New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-10-29
ROOSEVELT CALLS
BALDWIN BOURBON
Again Reviews Record of Con-
neCtiCut Democratic Candl-
date for Governor.
NSISTSITI is RETROGRESSIVE
Quotes from Judges Opinion III
Railroad Mans Suit to Sustain
His Position-Republican
Attitude Toward Labor.

AtlltuuS Toward LABOR.
Rochester. Oct 2S. Ex-President
Roosevelt tonight made public sec
ond letter he has written to Judge
Simeon +. Baldwin, Democratic candi-
date for Governor Of Connecticut Mr.
Roosevelt reiterates the statements he
made in his speech at Concord, n. H.
last week. and in his former letter, char
acterizing Judge Baldwins attitude
toward labor legislation as retrogressive
or, if you prefer the terms he says,
Bourbon and reactionary."
He sets forth in great detail his rea-
sons for his assertions. quoting from
Judge Baldwin's opinion in the case Of
Hoxie against the New York, New
Haven & Hartford Railroad Company.
in which trainhand sued for damages
for injuries. The principle laid down in
this opinion Mr.. Roosevelt characterizes
as cruel and unjust 10 the working
man. The ex-President cites his own
message to the Goth Congress, urging
the passage Of an employers liability
law. as illustrating the Republican atti-
Mr.. RooseveIt's Letter.
The first letter Of Mr.. Roosevelt to the
judge was based on the press reports Of
the letter from Judge Baldwin to him.
When the Baldwin letter reached Mr.
Roosevelt he found that in some re-
spects his information had not been en-
tirely accurate. In the mean time he
had obtained fuller information from
other sources. and on this he based the
letter of to-day. which follows:
street, New Haven.
Dear sir: 7 have just now received your
letter of October q Ny former letter was
based on statements in the public press
as now appears not wholly correct, pur-
porting TO he your letter as published by
you.
At the same time have received a copy
of your opinion as chief Justice in the
case of William II. Hoxie agt the New
York. New Haven & Hartford Railway
Company, this being one of the documents
] had in mind when spoke in New Hamp-
shire as under the circumstances related
by me in the letter which you have al
ready received.
This was a case in which William H
Hoxie, a train hand, an employe of the
New York. New Haven & Hartford Rail
way Company. was injured while coupling
cars in a train running from Norwich,
Conn. to Worcester. Mass. The injured
man sued the railroad You presided in
the Appellate Court and wrote its opin-
ion. declaring the workmen's federal com
,s,1,
be unconstitutional. so that he was denied
the right TO he compensated for his in
jury.
Section ; of the act provided that any
contract rule. regulation or device what
sCever the purpose or intent of which
shall he to enable any common carrier 70
exempt itself from any liability created by
this act shall TO that extent be void"
The purpose of this provision was, as a.
matter of public policy. to protect work
ingmen fro. being coerced into making
improvident and unfair contracts or stipu-
latins to accept nominal amounts for dis
ablement and mutilation as tho price Of
obtaining employment
Plea for Justice to Workmen.
In urging such legislation l, in a message
to the Goth Congress. in December, 1907.
placed il upon the ground Of justice to the
workmen Of this country. I said in part:
The practice Of putting the entire burden
Of loss Of life limb upon the victim
the victims family is form OF social in
Justice in which the United States stands
in an unenViahle pre-eminence In both our
federal and our state legislation have.
with few exceptions, scarcely gone further
than the repeal Of the fellow servant prin-
oiple Of the Old law Of liability. and III
seine Of our states even this slight modifl-
cation OF a completely outgroWn principle
has not yet been secured. The legislation
of the rest Of the industrial world stands
out In striking contrast to our backward
ness in this respect.
A Law Journals Comment
Ia your decision in question you souarely
took ground against the progressive view
which hold 10 be essential to the welfare
OF the workingmen of this nation, and.
therefore. TO the welfare of the whole peo-
Pile In treating of this opinion of yours,
Law Notes on october 10 wrote as fol
lows:
In the course OF his opinion lie said: Al
common law a servant cannot recover from
his master for injuries received from the
negligence of fellow servant acting in the
same line of environment. This is mart
OF that general American law resting upon
OF right and justice that
nave been generally accepted by the people
OF Inc lnIeO states. This sentiment
would be coidly received, TO say the least,
by labor unions DESTROYS of securing a
workmen's compensation act. such as the
New York legislature passed and Gov
eTnOT Hughes signed. about three months
ago. The fellow servant rule is not A
divinely inspired precept. any more than the
contr1butory negligence or assumption OF
risk rules.
Personally, l feel that il is in the highest
degree retroGressive COR, II YOU prefer the
terms, Bourbon and reactionary) to take
the view that the fellow servant rule is a
part of the common law, and as here vol,
ccnstrue ii rests. as you say il does. upon
considerations Of right and Justice" on
the contrary, l believe that IT is I'm its es
SERGE denial of right and justice. and
that progressive judges generally are now
taking the position that this IS outworn.
and progressive legislative bodies are mt
Versally acting upon IT,
Quotes the Judges Opinion.
In your opinion in this case in question
you continue.
The common law has esta blished the fell
CIV servant doctrine upon two main CON
alterations One, that above mentioned
viewing IL as a rule Of Justice: and tho
)ther, viewing il rule OF policy in thai
tended to make each servant more watch
al of his fellows, ana thus To pronDte liz |
safety of all. well as the efflcienrv ~ /
heir common work