Charles Evans Hughes: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Evans Hughes Sr.

In office
February 13, 1930[1] – June 30, 1941
Nominated by Herbert Hoover
Preceded by William Howard Taft
Succeeded by Harlan Fiske Stone

In office
March 5, 1921 – March 4, 1925
President Warren G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Preceded by Bainbridge Colby
Succeeded by Frank B. Kellogg

In office
October 10, 1910 – June 10, 1916
Nominated by William Howard Taft
Preceded by David Josiah Brewer
Succeeded by John Hessin Clarke

In office
January 1, 1907 – October 6, 1910
Lieutenant Lewis Chanler (1907–1909)
Horace White (1909–1910)
Preceded by Frank W. Higgins
Succeeded by Horace White

Born April 11, 1862(1862-04-11)
Glens Falls, New York, U.S.
Died August 27, 1948 (aged 86)
Osterville, Massachusetts, U.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Antoinette Carter Hughes
Alma mater Madison University,
Brown University,
Columbia University
Profession Politician, Lawyer, Professor, Judge.
Religion Baptist

Charles Evans Hughes Sr. (April 11, 1862 – August 27, 1948) was a lawyer and Republican politician from the State of New York. He served as the 36th Governor of New York (1907-1910), United States Secretary of State (1921-1925), Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1910-1916) and Chief Justice of the United States (1930-1941). He was the Republican candidate in the 1916 U.S. Presidential election, losing to Woodrow Wilson.

After attending Madison College (now Colgate University), Hughes graduated from Brown University, Phi Beta Kappa in 1881 [2] and taught school to earn money for law school. He graduated from Columbia Law School in 1884 and entered law practice. A high-profile case in which he uncovered corruption in the New York State utility industry positioned him to win elected office in 1906; he defeated William Randolph Hearst to become Governor of New York. Hughes was offered the vice-presidential nomination in 1908 by William Howard Taft but declined. In October 1910, Hughes was appointed by Taft as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Hughes resigned from the Supreme Court on June 16, 1916 to be the Republican candidate for President of the United States in the U.S. presidential election, 1916; after losing the election he returned to the practice of law, and he re-entered government service as United States Secretary of State under President Harding.

Herbert Hoover, who had appointed Hughes' son as the Solicitor General in 1929, appointed Hughes as the Chief Justice of the United States in 1930, in which capacity he served until 1941. On August 27, 1948, Hughes died in Osterville, Massachusetts. His New York City law firm is now known as Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP.


Early life

Charles Evans Hughes, age 16

Hughes was born in Glens Falls, New York. In 1859, his family moved to New York City, where his mother enrolled him in a private school. His great grandfather was a Methodist preacher from Buffalo, who became a Christian following his arrival in Japan, and Charles followed the Christian religion.

Hughes went to Madison University (now Colgate University) where he became a member of Delta Upsilon fraternity, then transferred to Brown University, where he continued as a member of Delta Upsilon and graduated in 1881 at age 19, youngest in his class, receiving second-highest honors. For the next two years he worked at Stevens Institute Academy in Davenport, Florida, where he taught the Japanese language, Latin, and infinitesimal calculus in order to earn money for law school. He entered Columbia Law School in 1882, and he graduated in 1884 with highest honors.

In 1885, he met Antoinette Carter, the daughter of a senior partner of the law firm where he worked, and they were married in 1888. They had one son, Charles Evans Hughes, Jr. and two daughters, one of whom was Elizabeth Hughes Gossett, one of the first humans injected with insulin, and who later served as president of the Supreme Court Historical Society.[3]

In 1891, Hughes left the practice of law to become a professor at the Cornell University Law School, but in 1893 he returned to his old law firm in New York City. At that time, in addition to practicing law he taught at New York Law School with Woodrow Wilson. In 1905, he was appointed as counsel to a New York state legislative committee investigating utility rates. His uncovering of corruption led to lower gas rates in New York City. As a result, he was appointed to investigate the insurance industry in New York

Governor of New York

Governor Charles Evans Hughes

Hughes served as the Governor of New York from 1907 to 1910. He defeated William Randolph Hearst in the 1906 election to gain the position, and he was the only Republican statewide candidate to win office. In 1908, he was offered the vice-presidential nomination by William Howard Taft, but he declined it to run again for Governor.

