Los Angeles herald., 1910-11-05
T.R. WRITES Ord
BALDWIN LETTER
Informs Jurist He Is Not interest
ed in Him as Writer but
as a Judge
DECLARES DECISION AN0MALY Y
Claims Law Renders Void Any
Contract Made Waving
Benefits of Statute
DECLARES DECISION ANOMALY Y
Associated Press)

NEW YORK. Nov. 4.--Another, the
third written by Theodore Roosevelt
in reply to Judge Simon q. Baldwin
Democratic candidate for governor Oh
Connecticut in the controversy con
cerning Judge Baldwin's attitude
toward labor was given out here TO-
night. 1t is dated Nov. z, ana Says
in part: ,o,,
I'm your answer to my letter you
entirely missed the point of the crltl-
cisms 7 am not interested in your
opinion as a law writer am interest
ed in your opinion as a judge.
I'm the Hoxie case you mad oelofe
Won a definite statute enacted by the
congress of the United states, declar-
ing the responsibility of railroads 10
their employees for negligence. Sectlon
5 of that act provides that any con
tract. rule or device whatsoever, tne
purpose or intent of which shall be 10
enable anv common carrier to exempt
itself from any liability created by
this act, shall to that extent be VOID.
s'In that act congress declared that
every employe should have certain new
legal rights of compensation Tor III :.
iuries occasioned by the negligence OF
the railroad itself. In placing TINS
clause which 1 have quoted IN the act
congress was no doubt Influenced by
the we'll known fact that in England
an employers liability act many years
90 was made a dead letter by en-
nloyers insisting that their employees
should sign contracts agreeing to waive
the benefits of the statute and go with
out the legal rights which the statute
proposed to give them.
'In the case decided by you Wnich
have criticised. you declared thls
clause was unconstitutional
"You say specifically as to railway
employees, it denies them, one ana all
the liberty. of contract which the con-
stitution of the United States secures
to every person within it's jurisdiction,
DECISION is SCORED
''Your declaration speaks for itself.
In substance it amounts to statlng that
the employes' right to give up their
rights under the law is a thing to be
protected, and not their right to re-
ceive 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, liberty and property
which the fifth amendment to the Unit
ed States constitution says cannon pe
taken away without due process OF
law. The result which you attempted
to accomplish in this decision would
produce, 1 am told, a strange anomaly.
The United States supreme court mas
held that public policy would not per-
nit a. railroad company to make CON
tracts with shippers of freight, that the
railroad company shall not be respon-
sible for its own negligence in trans
porting that freight You say the rall-
road cannot be forbidden to contract
with the employees, that it shall not pc
resnonsible for manning or killing them
by negligence. ,A,,o
"T protest that there is no public
nolicy which makes freight more I'M
portant than human lives, and L crltl-
cised your decision because you say
that the constitution would not permit
protection of the lives of every employe
to the same extent to which, without
statute, freight is in the United states
protected now"