. >> hughes is what we claim we want. in both a presidential candidate and a president. >> a man who did get it. a man called charles evans hughes as a supreme court justice. all but when the election. in 1916 when president woodrow wilson went to bed the election night, he thought he was beaten. >> he had been elected, how american history goes in several different directions on suffrage, civil rights. what does he do on foreign policy? germany baited us into war. wilson -- would hughes have avoided it? he's the one you could write novels about. >> he had charles evans hughes who would later the -- he was on the supreme court. he left the supreme court when he ran for president. he 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, quote, looks like god and talks like a god. and a quote. >> in 16 footage of charles evans hughes, shot as hughes that republican presidential nominee campaigned soon after the republican national convention. tonight the contenders looks at the life and legacy of charles evans who's who in addition to being a republican presidential nominee, was a two term new york governor, secretary of state, and it twice a supreme court justice. of all this he is perhaps best known for his role as the chief justice during the years of fdr's new deal. the contenders is live this evening from the united states supreme court. just across from the capital 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, the first of the evening, who are joining us to talk about the life and legacy of charles evans hughes. david pietrusza is a historian, the most relevant book to the peered is 1920, the euro presidents. and bernadette a. meyler is a professor at cornell law school, and by the way is hughes is all moderate. thank you for being here. let's jump into the election. i want you to set the stage for us. 1916, wilson wants to be reelected. europe is at war. frame what was going on and the country, in the presidential campaign. >> woodrow wilson as i winning ran it would be a tragedy if his administration was framed by foreign policy, defined by it. 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 war in europe, america is fighting to stay out. but there is a question of preparedness for the war. are you prepared in case anything happens? are we being tough? are we being too weak? secretary of state brian resigned from the cabinet. he thinks we're being too tough. so it's a question of war and peace in europe, more and peace in mexico. aside from all the domestic issues, more overshadows everything. >> charles evans hughes is serving on the supreme court as an associate justice. how does it get from there in to the nominating process? >> he gets there somewhat reluctantly. he enjoyed his position as associate justice on the court. he was quite satisfied with his role there. but then he felt called by duty

after several candidates did not pan out for the republicans. he felt called to actually accept the nominations for president. in a sense he wasn't a particularly gun whoa candidate. >> what was a republican party like at that stage? >> it's fractured. in 1912, there had been the great teddy roosevelt william howard taft split. the are rants as a progressive party. there is a question, a real question that year is if they are going to be able to put the republican party back together again. and do you take roosevelt? roosevelt is still radio active with the old guard. if you take someone to conservative, the progressives will not come back. even though the party has been dying on the vine for previous four years. you have to pick somebody who is respected by both sides. someone who is not some wild

man from the prairies, or from the west like a johnson. someone who's not a conservative like route. the main to do it, and also the man who's been out of politics since 1910 because he's out of the supreme court, he has not been in the part of the 1912 battles, is mr. hughes. he's respected by just about everyone in the party. >> what were his politics? >> at the time it was mildly progressive. as i say, he is not a mild man from the west. what he is, he has moved from the practice of law. he was never interested, really, in a being part of politics. when he first comes to new york, he establishes his law practice, they say would you like to run for judge? now an appointment to federal judgeship? no. but he is asked to investigate

the gas monopoly in new york city. that is really gouging the customers. six companies coming out since 1880, they come to him and say do want to take over the investigation? he says no, i do not. i really don't. but he does. he says how much time to have to prepare for the testimony? for the hearings? a week! and with the great brilliance this man had, he's able to pull everything together. not doing it in a bomb basket way, but simply going through all the papers. grossly executives on the stand, bring the holding down. ultimately what you have leading to is a public service commission in new york state. you have the gas rates, electricity rates in the city, by a third. he moves on to fixing the insurance agency in new york state. really becomes a national figure. this is 1906 through just before 1906.

he's a progressive type candidate who is opposed to the machine, the democrats in the city. they are protecting the monopolies. but also the massive new york state political machine. under boss plaid, who ruled when teddy roosevelt was there. and roosevelt would defer to the bosses to some extent hughes moves forward, winds governorship. he puts forward a whole bunch of reforms. and then it moves on to the court for the first time. >> today it would be almost unimaginable for someone to resign from this position and build to run for an national elective office. what was the reaction at the time? surprise? how is it viewed? >> i think some were surprised. but also the office of supreme court justice was not 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 appointment process is so much

more difficult to actually get through. it's much more difficult to confirm any justice. justices are appointed young and are expected to stay for the rest of their working career. hughes, his first appointment as justice was quite on contentious. his second one was almost the beginning of the contention's within the appointments process. it occurred fairly soon after there were new rules about senate debate on nominees. it garnered a lot of criticism from progressives, surprisingly, given his career as governor of new york. >> as you can see, we are on the plaza of the supreme court. beautiful early october night. we're going to be heard for two hours tonight. it is 14 men in the contender series who ran for presidency and lost, but change political history. charles evans hughes, he made his mark through many positions, but particularly in his role as chief justice. and the second half are

focusing on the whole contentious era with court packing and the new deal. he was really at the helm during that period, lots of interesting things to talk about. will open up the phone lines as we've done for each of the programs that allow you to offer up questions and observations to our discussion. what was a convention that year? >> i think it was in chicago. maybe philadelphia. i am not sure. the interesting is is that there's two conventions going on a block apart from each other. that is the real interesting 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 is nominated on the third ballot and meanwhile the progressives are meeting just a short ways away. what they are doing is debating who they can accept, who they accept. roosevelt is saying i'm not going to do it. he throws out a couple of names,

leonard wood who is a big advocate, an army general, of preparedness. he's got into trouble with the wilson administration. or henry cabinet lodge. neither one of the guys is acceptable to the progressives. he is throwing out the pro-the pill. what happens is that at the ending only poison that they can agree, on the progressives, is to any extent hughes. these still are in a great pit and dissolve the party. the party evaporates but they go away. they don't run a third party. this is one of the great things of the legacy of houston's race in 1916 we take the republican party for granted as a continuing thing since lincoln. it did not have to be in 1916. if he's not the guy willing to put it together, maybe the progressives go back. we don't know what happens with

the republican party. that's a go the way of the whigs? the progressives, do they replace it? who can say at that point? the thing is that hughes takes the position. he didn't want to do it. he really is uncertain about what to do. but walks away from the supreme court judgeship he had said that when he had taken it, when there was talk in 1912, which would be the compromised candidate to avoid the taft roosevelt split? no, i will not do it. and it finally he doesn't. the democrats cannot fully criticize nominating a judge for the presidency. there is a reason for it. because in 1904 they take all ten parker off the supreme court in the state of new york and run him for presidency >> did you get the nomination on the first ballot? >> hughes? no, on the third ballot. >> how difficult was it, they

had come to the court and sit down with him and say this is the offer? >> i think they called him on the phone. someone did. and back then candidates, even non reluctant ones, would not go to the conventions. there was a formal nominating process. weeks later they would have a big speech and be like surprise, you are the nominee. the fellow doing that year was worn harding. who had been the chair of the convention. he is really undecided. even as family members, his closest associates are not sure what he's going to do. now there had been people in the early days of the republican party who had resigned from the court to take other positions. there had been a david davies on the court in 19 seventies, the 18th century, who took a senatorial nomination out in illinois. but not since then, certainly not since hughes. >> can you speak, and if you're

also familiar with it, could he have been a politician before? how was it as a national campaigner? >> that campaign is probably the worst thing he ever does. in his life. not just his public career. he exiles at everything. but that campaign, he's getting off the mark slowly. he's doing a dance. it's the dance that jack kennedy and richard nixon do in 1960. we have the black vote in the north, the southern white vote. what do we do? and kennedy carries about. the same thing occurs with the peace votes, the pro war people in 1916. wilson runs a campaign, he kept us out of war. and shoes really is doing this dance. he ends up losing both sides, really. he loses the probe or people

and the people who want to stay neutral. he's branded as being pro german. you see the editorial cartoons. he's lumped in with william writeoff hearse with the irish nationalists. at the end of the day, the german american vote goes to wilson. he doesn't elucidate the campaign themes well. he's fighting on things like the terror of, not a popular issue for the republicans that year. there are labor issues there are labor issues which are very important that you're too big things which cross him up. they do not work well for him. even though as governor of new york he is an admirable record. he establishes wrecker calm ports. the whole system that's first in the country. there's all sorts of labor regulations put in place for the first time. he's really a champion of labour but then there's two things that happen. the infamous california trip

will get into it later. and those two things that happen. one thing which is never talked about. he blenders into san francisco where the chamber of commerce is trying to break the unions. and they are particularly trying to do it in the restaurants, and they want them to be open shops. in other words, you don't have to join the union to be there. they forced the restaurants to open up open shop signs where do they schedule his appearance? in a restaurant with an open shop sign on the door. this sets off working men. not only in california but around the country. union members around the country. also in september there is a threatened national rail strike. the administration, the congress passes the added some act which establishes an eight-hour day. the first time nationwide. and the constitutionality is threatened later. but hughes opposes it again, this cuts into his labor vote.

