JUL 31 1917 US 1380.14.7 LIBRARY The Committee President Faunce's Opinion of PRESIDENT W. H. P. FAUNCE, OF BROWN UNI- I have known Justice Hughes intimately since we were students together at Brown and have seen him a thousand times at work and at play. No man of our generation has a finer combination of character and intellect. Absolutely fearless, unselfish, loyal to American ideals, he is worthy of a nation's trust. All his friends know that behind the dignity of bearing is a rich fund of humor and good fellowship. Whether he is climbing a mountain, reading novels, playing with his children, resisting a political lobby or delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, he is ever the same rugged, democratic, fairminded American. His varied experience has given him wide horizon and sympathy with every aspect of American life. He possesses two qualities rarely found together—the judicial temper and the capacity for swift and resolute action. Under his administration the fog which now besets many public questions would be cleared away. His penetrating mind goes to the heart of any subject he selects and strips off the irrelevant at once. Such a mind is peculiarly needed amid the intricate problems that now confront America. We need more than good intentions. We need clear vision, sound judgment, strong will, unhesitating decision. In short, we need Charles E. Hughes. Governor Hughes, Greatest THE LEGISLATIVE LABOR NEWS, OF NEW YORK, Now that Governor Hughes has retired from politics and ascended to a place on the highest judicial tribunal in the world, the fact can be acknowledged without hurting anybody's political corns, that he was the greatest friend of labor laws that ever occupied the Governor's chair at Albany. During his two terms he has signed 56 labor laws, including among them the best labor laws ever enacted in this or any other State. He also urged the enactment of labor laws in his messages to the Legislature, even going so far as to place the demand for a labor law in one of his messages to an extra session of the Legislature. Only 162 labor laws have been enacted in this State since its erection in 1777-in 133 years. One-third of these, exceeding in quality all of the others, have been enacted and signed during Governor Hughes's term of three years and nine months. With such a record of approval and suggestion of progressive legislation in the interest of humanity to his credit, it is easy to believe that human rights will have a steadfast and sympathetic upholder in the new Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 1. U Charles E. Hughes SPEECH OF ACCEPTANCE AT CARNEGIE HALL, NEW YORK, JULY 31, 1916 Senator Harding, Members of the Notification Committee and Fellow Citizens: This occasion is more than a mere ceremony of notification. We are not here to indulge in formal expressions. We come to state in a plain and direct manner our faith, our purpose and our pledge. This representative gathering is a happy augury. It means the strength of reunion. It means that the party of Lincoln is restored, alert, effective. It means the unity of a common perception of paramount national needs. It means that we are neither deceived nor benumbed by abnormal conditions. We know that we are in a critical period, perhaps more critical than any period since the civil war. We need a dominant sense of national unity; the exercise of our best constructive powers; the vigor and resourcefulness of a quickened America. (We desire that the Republican party as a great liberal party shall be the agency of national achievement, the organ of the effective expression of dominant Americanism. What do I mean by that? I mean America conscious of power, awake to obligation, erect in self-respect, prepared for every emergency, devoted to the ideals of peace, instinct with the spirit of human brotherhood, safeguarding both individual opportunity and the public interest, maintaining a well ordered constitutional system adapted to local selfgovernment without the sacrifice of essential national authority, appreciating the necessity of stability, expert knowledge and thorough organization as the indispensable conditions of security and progress; a country loved by its citizens with a patriotic fervor permitting no division in their allegiance and no rivals in their affection-I mean America first and America efficient. It is in this spirit that I respond to your summons. Foreign Relations-Appointments Our foreign relations have assumed grave importance in the past three years. The conduct of diplomatic intercourse is in the keeping of the executive. It rests chiefly with him. whether we shall show competence or incompetence; whether the national honor shall be maintained; whether our prestige and influence shall be lowered or advanced. What is the record of the Administration? The first duty of the executive was to command the respect of the world by the personnel of our State Department and our representation abroad. No party exigency could excuse the non-performance of this obvious obligation. Still, after making every allowance for certain commendable appointments, it is apparent that this obligation was not performed. At the very beginning of the present Administration, where in the direction of diplomatic intercourse there should have been conspicuous strength and expertness we had weakness and inexpertness. Instead of assuring respect, we invited distrust of our competence and speculation as to our capacity for firmness and decision, thus entailing many difficulties which otherwise easily could have been escaped. Then, in numerous instances, notably in Latin America, where such a course was particularly reprehensible, and where we desire to encourage the most friendly relations, men of long diplomatic experience whose knowledge and training were of especial value to the country were retired from the service apparently for no other reason than to meet partisan demands in the appointment of inexperienced persons. Where, as in Santo Domingo, we had assumed an important special trust in the interest of its people that trust was shockingly betrayed in order to satisfy "deserving Democrats." The record showing the Administration's disregard of its responsibilities with respect to our representation in diplomacy is an open book and the specifications may easily be had. It is a record revealing professions belied. It is a dismal record to those who believe in Americanism. Take, for example, the withdrawal of Ambassador Herrick from France. There he stood, in the midst of alarms, the very embodiment of courage, of poise, of executive capacity, universally trusted and beloved. No diplomat ever won more completely the affections of a foreign people; and there was no better fortune for this country than to have at the capital of any one of the belligerent nations a representative thus esteemed. Yet the Administration permitted itself to supersede him. The point is not that the man was Ambassador Herrick, or that the nation was France, but