The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-11-01
BALDWIN MAKES
REPLY To TEDDY
Judge Tells Former President
That He MiSstates Facts i'm
His Criticisms.
ALSO SAYS THAT ROOSEVELT
DOES NOT KNOW LAW
JustifieS His Decision i'm HOAie
Case, and Demands a
RetractiOn.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. Oct. Sl.-Judge
Simeon e. Baldwin Democratic nominee
for governor. sent letter today 10 for
mcr President Roosevelt In reply TO Mr..
Roosevelt's recent letter relating to Judge
Baldwin's stand on certain labor legisla
ton. The letter says:
IL have received your two answers
(both undated) TO my letter of October
"a; one written before you received it,
| and the other written after you had
read 1t.
Apparently you have misunderstood
the point OF my communication.
I'm IL l referred to the fact that. i'll
public address in New Hampshire. you
had charged me with holding a certain
view OF point OF law 1 then stated
that / did not hold that view. and never
had, and requested that you rctract tho
| charge
which ] referred was one in which, after
referring to me as Il former judge, you
| stated that ! was a msp WHO took @ ,he
| workman, when driven to accept any
employment. TO bind himself not to be
compensated if he lost his life or limb in
| that occupation
Analysis Of Charges.
| ''In YOUR first undated letter, YOU state
| that your recollection of this passage in
your address Is that you mentioned that
| the Democratic candidate for governor or
| Connecticut occupied rctrogrcssivc att-
tude as TO the right of legislative bodies
| TO Interfere with what you regard as the
utterly miscalled liberty of laborinS men
| and women TO contract for the perform
ance Of work under conditions which
| jeopardized their welfare and their lives
and limbs, and that the Republican party.
| on the contrary. stood for what you re-
| gard as The only proper progressive atu-
| tude., which is that it Is not competent
| for the workman. who may be driven by
| dire need to accept any employment, IN
! spite of the conditions imposed upon his
| acceptance. TO bind himself or be bound
| in any way by any. action OF his, not 10
| be compensated If his health is damaged.
] or IL he loses life or limb in that occupa-
| ton
| "You then rcmarl that ! 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 competn,nt ;, lawysr r;b Gou'e l'h or
| a position TO me was calculated to affect
my standing as lawyer ,,,.,o
which you describe as that of the Re-
publican party is the view which is gen,
orally taken by courts and lawyers and
was explicitly taken. by me III my VOTE wors
| TO which I refer YOU in my letter OF
October "a. 1t is part of the general
principles of right and justice. that nave
| been generally accepted by the people OF
the United states
Further Denials.
| sT did not complain i'll my former let
| ter nor do / now. OF your characterlzlnG
me as having been 'retrogrcssive
You have stated In public that
| took the view that 1t was competent for
the workmen. when driven TO accept any
employment to bind themselves not 10
be compensated. If they lost life and LIMB
in that occupation. I have denied that
ever took such a view. ! will add that
=. e, ,,,F nrlf ff,O
mems compensation acts (thoush not un-
aware OF the constitutional difficulties in
applying 1T in this country; and was
nominated TO the office to which you re-
ferred by party which called for such
legislation In It's platform
Il now repeat my request that you re-
tract the statement of which ! complain
ask 1t as a matter, OF fairness to one
to whom his reputation as lawyer rs
of value as well as In the interest of
truth.
"it would seem to me that in your
reference to tho Hoxic case, In your Sec
ond undated letter, you not only SO
write under misrepresentation OF ths
rules which govern the decision OF legal
actions. Let me- state rev Of tnese. as
ion among any who have made the law
a study.
Basis of Decision.
ga judge, In deciding q case. has 10
pronounce on past TRANSACTION. ine
only question coming DclGrc hiul 10 ",ias
were tho rights Of the parties when thae
transaction took place rms must oe
pend on the law rs II then existed.
Most Of our law is what is termeH
the customary OF common law. In encn
generation the people make II and add
To il by common consent, as they 20
along: and SO far at least as tho courts
recognize and approve IL II is as au-
thuritutive and binding il enacted by
the legislature. There has thus grown
a general common law resting upon con-
sidcrations of right and justice 'nat Is
generally accepted by the people OF the
United States. rules of which necessarily
governed the decision OF the lIoXic case.
The main question in the HoSie case
was whether federal statute had al
tered the common law MS administered
in the stale courts OF Connecticut. mat
the fellow servant rule was part OF TINS
common law In Connecticul was not qucs-
toned by any OF the able counsel VINO
participated in the argument
The supreme court or errors mad no
power to repudate this fellow servant
rule as applicable TO the case before
them. II had become generally accepted
as right and just III the middle OF the
last century by the American people, IL
had been recognized and applied by the
supreme court of errors OF Connecticut
in many opinions.
Judge Baldwin here cites several opin-
ions bearing tho case and continues.
Precedent Followed.
Shortly after I came upon the bench
"a Scasc arose (uotan versus railroad 20
Connecticut reports. lel) In which this
same fellow several rule was relied upon
bui with the observation that IL was TOO
firmly established as law by multitude
of decisions To be now reversed or seri-
ously modified by any exercise Of the
power vested in courts.
In order to emphasize this intimation
that the rule was followed because IT
was settled law, a note was appended to
Continued on Page Two.