The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-01-27

mer President Roosevelt for islander,
 until. after reading a final letter by
 Mr. Roosevelt. he became convinced
 of the latter's freedom from person
 al hostility and his sincerity in the
 matter
 Mir Roosevelt's final letter. re- printed from the Outlook, is as fol- lows:
 New York, Dec 15, 1910.
 Dear Sir. I have thought careful
 " over your letter. If I could con-
 sider only your personal feelings I
 would very gladly express my regret
 that I had wounded your feelings in
 any way and try to meet your wishes.
 1T it were possible, as to the form my regret should take. You must know that in saying what I did and in my ] was actuated by no feeling of per- ocnal rancor or hostility.
 You were a candidate for the gov
 ernorship of Connecticut. I was dis
 cussine, a matter which related direct
 ly to your availability for that office.
 l was criticising not your personal
 characte CT, which I doubt not is high,
 but specific opinion on a most inn
 portant subject expressed by you as a
 ;udge- Nor was the opinion which I criticised in our correspondence in it. self uniraportant from a public stand point It vitally affected the welfare of all wage earners In involved
 intended to afford railroad employees legal redress which had not thereto fore been furnished them by law. . Your decision in the Hoxie case which I criticised was, in fact, of :; great public importance, not only in your own state, but so far as it might obtain influence as a judicial |: precedent in other states as well. This decision. with the argument of the lawyers. had been, as you probably know, put into pamphlet form by the railroad interests and circulated gen. orally thI oughout the United States among thts railroad lawyers engaged , tn the effort to nullify and destroy this law It was the main support of the railways interests in their ef- forts to def, eat this national law. In 1, this decision you had declared one of [ he sections of this law unconstitu- ! tional, a sec ton which related to the .very essence of the act so far as very large number of employees is concerned. and which was the main subject of my criticism of you, and you further lad embodied in it as a ! judge your political philosophy of op- | position to so-called centralization ] tunder which philosophy the nation | al government would be a foreign power in Connecticut), by refusing to permit this law of the United States ' to be enforced through the courts of Connecticut Other courts which have in other states. considered your v decision have criticised and refused {. to follow this part of your opinion , which related to the right of a state I court to refuse to recognize or en- force q national statute. You do not 1. question. assume. the right of other I judges to criticise your opinion as bad l law on this point. AS to this had ! not criticised you. The defect in | the federal law which you claimed I afforded you 8 basis for refusing to l give this employe legal redress in the ! Connecticut courts was one easily ob- ' viated by amendment to the act. This was subsequently, done by Congress. | criticised the other branch of the 4 case. the part of your decision which, if it be correct. could not be obviated ' by any amendment and would make your decision as important to the { working people of the United States { gro race in the days of slavery.
 My criticisms are fully embodied in my previous letters and need not of course be repeated here. do not see how it will be possible for me to !, give you Q retraction of any part of my letters or my speech without bas- ing my retraction on the assertion that there never was a Hoxie case and that you never wrote the opinion in it. I could not make @ retraction without such a declaration.
 Y If there is to be libel suit, I must therefore, place upon you the full re- sponsibility for its commencement and must decline to take any joint action
 
 submission of the matter to referee It is preferable, I think, if you con | ceive it necessary that there should tbe such suit. that it should take it's rSual way.I of course prefer that no {suit should be brought; but, if one. is brought. I feel too deeply on the principle involved in this controversy, for which have contended for many tyears to avoid the issue in .ssuch a suit The main issue in our contro versy seems to me to be one which can readily be passed upon by those who have sufficient education to read and understand English and who have before them letters and your opinion The inaccurately reported sentence in my speech at Concord to which you object is. as you-state in your first letter, the sentence which read:
 The Democratic party in Connec- ticut have nominated for Governor a man who while judge occupied the tmost retrogressive position possible On this question of workmen's com ipensation, a man who took the view fthat it was competent for a work man when driven to accept any em- tDlcvment to bind himself not to be fin that occupation
 You say that you do not object to the, first part of the sentence, but itaat you do object to so much of it Ias says that you took the view that 4t was competent for the workman .Gheu driven to accept any employ .snent to bind himself not to be com :pensated if he lost life or limb in 4nat occupation" You say that you never held such an opinion, and that <uch a view would be opposed to the settled principles of law and that no competent lawyer could or would take it. 1.-The New York Sum- at the time your first letter came out, quot ed you as saying: '1 have no recol- | lection of ever taking on any trial or in any Judicial opinion the view at- tributed to me by ex-President ROose- welt. and do not believe I ever did.' The inference is mine that you had forgotten when you made this sweep ing denial that you had taken in the Hoxie case the position which was substantially that which I criticised. l I did not use the phraseology as quoted I did express substantially | the same idea. Assuming, there | fore, the quotation to be accurate, I still insist that any distinction be- tween this statement and your de- cision is impossible to draw and that the statement is in fact true.
 Consider the thing for a moment Section B of the federal employers | liability act said that 'any contract | rule, regulation or device whatsoever. 1 the purpose or intent of which shall | be to enable any common carrier to | exempt itself from any liability creat-