during that period and lots of interesting things to talk with you about. later on we'll open up the phone lines as we've done for each of the programs and allow you to offer questions and observations during the discussion.

where was the convention that year? >> i think it was in chicago. maybe philadelphia. i'm not sure. the interesting thing is that there's two conventions going on a block apart from each other. that's -- that's the real interest in geography that year. the republicans go through a series of ballots. i think hughes is third on the first ballot. he moves up until he's nominated on the third ballot. meanwhile, meanwhile, the progressives are meeting just a short ways away and what they are doing is debating who they can accept, who they can accept. t.r. is basically saying i'm not going to do it. and he throws out a couple of names. leonard wood, who was a big advocate -- a general, army general, advocate of preparedness. he's got in trouble with the wilson administration, or henry cabot lodge. neither one of these guys is acceptable to the progressives.

so he's throwing out that poison pill. what happens is, at the end, the only person that they can agree on, the progressives, is to any extent, is hughes. but they still are in a great tiff, and they kind of dissolve the party. the party just evaporates, but they go away. they don't run a third party. this -- this is one of the great things of the legacy of hughes' race in 1916. we take the republican party for granted as a continuing thing since lincoln and all of this. it didn't have to be in 1916. if he's not the guy willing to put it together, maybe the progressives go back in again and we don't know really what happens with republican party. does go the way of the whigs? do the progressives replace it? who can say at that point? but the thing is hughes takes the position, didn't want to do

it, really is uncertain what to do but walks away from the supreme court judgeship. he had said, when he had taken and when they were talking 1912, would you be the compromised candidate to avoid the taft/roosevelt split? no, no, no, i won't do it. and then finally he does it. the democrats cannot fully criticize nominating a judge for the presidency. and there's a reason for that. because in 1904, they take elton b. parker off the supreme court of the state of new york and run him for the presidency. >> did he get the nomination on the first ballot? >> parker, no. hughes? no. he gets it on the third ballot. >> how difficult was it? i mean, do they come to the court and sit down with him and say here's other offer? >> i think they called him on the phone, someone called him on the phone. of course back then, candidates, even non-reluctant candidates, would not go to the conventions. there was a formal nominating process.

weeks later they would have a big speech, sort of like surprise, you're our nominee. the fellow doing it that year was warren harding who had been chair of the convention. but he's really undecided. even his family members and his closest associates are not sure what he's going to do. now, there had been people in the early days of the republic who had resigned from the court to take other positions. there had been a david davis on the court in like the '70s and '80s in the 19th century who took a senatorial nomination out in illinois but not since then and certainly not since hughes. >> and can you speak, add if you are also familiar with this, but he had been a politician before he came to the court. how was he as a national campaigner? >> that campaign is probably the worst thing he ever does in his life. his life, really, not just his

public career because he excels at everything. but that campaign, he's getting off the mark slowly. it's -- he's doing a dance, and it's the dance that jack kennedy and richard nixon do in 1960. it's like, we've got the black vote in the north. we've got the southern white votes. what do we do? and nick kennedy carries both. the same thing occurs with the peace votes and the pro-war people in 1916. wilson runs the campaign. he kept us out of war. and hughes really is doing this dance, and he ends up losing both sides, really. he ends up losing the pro-war people, and he ends up losing the people who want to stay neutral. he's branded as being pro-german. you see these editorial cartoons. he's lumped with william randolph hurst with the irish nationalists.

at end of the day the german-american vote goes to wilson. so he doesn't elucidate the campaign themes very well. he's fighting on things like the tariff, which is not a popular issue for the republicans that year. there are labor issues. there are labor issues, which are very important that year. there's two big things which cross him up. they do not work well for him. even though, as governor of new york, he has an admirable record. he establishes workers comp boards, cases that whole system, first in the country. there's all sorts of labor regulations put in place for the first time. so he's really a champion of labor. but there, there's two things that happen. on the infamous california trip, which we'll get into later, two things that happen. the one thing which is never talked about is he blunders into san francisco where the chamber of commerce is trying to break the unions. they're particularly trying to do it in the restaurants.

they want them to be open shops. in other words, you don't have to join the union to be there. and they force their restaurants to all put up open shop signs. where do they schedule his appearance? in a restaurant with the open shop sign on the door. this sets off working men not only in california but around the country, union members around the country, and also, in september there's a threatened national rail strike. and the administration and the congress passes the adamson act which establishes an eight-hour day. first thing -- first time nationwide. and constitutionality is threatened later, but hughes opposes it, and again, this cuts into his labor vote. so he's got problems and he really doesn't -- really doesn't -- isn't able to really come out and say what he would do better than wilson. >> here are the phone numbers. we'll get to calls in six, seven minutes.

202-737-0001 for eastern and central time zones. 202-737-0002 in the pacific or mountain time zones. in addition to labor issues, there were also women suffrage issues. at that time, women still did not have the right to vote in a national level. can you tell us about that aspect of the campaign? >> definitely. well, wilson had already changed his position to some extent on women's suffrage. initially, he was quite opposed to the notion that women would have the vote. both of his wives, actually, were also of his view on this matter. at some point, one of his daughters, though, became quite active in the suffrage movement and his views were gradually shifting. however, at the time of the election campaign in 1916, he still believed that women suffrage should be decided on a state by state level rather than by a national amendment. hughes went far beyond that to -- far beyond a lot of the republicans -- to claim there should actually be a women's

suffrage amendment. and this is kind of puzzling because, in fact, the states in which women could vote largely went for wilson rather than hughes, which is somewhat paradoxical given hughes' support. and there may be various reasons for that. one of them being this issue of the war and the women's peace movement which was opposed to the war. >> 12 states at that time had given women the right to vote. and for his support of women's suffrage a group of supporters of charles evans hughes formed a fan club, i guess, who campaigns for him. they went by the name of the hughesettes which seems modern when you think about it. we've got some interesting things to show you. one of the nieces of someone who was a hughesette has put together a hughesette website that tells the story of her aunt's participation in the campaign. it's elizabethfreeman.org. we're showing you some of the

history of her aunt as a hughesette campaigning for charles evans hughes in the 1916 election. just to also further explain your position, charles evans hughes' law firm where he practiced private practice, still exists today in new york city. we went there and talked to one of the senior partners who talked a little bit about charles evans hughes and his support for women's voting. >> very proud of an original addition of "the independent weekly" magazine which came out the week after justice hughes received the republican nomination for the presidency. that's mrs. hughes on the cover, who was obviously a very important person in justice hughes' life and in particular with respect to the issue of the magazine she's on here because of his support of women's suffrage, which she supported as well. something we learned in the

magazine that we weren't aware of beforehand, which isn't often talked about with respect to justice hughes, is that the republican party platform in 1916 was that simply each state would have the right to determine whether or not women would have the right to vote. justice hughes gave a speech which is reprinted in this magazine after that in which he said that he was going on the republican party platform and support the susan b. anthony amendment to the constitution which would provide the women the right to vote throughout the united states and wouldn't give each state the right to determine whether or not women could vote. >> from that we will move to election night because we know some of you have questions about the outcome. i read that wilson went to bed on election night thinking that he lost. >> he thought he lost and he was -- i wouldn't say he was resigned to it, certainly not -- he was almost about ready to either give up the presidency very nobly or in a huff.

it's your call how you describe it. he has a plan where, okay, i've lost, i'm getting out, and back then presidents did not take office in january. he had to wait until march. so he had a big interact and you had a situation where the country was drifting towards war. so what do you do? his plan was he would appoint hughes as secretary of state getting the jump on warren harding because the secretary of state was second in line to the presidency. so once hughes was shuffled aside or secretary of state lansing shuffled aside which the vice president would resign and then wilson so sort of a three-point plan and hughes would become the president until he formally took his term. >> well, what happened is that it was an incredibly close election. >> oh, yes. back to that, yes. >> wilson won. >> in the -- >> 23 electoral votes. >> it is.