he has problems. he really doesn't come out and say what he would do better than wilson. >> here are the phone numbers. we're gonna get your calls and about six or seven meters. two zero two, triple zero one -- in addition to labor issues, there were also women suffrage issues. at the time, women still don't have the right to vote at a national level. can you tell us about the aspect of the campaign? >> definitely, 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 about. but them as wives were also have his view on this matter. at some point he had one of his daughters that became active in the suffrage movement. his views were gradually shifting. however at the time of the election campaign in 1916, he

still believes that women's suffrage should be decided on a state by state laughable rather than by a national amendment. hues went far beyond it. far beyond a lot of the republicans. to claim that there should actually be a woman's suffrage amendment. and this is puzzling. the states in which women could vote largely went for wilson rather than hughes. it's somewhat paradoxical given his support. and there may be various reasons for. one of them being the issue of the war, the woman's peace movement. it was a post of 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 shoes formed a fan club, i guess, who campaigned for him. they went by the name of the hues hats. it seems pretty modern. we have some interesting things to show you --

one of the nieces up one who was a hughettes, they put together a campaign of the website which talks about the ants participation in the campaign. it's elizabeth friedman .org. we're showing you some of the history of her aunt as a hughettes, campaigning for charles evans he was in the 1916 election. just to also further explain your position, charles evans hughes, his law firm, still exist in new york city. we went there and talk to one of the senior partners. who talked a little bit about charles evans hughes and his support for women's voting. >> we're proud of the original addition of the independent weekly magazine which came out the week after justice hughes received the republican nomination for the presidency. that is mrs. hughes on the

cover, who was a very important person in justice uses life. in particular in respect to the issue of the magazine, she's on here because of his support of women's suffrage. she supported as well. something we learned in the magazine that we were not aware of beforehand, which isn't often talked about with respect to choose, is that the republican party platform in 1916 with simply that 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 the magazine after that and which he said he was going to go beyond the republican party path form. he would support the susan bee anthony amendment to the constitution which would provide women with the right to vote throughout the united states, would not give each state the right to determine whether or not women can vote. >> and it from that we will move to election night. we know some of you have questions about this, the outcome. i read that wilson went to bed on election night thinking he had lost. >> he thought he did.

i wouldn't say he was resigned to it. certainly he was about ready to either give up the presidency nobility or and a half. it's your call as how you want to describe it. he has a plan where ok, i've lost, i'm getting out. and back then presidents did not take office in january. they had to wait until march. you had a big time between. you had a situation where the country was drifting towards war. what do you do? his plan was that he would appoint hughes as secretary of state, getting the jump on warren and harding. secretary of state was second in line to the presidency. once hughes was shuffled aside, lansing was shuffled aside for hughes, wilson -- thomas marching the vice president would resign. wilson, a three point plan,

hughes would become the president until he would formally take term. >> well what happened is that it was an incredibly close election. >> oh yes, back to that. incredibly. it's about a quarter million, i think, popular votes. it's not that close in the popular total. what it is is so close in california. that's a key. it's decided by about 13 electoral votes. that's what the situation was in california. on the second incident which occurs in california. the particular nature of the incident is overplayed. again, back to that progressive party convention. which dissolves and leaves the field open to hughes. they're in a bad mood. they are really not resolved as to who they're going to be endorsing. and one of the really key people, with a bad temper, is

senator and governor up high room johnson of california. johnson is running for the senate. he has a primary. he's a very ornery guy. hughes, because of the limitations of travel in those days, has to get out to the coast early. and then it back to the east coast where all the votes are later towards the end. it's crucial. he swings through to california, does it before the primary. johnson is the governor, not the candidate. the california republican party is so split. they cannot make any decisions on who will escort who, who will chair the meeting. it is worse than palestinians and israelis. it is -- the feelings are so bad. finally what happens is that there's an incident in long beach, california. hughes, still not having met johnson, goes to rest at the

hotel. he does not know that johnson is there. johnson knows that use is there. they leave the hotel, they never meet. it is blamed that hughes has alienated johnson. but really johnson could have made the move. he knew. he could've gone over. in fact right after that hues, through an intermediary, i'd bites johnson to chair a meeting and introduced him in sacramento. johnson refuses. hughes loses the say by about 3000 votes. they don't know until next friday, friday after the tuesday of election, that he lost a state. they don't know his lost the election until the friday. but meanwhile hiram johnson wins the primary. he wants a state of california by something like 300,000 votes. he went about in amounts amount. a lot of people blame hiram johnson, that specific incident in fact, the first meeting of the progressives when johnson

goes back to california, they endorsed him. but then they split up. they split up and hold separate meetings. will be free shoes, will be for wilson. he could've swung the progressives if you wanted to, but it might have swung more than 1600. >> and the end, on the women's vote, you mentioned that there was 12 states. wilson won nine of the 12. that says about hues he wasn't so much of a political tactician as he was lacking in conviction? >> i think so. i think he was much more of a principled person. a principled lawyer then a politician in certain respects. i think as i mentioned before, part of the reason that the women didn't vote for him was because of the perception that he would bring america to war. where as wilson had promised, they felt that he had pledged, to remain at peace. but really one of the things the johnson incident outlines,

what it shows about hughes and his character, he wasn't interested in curbing favorite with other politicians or people within the party machine. i think that this has been shown demonstratively in his gubernatorial career where he tries to outs people who have issues within the administration. that is met this favourably. people think that people deserved loyalty from the republican party. he really wasn't interested in playing a lot of political games. i think that hurt him in the election. >> let's begin taking viewers calls. let's take the first call of the evening from ohio, it is duncan. hello. >> high -- >> what is your question? >> i was curious about anything bad hughes made upset about wilson, anything he would've done in his first term of

presidency. >> he certainly criticize a 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. you have the revolution overthrowing the diaz administration. i think it's a 1912. and then the country devolves into chaos. if you see the movies viva the, you see one revolution replacing another right on. wilson is very concerned that the general will not impose another dictatorship on mexico. he sent marines in to veracruz to block german army ship. there are incidents, crazy

incidents, over why they come in. a flag flew here, or not there. the troops come, they go mexico gets worse and worse. in 1916, you get the columbus new mexico incident where punch ovia raids an american border town, kills american nationals and america sends the expeditionary force into mexico under black jack. that's another disaster. a lot to criticize about mexico. there'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. >> good evening. thank you for the contenders. i want to talk about an important decision that charles evans hughes wrote. i will get through this quickly. the national industrial

recovery act was ruled unconstitutional in 1935. later that year the national labor act was passed. and then they thought that was going to be ruled unconstitutional. it came to the high court in jones and loft in steel in 1937. i think the high court was under pressure to change their position from ruling it unconstitutional. and hughes wrote the decision that ruled the neighbor relations act constitutional. the more to the story is that even the high court can be put under political pressure to change their positions. thank you very much. >> knowing we're going to spend more time, do you want a brief answer? >> i think you raise a crucial point, a crucial contention among historians. the question of whether the switch in time of the nine, what defeated the court packing scheme that franklin roosevelt had proposed, was actually

politically motivated or whether it was consistent with a evolution of the justices including justice roberts and justice hughes. i think will get into that later. >> louisville, kentucky. sean, good evening. >> thank you, i was calling because i'm a student law school. what would the court have on fdr and his views? >> thank you very much. the basic outlook about the new deals programs? >> as part caller mentioned, they were striking down a lot of new deal legislation at the beginning. the thing is that there was a kind of split between the justices, some on the right called the four horsemen and others other justices like it just has quite far to the left. hughes and roberts were swing votes.

