New-York tribune., 1910-11-05

The following letter. the thru written by
Theodore Roose welt in reply 10 similar
communications from Judge Simeon Z.
Baldwin. Democratic candidate for Gov
ernor Of Connecticut, in the recent coniro-
versy concerning dge Baldwias attit ade
toward labor, was 81 ven ont last night;
November ., 1910
Judge Simeon E. Bald win,
New Haven, Conn.
October 81 As ] told YOU il my first lie 1er,
the sentence Of mine 10 which you refer
was nos CORRECTLY reDort ed, consisting of
TWO sentences, which h2A e been put mao
one. The first sentence namely, 1Ilss
Democratic party Ct Connet Scut has ncml-
mated for Governor M II VINO, whlie
Judge occuDied the most ret. aggressive pos
slble position on this question OF WofknlsN 5Ii ;
compensation, Is substantially correct Inc
next sentence j. not given as ,Ssi-Io ,@ A. @ ilol
il said part OF the ur- y SENTENCE
indeed, as you first quoted II, II vas nearer
hight 10 the extent OF haVlLg In q me WoIo
grind, which was part of the ph rAse nae
used. by grinding need" q phrs tse Whlch
IS totally absent from the sent gnce you
quote. But the sentence II wholly lncon-
plete and inaccurate The senten ce as
actually said il opened with the use OF the
word @Progressives." or Progress We as
an antithesis 10 ''retrogressive, am con-
tained statement OF our emphatic q assent
somewhat the language quoted, but n,'t in
the language quoted
Criticism Based on Specific Act.
But my criticisms Of you are set for n
clearly ~ my SECOND letter. In your ansWS U
70 nv letter YOU entirely miss the point OF
the criticisms am I,of interested in your
opinion as a Ia writer. I am interested in
yoUr oninion a. = iudge Nv criticism of YOU
as q reactionary was based upon what
you may have said as law writer, but upon
what you did as Judge. Your long clta-
Ilons from decisions IN courts OF Connecu-
cut are entirely irrelevant and beside the
point ! know, a every layman knows,
that il Is not function Of a judge to make
new laWs- " nen theTe IS no statute en-
acted by the law making bodies OF the
people, the courts are no DOUBT bouno 70
leIioM pTeceoenl. he question DeL"SS-I
Us does not involve any such principle. In
the HoKie case YOU had before YOU deiln-
1te Statute enacted by the Congress Of the
United States. declaring the responsibility
oi railroads 10 their employees Tor neSn-
Sence. Section 3 OF that act provided, That
any contract rule, regulation or device
whatsoever. the purpose or intent OF which
shall be 70 enable any common carrier TO
exempt Itself from amy liability created Dy
ihls act, shall 10 that extent be void IN
that act Congress declared that railway
employees should have certain new legal
rights Of compensation Tor injuries OCca-
stoned by the negligence Of the railroad it.
quoted in the act Congress was no doutG
Influenced by the well known fact that in
England an employers liability act, enacted
many wears ago. was made a dead letter by
employers insisting that their employees
should sign contracts agreeing TO waive the
legal rights which the statute proposed to
give them Congress doubtless intended that
the neneIlclal value OF TINS 1edera4 en1ploEzs
ers liability act should not be DESTROYED
by any such process. In the case decided
by you which ! have criticised YOU declared
fhaf this clause was unconstitutionaI as
being in violation Of the Fifth Amendment
of the Consti- utiOn Of the United States
rs ten6fr- 10 denrive the r,zrtiee to sIlcb
q contract OF libertv and property without
a 70 raiIway enpioves. IT denies them.
one and all. that liberty Of contract which
the Constitution Of the United States Sc
cures 10 every person within its iUriSdc-
fion- Eour declaration speaks for itself:
in substance i amounts 70 stating. thai the
e-r1ploves right 70 give up their rights
under the law is thing TO be protected and
not their right 70 receive those benefits
that the right 70 contract to get killed is
property Of which they cannot he de-
: T1yed that the right t0 GET killed comes
N unoer the hear of life. liberty and prop
-uited States Constitution saws cannot he
VTaken awzy without due process Of law
Dlove ? substance You construed the oct
as giving him shadow by solemnly de-
ClarinC that 70 give him The substance is
70 take aWa- his DTOnertT if the shadow.
Calls Decision Revolutionary.
criticised your decision because It IS 10
ne an incredible perFersion of the COnsti-
tuition Of the United States 7 criticised n
because II Is not ONLY reactionary but revO-
lutionary- criticised il because I am
against socialism and this decision and
every decision like II make for Socialism
or something worse Every strained con
structon Of the Constitution which declares
that the nation is powerless 10 remedy in
AID 10 those enemies uf our American svs-
TEN OF government who wish 70 furnish in
us place some new, vague and foolish sub
stitute
The result which YOU attempted to ac-
compllsh IN this decision would produce I.
an told. strange anomaly. The United
sN - enc 'oHfl mas heid Lhat public
policy VIII not permit a railroad company
n make contracts with shippers Of freight
tLeI re FsllFoad company shall not he re-
Spohslbie Tor It's own negligence in trans
poTtlne that freight You say that the
r@ilroac cannot be forbidden to contract
with is employees that II shall not be re-
sponslble for manning or killing them by
neGisence protest that there is no pub
lie policy which makes freight more i'm
portant than human lives. and 7 criticised
your decision because YOU saw that the
Constitution viii not permit protection, NJ
the lives or railway employees TO the same
extent 10 which. without statute, freight
cf1tlclFtr Is not as some OF YOUR supporters
endeaVor 70 have rhe people believe a
simply and solely criticism Of YOU for
having given an extraordinary and IN
r-ecedented construction to the Fifth
&Tnenamenf of the Constitution Of the
United States 50 as 70 perverr lis purDose
and by so doing 70 nullify and destroy an
essential part Of a most important federal
statute
Workinan1en Entitled to Reply.
The platform on which you are seeking
election for Governor in Connecticut prom
1ses an employers liability ACT How can
there be an employers, liability act in Con-
nectcut which will be 0f value TO the
srlploye Il he can be compelled 70 contract
= waive the benefits Of that act through
ms necessitlee2 Your answer 10 this need
not be made 70 me. II is an explanation
TO which the working people of ('onnecti-
cut are entitled. BY your decision as iudae
you have declared the powerlessness of the
state 70 enact effective law on a sub
1ect which requires effective law I regard
your decision rs reaCtiOnarv III a matter
of vital concern n al laboring men do
not think Il possible for YOU 10 eynlafn
how a. Governor you would obviate The
effect Of your decision as Judge
loo Say You are running upon plat
form I2ForinS compensation legislation
The objections made by YOU in tie HoTie
case would obviously nullify as to 2 ver-
large number Of working people an,r s1Icb
compensation legislation. II your opinion
in the HOXie case is good law no conner,
sation law for those VINO need II p7oet js
possible. because there would still remain
the freedom of contract OF the ernDlover "a
stabllsh the terms and conditions hv r7ri
We BARGAINING as constitutional rig,t
yhich you say cannot be invaded bv leeis-
ktion, 4 freedom which would enable hiTn
= contract with employees constrained b,,
Sseir necessities to accept his terms and
nvr~ -