it was a quarter million i think popular votes. it's not that close in the popular total. but it's so close in california. that's the key. it's decided by about 13 electoral votes. that is what the situation was in california. on the second incident, which occurs in california, and really, the particular nature of the incident is kind of overplayed because, again, back to that progressive party convention, which kind of dissolves and leaves the field open to hughes. they're in a bad mood. they're really not resolved as 0 who they're going to be endorsing and one of the really people with a bad temper is senator -- or governor of hiram johnson of california. and johnson is running for the senate in california. he has a primary and he's a very ornery guy. hughes, because of the

limitations of travel in the days, has to get out to the coast early and back to the east coast where all of the votes are later towards the end where it's crucial. so he swings through the california. he does this before the primary. johnson is the governor. he's not the candidate. the california republican party is so split and they cannot make any decisions on who will escort who, who will chair the meeting. it is -- it is worse than palestinians and israelis. it is -- the feelings are so bad. and finally, what happens is, there's an incident in long beach, california, where hughes, who is still not met johnson, goes in to rest at the hotel there, doesn't know that johnson is there. johnson knows that hughes is there. they leave the hotel. they never meet. and it is -- it is blamed that hughes has alienated johnson in this. but really, johnson could have

made the move. he knew. he could have gone over, and in fact, right after that, hughes through an intermediary invites johnson to chair a meeting and introduce him in sacramento. johnson refuses. and hughes loses the state by about 3,000 votes. they don't know until the next friday, friday after the tuesday of election, that he has lost the state. they don't know he's lost the election until that friday. but meanwhile, hiram johnson wins the primary and wins state of california by something like 300,000 votes. he wins it by immense amount. a lot of people blame hiram johnson. they blame that specific incident. but in fact in the first meeting of the progressives when johnson goes back to california, they endorse him but then they split up. they split up and they told separate meetings. we'll be for hughes. we'll be for wilson. he couldn't have swung all of the progressives if he wanted to but might have swung 1,600.

>> in the end, in the women's vote we mentioned 12 states wilson won 9 of the 12. that says about charles evans hughes that he wasn't so much of a political tactician as he was acting on conviction? >> well, i think so. i think he was much more of a principled person and a principled lawyer than a politician in certain respects. so i think part of, as i mentioned before, part of the reason that the -- some of the women didn't vote for him was because of his -- the perception that he would bring america to war whereas wilson had promised or they felt that wilson pledged to remain at peace. but really, also, i think one of the things that the hiram johnson incident really outlines and shows about hughes' character is that he wasn't really very interested in currying favor with other politicians or with people in the party machine. so i think that this has shown demonstratively in his

gubernatorial career where he tries to oust some people who have censures within the administration and that's met very disfavorably because people think that people deserved loyalty from the republican party. so he really just wasn't interested in playing a lot of political games, and i think that that hurt him in the election. >> for our two guests, let's begin taking some of your viewers' calls. take our first call of the evening from rootstown, ohio, this is duncan. hello, duncan. >> caller: hi. >> what's your question? >> caller: i was curious about any bad things charles evans hughes might have said about woodrow wilson, any bad things he might have done with the first term of his presidency. >> any bad things he said about woodrow wilson? >> he certainly criticized the lack of preparedness for wilson in terms of not having an army, a navy up to speed in case war came.

he was also very critical of the wilson policy in mexico where you have the revolutions overthrowing the diaz administration, and i think 1912 or regime, and then the country devolves into chaos. if you see the movies "viva via" you just see one revolution replacing another right on wilson is concerned that, say, general huerta not impose another dictatorship on mexico and he sends marines into veracruz to block german arm shipments to huerta. there's incidents, crazy incidents over why they come in. it's like a flag flew here or not there. but the troops come. they go. mexico gets worse and worse and then in 1916, you get the

columbus/new mexico incident pancho villa raids an american border town and kills american nationals and sends the force into mexico under blackjack pershing. that's another disaster. there's a lot of things to criticize about mexico, will's a lot to criticize about preparedness in the wilson administration. these are the two things which hughes plays on. >> syracuse is up next. this is curtis. welcome to the conversation, curtis. >> caller: good evening. thank you for "the contenders." i just wanted to talk about a very important decision that charles evans hughes wrote and i'll get through this quickly. the national industrial recovery act was ruled unconstitutional in 1935 and later that year the national labor relations act was passed. and then they thought that was going to be ruled unconstitutional but then it came to the high court in jones

and lofton steel in 1937. i think the high court was under pressure to change their positions from ruling new deal laws unconstitutional, and hughes wrote that decision that ruled national labor relations act constitutional. i think the moral to that story is that even the high court can be put under political pressure to change their positions. thank you very much. >> thanks very much. knowing we'll spend a lot more time on it a brief answer thank >> you raise a crucial point and a crucial contention among historians which is the question of whether the switch in time that saved the nine, which is what defeated the court packin scheme that franklin roosevelt had proposed was actually politically motivated or whether it was consistent with the jurisprudence evolution of the justices including roberts and chief justice hughes, and we'll get into that later. >> louisville, kentucky, shawn. good evening to you. >> caller: thank you. i was calling -- i'm a student

at law school. i was wondering what chief justice hughes' court have on fdr's new deal, his view? thank you for "the contenders". >> thanks very much. basic outlook of the new deal programs overall was? >> 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 was 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 fairly radical, where the new deal programs were upheld.

>> we'll talk about charles evans hughes, the man. we heard from the outset from the current chief justice 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 they'd say, we can't find anything wrong with him, but he's just too thin. we won't give him a life insurance policy. of course, he lived to be about 85 and was very vigorous, very active. ultimately rehe reaches an adult weight of weight of 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 coming into 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 as he's 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 then went on 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 very 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 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. i apologize. 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. >> rancor and 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 to go 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, 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. >> bloomington, indiana, next. daniel, you're on. welcome. >> 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 administration? >> 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 a platform 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 finally 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 lusitania

are the german government comes to its senses momentarily and ends its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. it's not until after the election that it resumes that. there is tremendous sabotage going on in the country. they're funding of pro-german groups. lusitania 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. that is big issue, too, regarding the 1916 campaign which is why there would be 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's 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 in to attacking us and taking their 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? do you know about this story? >> i don't. >> i'll tell you a little bit. then we have a clip and we'll come back to you. 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 then we'll come back and hear more 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, justice hughes 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? >> well, 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 those mines and stuff like that. stuff which really wasn't done then. >> 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. >> well, he was actually 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 egalitarian on race than a lot of his contemporaries. later on, as chief justice, he would also be author and supporter of various opinions that undermined the separate but equal doctrine and paved the way 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 institution 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. but in terms of hughes 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 into that ugly affair? >> he's talking about the pbs broadcast on prohibition. 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 human icicle. okay? he was bloodless and humorless

but he was high-strung. he started taking a drink then. 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 sort of just 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 in our two-hour program 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. but first, 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 vant 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. benjamin nathan cardzo, 67. 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. of distinguished jewish ancestry. so bitterly opposed as a liberal of 1912 that wilson dare not appoint him. but did appointed him to the court. holding the balance of power at two justices, roberts at 61, the youngest justice, long a conservative, butt liberal had seven decisions. and charles evans hughes 75 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. cameras report his fire side chat his second within six days. those opposing the plan have sought to arouse prejudice and is fear by crying that i am seeking to pack the supreme court and that a bane for president will be established. what do they mean by the words "packing the supreme court"? let me answer this question with a bluntness that will end all honest misunderstanding of my purpose. if by that phrase, packing the court, it is charged that i wish to place on the bench spineless people 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 b under 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, the people are with me. hughes proceeded cautiously, but with determination. his letter to the senate