they basically would decide whether to uphold or strike down various new deal regulations. in 1937 there was this fairly radical switch. at least a switch that was perceived as radical. the new deal programs that began to be upheld. >> we talked a little bit about charles evans hughes, the man. we heard at the outset that he looked and sounded like god. would you add more color around how tall was he? >> he is five foot 11. interesting enough he was very slight as a young man. very thin. as an adult, as a young man, he weighed 127 pounds. the guy who cleaned up the insurance agency, they were not right and insurance policy for him. they gave him the physicals, they would say we cannot find anything wrong with him. he's too thin. we won't give a life insurance. he lived to be about 85. he was very vigorous. he was very active.

ultimately he reaches an adult weight of 173 pounds. he would measure carefully. he would do this in an interesting way. at a breakfast he would have a pile of toast. he was putting on too much weight. he would remove a slice of toast. and if he was not doing enough, he would put another slice on. this fellow who was 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 says he's burned out. he says he needs a vacation. he's climbing the alps. 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. he keeps coming back to public service again, and again, and again.

and after he was knocked out of the presidency, he might have said to hell with you people. i have done my time. i have fixed this, fix that, done this, done that. it costs me. money again, and again, and again. when he was governor, he bore his own expenses on so many trips. and the supreme court, that did not 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 rivals who had worked for hearst in the 1906 campaign against hughes said at the time that when he became chief justice his public service have cost him 6 million dollars. okay? he gave up so much in terms of time, money, to serve the public. in job after job, which he did so well. now his intellect? his brains?

that was first class brains, that was robert pan warren said that. it was the same with hughes. six years old he goes off to school. he goes out there for a while. and then he comes back. he says i'm not learning that much there. dad, i could learn more here. yes, sun. this is how i'm going to do it. it's a plan of study that is laid out hour by hour, just how is going to do it. he doesn't. home school. a couple years later moves around again. and maybe is going to go back to school. same thing. stays out of school. he's basically home schooled before home schooling was cool. completes his high school that he is on his own. 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 the secretary of state, or governor, whatever, it does not matter, that he's handed a three page memo before he goes into a meeting. he reads it as he is walking, going into the meeting. then a stenographer transcribed what he says. it is off by one word. you see stories like that over, and over, and over again. >> graduated from college at the age of 19. he went on to cornell law school. i'm wondering if there is a sense of him at cornell. >> there is. he taught at cornell law school for two years. he gave up a very lucrative practice in new york under the -- it was supervised by his father in law. it was an order to take a health break at cornell. also to become an academic. he wound up leaving cornell law school because, partly, his father in law thought that his grandchildren should not be raised in such a remote location.

later in life he said that among his happiest times where his time at the cornell law school and teaching. >> a graduate of columbia, i apologize. i was wrong. important for all the columbia graduates out there. we have a clip of him, we want to show it. so that you can get a sense of his oratorical style. it's not the period. but he was considered a great oratory. let's listen to what he sounded like. >> bigotry, racial animosities, intolerance, are the deadly enemies of true democracy. there can be no friendly cooperation. if they exist. they are enemies, more dangerous and then any external force. they undermine the very foundation of our democratic efforts. >> we are going back to telephone calls. let's listen to a call from

boston, it's frederik. you're on the air. >> hi, i would like to ask a question about where shoes was born. and also did he come from a family of money? if he did, where was the family, where do they get it? >> born in 1862, glen falls, new york. what do you know about his family? >> his father was a baptist. this was a very important. his family was not affluent. he grew up in fairly humble circumstances. he was quite influenced by the popped his arm, but the baptist background he enjoyed growing up in the family. in fact his father had really hoped he would be a religious man himself. ultimately he was disappointed that he decided to go into law instead of religion. his background did influence his jurist prudence later on. he was quite favorable to religious liberty. several opinions that upheld a

very strong view of free exercise of religion under the first amendment. >> indiana, up next, it's daniel. your own, welcome. >> thank you, i'm glad you let us get in on the conversation. i have a question about if mr. hughes, would he have been elected president, at the federal reserve would have been created under his administration? and if it hadn't been, where would we be today. >> with the federal reserve, would it be created under charles evans hughes? >> it would not, it already existed. >> there you go. >> on to the next question. from south bend, indiana. it's frank. >> yes, wilson ran on a platform where he kept us out of war. in july of 1916, there was a tremendous expression and new york harbor. it was called black tom's island. after the war the court ruled the german agents had caused

the explosion in nine teen 17, the german government paid for it. i wondered if you could comment on the role of the wilson administration in covering up the explosion and its effect on the election, and i'll hang up on the tv. >> that was a massive explosion of the ship. it actually damaged part of the statue of liberty. a shattered windows as far as 42nd street. the wilson administration did downplay it because it was trying to keep us out of the war at the point. now it was very difficult for hughes that year. he is fighting to 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 well in more times. there is a great prosperity. he's fighting that. and he's also fighting the fact that we are really at peace. the troubles which occurred after the sinking of the lusitania are the german government coming to its senses momentarily. and it ends its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. it's not until after the election that a resumes that. there is tremendous sabotage coming on in the country. there's funding of pro german groups one of the problems that wilson has during the war, during the election, is they bring up a meeting he had with four pro german people. one of them was a man called jeremy o'leary. this was one of the issues regarding the 1916 campaign. why there would be anti english sentiment wouldn't be among the irish population, the irish was

not just 400 years of ill feelings, it was that they were still under the british flag at that point. they wanted independence. hughes is facing all of these problems. the question is what is he going to do about them? the troubles arise after that election. particularly in regards to simmer men. it's unveiled or germany is plotting, trying to entice mexico into attacking us. >> before we leave this section on uses personal, i would like to talk about his spouse. carter, can you tell us about how they met? do you know that? >> i don't. >> i'll tell you a little bit. he was the daughter of a senior partner at a law form. let's listen to a current day senior partner at that same law firm talking about internet carter. we'll talk more about the marriage. >> another thing we want@dto hair light is the importance of

misuse and justice uses light. we selected for that reason a wedding invitation, their wedding invitation. it photograph a two of them and their prime. mrs. hughes was the daughter of walter carter who was a senior partner in the hues law firm. as one would have it, justice hughes met misuse at an office holiday party where she was there with her father. she was a very educated woman and influential in his life. he also had three daughters who together with misuse, we believe, had great effect 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 and politics. what about these two as a political couple? >> getting back to their marriage, their courtship is very slow. they meet a few times.

it's like every few months or something. because she is the bosses daughter, she will not go near her. people say he married the bosses daughter, it's a distortion of what happened. it's only until he is partners, full partners with carter, that the courtship really begins. but she is -- particularly if you read about the retirement together, how close a couple they are, they are very deeply in love. and she is the first spouse which, in a full fledged campaign mode, goes around the country on the train with him in 1916 leg a proto-eleanor roosevelt going in the minds. stuff which really wasn't done then. >> and other cult, this is from fort worth. it's a jack. >> my question pertains to charles evans hues perspective

on racism that was prevalent within the u.s. at the time. >> his perspective on racism? >> he was pretty progressive on race. his first term as associate justice he actually wrote in an opinion that it wasn't valid for railroads to fail to create first-class accommodations for african american passengers, even if they did not have enough passengers to fill those accommodations. 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 undermine the separate but equal doctrine, paving the way for brown versus board of education. >> from across, wisconsin, this is mike. >> at it a question that's off the beaten path. it pertains to the two parties.

