Omaha daily bee., 1910-11-06
ROOSEVELT REPLIES TO BALDWIN
Colonel Considers the Judges Acts
Not His Words.

Colonel Considers the Judges Acts,
Not His Words.
NEW YORK, Nov. 5.--Another letter. the
third written by Theodore Roosevelt in
reply to similar communications from
Judge Simeon r. Baldwin, democratic can
didate for governor of Connecticut in the
recent controversy concerning Judge Bald
wins attitude toward labor was given out
here tonight. 1t is dated November . and
says in part:
In your answer to my letter you en-
tirey miss the point Of the criticisms.
am not interested in your opinion as a law
writer, 1 am interested in your opinion as
judge. My criticism Of you as a reaction.
airy was based, not upon what you may
have said as a law writer, but upon what
you did as a Judge
Your long citations from decisions in
courts OF Connecticut are entirely irrele-
want and beside the point. l know, as
every lRymsn knows that it is not func-
ton Of a judge to make new laws When
there is no statute enacted b. the law
making bodies of the people the courts are
no doubt bound to follow precedent. The
question between us does not involve any
such principle In the Hoxie case you had
before you definite statute enacted by
tAle COlBIeSs Oh the united states OeCldTlHH
the responsibility Of railroads to their EN-
ployes for negligence. Section five of that
act provides that any contract rule, regu-
lation or device whatsoever, the purpose
or intent of which shall be TO enable any
common carrier TO exempt itself from any
liability created by this act shall to that
extent be void
New Legal Rights.
way employees should have certain new
I legal rights OF compensation for injuries
oocasiOned by the negligence OF the railroad
/ itself. In placing this clause which l have
quoted in the act congress was no doubt
/ influenced by the well known fact that in
! England an employers liability act enacted
many years ago was made a dead letter by
employers insisting that their employees
should sign contracts agreeing to waive
the benefits of the statute and go without
the legal rights which the statute pro-
posed to give them. "
I'm the case decided by you which
have criticised you declared that this
clause was unconstitutional as being in
violation Of the fifth amendment Of the
constitution OF the United States, as tend
ing to deprive the parties to such contract
of liberty and property without due process
Of law You say specifically as 20 railway
employees:
1t denies them one and an that liberty
OF contract which the constitution Of the
United States secures TO every person
within It's Jurisdiction.
Your declaration speaks for itself; in
substance 1t amounts TO stating that the
employees right to give up their rights UNI
der the law is thing to be protected and
not their right to receive those benefits
that the right TO contract TO get killed is
property OF which workers cannot be de-
prived. that the right TO get killed comes
under the head Of life, liberty and prop
erty, which the NTH amendment TO the
constitution says cannot be taken away
without due process Of law Congress
aimed at giving the railway employe a sub
stance You construed the act as giving
him shadow by solemnly declaring that
by giving him the substance Is to take
away his property IN the shadow.
Decision PerversiOn OF Constitution.
II criticised your decision because IL is
TO me an incredible perversIon Of the con.
stitution OF the United States / criticised
IL because II Is not only reastlonsry but
revolutionary. 1 criticised Il because am
against socialism, and this decision and ey-
cry decision like IL makes for socialism OF
something worse. Every strained construc
ton OF the constitution which declares tina
the nation Is powerless to remedy indus
trial conditions which cry for law give,
aid TO those enemies Of our American sys
tenn OF government who wish TO furnish
I'm lie place some new. vague and foousi
substitute
'rhe result which you attempted to &C