New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-10-26
ROOSEVELT TO BALDWIN
Repeats That Connecticut Judges
Attitude Is Retrogresslve.
MAKES NO RETRACTlON
Contrasts Republican and Demo
cratic Policies on Labor
Legislation.

Syracuse Oct 25-Ex-President Roosevelt
issued an open letter to-day to Simeon e
Baldwin, ex-Chief Justice of Connecticut
and Democratic candidate for Governor of
that state, in reply 10 Mr.. Baldwin's de-
mand for a retraction of statements made
regarding him by Mr.. Roosevelt in his
speech at Concord, n. H. on Saturday
Mr.. Roosevelt in that speech said that MI
Baldwin stood in a retrogressive attitude
toward workingmen's compensation laws
Mr. Baldwin In his letter said he never mao
held the view attributed to him. Mr..
Roosevelt's letter is as follows:
Judge Simeon f. Baldwin. New Haven,
Conn.
Sir: | have not received the letter which
i. is said you have sent me, but | nave
seen extracts from Ii in the press to-uay'
and hasten TO answer. Two or three dlI-
ferent versions of what l am alleged 10
parently they include two different ana
distinct sentences, neither reported at
length nor quite correct, and hoth coinoIieo
into one.
What 1 said In substance is as follows:
l had stated the attitude of the Demo
of New York In UNFOLDING the view that it
was unconstitutional for the state to enact
legislation prohibiting laboring men from
Der of hours under conditions which the
Legislature deemed unhealthy. stated
that the Republican party, in contradicuoii
to these Tetrogressive views, tooa s;tinn t nn
all these matters; that We held 1t was tile
right Of the Legislature to interfere VIII
the conditions of labor whenever tns no ths
of labor were so excessive that under the
actual hygienic conditions In any business
they amounted TO menace to the heaItn
and welfare of the workman. l commune t
by saving that many Judges in the past
and some judges even in the present nan
held. or were holding, the view that legls..
lative bodies could not interfere WIN l,,rfv
of laboring men and women TO CONTRACT
for the performance of work unoer conui,
lions which jeopardized their welfare ana
I continued by saying that the Demo.
Gratis candidate for Governor OF CohneStict!'
also occupied a retrogrssslye asti,u1e that
We on the contrary, stand for what re-
gard as the only proper progressive dtu-
tude. which is, that 1t is not competent TOT
fhe workman who may be driven by dire
need TO accept any employment, IN spite
of the conditions imposed on MS acceplaIics
IN hind himself OF to be bound IN any way
by any action of his not to be compensated
II his health is damaged or If he loses
life or limb in that occupation.
Cites Many Court Decisions.
You say in your letter as printed that
the view Of which I speak would be op,
posed TO the settled principles or law, ana
no competent lawyer could or would take
if. and that TO ascribe such position 10
Won IS calculated to affect your standing as
a LAWYER II you will turn TO MIR. Alger
little volume called Moral Overstrain
and read the chapter in which he deals
with the decisions of the courts uphQldlng
this so-called liberty Of the labor1ng man 10
make contract to his disadvantage. you
will see that very many judges have taken
the position to which l object. These
Judges. / have no doubt, were honofapie
and conscientious men of high standing as
LAWYERS but I emphatically hold that the
Dosition they took was and is retrogreSslVe
and not progressive. ..
| have not with me the printed transcript
of one of your opinions, which was handed
10 me prior to my making the speech IN
Question: but, II the newspaper account or
yoljr letter Is correct, you hold therein that
railroad employees who accept Dement'S from
the accident insurance, which you say the
railroads often style relief department,
cannot look to the company in case or &C
cidents If you are correctly reported py
the press in this matter, hold that TINS
position is retrogressive, ana not pr9gIes-
the right TO enact laws refusing TO perfnlt,
and that existing laws should, IN accord
ance with the opinions of very many pro-
gressive Judges be construed as not per
any action OF his own, to estop himself
from his right to have a railroad or other
forced to compensate him Tor
auv injury dore 10 him in the performance
o. his duty. l.,
press in this matter, you hold that the &C
ceptance of a very small benef1t from the
accident insurance company by a rallroad
en.plove would estop him from recovering
the substantial amount which he otherwise
received l hold that such a view is most
not progressive very re-
specially yours,