the institution of the personal income tax. which party was against it? 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 labor the camera. when they do that they need to make up the revenue somewhere. they passed the 16th amendment. that folds in to the income tax. i would say on the whole that because the republicans are the tariff party, the democrats are in favor of the income tax more than republicans. because of hughes specifically, he is opposed to the income tax. why? because he says he reads it,

he's a lawyer, he's always a lawyer, always reading every word. no matter where the 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 other municipalities and states, destroying the balance of federalism. he imposes the 16th amendment. it was very narrow grounds. i think that new york state, as a whole, rejects the amendment and the ratification process. >> baltimore, it's joseph. you're on the air. >> hi, good evening. in light of the television programs as weak, and prohibition, how was he? did he have attitudes on that ugly affair? >> he's talking about the pbs here is on the prohibition this week. >> neither he nor wilson would

be regarded as dries. he started to take a sip during the insurance investigation to steady his nerves. people said he was a human icicle. he was bloodless, cumulus, all this. he was high strong. he started taking a drink than. he was never a big drinker. there is a story told at the havana conference of the latin american nations around 1824. he's the secretary of state, whether he'll serve boots or not. he sets it out there. he walks over, takes the first one. he is not a prohibitionist. really none of the great national leaders we can think of really are with any enthusiasm. >> it's time for us to dive now into more of his supreme court years. at this point we will say goodbye for now to david, we'll see later on. and it will do a deep dive into the supreme court years.

to begin the discussion we will show you some film up president franklin roosevelt in 1937. his take on what is commonly known as the court packing plan. after that you will see a card chief justice roberts talking about his perspectives on his role during this episode. first as we begin, and israel from the time introducing us to each other members of the supreme court in 1937. >> it's a justice george sutherland born in england, 75 years ago. immigrant to the u.s. he became senator for utah. >> a minnesota, seven to one, only catholic. democratic authority of president harding. villas vendor vent from wyoming, 78, senior justice. 26 years on the bench. >> james the granite from tennessee, 75, the lone bachelor.

he has voted against every new deal amendment. only three justice are pleasing to new deal liberals. descended of the jewish rabbi who appreciated george washington's inauguration. harlan of new york, 64. former dean of columbia university law school. the oldest justice, from kentucky. a distinguished jewish ancestor. oppose as a crusading liberal in 1912, he was appointed attorney general. but then to the court. holding the balance of power or two justices, roberts at 61, the youngest. long conservative but since

life began liberal and several conclusions. and charles evans hues, 75, the chief justice since 1930. sometimes conservatives, sometimes liberal. >> president roosevelt goes on the air in a bid for popular support for his plan to reorganize the federal judiciary. newsreel cameras recorded his fireside chat, his second such appeal in six days. he tells the people that his plan would protect him from power used from the supreme court. >> those reports in the plane have sought to eyebrows prestigious and appear by crying i am seeking to pack the supreme court, that a bane for president will be established. what did they mean by the words packing the supreme court? then we answer this question with a bluntness that will and

all honest misunderstanding of my purpose. if by that praise packing the court is charged i wish to place on the bench spine lists people who would disregard the law, that deciding specific cases i wish them to be decided, i make this answer -- no president fit for his office would appoint, no senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm, that kind of appointee to the supreme court of the united states. we want a supreme court which will do justice 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 serious threat. it was proposed by an immensely popular president with huge

majorities in both houses of congress, and targeted a very unpopular court as fdr put it, quote, the people are with me. he was proceeded cautiously but with determination. his letter to the judiciary committee demolish fdr's efficiency comments. the contention that large number of denials show the court was not keeping up with work. echoing john marshals views on how court should function. he is explained that adding more justices would make the court for less efficient as he put it in his letter, quote, there would be more judges to hear, more judges to confer, more judges to discuss, more judges to be convinced, and to decide. houston chose not to directly criticize roosevelt plan to change the courts prudence, but to expose the effort for what it was by refuting the

efficiency of window dressing. it worked. >> that was perspectives from the time, it also contemporary perspectives on the fdr era and the court packing part of history that we've learned so much about as we grew up in the country. we're going to learn more about it in the guise of the biography of charles evans hughes, 1916 republican nominee for president. he felt in the bid. but very narrowly against woodrow wilson. we are learning more about his contributions to society we are joined by a new guest at the set right here outside of the beautiful october night, in front of the supreme court building, paul d. clement, who served as u.s. solicitor general. thank you for being with us. >> great to be here and bernadette a. meyler is with us throughout the program. a professor cornell law school. glad to have you. i'm going to ask us to start. we said he had two terms on the court.

1910 appointed as associate justice, at the time the youngest. 1930, president hoover reappointed him as cheap. what was the difference in him as a justice on the court during the 20 year period? did you come back as a different person? >> i think he did. obviously he had some incredible experiences in the interim. from the failed presidential run, but also served as secretary of state, service on the world court in the hague. he comes to the job as chief justice as somebody who had many more experiences, considerable executive branch experience, all of which influences him as a justice. >> can you tell us a bit about the court in 1930? >> yes, the court in 1930 was much less conservative, actually, then it became in 1935, 1936. around 1931 hughes joined, for

the years there were following it, the court didn't really strike down that much economic and legislation. it upheld state legislature in particular. towards the middle of the decade it shifted a bit in its decision-making to the right. >> as a leader, as a cheap, in the early days, what was he like? >> i think he was somebody who took to the administrative parts of the chief justice job right away. that makes sense. sometimes you have people, certainly in the modern era, becoming chief justice who mostly served in judicial capacities. here's somebody who ran the state of new york. he is a great administrator. he took those aspects of the job immediately. i think that he took to the other aspects of the job, hitting the ground running. after all, he had been associate justice. it's only the second time in the nation's history up to this

point where somebody who has been associate justice goes on to serve as chief justice. in many respects he's the ideal chief justice. he hits the ground running. >> at that point, was he a broker of opinions? was he a reliable vote on one side or the other? >> from the beginning he was somebody who was harder to typecast than the other justices on the court. he was coming into a court that, as you point out, was not as bitterly divided as it became. it was still a divided court. from its first days on the court, he was essentially near the center. >> i want to take up a bowl -- >> this brings up another point. he was load to dissent. he wanted to encourage harmony in the court. he tended to write the most important opinions himself. he altered few dissents. as associate justice and chief justice. he wanted to encourage her many on the court. like marshall had towards the beginning of the republic.

>> let's take a couple calls. will come back and delve deeply into this. from idaho, nick, welcome. >> thanks for taking my call. appreciate it. a great program. was he consider garlic because of decisions that were not on the conservative and, or the liberal one? he tried to find common ground. [inaudible] was he pushed by hughes? it he was follow along? thank you. >> thank you for watching. >> i think the hues was much more of a swing vote then roberts. roberts tended to vote more with the conservative bloc of the court, with the four horsemen. he was intended to be a little bit more on both sides. he assigned himself to more liberal opinions often. some people think it was disingenuous designed to

portray himself as more liberal in orientation than he was. i want to return to one thing you said about his being a got like presents. he was called a jovial presence on the court. that's because of his administrative capacity as paul d. clement has been discussing. he helped conference in an authoritative, authoritarian manner. he would announce his views at first. and then he would have the other justices go around and discuss the case. he held a pretty tight rain over the discussion within conference and over the court in general. >> could we contrast that with what we know about the current chief justice style? >> i think there are certainly similarities, not necessarily in the point of the way the conferences conduct on a day-to-day basis. but i think that justice hughes, in between the time he was justice and chief justice, wrote a book on the supreme court. it was itself a unique thing to

get a window into the supreme court from somebody who's already served as associate justice. he talks about the role of the chief justice in that book, and he talks about the limits on what a chief justice can do. at the end of the day, the chief justice of the united states, but you are only given one vote. you do have to lead in a way that i think is more subtle than the kind of leadership you would have as a governor, or even a secretary of state. he did manage to do a remarkable job, of leading the court. especially in some of the administrative areas, for moving into this building. leading by example in that way. >> since you've referenced it, let's talk about this building, up until then -- the court actually met in the building across the street, the capital building. >> they decided they wanted to have their own building, and that in of itself is something

that is quite symbolically interesting. if you think about the court, until they move into this building, they are in constant contact with the legislature. they are simply usually passing each other in the halls of congress. and there's something important symbolically, to have a separate judicial building that is physically separate from congress across the street. and has a separate presence. there were criticisms, as they're all the time. this public building, as you can see this is an ornate and beautiful building, and i think my recollection is that ultimately came in under budget. which is quite remarkable. nonetheless there was some criticism as to why they needed to build this remarkable temple. >> taft who had been president and became chief justice, said the court needed its own building. he didn't have to see it, and charles evans hughes, you know i heard it was controversial at the time and not the ball all

