The Birmingham age-herald., 1910-11-01
Connecticut Candidate De- mandS RetTaCtiOn of Re-
 cent Statement
ROOSEVELT HAS IGNORED
 FIRST DEMAND MADE
yudpe Baldwin Tells Exactly Where He Stands on the Disputed Labor Question So That Roose-
 welt May Know ..

New Haven, conn., OcloDef ol.--JuuSe Simeon Baldwin, democratic nominee for governor. sent letter today to former President Roosevelt, in reply to a recent letter of the latter relating to Judge Baldwin's stand on certain labor legis- lation. The latter says:
 "I have received your two answers Cboth undated) to my letter of October 24, one written before you read 1t, and the other written after you had read it. Apparently you have misunderstood the principle of my communication.
 "In that I referred to the fact that in . public address in New Hampshire you had charged me with holding certain view of a point of law. I then stated that I did not hold that view and never had and requested that you retract that charge.
 'The passage from your address to which referred was one In which, after referring to me as former judge, you stated that I was a man who took the view that it was competent for the workmen when driven to accept any em- ployment, to bind himself not to be com pensated if he lost his life or limb in that occupation.'
 The First Letter
 Tn your first undated letter you state that your TtCOltCtitn Ol tlliS pdSSd6o Ill your address is that you mentioned that the democratic candidate for governor Of Connecticut occupied a retrogressive attitude as to the right of legislative bodies to interfere with what you re- gard as the utterly miscalled liberty Of laboring men and women to contract for the performance of work under condi- tions which jeopardized their welfare and i their lives and limbs; and that the re- nr+x hn stood for what you regard as the only proper attitude, which Is that 1t is not compe- |. tent for the workman who may be driven by dire need to accept any employment | in spite of the conditions imposed upon his arceptnrce. to bind himself or be bound in any way by any action of his, not to be compensated if his health is damaged. or if he lose life or limb In that occupation.
 "You then remark that I said in my letter to you of October "A, as printed that the view which you thus stated as that of the republican party, would be opposed to the settled principles of law, and that no competent lawyer could or would take it. and that to ascribe such a position to me was calculated 10 a1- feet my standing as lawyer.
 View of the Courts
 JAS to this, I would say this view En1cn you utScIiD6 dS llidI Ol lliO iC- publican party, is the view which is xenerally taken by courts and lawyers, and was explicitly taken up by me in inv work on American railroad law in a passage to which I refer you in my let ter of October "A. It is part of the gen. eral American common law, resting upon principles of right and justice, that have been generally expressed by the people Of the United States. A former letter, nor do I now, of your char tacterizing me as having been a retro fgressive.' You have stated in public that took the view that 1t was com- potent for the workman, when driven to accept any employment, to bind hin,- self not to be compensated, if he lost life and limb In that occupation
 q have denied that I ever took such . view. I will add that I have long been in favor of the principle of the workmen's compensation act (though not unaware of the constitutional diff flculties in applying 1t In this country) and was nominated to the office which you referred to by party which called for such legislation in its platform.
 Request for Retraction
 "I now repeat my request that you retract the statement of which 1 con- plain. I ask 1t as matter of fair ness to one to whom his reputation as ). lawyer is of value as well as In the Aterest of truth.
 }"It would seem to me that in your eference to the Hoxie case in your bcond undated letter. you not only b wide of the question between us, hut write under a misapprehension of he rules which govern the decision s3f legal actions. Let me state a few of these, as to which there Is no diff ference of opinion among any who have nade the law special study.
 "A judge in deciding a case has to
 Nnounce on a past transaction. The
 \, question coming before him is
 s.i.Fere the rights of the parties
 S;J1 hat transaction took place. This
 ss depend on the law as 1t then
 my
 sr3st of our law is what is termed
 V1ustomary or common law. In each
 dration the people make it and add
 sl by common consent as they go
 kls; and so far, at least, as the
 fs recognize and approve 1t, it Is
 Authoritative and binding as if
 sEed by the legislature. There has
 grown up a general American
 Enon law resting upon considera-
 Is of right and justice that have
 h generally accepted by the people
 lhe United States
 fThe rules of which necessarily gov In the decision of the Hoxie case.
 J.'The main question in the Hoxie Ase was whether a federal statute had ltered the common law as admins fired in the state courts of Connecticut. That the fellow servant rule was part bf this common law in Connecticut was ynot questioned by any of the able counsel who participated in the argu- ment.
 The HOxie Case
 The supreme court of errors had no power to repudiate this fellow servant rule. as applicable to the case before them. It had become generally accept ed as right and just in the middle of the last century by the American peo- ple It had been recognized and ap- piled by the supreme court of errors of Connecticut in many opinions
 Judge Baldwin here cites several opinions bearing on the case and con tinuHs:
 -f A-tly after came upon the court a
 r0NYIENCD ON PAGE O
 w OpenN