KRANY

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW

JULY, 1916

THE NATIONAL CONVENTIONS

BY THE EDITOR

THE Republican Convention was impressive rather than interesting. There was no beating of tomtoms, no clanging of rattles, no toting of banners, no persistent stamping of feet and no "We want Jimmy " or " Billy " or " Sammy or anybody. The inevitable and irrepressible foolish woman who shrieked herself into hysterics over nothing in particular evoked only yawns. Nobody even inquired who she was or whether she was married or single or where she got the flag for the envelopment of her rotundity. The only really notable gallery person was a dear little lad in white who solemnly dropped to his knees when Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler rose to speak and wondered why they did not pray over him as they had over Mr. Hilles and Senator Harding. His extreme youth and perfect innocence, of course, constituted his excuse; and yet those in the immediate vicinity could not but realize that, by his pretty error, he was typifying the spirit of the occasion. The brilliant descriptive writers of the daily Press, headed by that incomparable driveler, William Jennings Bryan, sadly remarked the lack of enthusiasm whose synonym is noise gradually subsiding and then at intervals determinedly rekindled for record-breaking purposes.

It was not that species of gathering. A single attentive glance sufficed to convince any observer of experience that

Copyright, 1916, by NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW CORPORATION. All Rights Reserved

there was a body of nearly two thousand resolute men, drawn from the greatest citizenry of the world, intent upon performance of what they should consider to be their duty and fully alive to their obligation. We have beheld many assemblages, in great National conventions, many of the Democratic party dominated from the South more picturesque; many of the Republican party in corrals, vernacularly speaking, horse-high and hog-tight; but never one so obviously of the sober, independent, original stock of the Republic. One could but feel that there were sons worthy of sires who held their Freeman's Oath as no less sacred than their religious faith. In these troublous days, to a lover of his country who had begun to fear that the rock might be quivering under the Nation, it was a heartening spectacle.

And the event justified the hope. It was well enough for the Temporary Chairman, speaking as a partisan, to exult over what he was pleased to call the "reconsecration "of the Republican party; but, while wishing to avoid even the seeming of skepticism, we cannot escape the recollection of terms no less solemnly uttered upon like occasions quickly proving to have been the sheerest cant. The splendid organization which, after having played the chief part in saving the Union, became sordid and greedy and made prey of the people, may or may not now be able to rededicate itself to true public service; we do not know. What we do perceive clearly is that, reconsecrated or not, it is reconstituted. Of the 986 delegates to this convention only 175 were members of the convention of 1912. It was, therefore, in substance, an assemblage of fresh representatives of a resuscitated party. And that is why it would not be guided by bosses, would not be subject to dictation, would not abide either compromise or demagogy, would not accept as a candidate any man supposed to represent any one interest or any one class and did demand and obtain the one man who personified beyond all others the Will of the People. For that reason and for that alone, barring the universally conceded excellence of the choice, we rejoice in the nomination for President of Charles Evans Hughes.

We shall not bore our readers with a recital of the various episodes in Chicago which have been depicted in minute detail and with a fair degree of accuracy by the nimble penmen of the daily Press. There was not much fun. The Republicans, as we have noted, took life most seriously and

1

the Progressives, as we anticipated, merely held a wake under the direction of Undertaker George W. Perkins. Senator Harding looked like McKinley and spoke blandly; Governor Whitman and Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler presented the names of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Root respectively with admirable force and dignity and Senator Lodge broke all records for versatility by nominating Weeks, voting for Roosevelt, and offering the motion to make the nomination of Hughes unanimous. Mr. Frank H. Hitchcock stubbed his toe at the outset but regained his equilibrium with noteworthy alacrity and rendered no small service. Two others whose unobtrusive effectiveness should not pass unrecorded are Mr. Andrew B. Humphrey of New York and Governor R. Livingston Beekman of Rhode Island, whose entrance into the National field presages well for his political future.

But the king-pin of the whole affair was Winthrop Murray Crane. Many months ago we directed attention to the exceptional sagacity and wide vision of this extraordinary man. Of all the conspicuous members of the so-called Old Guard, now happily shorn of power, he alone read aright the signs of the times, shaped his course accordingly and emerged from a most difficult and delicate situation, mastered by himself with consummate skill, with immensely enhanced prestige and without the loss of a friend. Since William C. Whitney successfully withstood the desperate efforts of the Hill-Gorman alliance in 1892, there has been no such exhibition of courage, determination, and tact as that by Mr. Crane which in the early hours of the morning of Saturday, June 10th, made sure the calling of Mr. Hughes upon the next ballot.

That we did not misjudge Our Colonel when, last month, we pronounced as "the acme of absurdity" the fond anticipation of Administration leaders that he would strive for the perpetuation of a Government which he considered ignoble by conniving at the defeat of Mr. Hughes is evidenced by the event. His futile proposal of Senator Lodge we can only regard as a sincere, though pitiably ill-timed tribute to a lifelong friend and consequently as negligible in consideration. That he missed a rare opportunity to win public acclaim by declaring promptly for Mr. Hughes was, we have no doubt, as apparent to himself as to others, but it is only fair and reasonable to attribute his hesitancy-for that is all it was-to his sense of loyalty to those of his devoted

adherents who were suffering pangs of grievous disappointment and required time to adjust their hopes to an unchangeable condition. It is with unalloyed satisfaction that we repeat that "Theodore Roosevelt as President never did and never could render so great a service to his country as he is now rendering as a patriot" and that, with earnest prayers for his well-being, we proclaim him the First Citizen of the Republic. May he long continue, in his own spirited phrase, "like Agag "like Agag" to "arch my neck and walk lightly," and may he never meet the direful fate of that unhappy monarch!

We had to laugh at the amazement of those who had forgotten that long ago, while Governor of New York, Charles Evans Hughes proved himself a man of promptness and decision. Would he resign? Would he accept? These were the questions which trembled upon the lips of the disingenuous. Quickly came the answers:

TO THE PRESIDENT: I hereby resign the office of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I am, sir, respectfully yours,

CHARLES EVANS HUGHES.

And the President replied with equal alacrity:

DEAR MR. JUSTICE HUGHES: I am in receipt of your letter of resignation and feel constrained to yield to your desire. I therefore accept your resignation as Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to take effect at once.

Sincerely yours,

WOODROW WILSON.

Certain characteristics stand revealed by these interesting communications. Mr. Hughes did not " tender his resignation." He resigned. He invited no argument. He stated a fact. His words were not those prescribed by social usage. They were official and, being addressed to a competitor whose policies he was about to assail, they bore no palaver. The President, on the other hand, was, as ever, most polite. It was not "Mr. Justice Hughes, Sir "; it was "Dear Mr. Justice Hughes "-which we think was very nice—and it was neither "" Respectfully yours nor Yours truly," as per John L. Sullivan, but " Sincerely yours," instead of the customary and nearly invariable "Cordially and sincerely yours" to our mind, a very fine and most delicate distinction. A careless letter writer might have expressed regret, but clearly the President could not have done

66