judiciary committee demolished fdr's efficiency arguments, such as the contention that the large number of denials showed 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 less efficient. as he put 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 change the court's jurisprudence, but expose the 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 fdrer era and the court-packing part of history that we have all learned

so much about as we grew up in this country. we'll learn more about that in the biography of charles evans hughes 1916 republican nominee for president. he failed in that bid, but very narrowly against woodrow wilson. and we are learning more about his contributions to society. we're joined by a new guest in our set right here outside on this beautiful october night in front of the supreme court building. paul clement, who served as u.s. solicitor general from 2005-2008. thanks for being be us. >> and bernadette professor at cornell law school. good to have you. we said that he had two terms on the court. 1910 appointed as associate justice, at the time the youngest. in 1930 president hoover reappointed him. this was a justice on the court during that 20-year period. did he come back as a different person? >> he did. he obviously had some incredible

experiences in the interim. everything from obviously the failed presidential run, but also service as secretary of state, service on the so-called world court in the haig. if he comes back to the job as chief justice as somebody who certainly had many more different experiences and considerable executive branch experience, all of which i'm sure. influences him as a justice. >> can you tell us a bit about the court in 1930? >> the court in 1930 was sort of much less conservative than it became in 1935 or 1936. 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 towards the middle of the decade it shifted

a bit in the decision making to the right. >> as a leader, as a chief in those early days, what was he like? >> i think he was somebody who took to the administrative parts of the chief justice's job right away. that makes sense. you have people certainly in the modern era becoming chief justice who served in judicial capacities, but someone who ran the state of new york. he is a great administrator and took to the 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 had already been an associate justice. this was the second time in the nation's history where somebody who has been an associate justice goes on to serve as chief justice. in many respects, sheet ideal chief justice and hits the ground running. >> was he a broker and reliable vote on one side or the other? >> i think from the beginning,

he was somebody who was harder to type cast than some of the other justices on the court. he was coming into a court, but it was still a divided court and from the first day, he was near the center. >> i wanted to take a couple calls -- >> this also brings up another point. he was really loathe to descent. he wanted to encourage harmony in the court, and he tended to write the most important opinions himself. but also he authored very few dissents both as associate justice and chief justice, because he wanted to encourage harmony on the court, like marshall had -- chief justice marshall towards the beginning of the republic. nick, welcome to the discussion. >> thanks for taking my call. appreciate it, great program. wasn't he considered god-like too because of the decisions he

made that were not entirely on the conservative end or the liberal end? he tried to find medium ground? and when he started turning to start voting for the programs, was he pushed by hughes or was the hughes trying to follow along. thank you for that. >> thanks for watching. >> i think hughes was more than a swing vote. than roberts was. roberts tended to vote more with the conservative vote. or with the four horsemen. hughes tended to be more liberal opinions. some people think that was disingenuous move designed to portray himself. as a more liberal orientation than he was. i wanted to return to one thing he said about his being a god-like presence. he was called a jovian presence on the court, partly about his administrative capacity as paul clement has been discussing.

he held judicial conference in a pretty authoritative and authoritarian manner. he would announce the views and have the other justices discuss the case. but he held a pretty tight reins over the discussion within conference and over the court in general. >> can we contrast that with what we know of the current chief justices' style? >> there certainly a lot of similarities and not necessarily in the point. of the way that conferences conducted on a day-to-day basis. but i think, you know 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 court from somebody who has already served as an associate justice, and at the time he's writing this book or giving these lectures doesn't know he's going to be the chief justice. he talks about the 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 are only given one vote and you have to lead in a way that is more subtle than the kind of governor or secretary of state. i think he did manage to do a remarkable job of leaving the court, especially in the administrative areas or moving into the building leading by example. >> since you met across the up until this period of time the court actually met across the street in the united states capitol building. tell the story how they came to have their own building. >> they decided they wanted to have their own building and i think that in and of itself is something that's quite symbolically interesting. symbolically interesting. if you think about the court until they move into the building, they are in constant contact with the legislatures and literally passing each other in the halls of congress. there is something important symbolically to having a

separate judicial building that is physically separate from congress across the street and has a separate presence. there were criticisms as there any time there is a public building. as you can see, this is an ornate and beautiful building. my recollection is though it ultimately came in under budget which is quite remarkable. nonetheless there was criticism of why they needed to build this marble temple. >> it was argued the court needed its own building didn't live to see it and charles evans hughes first justice to move in here. i read it was very controversial at the time and not all the justice justices wanted to come in and work here. >> i think that's partially because you're talking about justices some of whom are traditionalists. >> and it was the depression. >> it's the depression so it's an expensive, you know owe the optics of moving into this beautiful temple have its own

kind of political dimension. but i do think part of it is it was a break with tradition. i think from the modern perspective, it seems like a terrific break in a break that was maybe long overdue. >> the pediment which we're looking at and we might be able to get a shot so you can see how the architects of this building depicted him. we're going to listen to mt. joy, pennsylvania. this is harry. >> caller: yeah i used to study about the supreme court. and in 1935 decisions, some of the new deal cases, i think three major laws were struck down by unanimous supreme court decisions. they were unanimous. that included the liberals. and from what i understand when roosevelt made his court-backing speech lewis brandice was deeply offended because he was one of the more elderly members of the court, i think he was over 80 years old.

and i used to do some work with owen j. roberts. and from what i understand. the votes in 1937 were taken before -- in secret chambers in courts -- secret chambers. in 1936 the votes were taken for the case to decide 1937, memorandum by felix frankfurt, from what i understand. but thank you for letting me be on the show. thank you. that caller provided a nice segue for us to get into the whole court-packing era. set the stage for us please. >> okay. so what happened in the -- i want to get back to this caller's question actually. it's a crux of the court-packing scheme. what happened is that fdr became extremely frustrated with the fact that a lot of the new deal measures were being struck down by this supreme court. and sometimes by a unanimous court. and when -- >> on what grounds? >> on the grounds, first of all, on the grounds of exceeding congress's powers under the commerce clause quite relevant

today. it's the source for passage of obama's health care plan or the tax power and source of a lot of legislation that is passed right now. so under the new deal the court basically was not as expansive in its interpretation of what the commerce power could do for congress, and thought that often the state's autonomy was being infringed upon by congressional enactments. another ground for validation was under substantive due process or contract, which was read into the 14th amendment or fifth amendment. the new deal court or the hughes court had been striking down a lot of new deal legislation, and fdr in frustration after his re-election basically proposed this plan whereby the court's membership would be increased if

justices didn't retire in a timely fashion. so under his plan there would have been up to six new justices placed upon the court. now, this gets into the question that was asked by the caller about whether justice roberts, who was the chief person who supposedly changed his vote, had changed his vote before this court-packing scheme was promoted or not. one argument is that once roosevelt won the election, the court really felt that there would be a lot of pressure to uphold and sustain new deal legislation, and that it could no longer be striking down as many laws. so one argument is just that the court-packing scheme itself was almost irrelevant or wasn't the real catalyst that roberts felt that he had to change his vote simply because of roosevelt's re-election and this great democratic consensus behind him. >> paul clement, give us a sense of how engaged the country was in this. was this hugely controversial,

