The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-11-01
BALDWIN SAYS ROOSEVELT MUST
 RETRACT WORDS
Colonel Did Not Adhere to the Facts-Judge Makes
 His Position Clear

New Haven, Nov. Judge Simeon B. Baldwin, Democratic nominee for Governor of Connecticut, sent a let ter yesterday to Col. Roosevelt in re- ply to the recent letter of the latter relating to Judge Baldwin's stand on certain labor legislation. The letter, in part, follows:
 Apparently you have misunder- stood the point of my communication.
 "In fact, I referred to the fact that, Tn a public address in New Hamp- shire, you had charged me with hold ing a certain view of a point of law. then stated that I did not hold that view, and never had, and requested that you retract the charge.
 The passage from your address to which I referred Quoting from the newspaper repor), was one in which. after referring to me as former Judge, you stated that I was "a man who took the view that it was com petent for the workmen, when driven to accept any employment, to bind himself not to be compensated if he lost his life or limb in that Occupa- tion.
 T did not complain in my former letter, nor do I now, of your char acterizing me as having been re- tFOSTeSSlVe.
 Il am not objecting to the use of adjectives, but to misstatements of cts-misstatements, the retraction of which it is the most important to me to secure, on account Of the high position which you formerly held as the first citizen of the United States.
 You have stated in public that I took the view that it was competent for the workman, when driven to ac cept any employment, to bind him. self not to be compensated, If he lost life and limb in that occupation.
 ''I have denied that I ever took such a view. I will add that I have long been in favor of the principle of workmen's compensation acts (though not unaware of the constitutional difficulties in applying it in this coun- try,) and was nominated to the office to which you referred by a party which called for such legislation in it's platform.
 q now repeat my request that you retract the statement of which I complain. I ask 1t as matter of fairness to one to whom his reputa- tion as a lawyer is of value, as well as in the interest of truth.
 ''It would seem to me that in your reference to the Hoxie case, in your second undated letter, you not only go wide of. the question between us, but write under a misapprehension of the rules which govern the decision of legal actions. Let me state a few of those, as to which there is no diff ference of opinion among any who have made the law special study.
 "A judge, in deciding a case, has to pronounce on past transaction. The only question coming before him is what were the rights of the parties when that transaction took place. This must depend on the law as it then existed.
 'The main question in the Hoxie case was whether a Federal statute had altered the common law as here tofore administered in the State low-servant rule was part of this common law in Connecticut was not questioned by any of the able coun- sel who participated in the argument.
 'The Supreme Court of Errors had no power to repudiate this fellow servant rule, as applicable to the case before them. It had become gener- ally accepted as right and just in the middle of the last century by the American people. It had been recog- nized by and applied by the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut in many opinions.
 With respect to considerations of policy, it is by no means certain that the public interest would not be best subserved by holding the superior, with his higher intelligence, his surer means of information and his power of selecting, directing and discharg- ing subordinates, to the strictest ac- countability for their misconduct in his service, whoever may be the suf- ferer from it.
 ''The very able opinion of Chief Justice Shaw has largely dominated the law on this subject during the last fifty years and contains the most ho ho crixya of the grounds supporting the public policy which compel workman en- tering the service of master to as- sume the whole risk of any injury that may be done him by the master through the misconduct of a fellow servant. The vigorous language of this statement, however, appropriate it may have been at that time. has touch of grim irony when read in the light of existing conditions in the em- ployment of labor. In England in 1880 the rule was changed by the Employers Liability act and is now practically abolished as to large classes of workmen by the Work mems Compensation act. The rule has been dealt with by legislation in several of our sister States. It was first formally recognized in this State in Burke vs. Norwich and w. R. Co.,, 34 Conn. 474,479. In Darrigan vs. New York and N. B. R. Co.,, 52 Conn. 2s5, the application of the rule was somewhat modified.
 No change having been made since then by the Legislature of Connecti- cut the rule was necessarily applied in the HOXie case. Subsequently and on account of that decision the Fed eral law was altered so as to make it. in terms, applicable to actions in the State courts.