the justices wanted to come in working here. >> i think that's partially because, you are talking about justices, some are traditionalist's, and it's the depression so it's an expensive you know the optics of moving into this beautiful temple, and to have its own kind of dimension, but i think part of it is just it's a break with tradition. from modern perspectives, it seems like a terrific break in a break that was going to be long overdue. >> the peppermint that we are looking at, actually the architecture included eviction of charles evans hughes in the peppermint. and i think will be able to get a shot of that, so you can see how the architects of this building, depicted him. we will listen to mount joy pennsylvania, this is harry. >> yes hi i used to study at the supreme court, and in 1945, i think there are three major law struck down, by unanimous

supreme court position. that includes the liberals, and from what i understand they made a court court packing speech, and brandeis he was the most one of the most elderly members of court he was 80 years old. and from what i understood, on the case of 1937, was taken before in secret chambers, and in 1936, it's a -- there was a memorandum. >> thank you very much, that color has given us a night nice segue, so set the stage for us please. >> what happened, and i want to get back to this colors question, it's the crux of the scheme. what happened is fdr became

frustrated, with the fact that a lot of the new measures were being struck down by the supreme court. and sometimes by a unanimous court. >> on what grounds? >> on the grounds first of all, of exceeding congress is powers under the commerce clause. the commerce clause is quite relevant today, it is the source for passage of obama's health care plan, and it's also this has led to a lot of legislation that is passed right now. so under the new deal, the court basically was not as expensive and it is rotation to show what the commerce power could do, for congress. and it's the thought that the states autonomy was being infringed upon, by congressional announcements. so, a new court or the hughes

court, had been striking it down a lot of new legislation, and fdr in frustration, after his reelection, basically propose this plan whereby, the court's membership would be decreased, if justices did not retire in a timely fashion. so under his plan, there would've been up to six new justices placed upon the court. but this gets into the question, that was the colorado, whether justice roberts, who is the person who could change his vote, if he had changed this vote before this court packing scheme was decided or not. and once roosevelt won the election, the court felt that there will be a lot of pressure, to uphold and sustain new deal legislation, and that it could no longer be striking down as many clause. so one argument is just that, the court having seen itself is

almost irrelevant, or wasn't the real catalyst, and so roberts felt he had to change his votes, because of roosevelt's reelection. >> give us a sense of how, how engage the country was in this. was this hugely controversial? or was this a washington story? >> this is definitely not a washington story, and it helps to understand the stage completely, which is you know think about fdr at this point, he is he has just been reelected for a second term, he is dealing with the great depression, and this is really the great depression never mind recession, and he's trying to deal with it innovatively, and he's trying to pass legislation and is being struck down by the court. and he's in a second term. by the time he's in his fourth term, he would've appointed more supreme court justices more than any other president. but at this point he's like jimmy carter, he has been a

full term president, and he has not put anybody on the court. he is frustrated with the court. he is frustrated with the fact that they are striking down his legislation, and he said the view that they are really out of touch with the whole country, and that is 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 is doing and the age of some of the justices, all that boils over into the court packing plan. i think it is very interesting to debate whether as you said the plan is necessary, where the that was really what explains the courts change in approach. in some of these important areas. i think it's fair to say, it's a bit of a black eye to fdr's historic legacy, that he let his frustrations boil over, and made this clause. >> let's take a call from salem oregon. this is. kirk >> yes good afternoon, it's still afternoon here. i appreciate you're taking my

call, i have a question i presume for professor miller. i'm curious to know what you might know regarding, the personal relationship tie in, between justice hughes, and the william sort family from auburn new york. and soared was lincoln's secretary of state. and part of the reason i'm calling, back in the era, just as shoots as he was indicating, the anti racist community where the republicans. and that seems to have switched around the time of woodrow wilson's presidency. when he embraced dubois. i'd like to know you know that all that. >> that's a great question, i'm not as familiar with that relationship that he had but

there is an interesting story about hughes, he invited booker ty washington to an event, which was somewhat a controversial invitation. and hughes retained a uniform position on race, for throughout his career, where he was in favor of at least greater equality. i don't know to what extent, full quality or you know against the backdrop, of this change that you are pointing out. were previously republicans had been, much more in favor in favor of racial equality. then the democrats took them on. >> returning to the court packing plan. >> i think he was involved, and as chief justice roberts pointed out, there was his famous comment from the court

itself to congress, and that was something that justice brandeis was in favor of, and suggested. and the chief justice was very direct in the same kind of i think skill set that he brought to bear on investigating the gas companies back in the day. he was good with numbers, he used the numbers and he looked at the courts information in the caseload, and as chief justice roberts indicated, he took apart a neutral case, for what fdr was proposing, and laid bare the most obvious -- for the court play. >> the chief justice, i don't know whether this was a practice back in the day, but chief justice hughes, and it's become the practice that basically every year, there is essentially a state of the judiciary letter, the chief

justice sense over to congress. and sometimes it could be important, a number of years both chief justice rehnquist, and roberts made a point of explaining they were less than happy in the state of the judicial pay. so there are these issues among the branches, but i think that probably the way that chief justice hughes handled the court packing scheme, took court packing off the table, as a realistic option going forward. and i think that's one of his great compete deep contributions. >> i fully agree with paul, but i like to add to things, some people do criticize use at the time, for essentially issuing an advisory. because when chief justice roberts referred to the court, and said he had consulted with brandeis about it, so there was something about the court and one part of letter said,

hearing cases in a panel system, would not be constitutional. and that seems like an advisory, that the supreme court -- there is some controversy about that letter. next question from. daniel >> thank you for taking my call. >> it's a follow-up to a cornell professors comment, that owen roberts, prior to the court packing plan, sat more with the four horsemen, who are the conservative wing of the port. and then owen roberts was a part of the switch. but from what i have read, warren roberts would never admit that. do either one of you know why he really did change is voting pattern? >> do you know if he changes

voting pattern after that? >> well the only person that knows for sure, is justice roberts. and he is no longer with us and i think 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 the detail level. but we don't really know for sure and i do think it's fair though that if you look at justice roberts voting patterns that there seems to be a fork in the road and it seems to be a real change that corresponds with the court packing scandal and these three cases that emerged at a critical time. >> he definitely did protests that he wasn't influenced by politics at all but it's hard to believe that and have that on the record. >> we talk that this court opened in 1935, this bill this beautiful building, and you spent a lot of time that courtroom so the courtroom that

he operated in, the chief justice did, is it the same today? >> there are a couple of minor differences, the chief of the benches change from time to time, but it is remarkably similar to the courtroom over which he would presided. >> we also have a historic photograph, from the supreme court society, but it was somewhat illicitly taken. it's a photograph of inside the courtroom, while the court is in session, with chief justice hughes presiding, we're going to show you that as well. but you can see the court in session, you don't see that too often. >> sure don't. >> what we are talking about it, we did not mention his years in between, his service on the court, 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 the oral argument like in his court? >> it's a good point, and it's something that i think is similar to the situation we have now with chief justice roberts. we have somebody in chief justice roberts, who argued nearly 40 cases, before he came on to the bench and chief justice hughes, had him because he had at least 50 arguments. in his private practice. a lucrative private practice, and that's part of the point that was made and the sacrifices that he made for public service. but he comes to court, as somebody who not only has appreciation for the job of the court, because he has previously served as a justice, but he has an understanding of the role council as well. and i think he is somebody who, was certainly willing to ask questions of council, but also he had no real appreciation, and that council had prepared for the argument, and he was also ready and willing to

listen. >> pittsburgh this is tim, welcome to our conversation tim. >> yes thank you, i have a question for your guests, about the circumstances with hughes ascending to the courts as chief justice 1930s, and i don't know if the story is true certain if you're guest can confirm it. but the conventional wisdom after tariffs it died, is it charles evan hughes, did not agree to serve as chief justice. but in doing so would mean that his son would have to resign as solicitor general. and then everybody was surprised when senior decided to take the job, and his son had to resign. >> well apparently you know some of the history of your predecessors, so what can you tell us. >> i have heard the story, i do not know whether it's true. i've heard different versions of the story. and so you may have perspective,