As Governor, he pushed the passage of the Moreland Act, which gave him the power as governor to oversee civic officials as well as officials in state bureaucracies. This allowed him to fire many corrupt officials. He also managed to have the powers of the state's Public Service Commissions increased, and he attempted unsuccessfully to have their decisions exempted from judicial review. When two bills were passed to reduce railroad fares, Hughes vetoed them on that grounds that the rates should be set by expert commissioners rather than by elected ones. In his final year as the Governor, he had the state comptroller draw up an executive budget. This began a rationalization of state government and eventually it led to an enhancement of executive authority.

When Hughes left office, a prominent journal remarked "One can distinctly see the coming of a New Statism ... [of which] Gov. Hughes has been a leading prophet and exponent".[4]

In 1909, he led an effort to incorporate Delta Upsilon fraternity. This was the first fraternity to incorporate, and he served as its first international president.

In 1926, Hughes was appointed by Governor Alfred E. Smith to be the chairman of a State Reorganization Commission through which Smith's plan to place the Governor as the head of a rationalized state government, was accomplished, bringing to realization what Hughes himself had envisioned.

Supreme Court

In October 1910, Hughes was appointed as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He wrote for the court in Bailey v. Alabama 219 U.S. 219 (1911), which held that involuntary servitude encompassed more than just slavery, and Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Atchison T & SF R Co. 234 U.S. 294 (1914), holding that the Interstate Commerce Commission could regulate intrastate rates if they were significantly intertwined with interstate commerce.

Presidential candidate

Hughes during the 1916 presidential campaign

He resigned from the Supreme Court on June 10, 1916,[5] to be the Republican candidate for President in 1916. He was also endorsed by the Progressive Party[6]. Hughes was defeated by Woodrow Wilson in a close election (separated by 23 electoral votes and 594,188 popular votes). The election hinged on California, where Wilson managed to win by 3,800 votes and its 13 electoral votes and thus Wilson was returned for a second term.

Hughes returned to private law practice, again at his old firm, Hughes, Rounds, Schurman & Dwight, today known as Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP.

Secretary of State

Hughes returned to government office in 1921 as Secretary of State under President Harding. As Secretary of State, in 1921 he convened the Washington Naval Conference for the limitation of naval armament among the Great Powers. He continued in office after Harding died and was succeeded by Coolidge, but resigned after Coolidge was elected to a full term. In 1922, September 23, he signed the Hughes - Peynado agreement, that ended the occupation of Dominican Republic by the United States (since 1916).

Various appointments

In 1907, Gov. Charles Evans Hughes became the first president of newly formed Northern Baptist Convention.

After leaving the State Department, he again rejoined his old partners at the Hughes firm, which included his son and future United States Solicitor General Charles E. Hughes, Jr., and was one of the nation's most sought-after advocates. From 1925 to 1930, for example, Hughes argued over 50 times before the U.S. Supreme Court. From 1926 to 1930, Hughes also served as a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and as a judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague, Netherlands from 1928 to 1930. He was additionally a delegate to the Pan American Conference on Arbitration and Conciliation from 1928 to 1930. He was one of the co-founders in 1927 of the National Conference on Christians and Jews, now known as the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ), along with S. Parkes Cadman and others, to oppose the Ku Klux Klan, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Semitism in the 1920s and 1930s.[7]

In 1928 conservative business interests tried to interest Hughes in the GOP presidential nomination of 1928 instead of Herbert Hoover. Hughes, citing his age, turned down the offer.

Chief Justice

Hughes' residence in 1921

Herbert Hoover, who had appointed Hughes' son as Solicitor General in 1929, appointed Hughes Chief Justice of the United States in 1930, in which capacity he served until 1941. Hughes replaced former President William Howard Taft, a fellow Republican who had also lost a presidential election to Woodrow Wilson (in 1912).

His appointment was opposed by progressive elements in both parties who felt that he was too friendly to big business. Idaho Republican William E. Borah said on the United States Senate floor that confirming Hughes would constitute "placing upon the Court as Chief Justice one whose views are known upon these vital and important questions and whose views, in my opinion, however sincerely entertained, are not which ought to be incorporated in and made a permanent part of our legal and economic system."[8] Nonetheless Hughes was confirmed as Chief Justice with a vote of 52 to 26.

As Chief Justice, he led the fight against Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. He wrote the opinion for the Court in Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931), which held prior restraints against the press are unconstitutional. He was often aligned with Justices Louis Brandeis, Harlan Fiske Stone, and Benjamin Cardozo in finding President Roosevelt's New Deal measures to be Constitutional. Although he wrote the opinion invalidating the National Recovery Administration in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States 295 U.S. 495 (1935), he wrote the opinions for the Court in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U.S. 1 (1937), NLRB v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., 301 U.S. 58 (1937), and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (1937) which looked favorably on New Deal measures.

