The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-11-01
BALDWIN AGAIN
A.SKSRETR|IACT|0N
Tells Roosevelt That Hc Has
Made Misstaterncrt
OF Facts.

= Ii ~ Il p L
New Haven, Conn, October 81. -.
Judge Smson Il. Baldwin, Domocratto
nominee for Governor, sent a letter
Ito.d day to Former President Roosevelt
IN reply5ato the recent letter Of tho
latter relating to Judge .Baldwinss
stand on certain labor legislation. The
letter says In part: i5S8
4 " have received your two answers
Il doth undated) to my letter OF October
IA: \ one written before you received y
Sand the other written after you had
read It. Apparently you have misun-
stioh. #
g "1n that referred to the fact that
In 4 public address In New Hampshire,
you had charged me with holding ~
certain View. OF q point of law. I then
stated that I did not hold that view
and never had. and requested that.
YOU retract the charge. n
The passage from your. address to
which, referred was one In which
after referring to me as a former
Judge. YOU stated that I was "A man
who took the view that 1t was COM
Epetent for the workman. when driven
to accept any employment. to bind
himself not to be compensated II ne
lost his life or limb in that occupa-i
ton.
-. In your first undated letter
YOU state that in your address you
mentioned that the Democratic candi-i
date for the Governor of Connecticut
occupied a retrogressive attitude as to
the right of legislative bodies to In
sterfcre with what you regard as the
utterly miscalled liberty of laboring!
man and women to contract for the
NM fsNs Han
which teopardlzed theirN welfare and
their lives and limbs; and that the
Republ1caa party, oA the contrary,
stood for what you regard as the only
proper progressive attitude. which Is
that 1t Is not competent for the work.
men who may be driven by dire need
to accept any employment In spite or.
the conditions imposed upon his ac-
5ceptance. to bind himself or to be
bound in any way by any action OF
his: not to be compensated IL his
health is damage or II he loses life
or limb in that occupation.
You then remark that said In my
letter to you of October "a, as printed
that the view which you thus stated
as that OF the Republican party. would
be opposed to the settled principles
Iot law. and that no competent law
yer could or would take It, and to
ascrtbe such position to me was
calculated to affect my standing as a
lawyer.
AS to this, would say that this
view. which you describe as that OF
the Republican party, Is the view which
is generally taken by courts and law
jyers, and was explicitly taken by me
In my work on American railroad law,
in passage to which refer you in
my letter Of October "a. It Is part OF
the general American common law.
resting upon principles of right and
justice, that have been generally ac-
icepted by the people of the United
States.
II did not complain IN my fo7mer
letter, nor do 4 now, of Your clar-
,acteriztngE me as having been retro
gressiVe. Z am not objecting tot the
use of adjectives, but to mlsstatemhnts
OF facts, the Hretraction OF which 1T Is
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
took the view that It was competent
for the workmen. when driven to ac-
,cept any employment, to bind himself
not to be compensated, II he lost lira
and limb In that occupation have
denied thatiI ever took such a view.
L will add that have long been IN
favor Of the principle of workmen's
sooInpensa ton acts (though not una
ware OF the constitutional ANTIQUITIES
in applying it in this country, and