or was this a washington story? >> this was definitely not a washington story. and i think it helps to kind of understand the stage completely which is you know think about fdr at this point. he's just been re-elected for his second term. he's dealing with the great depression. nobody is worried about whether it's the great recession. this is the great depression. he's trying to deal with it dealing with it innovatively passing this legislation and it's getting struck down by the court. he's also in his second term. by the time he's done with his term, he'll have appointed more supreme court justices than any body other than george washington, any other president than george washington. at this point, he's like jimmy carter. he's been a full-term president and he hasn't put anybody on the court. he's very frustrated with the court. he's very frustrated with the fact that they're striking down his legislation. he's of the view that they are really out of touch with the whole country, and that's part of the reason the country as a whole really focuses on this. i think a lot of that

frustration both with what the court's doing, with the age of some of the justices, all of that boils over into the court packing plan. i think it's very interesting to debate whether, as you say, the plan was really necessary, whether that was really what explains the court's change in approach in some of these important areas. it is, i think, fair to say that it's a bit of a black eye to historical legacy that he let his frustrations boil over. >> let's take a call from salem, oregon. this is kirk watching us out there. >> caller: good afternoon. it's still afternoon here. i appreciate you taking my call. this is, i presume, primarily a question for professor meyler. i'm curious to know what she might know regarding the personal relationship tie-in between justice hughes and the

william seward family from auburn, new york, who seward was lincoln's secretary of state, and also part of the reason i'm calling is i've been puzzling for some time. back in that era, as the speech of justice hughes was indicating, the anti-racists of the communities were the republicans, and that seems to have switched around the time of woodrow wilson's presidency. and when he embraced w. several b. dubois. i was curious to know what you might know about that. >> i'm not as familiar with the relationship to seward, so i have to defer to others on that. there is an interesting story about hughes and race. he invited booker t. washington to an event, and it was a somewhat controversial invitation. he personally escorted him to a table. hughes pretty much retained a

fairly uniform position on race throughout his career, where he was in favor of at least greater equality. i'm not sure to what extent full equality, but against the backdrop of this change you're pointing out where previously republicans had been much more in favor of racial equality, and then the democrats also sort of took on that mantle. >> returning to the court-packing plan, charles evans hughes was how involved in lobbying or setting the stage for it being defeated? >> i think he was integrally involved, and as chief justice roberts pointed out, there was a favorite missive from the court to congress itself. as least as i understand the story, that was something that justice brandeis was very much in favor of and suggested. the chief justice was very direct in the same kind of skill set he brought to bear in

investigating the gas companies back in the day. he was good with numbers, and he used the numbers and looked at the court's docket, caseload, and he really as chief justice roberts indicated really took apart a neutral case for what fdr was proposing and laid bare the obvious motivation for the court-packing plan. >> you how common in today's relationship between the court and legislature would it be for a missive to be sent from the court on to congress? >> it does happen. the chief justice, and i don't know whether this was the practice back in the day of chief justice hughes. it has become the practice that basically every year there's a state of the judiciary letter that the chief justice sending over to congress. sometimes it can be pointed. for a number of years rehnquist and chief justice roberts made a point of explaining that they were less than happy with the current state of judicial pay. so there continued to be these kind of issues between and among the branches, but i also think

that probably the way the chief justice hughes handled the court packing scheme probably took court-packing off the table as a realistic option going forward, and i think that's one of his great contributions. >> so i completely agree with paul clement, but i wanted to also add two things. one of which is that some people did criticize hughes at the time for essentially issuing an advisory opinion because one part of his letter that chief justice roberts referred to to the court which importantly was also signed or he had consulted with brandeis about, so there was kind of unanimity among the court, the members of the court about it. one part of the letter said hearing cases in a panel system wouldn't be constitutional, and that seems like an advisory opinion. interestingly in the book that paul clement referred to before about the supreme court hughes had condemned other justices for trying to issue advisory opinions. so there is some controversy

about that letter, i think. >> next call is from st. joseph, missouri. daniel. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. this is kind of a follow-up to the cornell professor's comment that owen roberts prior to the court-packing plan allied himself more with the four horsemen who were the conservative wing of the court. after the court-packing plan, arguably, owen roberts was a part of the switch in time to save nine. from what i've read, owen roberts would never admit that. does either one of you know why he really did change his voting pattern? >> thanks very much. do you know if he changed his voting pattern after that? >> well, the only person that knows for sure is justice roberts, and he's no longer with us. this is one of the reasons from an academic standpoint that court-packing is so interesting as a historical episode. there are a lot of competing theories.

they are supported at a detailed level, but we don't really know for sure. i do think it's fair if you look at justice roberts' voting patterns, there does seem to be a fork in the proceeded and there does seem to be a real change that corresponds with the court-packing scandal and really these three cases that emerge at a critical time that go in a very different direction. >> any more to add? >> no. he definitely did protest he wasn't influenced by politics at all, but it's hard to believe that, based on the record. >> we talked about the fact this court opened in 1935, this beautiful building, and i'm wondering, you've spent a lot of time in that courtroom as solicitor-general. is the courtroom that he operated in as chief justice essentially the same today? >> you know, there are a couple of minor differences. there have been changes in the size of the -- the shape of the bench from time to time over the time period, but it's remarkably similar to the courtroom over which he would have presided.

>> we also have a historic photograph that's from the supreme court historic society. it was somewhat illicitly taken. it's a photograph of inside the courtroom while the court is in session with chief justice hughes presiding, and we're going to show that to you as well. as we're looking at that, look at that from the court in session. you don't see that very often. >> you sure don't. >> we didn't mention in his biography he was a private practice lawyer much sought after and argued some 50 cases before the court. my question is, having had that experience, what was oral argument like in his court? >> it's really, i think, a very good point, and it's something that i think is very similar to the situation we have now with chief justice roberts. we have somebody in chief justice roberts who argued nearly 40 cases when he was -- before he came onto the bench. chief justice hughes had him

beat, had 50 arguments in his private practice. a very lucrative private practice, and that's part of, i think, the point made about the sacrifices that he made for public service. he comes to the court as somebody who not only has appreciation for the job of the court, because he's previously served as an associate justice, but he has some sympathy and some understanding of the role of counsel as well. i think he's somebody who would be certainly willing to ask questions of counsel but had a real appreciation that counsel had prepared for the argument and they had points that they wanted to make and was also ready and willing to liston counsel in argument, as well. >> pittsburgh, this is tim. welcome to the conversation, tim. >> caller: thank you. i have a question for your guests about the circumstances of justice hughes' ascending to the court as chief justice in 1930. i don't know if this story is true, so i hope your guests can confirm it.

that the conventional wisdom after taft had died was that charles evans hughes would not agree to serve as chief justice, because doing so would mean that his son would have to resign as solicitor-general and then to everyone's surprise charles evans hughes sr. decided to take the job. his son had to resign as solicitor-general. >> you probably know some of the history of your predecessors in the solicitor-general position. what can you tell us? >> i have heard the story, and i do not know whether it's true. i've heard different versions of this story, and you may have a perspective as to the truth of it. i will say this, though. which is to say i think if somebody, you know -- if the president really thought -- president hoover really thought that chars evan hughes would not

take the job and was not interested in being chief justice, that seems like a naive assumption. hughes had an interest in the chief justice job going way back. when he was first put on the court as an associate justice, he was appointed with some understanding. there's a letter to this effect. that he may be elevated very early when there was an opening at that point, and he wasn't. he was passed over for chief justice white. of course, president taft was the one who passed him over and there's some suspicion that president taft might have had an eye on the chief justice job that he ultimately got. so it was actually kind of more favorably disposed the older justice white to that position rather than the young robust then justice hughes. so i've definitely heard the story. it certainly had to be a difficult moment around the family dinner table, since there's no question that chief justice hughes accepting the job meant that his son would have to give up the solicitor-general job, which is a very plum job.