that we invited the attention of the world to the inexcusable yielding of national interest to partisan expediency. It was a lamentable sacrifice of international repute. If we would have the esteem of foreign nations we must deserve it. We must show our regard for special knowledge and experience. I propose that we shall make the agencies of our diplomatic intercourse, in every nation, worthy of the American name. Mexico The dealings of the Administration with Mexico constitute a confused chapter of blunders. We have not helped Mexico. She lies prostrate, impoverished, famine stricken, overwhelmed with the woes and outrages of internecine strife, the helpless victim of a condition of anarchy which the course of the Administration only served to promote. For ourselves. we have witnessed the murder of our citizens and the destruction of their property. We have made enemies, not friends. Instead of commanding respect and deserving good. will by sincerity, firmness and consistency we provoked misapprehension and deep resentment. In the light of the conduct of the Administration no one could understand its professions. Decrying interference, we interfered most exasperatingly. We have not even kept out of actual conflict, and the soil of Mexico is stained with the blood of our soldiers. We have resorted to physical invasion, only to retire without gaining the professed object. It is a record which cannot be examined without a profound sense of humiliation. When the Administration came into power Huerta was exercising authority as provisional President of Mexico. He was certainly in fact the head of the Government of Mexico. Whether or not he should be recognized was a question to be determined in the exercise of a sound discretion, but according to correct principles. The President was entitled to be assured that there was at least a de facto Government; that international obligations would be performed; that the lives and property of American citizens would have proper protection. To attempt, however, to control the domestic concerns of Mexico was simply intervention, not less so because disclaimed. The height of folly was to have a vacillating and ineffective intervention, which could only evoke bitterness and contempt, which would fail to pacify the country and to assure peace and prosperity under a stable Government. If crimes were committed, we do not palliate them. We make no defense of Huerta. But the Administration had nothing to do with the moral character of Huerta, if in fact he represented the Government of Mexico. We shall never worthily prosecute our unselfish aims, or serve humanity, by wrongheadedness. So far as the character of Huerta is concerned, the hollowness of the pretensions on this score is revealed by the Administration's subsequent patronage of Villa (whose qualifications as an assassin are indisputable), whom apparently the Administration was ready to recognize had he achieved his end and fulfilled what then seemed to be its hope. The question is not as to the non-recognition of Huerta. The Administration did not content itself with refusing to recognize Huerta, who was recognized by Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Spain and Japan. The Administration undertook to destroy Huerta, to control Mexican politics, even to deny Huerta the right to be a candidate for the office of President at the election the Administration demanded. With what bewilderment must the Mexicans have regarded our assertion of their right to manage their own affairs! In the summer of 1913 John Lind was despatched to the City of Mexico as the President's "personal spokesman and representative" to the unrecognized Huerta in order to demand that the latter eliminate himself. It was an unjustifiable mission, most offensive to a sensitive people. John Lind lingered irritatingly. The Administration continued to direct its efforts at the destruction of the only Government Mexico had. In the spring of 1914 occurred the capture of Vera Cruz. Men from one of our ships had been arrested at Tampico and had been discharged with an apology. But our Admiral demanded a salute, which was refused. Thereupon the President went to Congress, asking authority to use the armed forces of the United States. Without waiting for the passage of the resolution Vera Cruz was seized. It appeared that a shipload of ammunition for Huerta was about to enter that port. There was a natural opposition to this invasion and a battle occurred in which nineteen Americans and over a hundred Mexicans were killed. This, of course, was war. Our dead soldiers were praised for dying like heroes in a war of service. Later, we retired from Vera Cruz, giving up this noble warfare. We had not obtained the salute which was demanded. We had not obtained reparation for affronts. The ship with ammunition which could not land at Vera Cruz had soon landed at. another port, and its cargo was delivered to Huerta without interference. Recently the naked truth was admitted by a Cabinet officer. We are now informed that "we did not go to Vera Cruz to force Huerta to salute the flag." We are told that we went there "to show Mexico that we were in earnest in our demand that Huerta must go." That is, we seized Vera Cruz to depose Huerta. The question of the salute was a mere pretext. Meanwhile, the Administration utterly failed to perform its obvious duty to secure protection for the lives and property of our citizens. It is most unworthy to slur those who have investments in Mexico in order to escape a condemnation for the non-performance of this duty. There can be no such escape, for we have no debate, and there can be no debate, as to the existence of this duty on the part of our Government. Let me quote the words of the Democratic platform of 1912: "The constitutional rights of American citizens should protect them on our borders, and go with them throughout the world, and every American citizen residing or having property in any foreign country is entitled to and must be given the full protection of the United States Government, both for himself and his property." The bitter hatred aroused by the course of the Administration multiplied outrages, while our failure to afford protection to our citizens evoked the scorn and contempt of Mexicans. Consider the ignominious incident at Tampico in connection with the capture of Vera Cruz. In the midst of the greatest danger to the hundreds of Americans congregated at Tampico our ships, which were in the harbor, were withdrawn and our citizens were saved only by the intervention of German officers and were taken away by British and German ships. The official excuse of the Secretary of the Navy is an extraordinary commentary. Our ships, it seems, had been ordered to Vera Cruz; but, as it appeared that they were not needed, the order was rescinded. Then, we are told, our Admiral was faced with this remarkable dilemma. If he attempted to go up the river at Tampico and take our citizens on board the word of "aggressive action," as the Secretary |