During Hughes' service as Chief Justice, the Supreme Court moved from its former quarters at the U.S. Capitol to the newly constructed Supreme Court building; the construction of the Supreme Court building had been authorized by Congress during President Taft's service as Chief Justice.

Later life

The grave of Charles Evans Hughes in Woodlawn Cemetery

For many years, he was a member of the Union League Club of New York and served as its president from 1917 to 1919. The Hughes Room in the club is named for him.

On August 27, 1948, Hughes died in Osterville, Massachusetts. He was laid to rest in Woodlawn Cemetery in Bronx, New York.


See also


  1. ^ "Federal Judicial Center: Charles Evans Hughes". 2009-12-12. Retrieved 2009-12-12. 
  2. ^ PBK Supreme Court Justices, accessed Oct 6, 2009
  3. ^ Elizabeth Hughes: Fifty-eight years on animal-insulin
  4. ^ Nation quoted in Samuel Hendel, Charles Evans Hughes and the Supreme Court (New York: King's Crown Press, 1951), 15, quoted at The History Cooperative
  5. ^ Supreme Court of the United States Accessed December 13, 2007.
  6. ^ Eisler, a Justice for All, page 39, ISBN 0-671-76787-9
  7. ^ "National Conference for Community and Justice". Retrieved 2007-12-19. 
  8. ^ Wittes, Benjamin. Confirmation Wars: Preserving Independent Courts in Angry Times (Rowman & Littlefield 2006). page 50

Further reading

  • The Recall of Justice Hughes
  • Abraham, Henry J., Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court. 3d. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). ISBN 0-19-506557-3.
  • Cushman, Clare, The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies,1789-1995 (2nd ed.) (Supreme Court Historical Society), (Congressional Quarterly Books, 2001) ISBN 1568021267; ISBN 9781568021263.
  • Frank, John P., The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions (Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, editors) (Chelsea House Publishers, 1995) ISBN 0791013774, ISBN 978-0791013779.
  • Glad, Betty, Charles Evans Hughes and the illusions of innocence: A study in American diplomacy (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1966).
  • Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. ISBN 0195058356; ISBN 9780195058352.
  • Martin, Fenton S. and Goehlert, Robert U., The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography, (Congressional Quarterly Books, 1990). ISBN 0871875543.
  • Perkins, Dexter, Charles Evans Hughes and American democratic statesmanship (Boston: Little, Brown, 1956).
  • Pusey, Merlo J., Charles Evans Hughes, 2 vol. (New York: Macmillan, 1951).
  • Ross, William G., The Chief Justiceship of Charles Evans Hughes, 1930-1941 (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2007) ISBN 1570036799, ISBN 978-1570036799.
  • Urofsky, Melvin I., The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary (New York: Garland Publishing 1994). 590 pp. ISBN 0815311761; ISBN 978-0815311768.
  • Wesser, Robert F., Charles Evans Hughes: Politics and reform in New York, 1905-1910 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967).

External links

Legal opinions as Chief Justice
Political offices
Preceded by
Frank W. Higgins
Governor of New York
1907 – 1910
Succeeded by
Horace White
Preceded by
Bainbridge Colby
United States Secretary of State
Served under: Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge

March 4, 1921 – March 4, 1925
Succeeded by
Frank B. Kellogg
Legal offices
Preceded by
David Josiah Brewer
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States

October 10, 1910 – June 10, 1916
Succeeded by
John Hessin Clarke
Preceded by
William Howard Taft
Chief Justice of the United States
February 13, 1930 – June 30, 1941
Succeeded by
Harlan Fiske Stone
Party political offices
Preceded by
William Howard Taft
Republican Party presidential candidate
Succeeded by
Warren G. Harding
Non-profit organization positions
Preceded by
Lawson Purdy
President of the National Municipal League
1919 – 1921
Succeeded by
Henry M. Waite
Awards and achievements
Preceded by
Alfonso XIII of Spain
Cover of Time Magazine
29 December 1924
Succeeded by
Juan Belmonte


Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From Wikiquote

When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.

Charles Evans Hughes (April 11, 1862August 27, 1948) was a politician and jurist who served as Governor of New York, United States Secretary of State, Associate Justice and Chief Justice of the United States.



