The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-11-05
Colonel Sharply Criticises Con-
necticut Democrat for Atti-
tude Toward Labor.
DECLARES JUDGE WENT
CONTRARY TO STATUTES
Makes Particular Point of De.
cisiOn in Case Involving En-
plOyers' Liability.

NEW YORK, Nov. 8.-Another letter.
the third written by Theodore Roosevelt
In reply To- similar communications from
Judge Simon L. Baldwin. Democratic
candidate for governor OF Connecticut:
In the recent controversy concerning
Judge Baldwin's attitude towards labor.
was given out here tonight. II is dated
November 2, and says in part:
In your answer TO my letter you en-
tiTely miss the point or the criticisms. |
al, am not Interested in your opinion as a
law writer: ] am interested in your opir-
lon as a %ldge My criticism OF you
as reactlonary was based, not upon
what YOU may have said law writer.
but upon what YOU did as a judge. Your
long citations from decisions in courts
or Connecticut are entirely irrelevant and
beside the point. | know. as every lay
man knows. that ii is not 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 precedent. The
question between us does not involve
any such principle.
I'm the Hoxie case you had before
you n definite statute, enacted by the
congress Of the United States. declaring
employees for negligence. Section fve
OF that act provided That any contract
rule. regulation or device whatsoever, the
purpose or intent of which shall be TO
itself from any liability created BY this
act shall, TO that extent, be void
IN that act congress declared that
every employee should have certain new
legal rights of compensation for injuries
occasioned by the negligence by the rail-
road itself In placing this clause which
have quoted in the act congress was
no doubt influenced by the well known
fact that in England an employers liza
hility act enacted many years ago was
made dead letter by employers Insist
ing that their employees should sign con-
tracts agreeing TO waive the benefits OF
the statute and go without he legal right
which the statute proposed to give
them.
Wherein Lies Criticism
In the case decided by you wl5ch
! nave criticised: you declared that this
clause was unconstitutional as being In
violation Of the NTH amendment to the
constitution of the United States as tend
ing TO deprive the parties 10 such a con-
tract of liberty and property without the
process OF law. You say specifically as to
railway employees. 1T denies them. one
and all, the liberty of contract which the
United States secures to every person
within its Jurisdiction
Your declaration speaks for itself
In substance ii amounts TO stating that
the employees right TO give up their
rights under the law is thing TO be
protected and not their right TO receive
those benefits. 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. lib
amendment to the United States cons!i-
tuition cannot be taken away without due
process OF law.
Congress aimed at giving the rail-
strued the act as giving him a shadow
py solenlnly declaring that TO give him
the substance is to take away his prop
ertv In the shadow,
-r;k 10.
is to me an incredible perverson Of the
constitution OF the United States. l criti-
oised II because il Is not only reaction
ary. but revolutionary. I criticised il
decision and every decision like 1t makes
Tor Socialism or something worse Every
strained construction of the con-
stitution which declares that tho nation
is powerless TO remedy industrial con-
ditions which cry for law gives aid To
those enemies of our American system of
government who wish to furnish in It's
place some new. vague and foolish sub
stitute.
More Precious Than Freight
accomplish in this decision would pro-
duce j am told, strange anomaly. Tho
I United States supreme court has held
that public policy would not permit a
with shippers of freight. that the rail-
road company shall not be responsible for
Its own negligence In transporting that
freight. You say that the railroad car
not inc forbidden to contract with IT'S
omployees. that II shall not be respon-
sib'e for manning or killing them by
negligence.
protest that there is no public policy
which makes frei1ht morn important than
human lives, and I criticised vour de-
"isinn because Won saw that the con-
stitutiou would not permit protection OF
the lives of every emnlovee to the Same
extent 10 which, without statute
freight is in the United States protected
nou-.
''Mv criticism, is not. as some of vour
sunporters erdeavor to have the public
believe, criticism of the judiciary In
Tererai IL is simply and solely n CritI-
cisrn nf your having given an extranrd-
nary "nd unprecedented construction to
'h~ nth amendment OF the constitution
~ The United States. so as to pervnrt
Its pnrnosn. and bv So doine IN nulIifv
end dostrov an essential mart OF most
important federal statute
c->~~'a~ Ve C-Ity-a