Hughes Not Great Leader?

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Like many another voter of progressive leanings, I have, until recently, been much perplexed. On the other hand, there were plenty of reasons why I should vote for Wilson; on the other hand, there seemed to be no reason whatever why I should vote for Hughes. Only recently have I come to a clear conviction as to where I stand, and I should like to take this opportunity to state briefly my position.

The one outstanding issue of the campaign, the one vital problem which our next President will have to face, seems to me to be the question of the relations between the American people and the people of other lands. The people, I say; not the governments. In this great conflict, it is the people, not the rulers, who occupy the first place in our thoughts, and at the end, the people, even the women (God be praised!), will have to be considered. What ought our position to be? The situation is absolutely new in history. The problems that we shall face are not primarily political or legal problems, but human ones; the questions that we shall have to answer are questions that state themselves not so much of national honor as in terms of human sympathy.

Now what is Mr. Hughes' reaction toward this new situation? In all of his speeches I find not one single original idea on this subject, not one single illuminating contribution to this most vital topic of the world's thought. What we had a right to hope for was a leader who could tell us something of the great part our people ought to play in this new, throbbing world, something of the debt we owe mankind for our prosperity. Has Hughes been such a leader? On the contrary, he has shown himself to be only the old-time conventional campaigner, bent on "making out a case" against the administration. In his attacks on Wilson he has not once broken the monotony of his dignified invective by a single courteous acknowledgment of the difficulties of the President's position, or of the partial success of his labors. Not once has he risen to the level of thought or action which Mr. Wilson has maintained throughout the campaign.

I have not space here to repeat my views as to the weakness of his case against the President, especially in regard to the Lusitania outrage and the Mexican turmoil, which have already been stated in a letter to the New York Times, November 5; all that I can point out hre is that in the very tone and method of his campaign, Mr. Hughes has utterly failed to exhibit those qualities of mind and heart which seem to me most needed in the present day spokeman of the American people.

He complains bitterly of the sordidness of Wilson's diplomacy; never has a campaign been waged on a more frankly sordid basis than Hughes own! There has been only one real aim: 100 per cent. American rights, 100 per cent, business profits! There has been only one constructive suggestion: 100 per cent. Republican protective tariff, a measure avowedly intended to keep up high prices and restrict the one thing which would do everybody the most good, foreign trade. Read the recent full page advertisements in the New York papers and see what th real issue is that the men behind Hughes are willing to pay hard money for; you will find nothing but a plain, unvarnished appeal to the provincial American's pocket-book. High tariff! Business profits!

Wilson makes mistakes, but he has a vision of humanity. Hughes is honest, but he has no imagination beyond the immediate present. Wilson may be a little ahead of his time; Hughes certainly belongs to the past.  EDWARD V. HUNTINGTON '9