but i do think it's a little bit naive to think that he was really going to turn it down. >> i think some people did think so at the time, but they were probably mislead in various ways. just one addendum about the fact that he may have had had aspirations for the chief justice job much earlier. there was some possibility he would be appointed as chief justice rather than as an associate justice when he was first appointed to the court. in fact, his being passed over for chief justice might have been one of the reasons he was more willing to take the presidential nomination than not, because he ultimately aspired to the chief justiceship. >> next telephone call from columbus, ohio. this is mark. hello, mark. >> caller: one thing i wanted to talk about is did he have a problem with the supreme court judges to stay until they're 80 or 0 years old because i think they are way out of touch with the american people. there's a whole lot of things

that goes on with them where they have been in different types of groups like the kkk and stuff like that. and they still have the same beliefs than what everybody else has in this country. they ought to be a third of them appointed by different presidents. we ought to be able to vote them in. i think it would be a little more fair than the way they are right now and it would be more a part of this country than just like are gods or something, you know. >> mark, thanks for your question. he talks about supreme court justices not knowing much about the rest of us in society, being out of touch. i'd like to hear from both of you about this. >> i think actually this is part of what motivated fdr's court-packing plan. part of what he was saying is some of the older justices had antiquated notions about society

ing and the and the economy that need to be superseded and they were out of touch, and i think that's why all of the justices took offense at his plan. >> i think that's right. those are ideas that maybe we need a retirement age and term limits and maybe we need some way of either making the justices more responsive or either limiting the length in which they serve. it's interesting. these are topics that then attorney hughes addresses in his book about the supreme court. and he talks about the various pros and cons. and he's certainly cognizant the argument can have a difficulty. maybe justices stay on longer than they should. but he concludes at the end of the day, the current system we have is the best system you could have, especially when it comes to things like vindicating people's individual rights, that it's a virtue, not a vice, that the justices are somewhat removed from everyday politics. >> inside this supreme court, there are very two large

conference roops, the east and west conference rooms, used often for public events and there are portraits of each of the chief justice who have served. we're going to show you the portrait of charles evans hughes that is inside the court. as we look at that, i would like, bernie meyler, to talk about the most significant opinions he authored. >> he did author a number of very significant opinions. one opinion is significant and underdiscussed is against bailey against alabama. this was an opinion he issued early on when he was associate justice. and it involved striking down a law that even though slavery had been abolished under the 13th amendment, it wasn't clear whether there could be labor required in response to debt or in compensation of debt. so he struck down this law that

had allowed for peonage, and said it wasn't relevant that the party involved was african-american but said anyone shouldn't be subjected to this requirement of labor for debt. had allowed for peonage, and said it wasn't relative, that the party involved was african-american, but said anyone shouldn't be subjected to this requirement of labor for debt. that was one important decision. then, of course, he had a lot of important decisions that he authored during his time as chief justice. and the -- you know, among them were decisions on both sides of the spectrum in terms of striking down economic legislation or upholding it. one case that i think was especially crucial is it signaled his willingness to understand the flexibility that was required by economic legislation pretty early on in his term, was the case of home building and loan association against blasdell. this was a case involving a minnesota mortgage moratorium act where the time for repayment of mortgages was extended and

basically, their claim was that this violated the state's responsibility not to impair the obligations of contract. and what chief justice hughes said in this case was basically that contracts have to be understood within the context of the public trt. interest. one of the themes he kept coming back to is the way in which individual rights had to be maintained. but that had to be within the context of a protection of the public interest more generally. >> do you have anything you'd like to add? >> i think those are great opinions to highlight. i think the great thing is, he was the chief justice for a number of years. he certainly wrote more than his fair share of the opinions. so they're definitely opinions we could point to. i would just mention a couple. most obvious the west coast hotel and the laughlin steel cases are the ones that are essentially the pivot points for the switch in time. so those are certainly very important opinions.

but i also think that there are some, what i would describe more as civil liberties opinions that he wrote, near against minnesota, a very important case that really is one of the very first important first amendment cases as part of the courts. now it's hard to imagine the supreme court of the united states without the first amendment. it's an important part of their docket. but near against minnesota is one of the real building blocks for the first amendment free speech jurupa and de jong against oregon is another case where it recognizes the freedom of assembly and the problems with laws that try to target people for being members of unpopular groups, and the court has kind of waxed and waned in many respects. i think the dejong decision he wrote is ahead of its times. >> we have another call. lon is on the air. >> caller: i would like to ask your panelists, with both charles evans hughes and fdr being a part of the new york aristocratic elite, both were

progressive governors. one took the path of the highest elected office, the other went the judicial route. what kind of rapport was there between them, and i was just wondering, behind closed doors, if there's any evidence of any cordiality, or was fdr regarded by hughes as a traitor to his class? also, i was just thinking of this while i was listening to your discussion. was there a point at which hughes realized that even though he was an elected governor, that he realized from his aristocratic background, he couldn't aspire to running for president even though perhaps he wanted to be president? and i'm thinking of george nathaniel curzon the last

viceroy of india, who had the ability to be prime minister, but because he was from that aristocratic class, he didn't have hope of holding that office. >> thanks. the relationship between fdr and charles evans hughes. can you speak to it? >> i think that certainly hughes swore in r on several occasions. so there was an amity between them. but at the same time i think that the court packing scheme and the various tensions over the relation between the court and president at that point in time didn't really lead to a very amicable friendship between the two men. and also, hughes himself was somewhat reserved in terms of social life, within d.c. he and his wife only would entertain, or agree to attend dinner parties on saturday night because he felt that it would contravene his very austere moods of preparing for his judicial practice if he actually went out any other time. so he wasn't as much as a figure

in the washington social scene as one might imagine. >> the only thing i would add, too, he wasn't really from the same aristocratic roots as roosevelt. his upbringing was exceptional from an education standpoint. i think both his parents were really remarkable individuals, but i don't think it was a youth of great luxury, and great wealth. i think most of the wealth he accomplished over his career, lakd over his career was really through his own law practice and his own endeavors. i think there were differences personalwise and background wise, as well. >> from stockton, california, carol, go ahead, please. >> caller: hi, stockton. >> i thought so. go ahead. >> the question was, and they said that supreme court justice hughes was there until -- was he still the chief justice in 1948 or did he retire before his death in 1948 which would have

made him 85 years old at the time. >> that's right. thank you very much. you jumped into the last part of his life, but when did he retire from the court? 1941. >> 1941, right. exactly. he stepped down when he still had a few years left. and i think that's something that was probably not unintentional. he had, in his time on the court, had seen some justices get to the end of their time and have difficult issues when they should leave. he was very close -- whether he first came to the court with justice holmes and then when he came back to the court as chief justice, even though he had been away for some 20 years, justice holmes was still on the bench. and one of the things he had to do was eventually deliver the news to justice holmes that his colleagues decided it might be time for justice holmes to move on. i think that was one of the most difficult things he had to do as chief justice. especially because of the closeness between the two men, and i'm sure it was one of the most difficult things justice

holmes had to deal with. >> what was his relationship like with brandeis? >> he had a quite amicable relationship with brandeis initially. one of the indicia of that was that brandeis was willing to sign on to this letter or agree to support this letter that e wrote against the packing deal. i think brandeis objected to a lot of hughes' judicial philosophies and was much more liberal than hughes. but at the same time respected him as an intellect. this goes back to a theme we have come upon a lot which is just that his formidable intellect and ability to question various litigants and to reason from cases was admired by all the other justices. >> i need to ask, you described his formidable intellect. would you, if you could time travel, want to argue a case in front of his court? >> i think it would be fascinating.

