The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-11-07
HOxIE LAWYER NAILS KENEALY Attorney Hull Defends Judge Baldwin and Places Respon- Sibility Where it Be-
 longs
TREASON 10 WORKIhGMEN
Republicans Have Done Nothing, AL though in Power, to Pass a Law Giving WOrkmen Compen-
 SatiOn.

On the very eve of election comes a most important letter from States Attorney Hadlia A. Hull, of New Lon | don, who conducted the now famous l case of Hoxie against the N. r., N. H. 6 H. R. R., defending Judge Bald wins decision and arraigning Michael Kenealy, chairman of the Republican State Central committee, who appear ed for the railroad against Hoxie. The letter is of vital importance to all fair-minded men and shows the exact inside attitude of the Republi- can leaders toward the workingmen of the state. It shows that although tn power these leaders have never lifted a hand to draft a law making 1t possible for injured workmen to recover damages under circumstances similar to those of the Hoxie case.
 MT. Hulrs letter is written to At torney Nathan Balcher of New Lon don, who recently made a request for statement from Attorney Hull owing 10 the criticism by Colonel Roose- 1elt of Judge Baldwin. The letter covers the ground pretty much as Judge Baldwin has in his letters to Roosevelt insofar as the law itself is concerned, and then says:
 ''The railroad company represented by MT. Michael Kenealy and others demurred to our complaint on the ground that the federal statute was unconstitutional. The demurrer was sustained in the superior court, and we appealed to the supreme court of errors. The supreme court of errors, in the opinion of Chief Justice Simeon E. Baldwin, sustained the decision Of the superior court upon the ground that con~ress did not intend by this statute to authorize the institution of any action under the statute in the courts of the states, but that the proper place to bring such actions was the federal courts.
 'The supreme court of Connecticut further held that congress had no power to compel the state courts to assume Jurisdiction under such an action and that for these reasons the superior court was justified in dis missing the suit. Judge Baldwin, in his opinion, says that the general as- sembly of Connecticut alone, had au- thority to authorize and direct the courts of the state to entertain juris- diction under the federal statute. This is the reason why the suit of pr. Hoxie was dismissed from the state courts. Since that decision was in the United States circuit court for the District of Connecticut, and that suit is now pending.
 The opinion of Judge Baldwin is exhaustive, and very learned, and is based wholly upon the law as it is
 
 his only right and authority was to declare 1t and his opinion was con- cured in by the entire court, com posed of some of the most learned and upright judges in the country.
 "It has always seemed to me that into this statute language calculated ultimately to destroy the statute upon constitutional grounds. One matter which is commented upon by Judge Baldwin is an attempt on the part of congress to interfere with the pro- bate law of the states by determining a rule of distribution of the estate of d person killed by the negligence of a railroad company. The first time I read the statute it seemed to me that any competent attorney would have left the distribution of the Aes- tate of deceased person to the law of the state in which the court was established for the settlement of the estate.
 Tt is said that this federal statute was passed very largely through the intervention of President Roosevelt. and, after the supreme court of the United States clearly indicated how a constitutional statute could have been drawn, it would seem that there ought not to have been any difficulty then in following the directions of the court
 '"The Supreme court of Connecticut has approved the principles underly- ing the federal statute and if the Gen eral Assembly of Connecticut had fol- lowed the clear suggestions of the court of which Judge Baldwin was a member, long before now we would have had an employers liability act in Connecticut with provisions for the enforcement either of the federal statute or of our state statute, if we had such a one. The Hoxie case was decided in July, 1909, when the "Re- publican" legislature of the state of Connecticut was in session and open for business.
 ''It is difficult for me to see how Brother Kenealy, who is chairman of the Republican State Central Com mittee. and who about this time is solicitous for the welfare of the la boring man, can square himself with the failure of his party which has been in control of the General Assem- bly to pass such legislation as win relieve the employees from a harsh and unreasonable rule.''
 z or-fxy