New-York tribune., 1910-11-01
JUDGE BALDWIN REPLIES.
Auain Asks Mr.. Roosevelt to Re-
tract. After Statement of Case.
DOESN'T MIND ADJECTlVES
But Objects to Misststements
of Fact" as Injurious to
Him in Profession.

:
Him in Profession.
/ New Haven, Oct 3-Judge Simeon E
Baldwin, Democratic nominee Tor Gov
! ernor, sent a letter to-day 10 former Presl-
! dent Roosevelt in reply to the recent letter
/ of the latter relating to Judge BALDWIN ;
stand on certain labor legislation The let
ter is dated at New Haven. october 81, and
reads as follows:
1 have received your two answers (poth
undated) 10 my letter OF Octooer ~ 4I,e 3be
written before you received II, aao .i1e
| other written after you had read IL sp
parently you have misunderstood the point
Of my communication.
public address IN New Hampshire, you nag
charged me with holding certain We" %
not hold that view, and never had ana re-
ouested that you retract the charge
The passage from your address TO WhlCH
referred Quoting from the newspaper re-
port) was one in which, after referring 10
me as d former judge, you stated tnat
was "a man who took the view [nat u ,a| WeS
to arcept any employment. to grind him 10
bind himself not to be compensated II ne
lost his life or limb in that occupatlon:
7 have since obtained a transcript OF ti!S
original stenographic minutes. which reads
thus. -.,+
while Judge. occupied the most retrogres.
sive possible position on this question OF
workrnen's compensation; man VINO tooA
the view that 1t was competent Tor the
Workman when driven to accept any en-
pIovr1ent to bind himself not TO be COM
pensated if he lost life and limb in that oc-
cTpation-'
What Mr.. Roosevelt Wrote.
IN YOUR first undated letter you state
that your recollection OF this passage IN
your address is that you mentoned tnat
the Democratic candidate tor GoveLnoe 3roAlit'e
of Connecticut occupied a retrogresslve
attitude as TO the right OF leglslatlve ooo-
les 10 interfere with what you regard as
men and women TO contract for the per
fornnance of work under conditions Whlch
feopardized their welfare and their nVes
on the contrary, stood for what you re-
gard as the only proper progressive atEl-
tude, which. is that it IS nGt cGmpetebnI li1l bI;
dire need to accept any employment IN
spite OF the conditions imposed on ms
acceptance. 70 bind himself aims ,+ion or of 70 b;s
not 10 be compensated if his health IS
damaged, or If he loses life or limb in
You then remark that I said in my
letter TO you of October o. as printed
that the view which you thus state9 as
opposed 10 the settled principles OF Iaw,
and that no competent lawyer coulo oL
would take it, and that TO ascrioe a. sucn
. position to me- was calculated 10 alleoI
my standing as a lawyer IT, --,,-r-
AS 10 this I would say that this view,
which you describe as that Of the RepI5p.
taken by courts and lawyers, ana was
explicitly taken by me in my VOTE. woIk on on
which I refer you. in my letter OF Octo-
Der "a. It is part OF the genera! Anerlcakk
common law. restlng upon PelnClPtHs a, eSsnAT- ~
ally accepted by the people Of the Cnlteo
I did not complain in my former letter,
nor do now. Of your characterlzing me as
having been ''retrogressive judge
Retraction Nest important
l am not objecting to the use of adjec-
tives. but TO misstatements or IhcIs' y .illS-
statements the retraction Of which II IS
most important 70 me to secure. on account
Of the high position which you IoTmer!y
held as the first citizen Of the United states
You have stated in public that | took
the view that il was competent Tor the
workman, when driven 70 accept any EN-
plovment to bind himself not 70 Be com
pensated if he lost life and limb in that oc-
I have denied that I ever took such a
view. I will add that I have long been II
favor of the principle Of wOrkmen'S com
pensation acts Though not. unaware or tne
constitutional difficulties IN applying II "
this country, and was nominated 10 Che
office 10 which you referred by party
which called for such Legislation IN its plat
form. .
I now repeat my request that you retracL
the statement of which I complain ask
II as a matter OF fairness 10 one 70 whom
his reputation as a lawyer is Of value
II would seem to me that in your refer
ence 70 the Hoxie case in your second IN
dated letter. you not only go wide OF the
question between US but write under mis-
apprehension of the rules which govern the
decision of legal actions. Let me state d
few Of those, as TO which there IS no diner
ence Of opinion among any who nave maze
ha 2 special study.
A Judge, in deciding a case, has 10 pro-
nol1nce on a past transaction The only
question coming before him is what were
the rights OF the parties when that transac-
ton took place. This must depend on the
law as il then existed.
Most Of our law is what is termed the
customary or common. law. In each gen
Grafton the people make it and add to by
common consent, as they go along ana, 50
approve il, it is as authoritative and binding
as if enacted by the Legislature