i think some of the other justices on the court, the fours horsemen in particular were, kind of difficult personalities from the bench. so i'm not sure it would be all roses. but i do think it would be a remarkable experience. and obviously you're talking about not just the opportunity to argue in front of chief justice hughes, but also justice brandeis, justice cardozo, there were some real lions and formidable intellects across that court. >> a couple of mechanics questions about the court. today there are about 8,000 petitions for sertry, have cases. they hear about 1 out of 100, 70, 80 cases a year. what was the work load then? >> there wasn't that many more cases they were hearing then, but the petitions for cert were much lower. i think when roosevelt proposed the court packing scheme this had been 890 petitions in the prior year and only 100 and something had been granted.

that was one of his grounds for complaint against the court, that they didn't have enough energy to hear more cases. we have a much greater disproportion between the number of cases that are -- petitions than the number granted. >> oral arguments generally an hour today. were they at that time? >> i think they were still typically more constrained. in the early days of the court, arguments would go on for days but by the time of chief justice hughes, and the arguments were more limited. but just to follow up on a good point that was made, i think one of the stories of the supreme court as it's developed over history is more and more of its docket has become discretionary. so at the time that chief justice hughes was on the court, one of the things did he is he moved the court more in the direction of having greater discretion over which cases to take. and initially that was a source of at least potential controversy that they were exercising their discretion not to hear some cases. of course, by today's numbers, it seems quaint. now the court literally only

hears 1 in 100 cases that body would like them to hear. >> we have a half an hour left to go. we're featuring charles evans hughes who was the republican nominee for president in 1916. unsuccessful in his quest although it was a close election against wilson who was vying for his term. hughes went on to serve as chief justice, a second term on the supreme court. and was very much at the center of things during fdr's court packing scheme. anita, mississippi, hello, you're on the air. >> caller: to the professor, i hope you have a healthy and happy baby. i try to catch you every friday night. my question is, hughes, justice hughes sounded like a man who was for progression, and i hear you wax and wane about how he wanted the blacks to step forward. i wonder what you all would think about women stepping forward and them being on the court now, and what he would

think about the wrongdoings that are going on in the court today. >> i think that that's a really interesting question about his attitude towards women. we heard a little bit earlier that he was in favor of penal suffrage much earlier than a lot of other people. i think his attitude about women was somewhat ambiguous. as governor of new york, he was an advocate for a lot more progressive legislation than he was later. some people argued he turned more to the right later in his career. but among the kinds of legislation that he was interested in, at that point, was to protect women and children laborers. but some opposed those kinds of measures, because they thought that they were paternalistic. even in his later time on the court, and as chief justice in a the west coast hotel case he in a sense used a somewhat

paternalistic logic back protecting women against unfair labor practices. not just protecting any laborer, but that women might need special protection. so on the one hand he was in favor of allowing women more autonomy, but on the other hand he also had a paternalistic viewpoint. >> columbia, tennessee. this is bud. as we discuss chars evans charles evans hughes. >> caller: hello, and thank you for a wonderful program. i would like to know the opinion from your panelists as to what you believe charles evans hughes might make both politically and judicially of what's going on in wall street right now. >> well, can you project? >> well, you know, everybody's got their own perspective on what's going on at wall street right now. but i think charles evans hughes was in some respects one of the great early reformers. and if you think about the trajectory of his career, he didn't seek out public service, you know, for sort of its own sake, or as something of an

elective office. he sort of came to public service through his law practice and through an opportunity to kind of investigate industries where there was a lot of corruption, and i think this is something that was a hallmark of his career. i think even in his presidential run, it's probably consistent with the idea that he wasn't necessarily the world's best back-slapper, or knew how to build alliances with people. i think he was very focused on getting rid of corruption and not caring if that meant that a few sacred cows got slaughtered in the process. >> you mentioned that his was one of the first controversial appointments as the chief justice. and i read that one of the -- both sides were concerned he would be too pro-business. >> yes. this is a very interesting and somewhat paradoxical concern given both his earlier term on the court and also his time as governor. so as governor, and i think paul clement is quite right that he was very reform minded.

i think of him sometimes as combining teddy roosevelt's mind-set that people were very concerned that his time as a private attorney and his time in private practice had led him into pro-business alliances that would make him indisposed to regulate companies anymore. so i think that the main issue was the time he had spent in private practice, although i think that that concern was not really warranted given his earlier career. >> i'm going to take a call from toledo, and then we have a clip about charles evans hughes and race. toledo, tony, you're on the air. >> caller: hello. thanks for taking my call. this particular question may be both properly directed towards professor clement of the georgetown university law school professor. sir, how do you feel mr. hughes would have responded to electing

-- unelected officials on an international organizational scale such as the rockefeller funded united nations, being able to dictate international law as opposed to an elected official who would use the congress to pass particular laws? >> thank you. >> well, that's a great question. and it's one where i think that the chief justice hughes would have, i think, very kind of nuanced views and not something where you would say, oh, boy, he would really be hostile to the international organizations. because, of course, this is somebody who came to the chief justiceship after serving on the international court in the hague. so he's been sort of an internationalist, if you will. and in his writings, he has been less critical of the idea that international law is our law. in fact, in his book he specifically says, international law is our law. on the other hand, i think he would ultimately say, though, that our own elected officials have the ultimate say over what

the scope of our laws are. and i think he would have a view that congress had quite a wide scope to embrace international law principles. but that if congress wanted to say that certain principles of international law didn't apply to the united states, then that would be the last word. >> i think that's exactly right. he says that congress has the last word. but international law can fill in the gaps in certain respects. but i also think he was kind of ahead of his time in promoting u.s. involvement in the permanent court of international justice. he was not only a judge on that court but advocated the u.s. as adopting jurisdiction, or be under the jurisdiction of the permanent court. >> we had a few callers who asked about charles evans hughes and race. we're going to return to hughes hubbard and reed law firm charles evans hughes' law firm

still existing in new york city for a story that hughes tells in his autobiography. >> in the charles evans hughes conference center, we've tried to select things that reflect important periods or stages in justice hughes' life. we've collected a number of different things, including original books that justice hughes authored. most notably the autobiography, which we find to be especially interesting. my favorite story in here is one that justice hughes tells of a visit that he scheduled when he was the president of the baptist society in new york city. he asked booker t. washington, the notable civil rights activist at that time, and religious person himself, to come and speak to the assembly. and when booker t. washington and his wife arrived, justice hughes escorted mr. washington and his wife to his own table and sat him there. which at that time unfortunately was a very controversial thing to do. justice hughes took advantage of that to speak to the assembly about the importance of diversity, and tolerance.

they was very disappointed that a group of religious people would themselves be intolerant to having booker t. washington at his table. >> we have about 22 minutes left to go in our two-hour look at the life and legacy of charles evans hughes, the contender, a man who sought the presidency and lost but changed american history. we've brought back one of our first guests, david pietrusza, who is joining us still on the plaza of the supreme court. and david, one aspect of his life we have not spent any time on and we should is his term as secretary of state in these pivotal post-world war i years. can you talk about the contributions he made in that role? >> absolutely. he's regarded not only as one of the great chief justices he's regarded as one of the great secretaries of state. when he leaves, he's regarded as one of the top three. john quincy adams, secretary seward as has been mentioned before and himself. what he does is he inherits really a great mess, because of the failure of the league of nations and talking about him in

international affairs and international law, he was for the league of nations, for the american -- the united states of america to enter the league. but he was not about to cede sovereignty to the league of nations. he was opposed to article 10 of the league of nations. which committed the united states to basically go to war if the league decided we were going to defend boundaries say ireland or in the mess of the map which had been created after the treaty of versailles. so he was opposed to that. he thought the league could be fixed. he planned to submit a clean bill, sort of treaty which could get through the senate when he became secretary of state. unfortunately that was impossible. warren harding saw this maybe a little quicker than he did. but hughes recognized the truth of that, that it was really a fool's error to go back there. the senate was not going to approve that. but he moves on from that. he stays. he thought about resigning. he stays. he has -- really, he pioneers an international disarmament, and a