While democracy must have its organizations and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
Our institutions were not devised to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had we might well abandon hope.
I think that it is a fallacy to suppose that helpful cooperation in the future will be assured by the attempted compulsion of an inflexible rule.
  • We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.
    • Speech before the Chamber of Commerce, Elmira, New York (3 May 1907); published in Addresses and Papers of Charles Evans Hughes, Governor of New York, 1906–1908 (1908), p. 139
  • While democracy must have its organizations and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
    • Statement of May 1908, quoted in "Reauthorization of The Civil Rights Division of The United States Department of Justice" (15 May 2003) US House of Representatives
  • No greater mistake can be made than to think that our institutions are fixed or may not be changed for the worse. ... Increasing prosperity tends to breed indifference and to corrupt moral soundness. Glaring inequalities in condition create discontent and strain the democratic relation. The vicious are the willing, and the ignorant are unconscious instruments of political artifice. Selfishness and demagoguery take advantage of liberty. The selfish hand constantly seeks to control government, and every increase of governmental power, even to meet just needs, furnishes opportunity for abuse and stimulates the effort to bend it to improper uses. .. The peril of this Nation is not in any foreign foe! We, the people, are its power, its peril, and its hope!
    • Conditions of Progress in Democratic Government (1909)
  • A man has to live with himself, and he should see to it that he always has good company.
    • As quoted in Ethics and Citizenship (1924) by John Walter Wayland, p. 208
  • When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.
    • Address at Faneuil Hall, Boston, Massachusetts, on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill (17 June 1925)
  • The most ominous spirit of our times, as it seems to me, is the indication of the growth of an intolerent spirit. It is the more dangerous when armed, as it usually is, with sincere conviction. It is a spirit whose wrath must be turned away by the soft answers of a sweet reasonableness. It can be exorcised only by invoking the Genius which watched over our infancy and has guided our development— a good Genius— still potent let us believe — the American spirit of civil and religious liberty. Our institutions were not devised to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had we might well abandon hope. It is important to remember, as has well been said, "the essential characteristic of true liberty is that under its shelter many different types of life and character and opinion and belief can develop unmolested and unobstructed."
    • Speech to the American Bar Association (2 September 1925)
  • The power of administrative bodies to make finding of fact which may be treated as conclusive, if there is evidence both ways, is a power of enormous consequence. An unscrupulous administrator might be tempted to say "Let me find the facts for the people of my country, and I care little who lays down the general principles."
    • "Important Work of Uncle Sam’s Lawyers," American Bar Association Journal, p. 238 (April 1931)
  • We still proclam the old ideals of liberty but we cannot voice them without anxiety in our hearts. The question is no longer one of establishing democratic institutions but of preserving them. ... The arch enemies of society are those who know better but by indirection, misstatement, understatement, and slander, seek to accomplish their concealed purposes or to gain profit of some sort by misleading the public. The antidote for these poisons must be found in the sincere and courageous efforts of those who would preserve their cherished freedom by a wise and responsible use of it. Freedom of expression gives the essential democratic oppurtunity, but self-restraint is the essential civic discipline.
    • As quoted in Charles Evans Hughes (1951) by Merlo J. Pusey, Vol. II, p. 794
  • I think that it is a fallacy to suppose that helpful cooperation in the future will be assured by the attempted compulsion of an inflexible rule. Rather will such cooperation depend upon the fostering of firm friendships springing from an appreciation of community ideals, interests, and purposes, and such friendships are more likely to be promoted by freedom of conference than by the effort to create hard and fast engagements.
  • At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.
  • [Dissents are] appeals to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of another day.
    • As quoted in The HarperCollins Dictionary of American Government and Politics (1992) by Jay M. Shafritz, p. 407

The Pathway of Peace (1923)

