Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-11-05
REFUSES TO
APOLOGIZE OR RETRACT
Criticism of Judge Baldwin of
Connecticut Is Justified,
He Declares.

Col Roosevelt has written another letter
to Judge Baldwin, democratic candidate
for Governor of Connecticut. The letter
contains neither apology nor retraction.
Beyond the assertion that the language of
his criticism Of the Connecticut jurist and
party leader to which Judge Baldwin took
exception had been garbled, the former
President makes no concession. He in
sists that his structures were justified and
that not only is Judge Baldwin a reac-
tionary, but that the judicial decisions of
the latter make for socialism.
Roosevelt's Response.
The Roosevelt letter, in answer to one
which Judge Baldwin wrote, is as fol-
lows:
81 have received your letter Of October
81. AS I told you in my first letter, the
sentence of mine to which you refer was
not correctly reported consisting of two
sentences which have been cut into one
The first sentence, namely, The demo-
cratic party Of Connecticut has nominated
for governor man who, while judge, Oc-
cupied the most retrogressive possible po-
sition on the question of workmen's COM
next sentence is not given as l said it,
nor was it said as part of the first sem
tence. Indeed, as you first quoted 1t, 1t
was nearer right to the extent Of having
in it the word grind which was part of
the phrase had used-'by grinding need
"a phrase which is totally absent from
the sentence you quote. But the sentence
is wholly incomplete and inaccurate.
1.-The sentence ! actually said 1t
opened with the use of the word pro-
tithesis to 'retrogressive,' and contained
a statement of our emphatic dissent from
the position which ! described in some
what the language quoted, but not in the
language quoted.
Second Letter Quoted.
But my criticisms of you are set forth
clearly in my second letter. In your an
swer to my letter you entirely mss the
point of the criticisms. / am not inter-
ested in your opinion as a law writer.
am interested in your opinion as a judge.
Ny criticism of you as a reactionary was
BASED not upon what you may have said
as law writer. but upon what you did
as judge. Your long citations from de-
cisions In courts OF Connecticut are en-
tirely irrelevant and BESIDE the point.
IN the HOXie case you had before you
definite statute enacted by the Congress
of the United States, declaring the re-
sponsibility OF railroads to their employees
Tor negligence. Section 5 of that act pro-
vided that any contract, rule, regulation
or device whatsoever, the purpose or in
tent of which shall be to enable any COM
mon carrier to exempt itself from any
extent be void
I'm the case decided by you which
have criticised, Hoxie agt. New Haven
road. you decided that this clause was
unconstitutional as being In violation Of
the fifth amendment of the Constitution
Of the United States, as tending to de-
prive the parties to such contract of
liberty and property without due process
of law.
''You say specifically as to railway en-
ployes: 1t denies them, one and all, that
liberty of contract which the Constitu-
ton of the United States secures to every
person within its jurisdiction
Declaration Speaks for Itself.
"Your declaration speaks for itself. In
substance it amounts to stating that the
employees right to give up their rights
under the law is a thing to be protected,
and not their right to receive those bene-
fits; that the right to contract to get
killed is property of which they cannot
be deprived; that the right to get killed
comes under the head of life, liberty and
property which the fifth ame ndment to
the United States Constitution says can
not be taken away without due process of
law. Congress aimed at giving the rail-
road employe substance. You construed
the act as giving him a shadow by SOL
EMMY declaring that to give him the SUBJ
stance is to take away his property in the
shadow.
II criticised your decision because it is
to me an incredible perversion of the
Constitution of the United States. l crfti-
cised 1t because 1t is not only reactionary,
but Revolutionary. l criticised 1t because
l am against socialism, and this decision,
and every decision like it, makes for So
cialsm or something worse. Every
strained construction of the Constitution
which declares that the nation is power
less to remedy Industrial conditions
which cry for law gives aid to those enc
mics Of our American system Of govern
ment who wish to furnish in it's place
some new, vague and foolish substitute.
by your decision as judge you have
declared the powerlessness of the state
to enact an effective law on a subject
which requires effective law. l regard
your decision as reactionary in a matter
of vital concern to all laboring men.
do not think it possible for you to ex-
plain how, as governor, you would Obvi-
ate the effect of your decision as judge"