ground breaking navy treaty which caps the ratio of 10-10-6, for the united states the united kingdom and japan. scraps a lot of heavy tonnage battle ships. this is a good deal for the united states, because with our congress we were not about to spend the money on the military. we would have lost ground to japan in that decade. also, he moves on to other treaties in the far east. he gets japan to give the province of shantung back to china, which was a major accomplishment. and it's a thing which people really wouldn't believe. but going into that decade, the united kingdom, britain, was united in treaty, that is, if they were attacked or the other party was attacked, they would go to war, and the other party was with japan. and there was a fear of the united states if we got embroiled in a controversy with

japan, we might have to go to war with bryn on that. he broke that treaty very smoothly, a four-power pact. one thing he was not successful in was the immigration treaty with japan, which was in 1924 and was the japanese exclusion act. he tried quite hard to get that ameliorated. he was not able to do that. the senate was a great problem to him in foreign affairs. it would be a tossup between that and france. >> next telephone call with our three guests, greensboro, north carolina, this is charlie. hey, charlie, you're on the air. >> thank you. wonderful series and thank goodness for c-span. who was the person in the 1916 election on the republican side that ran against hughes? i had heard that had the other

person been the nominee, they would have beaten wilson. if i am, really, the contenders that year were senator fairbanks who had been vice president under theodore roosevelt. there was a senator burton of choi. eleanor was the outright conservative candidate. i would hesitate to say that any of -- any one of those would have run a better race than hughes. i think that, really, the deck was kind of stacked -- it being so close, if you change any one thing, if maybe you don't have the railroad strike, which impacted the voting in ohio, as much as hiram johnson did in california, you just don't know. but i don't know if you could say there was any one stronger candidate, if he had been the candidate -- if he had been so strong, he would have won the nomination. >> for all three of our guests, we're going to go one at a time in between calls, it's time for

us to wrap this conversation up and to think about charles evans hughes' legacy. how the world might have been different if he hadn't been here. what our country might have been like if he hadn't served. i'm going to take a call and then i'm going to start with you. so i'll give you a little chance to think about that. puerto rico, this is gerald. >> caller: yes, good evening. i would like the panelists to explain why the hughes court decided to disregard the judicial precedence, specifically the ruling in schechter and carter, in order to recognize for the first time a fundamental right to organize unions, in the case of national labor relations board versus jones. could you harmonize justice hewes judicial reasoning? >> sure, i'll give it a try. and i do think that there is a way to reconcile those opinions. another caller pointed this out

earlier, but it's easy to think about these decisions on both sides of the famous switch in time as being 5-4 one way and all of a sudden they're 5-4 the other. but the story is much more copplicated than that. and schechter poultry was a unanimous decision. every member of the court said that there was something wrong with the statute at issue there. the schechter poultry is still on the books as a precedent. i mean, it leaves lawyers kind of scratching their head. it's the birth of what's called the nondelegation doctrine. and from time to time lawyers try to fit cases into the nondelegation doctrine. schecker poultry is still on the books. but that was really a different doctrine that was at issue when the wagner act, the nlra comes before the court. what i think is really precedent setting and does break from the procedure decision in that decision is really the court in the previous decisions had distinguished commerce from

production or other forms of economic activity. and it's something that i think had -- these were ves difficult distinctions to draw. if you look at the pre-1937 commerce clause injuries prudence, it's this categorical approach really did require some very thin, very difficult distinctions. so i do think in that sense, those decisions were not so satisfying that they were decisions that were not that easy. i mean, i think the court essentially ultimately became persuaded that that way of looking at the commerce clause just wouldn't work. >> a first shot at the legacy question goes to bernadette meyler. >> i think the most important part of hughes legacy does relate to what paul clement was just talking about, which is that basically the hughes court wound up creating the modern commerce power or allowing for the commerce power to be con

construed broadly. and so much of the regulatory system that we're under right now, or that we can enjoy really derives from congress' power under the commerce clause. and so i think that that's one of the things that hughes shepherded the court through a a very difficult time and allowed for this outcome to emerge where the commerce power could sort of be much more expansive than previously. >> back to calls. this time, philadelphia. hello, charles. >> caller: hi. professor clement, i want to thank you for your record of public service. but the question i wanted to ask was about chief justice hughes' attitude toward oral arguments. did he believe oral arguments should be like they are today, which are largely focused on questions, or did he have another attitude towards that? >> thanks very much. paul clement. >> thank you. he had a more balanced view of oral argument, i think, in the sense that i think he understood both the virtues of asking questions and also the virtues

of having lawyers have an ample opportunity to explain their positions. and i think in a sense, we've moved to a different place historically, where now supreme court argument anyway is really dominated by the questions. it's funny, at that time justices, and it is booked it was almost like they felt a need to explain why it was appropriate for them to ask questions at all. i think some lawyers had the idea that oral argument was their time and they got to give this nice prose to share with the justices. i think he was of the view that it was important for the justices to have an opportunity to ask questions and it was good for the lawyer to have an understanding of what was bothering the justices about their side of the case. >> fred in washington, d.c., welcome to our discussion. fred, you there? >> caller: yes. >> your question? >> caller: my question is, i would like to know if any of the members of the panel can make a

comment about justices' views of secular and separation of church and state or at that time any of their colleagues, what was their view? maybe members of the panel can answer that. >> thanks very much. >> do you want to take that? >> sure. this was a moment in time when the notion of a wall of separation was actually coming into common parlance, or becoming much more prevalent. and also, the hughes court was quite important in terms of religious liberty more generally. so under the hughes court, both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause of the first amendment were incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. so they were held to apply to the state-to-state actions. so that allowed for a lot more suits based on violation of

religious liberty than had previously occurred. >> david pietrusza, how about you take your crack at the question of charles evans hughes' legacy. >> i think it's important that he -- of how he stopped the court packing scheme. how the regulatory nature of the decisions changed. how he put the health of the republican party back together again. i think his legacy is one of service, of a man who time after time leaves his normal state of life to serve his country and does it with remarkable intelligence and integrity. and at a time of so much fractiousness in our nation, i think it's good to look back on positive examples, and to take hope from them. >> i read in one biographer who said he had felt the constant tug between the legal and political spheres. did you have that same sense of him? >> yes. but i think -- one of the -- i think after he left the

secretary of stateship, somebody said of him that he was our first citizen. and i think that is such a wonderful thing to say. and certainly such a true thing to say about him. but again, he made amazing sacrsacrifices. when he left the state department, he was able to earn a peak of $400,000 a year. some of the jobs he had prior to that were in the range of $12,000. so part of the fact of his leaving was simply he knew he had to take care of his family. but in between all those times, and even when he was off the court, if you take a look at all the organizations he was involved in, including the foundation of the national conference of christians and jews to advocate tolerance in the mid-1920s, at a time when often it was in short supply, the man was a powerhouse,

tireless, whether he was in public service officially or not, he was always doing the public's work. >> and we have ten minutes left in our program. we have time for just a couple more calls. but let me ask the same question of you, the legacy. >> i would say there's really two aspects of it obviously i'm approaching this from more the legal perspective. one is what's already been touched on is the commerce clause injuriesjur juris prudence. i think what makes the legacy is so interesting is we're still dealing with this issue. chief justice hughes rejected what i would call the categorical approach to the commerce laws. but even he was very quick to add that the commerce clause was that it was a limited power. and the framers had enumerated the various powers in the constitution, including the commerce clause, and none of them gave the federal government an absolute plenary power. and so he laid out the basic framework that we're still wrestling with, and we still have this idea that the commerce

clause is broad, but it's not unlimited. and where those limits are is something we continue to struggle with. but that's a real part of his legacy. the other thing i would really emphasize is the legacy of judicial independence. because i do think the court packing idea was probably the single greatest challenge to judicial independence. at least, you know, in the 20th century. and i think the way that he sort of fought that off, i think is something that's -- like i said, i don't think we'll see another court packing effort. i think that's a great legacy. i would just add to that that in his book about the supreme court, he addressed what he thought were the three worst supreme court decisions that the court had made up to that point, what he called self-inflicted wounds. and one of them was a decision in the 1870s called the legal tender decision, and what is interesting about it is it's a case where the court first struck down a statute, and then after a change in its membership, ended up upholding the statute.

