United States constitution says cannot be taken awy without due process of law. "Congress aimed at giving the railroad employe a substance. You construed the act as giving him a shadow by solemnly declaring that to give him the substance is to take away his property in the shadow. "The result which you attempted to accomplish in this decision would produce, I am told, a strange anomaly. The United States supreme court has held that public policy would not permit a railroad company to make contracts with shippers of freight, that the railroad company shall ,not be responsible for its owti negligence in transporting trans-porting that freight. You say that the railroad cannot be forbidden to contract with its employes, that it shall not be responsible for maiming or killing them by negligence.. "I protest that there is no public policy which makes freight more important than human lives, and I criticised your decision because be-cause you say that the constitution would not permit protection of the lives of every employe to the same extent to which, without a statute, freight is in the United States protected now." ROOSEVELT IS PJGHT. Theodore Roosevelt has completely routed Judge Baldwin in their controversy on a point of law and exact justice, although Baldwin Bald-win is trained in the law and Roosevelt is not. Roosevelt, in answer to a letter from Judge Baldwin, gives expression ex-pression to views which should have the widest possible publicity. (as Ving progressive, reasonable and just. He says : "In the Hoxie case you had before you a definite statute, enacted enact-ed by the congress of the United States, declaring the responsibility of railroads to their employes for negligence. Section 5 of that act provided 'That any contract, rule, regulation or device whatsoever, the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier car-rier to exempt itself from any liability created by this act. shall, to that extent, be void. "In that act congress declared that every employe should have certain new legal rights of compensation for injuries occasioned by the negligence of the railroad itself. In placing this clause which I have quoted in the act congress was, no doubt, influenced by the well known fact that in England an employers' liability act enacted many years ago wa3 made a dead letter by employers insisting that their employos should sign contracts agreeing to waive the benefits of the (statute and go without the legal rights which the statute proposed to give them. "In the case decided by you which I have criticised, you declared de-clared that this clause was unconstitutional as being 'in violation of the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States as tending tend-ing to deprive the parties to such a contract of liberty and property without the process of law. You say specifically as to railway em-ployes, em-ployes, 'it denies them, one and all, the liberty of contract which the United States secures to every person within its jurisdiction,' "Your declaration speaks for itself. In substance it amounts to stating that tho employes' right to give up their rights under the law i3 a thing to be protected and not their right to receive those benefits; bene-fits; that the right to contract to get killed is 'property' of which they cannot be deprived; that the right to get killed comes under the head of 'life, liberty and property,' which the fifth amendment to tho