as to the truth of it. i will say this low, which is to say i think if somebody you know if the president really thought that charles evan hughes would not take the job, i was not interested in being chief justice it seems like a naive assumption, because hughes had an interest in the chief justice job, going way back. when he was first put on the court as an associate justice, there's a letter to this effect, that he may be elevated, very early. when there was an opening at that point. and he was, he was passed over. and president taft is the one who passed him over, but there's some suspicion that president taft, might have had an eye on the chief justice job, and so it was more favourably disposed to justice white physician, rather than a young

robust just issues. i heard the story, it had to be a difficult moment around the family dinner table, since there is no question, that chief justice hughes accepting the job, meant that his son would have to give up the assistant general job. which was plum job. but i think it was naive to think he turned it down. >> some people did think so at the time, but they were possibly misled. and just one more addendum about the fact that he may have had aspirations for the chief justice ship earlier. there was some question he may be appointed as a chief justice, when he was first appointed to the court, but him being passed over for chief justice, i think it was more the reason why he was willing to accept the presidential nomination or not. >> okay this is mark from ohio. >> i wanna talk about, these

people are older and feels are attached to the american people. how did you deal with groups like the kkk in places like that. and all these other things we have in this country. we all would we ought to be able to to vote the man, and be a bit more fair. and it would be more a part of the country, than that.

>> he talks about supreme court justice is not knowing about the rest of us in society. being out of touch. >> i think this is part of what motivated fdr's core packing plan. it's at those other justices had antiquated notions about the economy and society, and they were two out of touch. so i think that's why, all the justices took offense at that. >> i think that's right, and there have been ideas that maybe we need retirement age, maybe we need term limits, maybe we need some way where we are making the justices more responsive or either limiting the length in which they serve, but it's interesting these are topics that then attorney hughes addresses in his book, and he talks about the various pros and cons and certainly says that there are going to be difficulties, if justice is stay on longer than maybe they should.

but he concludes at the end of the day, the current system we have is the best system we could have. especially when it comes to things like people's individual rights that is a virtue not device, that the justices are removed from someone from everyday politics. >> there are west conferences and conference rooms here, they're used for events in their portraits of each of the chief justices who have served, we're going to show you a portrait of charles evans hughes inside. and as we look at that, i would like you to talk about the most significant opinions he offered. >> he did author many opinions and, one opinion that is significant i think and is under under discussed, is bailey in alabama. this is an opinion that he issued early on. and he was an associate justice.

and it involved striking down -- a law even a slavery had been abolished, it wasn't clear whether there could be labor required in response to debt, or compensation of debt. so he struck down this law, that had allowed for peanuts. and said it was not relevant, and he said that no one should be subjected to this labor for debt. and he had a lot of important as chief justice and among them were decisions on both sides of the spectrum in terms of striking down economic legislator and one piece i think was crucial because it sing donald his willingness to

understand the flexibility of the economics legislation early on. this is a time that they talked about it was time for repayment of mortgage was extended. and they claimed this violated the states responsibility, to impair the limits of a contract. and what chief justice hughes said in this case was, basically that contracts have to be understood, within the context of the public interest. one of the seems he kept coming back to, was a 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? >> those are great opinions to highlight, i think the great thing is he was chief justice for a number of years and he

certainly wrote more than his fair share of opinions. but you know i mention a couple opinions, most obviously the west coast hotel, and the law flynn steel cases, were the ones that essentially are pivot points for the switch in times. those are important opinions, but i also think that there are some civil liberties opinions that he wrote that was one of the first important amendment cases, but now it's part it's hard to imagine this supreme court of the united states that the first amendment. that was one of the real building blocks for a free speech, and jurisprudence. and there's another case that recognizes the freedom of assembly, and problems with laws that try to target people for being members of unpopular

groups. los angeles is our next caller and lawn is on the air. >> i would like to ask your panelist, fdr being part of the new york elite, both were governors, one took the path of the highest elected office in the land, the other one took a judicial route, we kind of report was there between them. and i was just wondering that behind closed doors, if there's any evidence of you know was fdr regarded regarded as a traitor to his class. so is their point, at which hughes realized, that even though he was elected governor

that he realized from his aristocratic background, he could not aspire, to running for president. even if he wanted to be president. so we had the last viceroy of india, you know because he came from that class he had no hope of elected office. >> okay thanks, the relationship between fdr, that he had can you talk about. that >> he used and if you are, were you get on several occasions. and there was an amity between them. but i think there is tensions over the relationship between the court and the president at the time didn't really lead to an amicable friendship between the two men. but hughes himself was somewhat reserved within d.c..

him and his wife would only entertain, or agree to attend dinner parties on saturday nights, because he felt it would contravene his austere mode of preparing for his judicial practice. if you have iffy actually went out every other every anytime any other time. so he wasn't really on the washington seen as much as imagined. >> it wasn't from quite the same aristocratic roots as roosevelt. his upbringing was exceptional, from an education standpoint, i think both of his parents were really remarkable individuals, but i don't not think it was the youth of great luxury or wealth. i think most of the wealth that he accomplished over his career, accumulated and was through his own law practice and endeavors. i think there were differences personality wise, background wise. >> next call is from stockton

california carroll go ahead please. >> hide stockton, and my question is supreme court justice hughes, was he still the chief justice 1948? or did he retire before his death in 1948. thank you very much you jumped into the last part of his life which will spend more time on. so >> he stepped down when he still had a few years left, and i think that is something that was probably not unintentional. he had this time in the court, and he had seen some justices get to the end of their time, and have difficulty on issues when they should leave, but when he first came to the court, there was justice owens, and when he came back even in the chief justice had been away for 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 colleague on the court, decided that it's time for justice holmes to move on. i think that was one most difficult things that he probably 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 that justice homes had to deal with. >> what was his relationship like with -- . >> he had a quite remarkable a very good relationship with brandeis actually. you know for brandeis to sign on to this letter, or agree to support this letter, and against the court packing, and i think that brandeis jumped into a lot of student philosophy, and was much more liberal. i think at the same time this goes back to a scene that would come upon a lot. which is his formidable

intellect, and to reason for cases, it was admired by all the other justices. >> so you've decide his formidable intellect, but for you if you could time travel, would you 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 four horsemen in particular, had difficult personalities, from the bench. i'm not sure will be all roses, but i do think it would be a remarkable experience. but you're talking not just about the opportunity but also just just brandeis, just discard over, there was intellects across that court. >> so today there are about 8000 petitions to have cases heard. they hear one out of 100, or 70 or 80 cases a year. what was core what was the caseload like then. >> there wasn't that many more

cases they were hearing then, but the request was much lower. there was something like no one maybe there was something like 800 or 9800 900 politicians to fight the previous year. that was one of his grounds for complaint against the court, because they don't have enough energy to hear more cases. so we have a must we have a much greater disproportion, between the number of cases where there are petitions and a number granted. >> i think they were typically more constrained. i think the early days of the court, it all sometimes the arguments would go on for days, but with chief justice hughes, the arguments were more limited. and to follow up on a very good point that was made, i think one of the stories of the supreme court as it's developed a history, it's more and more discretionary. and at the time, chief justice hughes was on the court, one of the things he did was he moved

to court more in the direction, and had a greater expression over what course which cases to take. and that was a source of at least potential controversy. but by today standards it seems quaint because the court only here's one in 100 cases. >> we have half hour to go, this week we are featuring charles evans hughes. and it was a close election he had against woodrow wilson. who is vying for his second term. and then charles evidence hughes, went on to serve as chief justice. his second term on the supreme court. and he was very much at the center of things during the fdr 's court packing scheme. so we have a question from anytime you say you're on the air. >> i love you show i try to

catch every friday night, my question is justice hughes sounded like a man who is for progression, and i heard you know i actually was curious, what do you think about them being on the court, now and what he would think about what's going on with a court today. >> so i think it's an interesting question, about his attitude towards women to. we heard earlier, but he was in favor of women female suffrage. ahead of other people. and i think that his view on women with somewhat ambiguous. as governor of new york, he was an advocate for a lot more progressive legislation than he was later. so some people said he had to turn more towards the right later. but amongst that kind of legislation he was interested in that point, was to protect women and children laborers. some opposed those kind of