in commenting on that, he said it was really the court's fault for the way they handed it -- handled it. and he specifically pointed out that it wasn't president grant's fault and uses the word court packing. he said nobody would accuse president grant of packing the court. this is something that was in the back of his mind, even before he was a chief justice. he seized this threat to the court, a real threat and fends it off. that is a very worthy legacy. >> south yarmuth, massachusetts, this is greg. >> caller: hello? >> hi, greg, you're on. >> caller: i'm curious, when does chief justice hughes get done being on the court? >> 1941, greg. >> i have a follow-up question. >> 1941, greg, what's your follow-up? >> caller: so was he the chief justice when komatsu versus komatsu was written? >> no, he was not. he was off the court by that point. >> i was just curious. >> again, he's off the court by that point.

>> david pietrusza, let's have you explain about his final years. he resigns from the court, as you said in 141, and lives until the next five or six years, dies at the age of 86. what were his final years like? >> well, he's very old when he goes on the court and he's very old when he gets off the court. two years before he gets off the court he gets a real scare. it sounds almost like a stroke. in fact, it's a duodenal ulcer. but he recovers his health. when he leaves the court in '41 he's actually fairly vigorous. what does happen, however, he remains -- he doesn't return to new york. his children are up there. but he remains in washington, d.c. he had been -- you know, his marriage was really a very close one, very wonderful. but at this point he decided, i'm going to make up for lost time, a time which i had been away from my wife all this time. but she takes ill fairly quickly. i think by the end of the war,

she has passed away. and it's a very tragic time for him. it's one of the few times which is ever recorded of him losing control of his emotions when she has passed. and then it is so painful for him. but his health continues fairly strongly, until 1948. he goes up, i believe to cape cod, and there he takes a sudden turn for the worse, passes away. he had a fear, i think it was to be like -- not to be like justice cardozo, who had been helpless towards end of his life. and in this -- his wish was granted. his time of infirmity was really a matter of almost just days if not hours. so he passed away with all the dignity with which he had lived. >> we have just about four minutes left. we have a clip of -- we talked about the fact that he score in fdr three times even though they had this epic battle over court packing.

we have this clip of him swearing in franklin delano roosevelt. >> do you, franklin delano roosevelt do solemnly swear you will faithfully execute the office of president of the united states will to the best of your ability preserve protect and defend the constitution of the united states, so help you god? >> i, franklin delano roosevelt, do solemnly swear, that i will faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states, so help me god. >> charles evans hughes, swearing in franklin delano roosevelt. and his legacy, as chief justice, especially during the court packing era, something we've discussed during this edition of the contenders. we have just a couple of minutes left.

i'd like to go back where i started, paul, and that is to talk about the 1916 election. if he had won that, and woodrow wilson had not won a second term, specifically there, how would the world have been different? >> well, i think, you know, that's a very consequential question in the sense that it's always hard to try to reconstruct what would have been so different if some critical factor had not taken place. i mean, wilson obviously was a president who led us through the entry into world war i and moved us forward. so i think he's somebody that history regards very well. i have to say personally, though, understanding the character of person, that charles evans hughes was, it's hard for me to think that we would be poorly served even during that critical time by somebody who had done so exceptionally well in so many different ways.

and certainly as his later service of secretary of state showed he's somebody who i think would have been very, very comfortable in leading us in our foreign affairs. >> david pietrusza, what are your thoughts on that in regard to entry into world war i? >> i think it's exit in world war i a change would have been made. because what we're talking about is the peace process. woodrow wilson botches that spectacularly. we see how hughes handles the treaty-making process when he's secretary of state. he gets all parties in. he gets the treaty in and submits it to the senate, passed almost overwhelmingly. also what i neglected to mention in his post-chief justiceship years is, he's called in to consult on the structure for the new united nations at this advanced age. and he strikes some things regarding the structure of the security council, puts some things in and makes it far more workable. he's a very practical guy.

and he had been interested in world justice and rule of law internationally from an early point. if he had proposed a league of nations, there's a good chance it would have been approved by the united states of america. >> other than your own book, if people are interested in hearing more, what's one of the best books on this era that you can recommend? >> well, certainly on hughes, the merlo pusey biography is really a terrific, terrific book. that's the book if you want to know an awful lot about mr. hughes. >> paul clement, you brought a book of his letters i understand. >> yes, it's this book that he wrote. it's actually a collection of six different lectures that he gave at columbia university. and as i say, it's really a unique insight. because here's ruminations about the supreme court of the united states from somebody who had been an associate justice and would soon be the chief justice of the united states. but it's a candid look on what at this point a lawyer really thinks about the supreme court. >> still highly readable today?

>> very highly readable. and it's fascinating, actually, how contemporary a lot of the discussion is. >> last question for you very quickly, is when first year law students come in and you teach them about this era what's the one thing you want them to know about it? >> i want them to know about the switch in time. it may have been political or may not have been, and also what the consequences were. >> i want to say thank you to our three guests who have been with us tonight on our charles evans hughes program from outside the united states supreme court. we appreciate your time with us as we learn more about this period of american history. people who sought the presidency, and even though that bid was not successful, still had an important impact on american history. we're going to close, as we started, with archival footage from the 1916 campaign. ♪

♪ coming up this weekend on "american history tv" on c-span3, the life and legacy of alexander hamilton. >> hamilton's argument was that the war had been a common struggle all the states were fighting together for the liberty of all for the whole country. so he assumed the debts of the 13 states along with the federal debt. they would all be treated as one debt. they would be paid off at the same time. >> saturday evening a little after 7:00 eastern, author and

national review senior editor richard brook heiser on the economic achievements of alexander hamilton. of alexander hamilton. and then at 10:00 on reel america, the film "the last bomb" documents the final months of the b-29 super fortress air campaign against japan, including the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki. and sunday morning at 10:00, the third and final presidential debate when al gore and republican texas governor george w. bush. >> law abiding citizens ought to be able to protect themselves and their families. i believe that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. >> i think that some common sense gun safety measures are certainly needed with the flood of cheep handguns that have sometimes been working their way into the hands of the wrong people. but all of my proposals are focused on that problem, gun safety. >> also this weekend at 8:00

eastern, c-span series "the contenders" key figures who ran for the presidency and lost. saturday night, the 1928 nominee al smith and sunday the 1940 republican presidential nominee when dal wilkie. >> as i was driving up the streets of hoboken, practically every store window that is vacant store window has pictures of my opponent and his associates on the new deal ticket. i don't know of any more appropriate place to put those pictures. >> for a complete american history tv schedule go to c-span c-span.org. and now journalist and tufts university professor edward shoe

maker matosy shoe maker issue maker. this was cohothsed by university of southern california communication on leadership and policy. it's just over an hour. >> hello everyone. welcome. by the president of the public diplomacy council. i'm both usc and the pdc combine each month for these monthly lunch forums. we welcome a number of newcomers. we hope you return often and we see a number of people who are regulars. thank you f