Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1910-10-26
Open Letter to
Simeon Baldwin.
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR
GOVERNOR OF THIS STATE.
FROM THEODORE ROOSEVELT
Reply to Mr.. Baldwin's Demand for
sardins Him by Mr.. Roosevelt.


Roosevelt issued an open letter today
to Simeon Baldwin, eX-chief justice of
Connecticut and democratic candidate
for governor of that state in reply to
Mr. Baldwin's demand for a retraction
OF statements made regarding him by
Colonel Roosevelt in his speech at
Concord, n. H., on Saturday. Colonel
Roosevelt in that speech said that
Baldwin stood in a retrogressive atti-
tude toward Workingmen's compensa-
ton laws. Justice Baldwin in his let
ter said he never had held the view
attributed to him.
Colonel RooseveIt's Letter.
Colonel Roosevelt's letter is as fol-
lows:
Judge Simeon E. Baldwin, New Ha-
ven, Conn:
Sir: I have not received the letter
which it is said YOU have sent me, but
have seen extracts from it in the
press today, and hasten to answer.
Two or three different versions of what
l am alleged to have said appear in
different papers. Apparently they in
clude two different and distinct SEN
tences, neither reported at length nor
quite correctly, and both combined into
one.
What I said in substance is as fol-
lows:
q had stated the attitude of the
democratic candidate for governor in
the state of New York in upholding the
view that it was unconstitutional for
the state to enact legislation prohibit
ing laboring men from being required
to work an excessive number of hours
under conditions which the legislature
deemed unhealthy. I stated that the
republican party, in contradiction to
these retrogreSsiVa views, took in the
strongest fashion a progressive posi-
tion on all these matters: that we held
it was the right of the legislature to
interfere with the conditions of labor
whenever the hours of labor were so
excessive that under the actual hy-
gienic conditions in any business they
amounted to a menace to the health
and welfare of the workman. I con-
tinued by saying that many judges in
the past and some judges even in the
present had held or were holding the
view that legislative bodies could not
interfere with what ] regarded as the
utterly mscalled liberty of laboring
men and women to contract for the
performance of work under conditions
which jeopardized their welfare and
their lives or limbs. I continued by
saying that the democratic candidate
for governor of Conn necticut also occu-
pied a retrogressive attitude in this
matter. ] again continued, stating that
We on the contrary stand for what I
regard as the only proper progressive
attitude. winch Is Cndj II IS not conf
petent for the workman who may be
driven by dire need to accept any en1-
ployment in spite of the conditions i'm
posed upon his acceptance, to bind
himself or to be bound in any way by
any action of his not to be compen-
stated if his health is damaged or if he
loses life or limb in that occupation.
you say in your letter as printed
that the view of which I speak would
be opposed to the settled principles of
law and no competent lawyer could or
would take it, and that to ascribe such
a position to you is calculated to affect
your standing as lawyer. If you will
turn to Mr. Alger's little volume called
Moral Overstrain' and read the chap
ter in which he deals with the decision
of the courts unfolding this so-called
liberty Of the laboring man to make a
contract to his disadva ntage you will
see that very many judges have taken
the position to which [ object. These
judges. I have no. doubt, were honor
able and conscientious men of high
standing as lawyers but I emphatical-
ly hold that the position they took
was and is retrogressive and not pro-
gressive.
7 have with me the printed tran
script of one of your opinions which
was handed to me prior to my making
the speech in question. but if the news
paper account of your letter is correct
you hold therein that railroad en-
ployes who accept benefits from the
accident insurance. which you say the
railroads often style a relief depart
ment cannot look to the company in
case of accidents. If you are correctly
reported by the press in this matter
I hold that this position is retrogres-
sive and not progressive. I hold that
the state has absolutely the right to
enact laws refusing to permit, and that
existing laws should. in accordance
with the opinions of very many pro-
gressive judges. be construed as not
permitting any man directly or ind-
rectly, by any action of his own. to
estop himself from his right to have
a railroad or other corporation forced
to compensate him for any injury done
to him in the performance of his dutv
IF your letter is correctly quoted in
the press in this matter you hold that
the acceptance of verv small benefit
from the accident insurance company
by a railroad employe would estoD him
recovering the substantial amount
which he otherwise would be entitled
to recover for an injury received.
hold that such a view is most emphat-
ically not progressive.
Very respectfullv vours.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT IT,