New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-01-26
NR. ROOSEVELT AND JUDGE BALD.
UIN


What our neighb0r "The Times" last
October called "Mr. RooSevelt's reckless
and INSCRIPTIONS misstatemcuts" are
pretty well demonstrated by Mr.. RoOse-
velt's latest letter TO Judge Baldwin to
have been Just and honest interpreta
tionS Of the meaning Of Judge Baldwin's
opinion in the IIoXie case. That let
ter evidently convinced Judge Baldwin
that discretion In the matter Of that
SANDER suit which he had promised 10
bring was the better part of valor. IT
will also. we think. show all thoughtful
readers how utterly unworthy Of credence
were the newspapers which denounced
Mr. Roosevelt with such unmeasured
violence on account Of his Concord
speech. They went wholly astray and
misrepresented the issue between Judge
Baldwin and the eX-President. "The
Times" defended Judge Baldwin on tile
ground that his only view was as to
what the law at the time Of his deci-
"sion actually was. As a judge he was
hound by that" The Evening Post
declared that If never occurred TO Mr..
Roosevelt "tO ask whether Judge Bald
win was deciding. not what his own in
"diyidual opinion might be. but what
"the law was The sun charged that
Colonel Roosevelt stood convicted Of
Ignorance of the law in disappearing
"the position of Mr.. Baldwin as a
Judge" but when the issue was square
~ put to it it practically confessed by
its cndeavors to shift the ground of the
discussion that Judge Baldwin's dictum
on the freedom of contract in effect
meant what Mr.. Roosevelt said it
meant.
4 careful review of the case shows
that Judge BaldWinS expression was his
individual opinion and not a necessary
finding according 10 the law as il actually
was. His utterance for the alleged mis-
INTERPRETATION of which he threatened
the suit was extra judicial. He had al
ready decided that he had no jurisdic-
ZION 10 entertain suit brought under
the federal liability law. Therefore The
HoXic case must be dismissed. Never
theleSS. like Chief Justice fancy. who,
after having decided that the supreme
Court had no jurisdiction in the bred
scott case. went on 20 deliver q treats"
i'm support of slavery. Judge Baldwin
proceeded in what was pure dictum T.
give his opinion that the clause of the
act forbidding contracts by which rail
road employees waived the right 10 recover
for injuries was unconstitutional. If
fruc. that was q decision 10 he rendered
bv the federal courts, since the Connect
cut courts by Judge Baldwn's own de
csion had no jurisdiction in the prem
iSes. The only effect of the declaration
was TO discredit efforts to secure indus
trial freedom.
Judge Baldwin thinks that his decla-
ration that this clause was unconstiiu-
tional because it infringcd freedom or
contract does not amount 10 the view
that II was competent for the workman
when driven 10 accept any employment
TO bind himself not to bc compensated
for injuries. But It is difficult to se'
why it does not mean precisely that for
an practical purposes. Congress said
il was not competent for the railroad
employe 50 10 bind himself Judge
Baldwin held that railroad employees in
general must have such freedom. He
erected man of straw In the form of
railroad manager dr wing huge salary
who might reasonably want Ia make
such contract He went further and
pointed OFT that railroad employees in
general were iutclligcut-the dangerous
nature Of the business required this
and were not entitled 10 the Guardian
shin given 10 an ignorant class like sail
ors. If that meant anything, ii meant
that engineers and fremen, because in
telligent enough TO be in.rusted with
the lives Of the public in a dangerous
occupation. could got hc protected from
the pressure of employers Ia make them
waive their right TO compensation for
injuries. TheY must have freedom Of