Speech to the Canadian Bar Association, Montreal, Ontario (4 September 1923); published in The Pathway of Peace : Representative Addresses Delivered During His Term as as secretary of state (1921-1925) (1925)
The pathway of peace is the longest and most beset with obstacles the human race has to tread; the goal may be distant, but we must press on.
Time has shown how illusory are alliances of great powers so far as the maintenance of peace is concerned. In considering the use of international force to secure peace, we are again brought to the fundamental necessity of common accord.
There is no path to peace except as the will of peoples may open to it. The way of peace is through agreement, not through force.
The only real progress to abiding peace is found in the friendly disposition of peoples and ... facilities for maintaining peace are useful only to the extent that this friendly disposition exists and finds expression.
  • We may gain something in our quest for peace if we recognize at once that war is not an abnormality. In the truest sense, it is not the mere play of brute force. It is the expression of the insistent human will, inflexible in its purpose.
    When we consider the inability to maintain a just peace attests to the failure of civilization itself, we may be less confident of the success of any artificial contrivances to prevent war.
    We must recognize that we are dealing with the very woof and warp of human nature. The war to end war has left its curse of hate, its lasting injuries, its breeding grounds of strife, and to secure an abiding peace appears to be more difficult than ever. There is no advantage to shutting our eyes to the facts; nor should we turn in disgust of panaceas to the counsel of despair. The pathway of peace is the longest and most beset with obstacles the human race has to tread; the goal may be distant, but we must press on.
  • It is not surprising that many should be captivated by the proposal, with its delusive simplicity and adequacey, for the outlawry of war. War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals. The suggestion, however futile in itself, has at least the merit of bringing us to the core of the problem. Even among its sponsors appear at once the qualifications which reflect the old distinction, so elaborately argued by Grotius, between just and unjust wars. "The grounds of war," said he, " are as numerous as those of judicial actions. For where the power of law ceases, there war begins." He found the justifiable causes generally assigned for war to be three — defense, indemnity, and punishment. War is self-help, and the right to make war has been recognized as the corollary of independence, the permitted means by which injured nations protect their territory and maintain their rights. International law leaves aggrieved states who cannot obtain redress for their wrongs by peaceful means to exact it by force. If war is outlawed, other means of redress of injuries must be provided. Moreover, few, if any, intend to outlaw self-defense, a right still accorded to individuals under all systems of law. To meet this difficulty, the usual formula is limited to wars of aggression. But justification for war, as recently demonstrated, is ready at hand for those who desire to make war, and there is rarely a case of admitted aggression, or where on each side the cause is not believed to be just by the peoples who support the war.
    There is a further difficulty that lies deeper. There is no lawgiver for independent States. There is no legislature to impose its will by majority vote, no executive to give effect even to accepted rules. The outlawry of war necessarily implies a self-imposed restraint, and free peoples, jealous of their national safety, of their freedom of opportunity, of the rights and privileges they deem essential to their well-being, will not forego the only sanction at their command in extreme exigencies. The restraints they may be willing to place upon themselves will always be subject to such conditions as will leave them able to afford self-protection by force, and in this freedom there is abundant room for strife sought to be justified by deep-seated convictions of national interests, by long-standing grievances by the apprehension of aggression to be forestalled. The outlawry of war, by appropriate rule of law making war a crime, requires the common accord needed to establish and maintain a rule of international law, the common consent to abandon war; and the suggested remedy thus implies a state of mind in which no cure is needed. As the restraint is self-imposed it will prove to be of avail only while there is a will to peace.
  • Time has shown how illusory are alliances of great powers so far as the maintenance of peace is concerned.
    In considering the use of international force to secure peace, we are again brought to the fundamental necessity of common accord.
    If the feasibility of such a force be conceded for the purpose of maintaining adjudications of legal right, this is only because such an adjudication would proceed upon principles commonly accepted, and thus forming part of international law, and upon the common agreement to respect the decision of an impartial tribunal in the application of such principles. This is a limited field where force is rarely needed and where the sanctions of public opinion and the demands of national honor are generally quite sufficient to bring about acquiescence in judicial awards. But in the field of conflicting national policies, and what are deemed essential interests, when the smoldering fires of old grievances have been fanned into a flame by a passionate sense of immediate injury, or the imagination of peoples is dominated by apprehension of present danger to national safety, or by what is believed to be an assault upon national honor, what force is to control the outbreak? Great powers agreeing among themselves may indeed hold small powers in check. But who will hold great powers in check when great powers disagree?
  • There is no path to peace except as the will of peoples may open to it. The way of peace is through agreement, not through force. The question then is not of any ambitious scheme to prevent war, but simply of the constant effort, which is the highest task of statesmanship in relation to every possible cause of strife, to diminish a people's disposition to resort to force and to find a just and reasonable basis for accord. If the energy, ability, and sagacity equal to that now devoted to preparation for war could be concentrated upon such efforts aided by the urgent demands of an intelligent public opinion, addressed not to impossibilities but to the removal or adjustment of actual differences, we should make a sure approach to our goal.
  • The only real progress to abiding peace is found in the friendly disposition of peoples and ... facilities for maintaining peace are useful only to the extent that this friendly disposition exists and finds expression. War is not only possible, but probable, where mistrust and hatred and desire for revenge are the dominant motives. Our first duty is at home with our own opinion, by education and unceasing effort to bring to naught the mischievous exhortation of chauvinists; our next is to aid in every practicable way in promoting a better feeling among peoples, the healing of wounds, and the just settlement of differences.

