The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-01-27

pose by rule or a contract the de- nial of rights created by statute in tended to operate in the employee favor the theory of the employes S freedom in accepting that rule or making that contract is a delusion and a sham. The theory of free dom,'' of which you are the resolute defender in this opinion, would, if ex- tended, undermine the very basis of all the child labor legislation in the United States, and of all legislation regulating industry to prevent the eX- plOitation of human lives where eN- cessive competition threatens them, and where long hours and evil condi- tions of labor are destructive of man kind and womanhood. It would un- dermine every law intended to make living conditions more tolerable for working people. If the WOrkmau n has a right to contract to take the risk of being killed through the neg ligence of his employer, has a right to contract to receive no benefit from statute which is created to afford him a benefit, he has a right to con tract to live in a filthy tenement, and laws requiring property owners to make these tenements habitable can ing the freedom" of the tenement dweller to live in filth and pestilence. And yet you think that this issue be- tween legal barbarian and the en- frightened Judgment of all humane and right thinking men is so petty and personal that it can be settled by a islander or libel suit brought by you against me.
 Your decision against the federal employment liability act can in my view be justified only by adhering to an economic philosophy of govern ment which 1 hold would result in making and keeping the workman in Q state of helplessneSs so far as his own rights are concerned. The law making branches of our state and na- the necessity of making these chan ges, so as to better the position of the workman, crippled in industry and in his fight for redress and jus tice in the courts. Your decision in a very fundamental matter denies not merely justice to the workman, but lies like a dead tree in the very path way of remedial justice by declaring powerless the branch of government from which this redress must come.
 If your suit is brought, my politi- cal opponents may make such capital endeavoring to spread false notion among conservative but high minded citizens that I am an unfair critic of the courts may find such points for they see fit. However, they can make capital out of my attitude in this controversy, as it seems to me, only by ignoring or denying three highly important considerations: First that your decision which I have criticised and continue to criti- else, is morally wrong and is con- trary both to public policy and to justice; secondly. that it is dangerous to our democracy to allow any court to claim immunity from fair criticism or objection, when it circumscribes a legitimate and proper field of legisla- tion by interposing constitutional ob- jections where they do not exist; and, lastly, they must be prepared to as- sert that, because a man has been a judge, this fact alone should exempt him from fair criticism, even wh sn he is no longer a judge, but a candi- date for the highest elective office of the state.
 Yours truly,
 (Signed) THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, New
 Haven, Conn.