measures, because they thought they were paternalistic. and even his later time on the court and as chief justice, he in a sense, used paternalistic logic on how to protect women against welfare practices. and that women need special protection. so on one hand he was in favor of allowing women more autonomy but on the other hand he also had somewhat ape but journalistic side. >> call from columbia. >> hello and thank you for a wonderful program. i would like to know the opinion from your panelists as to what made charles evans hughes, my make of what's going on in wall street right now. >> well can you project? >> well, everybody's got their own perspective on and what's

going on wall street right now. but i think he was in some respects, some of the early reformers. and if you think about the trajectory of his career, he did not seek out public service, for sort of its own sake, and something that he wanted in electric office and elective office, he came through the service through an opportunity to 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 was consistent with the idea that he wasn't the world's best back slapper, or knew how to build alliances with people, because he was focused on getting rid of corruption, and not caring if that meant that a few sacred cows got slaughtered in the process. >> you mentioned he was one of the first controversial appointments as the chief justice, and i read that one of the that both sides were concerned he was going to be to

pro business. >> yes it's an interesting and somewhat paradoxical can's concern, given both his earlier term on the court, and his time is governor. and so i think he was very reform minded. and i think that was combined with that forward minded miss with the internationalism. and people were concerned that his time as a private attorney, and for private practice, had let him into pro business alliances, that would make him indisposed to regulate companies. 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 given in his earlier career. >> we have a call from toledo, and we have a clip after that. so to lead out here on the air. >> oh you thank you for taking

my call. this question maybe, most probably directed to professor comment. and sir, how do you feel mr. hughes would responded to you know like the medieval to dictate, international law, as opposed to an elected official, who would use congress to pass particular laws. >> that is a great question, and it's one where i think that the chief justice use, we have a nuanced view, where is not something he would say ok he would be hostile to the international organization, this is somebody who came to the chief justice chip after serving on the international court in the hague, so he is been an internationalist if you

will and in his writings he has been less critical of the idea, that international law is our lock. in fact he specifically said, international law is our law, but on the other hand he would say our elected officials have the ultimate say. and he would have a few and a wide scope to breaks international law principles, because if congress want to say that certain principles did not apply to united states, and that would be the last word. >> so i think it's exactly right, and i think it's he says it congress has a word for it, but i also think he was out of his time in promoting u.s. involvement in the court of international justice. not only a judge on that court.

>> we have had a few colors, have asked about charles evans hues and race, and we are going to return to his law form, law firm which is still existing in new york city. and this is a short story we're tells his autobiography. >> in the conference center, we try to reflect things about justice uses life. we've collected number of things, including original books that just as he used authored. and his biography autobiography, which we found step exceptionally interesting. my favorite story in here, is one justice hughes tells a visit that he scheduled, when he was the president of the adoptive society in new york city. he asked booker ty washington, the civil rights activists at the time, to come and speak to the assembly. and when deputy washington and

his wife arrive, he escorted his wife and himself to his table. with that time was a very controversial thing to do. and justice hughes took advantage of that, to speak to the assembly about diversity and tolerance. he was disappointed that a group of religious people, would themselves be intolerant. to have booker ty washington at this table. >> we have 22 minutes left to go, and into our look of charles evans hughes. the man who shot for the presidency and lost. and we've brought back one of our first guests. who is joining us still on the plans of the supreme court. and david one aspect of his life, we have not spent any time on and we should. is his term with the secretary of state, and this criminal post world war one years. would you tell us about what contributions he made in that role? >> yes absolutely, he is regarded not only as one of the

great chief justices, he is regarded as one of the great secretary of state's, and he's regarded as one of the top three, john quincy adams, secretary stewart, and himself. what he does is he inherits a great mess, because of the failure of the league of nations, and talking about international affairs and international law, he was for the league of nations, he was for the united states of america, and he ended the league but he was not about to see sovereignty to the league of nations. particularly opposed to article ten of the league of nations, which basically says the united states will go to war, if the league decides is going to expand boundaries. so he was opposed to that. he thought that it could be fixed, he planned to submit a clean bill that treaty which could get through the senate. and when he became secretary of

state. but unfortunately that was impossible. warren harding sought a bit earlier than he did. but hughes realize the truth of that, that it was a fools errand to go back, and the senate was not going to approve that. but he was on that he stays and he thought about resigning, and he has really pioneered and international disarmament, in a ground breaking navy treaty that captures the ratio of 10:10 and six, for the united states, yet kingdom and japan, and he scraps a lot of battleships. and this is a good deal for the united states, because our congress we were not about to spend the money on military and we lost ground to japan in that decade but in the far east, he gets japan and gets them to give the province of -- back to china. and it's a thing which people would not believe but going

into that decade the united kingdom and britain, it was united in treaty meaning, if they were attacked or the other party was attacked, they would go to war. and there was a fear actually in the united states, that if we got embroiled in controversy with japan, we might have to go to war with britain on that. he broke he wrote that treaty very smoothly. but one thing he was not successful in, with the immigration treaty with japan. which was in 1924. and it was the japanese exclusion act. he tried hard to get that ameliorated. he was not able to do it. it was a great problem to him the senate in foreign affairs, it would be a toss-up between that and france. >> next call, their free guest and this is charlie hater earlier on the air? >> a wonderful series, and

thank goodness for c-span. >> there were two people on the republican side in the election that ran against use. i have heard that there was another person, if there was not a peep person in the nominee they would've beaten wilson. >> am i supposed to take that one? >> yes. >> well if i am the contenders that year, were fair banks, who was a vice president under roosevelt theodore roosevelt. there was ella hue -- and they were conservative. i was be hesitant to save any of those would've run a better race than hughes, and i think really the deck was kind of set and it was so close you change anyone thing >> if you change anyone thing. perhaps you did not have the railroad strike which impacted

the voting in ohio, you just don't know. but i don't know if you could say it was anyone stronger candidate if he had been the candidate. if he had been so strong, he would've won the nomination. >> for all three of our guests, and we're going to go one of the time and between calls. it's time for us to wrap this conversation up and think about charles evan hughes is legacy. how the world may have been different if he had been here, what our country may have been like if he had not served. i'm going to take a call and then i'm going to start with you. i'll give you little chance to think that. puerto rico, this is gerald. >> yes, good evening. i would like to ask the panelists to please explain why the hughes court decided to disregard the judicial precedents, specifically the ruling in schachter and carter, in order to recognize for the first time a fundamental right to organize unions and the case of national labor relations

versus jones and steel corporation. >> could you answer that? >> harmonize just a few judicial reasoning's. >> thank you very much. >> i will give it a try. i do think there's a way to reconcile those opinions because another color pointed this out earlier. it's easy to think about these decisions on both sides of the famous switching time as being five and four one-way. all of a sudden they are five and for the other. but the story is much more complicated than that. inspector poultry, it was a unanimous decision. every member of the court said that there was something wrong with the statute at issue there. schachter poultry is still on the books as a precedent. it leaves lawyers kind of scratching their head. it's the birth of what is called the non-delegation doctrine. from time to time, lawyers try covid cases into the non-delegation doctrine with checker poultry stall in the books. that really is a different doctrine then was it issue when

the wagner act, the nra comes before the court. what i think is really precedent setting and as break from the prior decision in that decision is really that court in the previous decisions had distinguished commerce from production or other cases of economic activity. it's something that really bedeviled the court. these were really difficult distinctions to draw if you look at that three 1937 commerce cloths chris prudence it is this categorical approach which required some very thin and difficult distinctions. so i do think that in that sense, those decisions were not so satisfying that they were decisions that were not that easy. i think the court essentially ultimately became persuaded that that way of looking at the congress clause just would not work. >> all right, first shot at the legacy question goes to

bernadette meyler. >> i think the most important part of tuesday's legacy relates to what we were just talking about. that is that basically the hughes court wound up creating the modern commerce power or allowing congress power to be construed broadly. so much of the regulatory system that we are under right now, or that we can enjoy, really derives from congress is power under the commerce clause i think that's one of the things that hughes shepherded the court threw a very difficult time and allowed for this outcome to emerge where the congress power could sort of be much more expansive than previously >> back to calls this time philadelphia, charles. hello, charles. >> hi, professor climate i want to thank you for your record of public service. but the question i wanted to ask is about justice hughes attitude toward oral arguments.

