to lofty judicial or executive post. The impressive list of public offices he held will bear another brief repetition. He had been a Judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice, a Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and for six terms commencing in 1910, a member of this Court. In the executive branch of the national Government, he had been Secretary of State in two administrations, and the nominee of his Party for President. In his native New York, after spectacularly successful years as counsel to investigative committees, he was twice elected Governor. Each of these positions he fulfilled with unique distinction. This career of public service, rare in the rich variety of its prizes, should not induce neglect of Chief Justice Hughes' achievements as a practicing member of the Bar. His law firm was quick to accord its recognition to him. At the time he began his public career, when he was in his early forties, he was in the topmost rank of the New York Bar. In his subsequent period of private practice, he of course enjoyed the prestige of the Governorship and Justiceship he had held. But the qualities of his intelligence and character were chiefly responsible for the vigor and breadth of his advocacy which won for him. the acknowledged leadership of the American practicing Bar. Charles Evans Hughes was a great lawyer before he became a great judge. What was the fusion of inner forces which produced such a man? The answer cannot be simple and may be put in an infinite variety of ways. In your remarks, Mr. Attorney General, and in the resolutions which have been read, some elements of that fusion have been eloquently expressed. To me, Chief Justice Hughes' primary attribute was balance, a perfect union of opposing tendencies. He was thinker and doer, scholar and politician. Absolute master he was of law, both law as written in the books and law as lived through functioning social institutions. His efficiency was superb, but it was tempered by a zealous humanitarianism. His magnificent efficiency of thought and administration has been most emphasized. The reach of his intellectual and executive abilities was extensive, incisive, and profound. Best of all, it was subject to rigorous selfcontrol. His superlative talents for receiving and retaining ideas, for analyzing and applying legal principles, gave ready obedience to the most drastic of self-imposed disciplines. But his mastery of self was not subservient to a narrowing approach nor an unchanging position. Always he was alert to recognize and utilize better tenets and techniques. He knew when to reform as well as when to preserve. His understanding encompassed the ultimate possibilities as well as the practical probabilities. So obvious and manifold were his abilities that the spirit in which they were applied is sometimes slighted. Charles Evans Hughes was a humanitarian. He sought to mitigate suffering. The first modern workmen's compensation law was a product of his administration as Governor of New York. In that office, he strove to establish effective regulation of utilities, to expand direct popular participation in the governmental process and to enable the passage of child labor laws and kindred legislation; he took positions which were advanced outposts for his time. On this Court, Chief Justice Hughes authored opinions which are taken as symbolizing the constitutional acceptability of the efforts of state and federal government to cope with contemporary economic problems by exercising, respectively, the police and the commerce power. This view of the Constitution encounters far less vocal opposition today than it did when such decisions as the state minimum wage and National Labor Relations Board cases were handed down. Charles Evans Hughes was ready to soften the impact on the individual of the anything-goes economics which characterized the national expansion in his early years. His concern for humanity was evident also in his leadership in the struggle for world peace. His years as Secretary of State and international jurist were marked by unwavering devotion to peaceful settlements of dispute. His was the way of conference and negotiation, of neighborliness and disarmament, of law and order among nations. Bullying he opposed at home as well as abroad. He was constantly solicitous of the liberties which the Constitution assures the individual. His opinions on this Court, as Associate Justice as well as Chief Justice, display an appreciation of and fealty to lofty ideals of fair trial, for ideas as well as individuals. His vigilance to protect individual freedom, to promote world peace and to approve public means for dealing with problems which apparently no longer could be solved by unaided or unregulated individual enterprise, stamp Charles Evans Hughes as intensely humanitarian. Humane but efficient, Charles Evans Hughes manifests the balance which is especially worthy of emulation today. There is overmuch interest these days in classification at the expense of comprehension. There is excessive pressure to take all or none of a single dogma, rather than to accept the good and reject the evil of all proposals. In our times, there is extreme need of men like Charles Evans Hughes, who have some inner gyroscope of conscience and capacity which maintains a balanced devotion to duty. Chief Justice Hughes had his own exalted standards and principles, and he lived by them. In him there was no surrender to the purposes of the uncritical or the critique of a single viewpoint. He described his conception of the judicial function in an address to some Federal judges. "A young man wrote me the other day," he related, "to ask whether I regarded myself as 'liberal' or 'conservative.' I answered that these labels do not interest me. I know of no accepted criterion. Some think opinions are conservative which others might regard as essentially liberal, and some opinions classed as liberal might be regarded from another point of view as decidedly illiberal. . . . A judge who does his work in an objective spirit, as a judge should, will address himself conscientiously to each case, and will not trouble himself about labels." The history of this Court reflects the objective spirit, the balance of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. His view of the workings of the Court and the Federal judicial system was sufficiently detached to recognize the opportunity for improvement in administration. The Administrative Office Act of 1939 is a symbol of his concern for efficiency in the functioning of courts. The achievements of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the day-by-day operations of the Federal judiciary as a fully independent branch of our national Government are founded in large part upon the wisdom of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. The years of his service as Chief Justice were ones in which this Court was in the very forefront of public notice. Those years are fresh enough in memory so that recitation of the unusual position occupied by the Court is not needed. What does need to be recorded is that the Court emerged as it did in large measure because of the consummate skill of its Chief Justice. He was precise and decisive in playing the role he believed the Chief Justice ought to play. Everything he did manifested veneration for the traditions of this Court and the constitutional scheme of our Government, and vision to look forward to the adaptation of the Court and the other vehicles of our democracy to possible future needs. Surely Charles Evans Hughes will rank as one of the great Chief Justices. More, there can even now, so few years after his death, be no doubt that Charles Evans Hughes deserves inclusion on the select roll of great Americans. THE CHIEF JUSTICE directed that the resolutions be spread upon the minutes of the Court. TABLE OF CASES REPORTED NOTE: Cases reported before page 801 are those decided with opinions of the Court. Those reported on pages 801 et seq. are memorandum decisions and orders. Adirondack Transit Lines v. Hudson Lines. Administrator. See name of administrator; Civil Aero Services v. Quinn.. 897 802 . 895 816 Aetna Casualty Co., United States v... 366 829 Affolder v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. 813 |