Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1910-10-29

Roosevelt this evening gave out a copy
OF another letter which he has written
10 Judge Simeon E. Baldwin. denls-
cratic nominee for governor of Com
necticut in which he discusses further
the attitude OF Judge Baldwin regard
ing labor legislation. which Colonel
Roosevelt criticized in his speech at
Concord. n. H., last week as retro
EressiVe.-
The Grst letter Of Colonel Roosevelt
10 the Judge was based on the press
reports of the letter from Judge Bald
win to him When the Baldwin letter
reached Mr.. Roosevelt he found that
in some respects his Colonel Roose-
reltsl information had not been en-
tireiy accurate. Meanw bile he had OBJ
tsined fuller information from other
sources. and on this he wrote the letter
of today, which follows:
Roosevelt to Baldwin, on the Work.
mems Federal Compensation Act.
Hon. Simeon Z. Baldwin. "A Wall
Street. New Haven. Conn:
Dear Sir; ] have Just now received
,our letter Of Oct. gsth- My former
Litter was based on statements in the
public press. as now appears. not
wholly correct. purporting 10 be your
letter as published by you.
AT the same time | have received
= copy of your opinion scs chief justice
In the case OF William II. Iioxie versus
the New York. New Haven and Hart
ford Railroad company. this being one
OF the documents 7 had in mind Wien
] spoke I'm New Hampshire rs under
the circumstances relat ID by me in the
letter which you have already received.
This was q case in which William
H Hoxie. train hand an employe of
the New York. New Haven and Hart
lord Railway company. was injured
while coupling cars in a train cunning
rom Norwich. Conn. to Worcester.
Mass The injured man sued the rail-
road. You presided in the appellate
court and wrote its opinion. declaring
the workmen's federal compensation
act. under which Hoxie sued. to be
Unconstitutional. 50 that he was denied
the right 70 be compensated for his
injury.
-Ssetion Of the act provided that
any contract. rue regulation or device
hstsoever. the purpose or intent of
which snail be TO enable any common
carrier to exempt Itself from any lia-
liiity created by this act shall TO that
extent be void. The purpose of this
provision was as q matter of public
policy "a protect workngmcn from be-
Ing cocrced into making improvident
and unfair contracts o.. stipulating to
accept nominal amounts for disable
ment and D1utiiation as the price of
obtaining employment In urging such
legislation j, in message to the Six
tieth congress. in December 1907,
placed Il hpon the ground Of justice
to the worlunen Of this country. +
said I'm part:
The practice Of putting the entire
burden OF loss OF life or limb upon the
victim or the victims family is a form
OF social injustice in which the United
States stands in an unenviable promi-
nence- In both our federal and our
state legislation we have with few ex-
ceprions scarcely gone further than the
repeal OF the fellow servant principIe
.1f 4 h. e4Id a nf 11uInftffs- mi In
- our states even this slight modifica-
ton Of completely outgrown prnci-
rle has not yet been secured. The
legislation OF the rest OF the Industrial
world stands nut i'm striking contrast
% our backwardness in this respect
Took Ground Against the Progressive
View.
In your decision in question YOU
squareiy took ground against the pro-
eressive view, which ] hold to be es-
sential to the welfare Of the working
men OF this nation. and. therefore, to
tbs welfare OF the whole people. In
treating of this opinion of yours Law
Notes on Oct. 10th wrote as follows:
=" In the course of his opinion he
said: AT common law a servant can
not recover from his master for in
juries received from the negligence of
a fellow servant acting in the same
line OF employment. This IL a part of
that general American law resting up
on considerations of right and justice
that has been generally accepted by
the people OF ths United States. This
sentiment would be cOldly received, to
sny the least by labor unions desirous
or securing u workmen's compensation
act such a. the New York legislature
passed and Governor Hughes signed
about three months ago The fellow
servant rule is not a diVinely inspired
rrecePt any more than the contributory
neSlircuce or assumption of risk
rules
Personally I feel that it Is in the |
highest degree retrogressive Cor, if you
prefer the terms. bourbon and reac- |
tipnarv) Z" take the view that the fell |
iew servant ruic is a part of the COM |
mon law. and as here you construe it. |
rests as you sav il does, upon consid-
erations Of right and Justice On the |
contrary. believe that it is in it's es-
srnce a denial OF right and Justice and |
that progressive judges generauv are /
now taking the position that this Is
o-fTo-n and progressive legislative
hndies are universally acting upon IT." |
Cruel ard Unjust Doctrine to the !
Workincman.
In your opinion in this case in oues-
ton YOU continue "the common law |
f-lE established tie fellow servant 1Jc-
tsine ur0n two main considerations:
one, that above mentioned, viewing ii |
as 2 RUE OF Justice; and the other, /
viewing IL as q rule of policy in that Il |
tended 10 make each servant more |
watchful of his fellows, and thus to /
promote the safety of all, as well as !
the efficiency of their common work"
You contintle: THE state OF Cnnnec-
ticut has. under her laws, written and |
unwritten. so regulated the relations /
OF employer and employees that no aer-
Ion can b- maintained in her courts by I
Il servant against his master for per-
snnzl Injuries sustained within her ter |
fit0rial limits Through the negligence |
OF one OF hfS'1sllov servants. nor for +
such injuries sustained through the I
negligence Of fthe master. combined \
With fli. Of the plaintiff himself when I
the laftrr's neslisenrc essentially con- I
triDi ed ~ The result. whether ii We're I
or Hrre NOT as great as the luasters
Tile Serfrs. - sYcoulinon carrier falls 4
wif mfr filcSe rules This is not because l
of the nature OF his masters business