Daily Kennebec journal., 1910-11-05
THIRD LETTER TO BALDWIN.
Roosevelt Criticizes Him Not as Law
Writer But as Judge.

New York. Nov. 4.--The third letter
written by Col. Theodore Roosevelt in
reply to similar communications from
Judge Simeon f. Baldwin, Democratic
candidate for governor of Connecticut. in
the recent controversy concerning Judge
Baldwin's attitude toward labor, was
given out here tonight After repeating
that the first sentence of his first letter
had been misquoted. Col. Roosevelt said ::
Il am not interested in your opinion
as law writer. | am interested i'm your
opinion as Judge. My criticism of you
as rcactionary was based, not upon
what YOU may have said as Il law writ
cr. but upon what YOU did as n Judge
Your long citations from decisions in
coultS of Connecticut are entirely irrev
elant and beside the point. know, as
every layman knows. that it is not Il
function of a judge to make new laws
When there is no statute enacted by the
law-making bodies of the people, the
courts are no doubt bound to follow prec-
edent The question between us does not
involve any such principle. In the Hoxie
case YOU had before YOU a definite stat
ute enacted by the Congress of the Unit
Su .NldttS httihliiiS wy iN9IpIlSIfilItS VI
railroads to their employees for neeli-
gence. Section Five "f tnat act provides
That any contract. rule. regulation or
device whatsoever, the purpose or intent
of which shall be to enable any common
carrier to exempt itself from any liabil
ity created by this act, shall to that eX-
tent be void. In that act Congress de
clared that railway employees should have
certain new legal rights Of compensation
for injuries occasioned by the negligence
of the railroad itself. In placing this
clause which | have quoted in the act
Congress was no doubt influenced by the
well-lnoWn fact that in England an en-
ployers' liability act enacted MANY years
ago was made a dead letter by employ
erS insisting that their employees should
sign contracts agreeing to waive the BEN
etitS of the statute. Congress doubtless
intended that the beneficial value of this
federal employers liability act should
the case decided by you which / have
criticized, Hoxie VS.. r. X. Read You de-
clared that this clause was lInconstitu-
tional as being in violation of the fifth
amendment of the Constitution of the
tIittu states as ltllulflS 10 deprive the
parties to such a 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 Constitution
of the United States secures to every
person within its jurisdiction Your dec
laration speaks for itself: in substance
it amounts to stating that the employers
right TO give up their rights under the
law is a thing to be protected and not
their night to receive those benefits that
the right to contract to get killed is
property of which they cannot be de-
prived. that the right to get Killed comes
under the head of life. liberty and prop
erty' which the fifth amendment to the
United States Constitution says cannot b.
taken away without due process Of law
Congress aimed at giving the railroad
| employe a substance: you construed the
act as giving him shadow by solemnly
| declaring that to give him the substance
| is to take away his property in the
| shadow
! Il criticized your decision because it
| is to me an Incredible perversion of
| the Constitution .of the United States.
| I criticized it because I am against
Socialism and this decision and every