then he believed that oral arguments should be like they are today? they are largely focused on questions, or did he have another attitude towards that? >> 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. i think in a sense, we've moved to a different place historically where it now, supreme court argument anyways, has really dominated by the questions. it's funny. at that time, justices and in his book, 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 get to give this is a nice pros tinge shared with the justices. i think he was at the view that it was important for the justices to have an opportunity to have questions. 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, are you there. >> yes. >> the question? >> my question is i would like to know if any of the member of the panel can make a comment about secularism at that time. about the justice view about secularism, separation of church and state. or at that time, the colleagues. >> thanks very much. >> do you want to take that? >> sure. this was a moment in time when the notion of a separation was actually coming into common parlance or becoming much more prevalent. also, the huge court was quite important in terms of religious liberty more generally. so under the hues court, both

the pre-exercise class and the establishment clause of the first amendment were incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. they were held to apply to the state to state action. that allowed for a lot more suits based on violation of religious liberty than had previously occurred. >> david pietrusza, how about you take a crack at charles hughes his legacy? >> i think it is important of how he stopped the court packing scheme. how the regulatory nation of the decisions changed. how he put the help of the republican party back together again. i think his legacy is one of service. a man who time after time leaves his normal state of life to serve his country and does it with remarkable intelligence and integrity. 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 biography that he had felt the constant tug between the legal and political spheres. did you have that same sense of him? >> yes. i think after he left the secretary of state ship, someone said -- of him that he was our first citizen. i think that is such a wonderful thing to say and certainly such a true thing to say about him. but again, he made some amazing sacrifices. amazing sacrifices. when he left the state department, he was able to earn a peak of 400,000 dollars a year. some of the jobs he had prior to that were in the range of 12,000 dollars a year. so part of the fact of his leaving was simply he knew he had to take care of his family. but in between all of 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 19 twenties, which was often in short supply at that time, the man was a powerhouse. he was tireless whether he was in public service officially or not. he was always doing the public's work. >> we have ten minutes left in our program. we have time for just a couple more calls. let me ask this in question of you. legacy. >> i would say there's two aspects of it and i'm obviously approaching it more from the legal perspective. one is already been touched on which is the congress cause jurisprudence. i think what makes that legacy so interesting is that we are still dealing with this issue. chief justice hughes rejected what i would call the categorical approach to the commerce clause, but even he

was very quick to add that the commerce clause was not unlimited and that it was a limited power. the framers had enumerated the various powers in the constitution including the commerce clause, and none of them gave the federal government in absolute disciplinary power. so he laid out the basic framework that we are still wrestling with and we still have this idea that the commerce clause is broad, but it's not unlimited where those limits are is something we continue to struggle with, but that's a real part of his legacy. the other thing that i would really emphasize is the legacy of judicial independence. because i do think that the court packing idea was probably the single greatest challenge to judicial independence, at least in the 20th century, and i think the way that he sort of brought that up, i think, is something -- like i said, i don't think we will ever see another court packing effort and i think it's a great legacy. i will just added 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. one of them was a decision in the 1870s call the legal tender decision. what is interesting about it is it's a case where the court first struck down a statute and then after changing its membership, ended up upholding the statute. and commenting on that, he said it was really the court's fault for the way they handled it. the specific with pointed out that it wasn't president brands fault. he uses the word court packing he says no one could accuse president trans -- grant of packing the court. this was something that was in the back of his mind even before he was a chief justice. he sees this threat to the court, a real threat, and he fence it off and i think that is a great where the legacy. >> south yarmouth, massachusetts. this is greg. >> hello? >> hi, greg. you are on. >> i'm just curious, when does chief justice accuse done being on the court?

>> 1941, greg. >> follow question. >> what's your follow-up question? >> was he chief justice wynne come out to versus komatsu was written? >> no he was not. he was off the court by that point. >> just curious. >> he's off the court by that point >> david pietrusza, let's have you explain about his final years. he resigns from the court in 1941 and lives the next five or six years. he died at the age of 86. what were his final years like? >> he's very old when he goes on the court and very old when he gets off the court. two years before he goes off the court, he gets a real scare it sounds almost like a stroke, but it's an ulcer. when he recovers his help. when he leaves the court in 1941, is actually fairly vigorous. what does happen, however, is he remains -- he does a return to new york. his children are out there.

but he remains in washington d.c.. his marriage was really a very close one and a very wonderful, but at this point he decided that he was going to make up for lost time. time i've been away from my wipe. but she takes ill fairly quickly. i think by the end of the war, she has passed away. 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. it is so painful for him. his health continues fairly strongly until 1948. he goes up, i believe, to cape cod and there he takes his son turn for the worst. he passes away. he had a fear of, i think it was not to be like justice cargo so who had been helpless towards the end of his life. in this his wish was granted his time it was really a matter

of days if not hours. he passed away with all the dignity with which he had lived. we just have about four minutes left. we have a clip -- we talk about the fact that he swore an fdr three times even though they had an epic battle over court packing. we have a clip of him swearing in franklin delay not roosevelt. >> you, franklin delano roosevelt, ... you will faithfully execute the office of president of the united states to the best of your ability. defend the constitution of the united states, so help you god. franklin delano roosevelt do solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of 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. his legacy as chief justice, especially during the court packing era, something we discussed during this edition of the contenders. we have just a couple of minutes left and i would like to go back to where i started, paul. that's to talk about the 1916 election. if he had one that and woodrow wilson had not won a second term, specifically there, how would the world have been different? >> i think that's a very consequential question in the sense 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 let us through the entry into world war i and

move desk forward. so i think he's something that history regards very well. i have to say personally though, understanding the character of person the charles evans hughes was. it's hard to me to think that we would be poorly served even during that critical time by somebody who has done so exceptionally well in so many different ways, and certainly as his later service in secretary of state showed, he's somebody who i think would have been very comfortable in leading us in our foreign affairs. >> david pietrusza, what are your thoughts about that in regards to entreat world war i? >> i think is exit from world war i that he change would've been made because what we are talking about is the peace process. woodrow wilson botches that spectacularly. we see how he handled the treaty making process when he secretary of state. it brings all parties in. he gets the treaties and summits to the senate. past almost overwhelmingly. and what i neglected to mention, in his post chief justice ship,

is he is called in to consult on the structure for the new united nations. with his advanced age, and he strikes on things regarding the structure of the security council. put some things in, and makes it far more workable. it's a very practical he's very practical guy, and i think he is interested in world justice, and rural law. international, from an early point. and if he had proposed a league of nations, there's a good chance it would've been approved by the united states of america. >> other than your own book, and people are interested in hearing more, what's one of the best books on this air that you could recommend. >> certainly on hughes, there's a two volume biography, on him which is a terrific terrific book. and that's the book, if you want to know an awful an awful lot about mr. hughes. >> and there's a book he wrote, there's a collection of six

different lectures, that he gave at columbia university, and it's a unique insight, because here's illuminations 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 at what you know a lawyer really thinks about this. >> and still highly readable? today >> yes highly readable today, and it's fascinating how contemporary a lot of this discussion is. >> last question to you very quickly, is when first year law students come in, and what's the one thing you really want them to know. >> i want them to know about the swish and tie. they might not know what the consequences were. that >> i want to say thank you to our three guests, who are with us tonight and from outside the united states supreme court we appreciate your time with us as we learn more about this period of american history and people who sought the presidency and even though it was not successful

they had an important impact on american history and we're going to close now as we started with some archival footage.

>> next on american history tv, william jewell college professor gary armstrong on the u.s. senate's rejection of the 1919 treaty of versailles to end world war i, which president woodrow wilson spent months overseas negotiating. professor armstrong argues wilson had hoped the treaty would evolve the u.s. into a leading position in the global order, but the political divisions created by a flu pandemic, a red scare, racial unrest, and wilson suffering a stroke contributed to his failure to achieve ratification. the national world war i museum in kansas city, missouri posted this event and provided the video. >> our guest speaker teaches american foreign policy in washington, d.c. he is a professor of political science and liberty missouri. he graduated with a ac