Quotes about Hughes

  • Now largely forgotten, Hughes was one of the great political figures of his age, both in America and on the world stage, and was very much the intellectual rival of his opponent in the narrowly lost presidential election of 1916, Woodrow Wilson. Hughes public career was distinguished and wide-ranging. A progressive Republican New York City lawyer catapulted overnight into the public eye by his service on public commissions investigating corruption in the utility and insurance industries, Hughes served as governor of New York from 1907 to 1910, stepping down to accept William Howard Taft's appointment as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite pressures from supporters in the Republican Party, Hughes refused to leave the court to run for president in 1912; in 1916, he declined to seek his party's nomination (or, indeed, even to indicate a willingness to accept it) but having received it, stepped down from the court to take up the race against Wilson.
    • Edward Rhodes, in "Charles Evans Hughes Reconsidered, or: Liberal Isolationism in the New Millennium" in The Real and the Ideal : Essays on International Relations in Honor of Richard H. Ullman (2001)
  • Always a Progressive in outlook, Hughes believed in the organic growth and evolution of polities and political relationships; any effort to freeze conditions would inevitably become a reactionary defense of the rights of the privileged against what might, in some cases, be the reasonable and legitimate demands of the dispossessed and the interests of the community as a whole.
    • Edward Rhodes, in "Charles Evans Hughes Reconsidered, or: Liberal Isolationism in the New Millennium" in The Real and the Ideal : Essays on International Relations in Honor of Richard H. Ullman (2001)
  • I don’t know the man I admire more than Hughes. If ever I have the chance I shall offer him the Chief Justiceship.

External links

Wikipedia has an article about:

Legal opinions as Chief Justice

1911 encyclopedia

Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From LoveToKnow 1911

"CHARLES EVANS HUGHES (1862-), American statesman, was born at Glen Falls, N.Y., April I 1 1862. He graduated from Brown University in 1881. He then studied law at Columbia (LL.B. 1884). He was admitted to the bar in 1884 and for seven years practised in New York City. From 1891 to 1893 he was professor of law at Cornell and then resumed practice in New York City, serving at the same time for several years as lecturer in the New York Law school. In 1905 he was counsel for a commission appointed by the New York Legislature to investigate the cost of gas, and in the same and the following year was counsel for a legislative committee for investigating lifeinsurance companies. This investigation revealed many irregularities in the management of the companies and led to the passage by the Legislature of New York and of other states of remedial legislation. The same year he was nominated by the Republicans for mayor of New York City but declined to run. In 1906 he was elected governor of New York State, defeating William Randolph Hearst, and was reelected in 1908. He resigned in Oct. 1910 after being appointed associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by President Taft. In 1916 he resigned from the Supreme Court on being nominated for the presidency by the Republicans, but was narrowly defeated by President Woodrow Wilson, who had been renominated by the Democrats. Hughes's election was considered assured when the campaign began; but though he " stumped " the country widely he disappointed the people because he took no definite position on any of the specific questions involving the stand of America in the World War and especially as regards the sinking of the " Lusitania." The result of the election was doubtful until a full count had been made, and eventually hinged upon Minnesota and California, normally Republican states. Hughes carried Minnesota by a few hundred votes but lost California by a few thousand. The electoral vote was 276 for Wilson against 2S5 for Hughes. The popular vote was 9,116,000 for Wilson against 8,547,000 for Hughes. The following year he again entered upon the practice of law in New York City. In 1917 he was appointed chairman of the Draft Appeals Board of New York City by Governor Whitman, and the following year was special assistant to the U.S. Attorney-General, in charge of the investigation of alleged waste and delay in the construction of aircraft. He was president of the New York State Bar Association in 1917-8 and of the Legal Aid Society 1917-9. He was opposed to Article X. of the League of Nations Covenant and urged special recognition of the Monroe Doctrine. He was the leader of the New York Bar Assn. in its opposition to the expulsion of the Socialists from the N.Y. State Legislature in 1920. In 1921 he entered the Cabinet of President Harding as Secretary of State. He was one of the four U.S. delegates to the Conference on Limitation of Armament, held in Washington, D.C., Nov. 1921, and was elected permanent chairman (see Washington Conference) .

<< Arthur Hughes

Rupert Hughes >>

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address