Norwich bulletin., 1910-11-01

sent q letter lGtdN 10 IOI-
mer President Roosevelt, IL reply to
I the recent letter of the AT: er relat-
iEg to Judge Baldwins stand on GER
tain labor legislation. the letter, dat
ed at New Haven, Octouer 81, follows:
Apparent misunderstanding.
Il have received your two answers
(both undated) to my letter of Octo-
ber "A; one written before you receiv-
ed it, and the other written after you
had read it.
Apparently you have misunderstood
the point of my communication.
In that l referred to the fact that
in public address in New Hampshire
you had charged me with holding a
I certain view of point of law. I then
and never had and requested that you
retract the charge:
Workmen's Compensation.
"The passage from your address to
which I referred Quoting from the
newspaper reporD. was one in which,
after referring to me as a former
judge, you stated that / was a. man
who took the view that it was COM
petent for the workman. when driven
to accept any employment, to bind
himself not to be compensat ted if he
lost his life or limb in that occupa-
ton
4 have since obtained a transcript
which read thus:
The democratic party of Connec-
Ticut has nominated for governor a
II an who. while Judge, occupied the
int st retrogressiVe possible position on
| this question OF workmens compenSa-
t.on--a man who took the view that
It was competent for the workman,
when driven to accept any employ
lnent, to bind himself not to he com
p"nsated, if he lost his life and limb
in that occupation
In your first undated letter, you
state that your recollections of this
passage in your address is that you
mentioned that the democratic candi-
d3te for governor of Connecticut oc-
Curied a retrogressive attitude as to
the right of legislative bodies to in
terfere with what you regard as the
utterly miscalled liberty of Iaboring
men and women to contract for the
performance of work under conditions
which jeopardized their welfare and
their lives and limbs; and that the
republican party. on the contrary,
st0oC for what you regard as the only
proper progressive attitude, which is
thaf it is not competent for the work
1aR, who may be driven By dire need
q accept any employment, In spite of
IT," conditions imposed upon his &C
ceptance, to bind himself or be bound
IN any way by any action of his not
10 be compensated if his health is
damaged, or if he loses life or limb in
hat occupation.
You then remark that 1 said in my
letter to you of October "a. as print
ed, that the view which you then stat
c as that of the republican party
would be opposed to the settled prin-
ciples of law. and that no competent
lawyer could or would take 1t, and
that to ascrine such a position to ME
was calculated to affect my standing
as q lawyer.
f'As to this, l would say that this
view, which you describe as tina: Of
the republican party, is the view
which is generally taken by courts and
lawyers, and was explicitly taken by
1nr in my work on American r2ilroal,
law, in a passage to which L refer = -ou.
in my letter of October "A. II is
Fart of the general American ct1a-
mon law. resting upon PRINCIPLES Of
right and justice that have been gen
orally accepted by the people of the
United States.
Objcts to Misstatements.
tI did not complain in my former
letter. nor do l now. Of your chrac-
terizing me as having been retro
gressivo' judge. l am not objecting
to the I,&e of adjectiNes but to mis-
statments of actS-missts tements, the
retraction of which it is the more i'm
portant 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
took the vitw that it was competent
to the workman, when driven to ac-
ceDt any employment. to bind him
self roJ to be compensated, if he lost
life and limb in that occupation 7
have Gnried that I ever took such q
view. I will add that l have long
been III favor of the principles Of
worlkmen's compensation acts (though
not unaware of the constitutional diff
ficulties in applying in this country,
and was nominated to the office to
which you referred by a party which
called for such legislation in its plat
form.
Repeats Request for Retraction of
Statement.
Il now repeat my request that you
retract the statement of which I COM
plain. I ask it as q matter of fairness
to one to whom his reputation as a
lawyer is of value, as we'll as in the
interests of truth. 1t would seem TO
me that. in your reference to the Hoxie
case. i'll your second undated letter,
you not only go wide of the questions
betneen US, but write under a lffisap-
prehension of the rules which govern
the decision of legal action. Let me
state q few of these, as to which there
10 IlO dllLSI tIltt VI OpIUtOn dillOlS
those who have made the law a. spe-
cial study.
"A judge, in deciding case. has to
pronounce on a. past transaction. The
only question coming before him is
whether the rights of the party when
that transaction took place. This must
depend upon the law as it then eI
listed.
General American Common Law.
Most of our law is what is termed
the customary or common law. In
each generation the people make it,
and add to it by common consent, as
they go along; and so far, at least, as
the courts recognize and approve it,
il is as authoritative and binding az
if enacted by the Legislature There
has thus grown mp q general American
common law. Resting upon considera- =
tions OF right and justice that have
been generally acce pred by the people
of. the United States the rules of
which necessarily govern th7 decision
Of the Hoxie case.
Those rules govern most OF the
transactions OF daily life in every state.
Perhaps an illustration may render my
meaning clearer. Slander is defined
as defined words falsely spoken.
which are Injurious 10 the reputation
of another. Where ia ths definition
IL he found9 Not IN any statute. It