The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-11-05

Calls Labor Case Opinion
Revolutionary"
HOLDS POINT MISSED

New York, Nov. 4-Col. Roosevelt has
sent another letter 10 Judge Baldwin,
Democratic nominee for governor OF Con-
necticut. in which he says. in part:
I have received your letter OF October
81. AS I told you in my first letter. the
sentence of mine to which you refer was
not correctly reported, consisting Of two
sentences which have been put into one.
The first sentence. namely. The Dem
ocrauc party of Connecticut has nomi-
mated for governor a man who, while
judge. occupied the most rerogressive
possible position on the question Of work
mems compensation is substantially
correct The next sentence is not given
as l said it, nor was it said as part Of
the first sentence Indeed. as you first
quoted IT, ii was nearer right 10 the ex-
tent of saving in it the word 'griad.'
which was part OF the phrase I had
used-'by grinding need, a phrase which
IS totally absent from the sentence you
quote
But the sentence is wholly ir complete
and Inaccurate. The sentence as4I actu-
ally said it opened with the use Of the
word -progressives' or progressive as an
anuthesis TO 'retrosressive.' and contained
a statement of our emphatic dissent from
the position which described in some
what the language quoted. but not in the
language quoted"
Says Point Is Missed.
But my criticisms Of You are set forth
clearly in my second letter. In your an
swer 10 my letter you entirely miss the
point OF the criticisms. I am not inter
ested in your opinion as a law writer. I
am interested in your opinion as a Judge.
My criticism Of you as reactionarv was
based not upon what you may have said
as law writer, but upon what you did
as judge. Your long citations from de-
cisions in courts Of Connecticut are en-
tirely irrelevant and beside the point.
In the HoXie case you had before YOU
a definite statute. enacted by the Con-
gress Of the United States. declaring the
responsibility Of railroads 10 their en-
ployes for negligence. Section OF that
act provided that any contract, rule.
regulation. or device whatsoever the pllr-
pose or intent Of which shall be to enable
any common carrier to exempt itself from
any liability created by this act shall 70
that extent be void
In the case decided by you which I
have criticised. Hoxie VS.. New Haven
Road, YOU decided that this clause was
as being in violation
of the fifth amendment OF the Constitu-
ton OF the United States, as tending TO
deprive the parties to such a contract OF
liberty and property without due process
OF law You say specifically as to rail-
way employees: It denies them, one and
all. that liberty Of contract which the
Constitution Of the United states secures
10 every person within its Jurisdiction
Declaration Is Issue.
your declaration speaks for itself: in
substance it amounts 10 stating that the
employees right TO give up their rights
under the law is thing TO be protected
and not their right to receive those
benefits; that the right to contract 10
get killed is property of which they
cannot be deprived: that the right IN
get killed comes under the head of life
liberty. and property, which the fifth
amendment to the United States Consti-
tuition says cannot be taken away with
out due process OF law. Congress aimed
at giving the railroad employe a sub-
stance. You construed the act as giving
him a shadow by solemnly declaring
that 10 give him the substance is TO take
away his property in the shadow
Il criticised your decision because II
is to me an Incredible perversion of the
Constitution OF the United States crit
icised IL because il is not only reaction
airy, but revolutionary. | criticised n he
cause l am against socialism. and this
decision and every decision like II makes
for socialism or something worse. Every
strained construction of the Constit,Ition
which declares that the nation is mower
less To remedy industrial conditions
which cry for law, gives aid 10 those
enemies Of our American system of gov
ernment who wish TO furnish in It's Mace
some new. vague. and foolish substitute
BY your decision as Judge, you have
declared the powerlessness of the state
TO enact an effective law on a subject
which requires effective law. I regard
your decision as reactionary in a matter
Of vital concern to all laboring men.
do not think II possible for you TO ex-
plain how, as governor. you would oh
viate the effect of your decision as
judge"