Show CANDIDATES REPLY Yi I ITO TO Th COL ROOSEVELT I lABOR lAWS LAiS lAWSIN I I II i Ii i IN DISPUTE Judge Simeon E Z Baldwin Nominated r by Democrats for Governor of Connecticut Writes to Ex STATEMENT OF LATTER VIGOROUSLY DENIED s Ii Nutmeg Jurist Does Not Hold View V i w Attributed to Him in t i 11 Speeches of the Former t Occupant of White House r EXPLAINS HIS POSITION J EW lea net Det u N SIa st see K F aal Ue D Dem senile fee far el a seat newt newta seata Ht Hta a letter today le farmer torI n H p elt la reply tal tu Ie llo m ell elf r rat rr re vent at letter Ier t C Ju J e stead t d m as lubor labur 1 The letter l lter M sayer II r rI hi I have bate ha f reed reet veil nr sr r two lao If lb bath l to t w 1 letter leUr of UI st 4 ass u ie I written re you OU u It t tanti awl anti the Ibe wilier ether er written lteR after ou OUr hail bed rend r It ii l ft eu Mate katr r ml IBI t th te t I II IM ni ren I la It I 1 referred to is the Ie tart larl 1 that tha la laa I Ia a n tH tI IB la New w 1 J hail d we me with Uk a view ft at f a point paint of f law I I 1 th hat b t I did net Bat held bolt 14 that thac view and never f had bad and aad rr Healed that y you n the tee charge The passage 11 from your to t which I 1 referred was wat oi on in a i tf pK i tU me Alt a as a fat fui U III IIII I joty 7 yea a tai al d tha f I A wac a U a s man maa Al k tile the vi view w Ii that it ll ua 10 sac ail comp compe competent com tent for the workman n when driven to tel accept ay to lU bind him hini himself self If not to te be If he hla bla 1 life lit or limb In 10 the occupation In your first undated latter you yo tat slat that your recollection vt Jt t this title pas passage PM passage sage ae in your our address addren is that you tiu HI mn that lit the I an tor for of ui ut u I occupied phd d da a as to the tho sighs ril lt of ut ios e tt to I interfere wi tt h what you u regard as ant th lh the utterly nil nu called liberty lIb rt of f laboring men mn and aud women to 10 j their welfare elfare a ant their lives liver an and l limbs and that I ila the Republican Re Republican Re n publican part UI on or the Ilu contrary stood 1 for tor what you ou u regent regard an as a the only prop proper er fOr attitude altitude all which i 1 is I that i it II IK is I no nut 11 competent for tor the Ih workman who may ma tr h Irn n hy by I dire need nJ to a ac accept any an employment in spite lit of the condition 1 poll his hll ance to 10 hind bind elf or be d in n nany any way wa hy by h any action of his not nOI to tobe tobe tobe be compensated co if hi his hil health in is h dam damaged dama damaged aged a or if lie its I loses Jo life or limb in that occupation t Palma at ac JR I r You Vou then remark that thaI I t said ail in my tuv Y letter to 10 you of Kober 4 ait III that the view w huh you thus Ihu stated as a that hal of ut the th Republican j Jart riy would h lie apposed to I the III settled principles principle of l I ao t and an that thai no II competent lawyer could or would take it and that hat to as ascribe a ario cribe rio such a it to ro me rut was cal cai calculated calculated to affect art my III standing landing a a lawyer As u to t this lids 1 I say Kay a that lila thic thiA view Vito which you yuu a as that of It the Republican part al j is h the view j which IK lit generally taken la eft by Ly courts and anti lawyers and was wan explicitly taker hy by hyme h me in my III work ork on American railroad t law Iw lu III a passage to I which T J referred you ou in my letter of October 21 n it in I part of the general American common law la resting renting upon principles principle of ot right and justice that have lIan bran ben 1 1 generally accepted hy Irv Hie I j eoj Ol of r the I h States Sta t t tI I 1 did no not complain in uI my m former letter nor nir do du I f now of f your our charac characterizing characterizing characterizing me as having born been h n rel sive alve You have stated in public that X t t l BB ea e I Seven 1 CANDIDATES REPlY T TO COt Continued from Page Pace One Our I took the view that it was competent for tor the workmen w hen driven to ac tic accept any an employment ment to bind them theme themselves themselves selves not to be compensated If they lost life and limb in that occupation I have denied that I ever took such a aview aview view I denie will wil add that I have long lone been In favor tavor of the compensation compensation compensation act though not unaware of the I constitutional difficulties In applying it i in this country and was as nominated to the office to which you referred by bya b ba a party arty which railed called cle for such legisla legislation legislation tion ton in its iu platform platform j jA A Again en I In u Auks Asks akl l I now repeat my request that you ou retract the statement of which I 1 com corn complain complain plain I at aik k it i as al a matter mater of fairness to one olie to whom his hie reputation as a lawyer is of value as wen welt as In the interest of ot truth It I would seem sem to me that In your reference to the Hoxie case in your our second undated letter you not only go ga gowie wide wie of ot the question between us UI but write under a misapprehension of the thu the rules which govern govera the decision of ot legal actions Let me state stae a few tew of ot these thet as aa to whIch there is no differ difference enee ence of opinion among mong any who have made the law a study A judge in deciding a case has ha to transaction The pronounce on a past Pt only question queston coming before him hini Is what were the rights of the time parties when that transaction took tek place This must depend on the law as aa It then ex existed e isted Most of our law is what is termed the customary or common law In each generation the people make it and add to it il by common consent as they go along and sod so s far tar at least as the courts recognize recognise and approve it it itis itIs itis is as authoritative and binding as if I enacted by the legislature There has thus grown a general generl common law resting upon considerations of right and justice that have generally been ac accepted IC by b the people of ot the United States as rules which necessarily gov governed governed erne the decision of ot the Hoxie case J Issue hane u In Hoxie Case Caie Ca CaThe The main question in the Hoxie case was waB whether a federal statute had al altered altered altered the th common law as a a administered In the state courts of Connecticut That the fellow servant rule was wall part of the common law in Connecticut was not questioned by b any an of the able counsel who participated il in the argument The supreme court of errors had no power to repudiate this fellow servant rule rul as applicable to the case cale before them then It bad ad become generally accepted I as right rigl and just in the middle of or the last lat century by the American people It had been recognized recognised and applied apple by the supreme court of 01 errors of Connecticut in many opinions Judge Baldwin here cites cies several Meral opinions bearing on the ease case and con continues continues Shortly Shorty after ater I came upon the bench bencha lenc a case arose in which this same fellow fallow servant rule was relied rele upon We e ap applied applied plied it as we were wore bound bund to do but with pled the observation that It was too wih firmly established as law by a multi mulU multitude multitude tude of decisions to be b now reversed or seriously modified by any exercise of the power vested In courts Note tote Appended to Co In order to emphasise this thi intimation Lion tion ton that time the rule rube was followed because it was settled law a note was ws appended to our opinion signed by the Initials of the justice justee who wrote it containing these statements statement The he rule of is one de do deducted ducted by a process of ot analogy from decisions rendered under a state of so society 1 society clet different from that of ot today toay and the crystallization of such luch analogies I into a binding rule is ia of comparatively I modern origin orgIn It I first appeared In 1 England In Priestly vs Fowler and in 1860 1850 was applied appl J to the of railroad companies in Hutchinson vs York Vork N B Railway company e mj any In 1841 1811 14 it was formulated In South Carolina Murray I vs Railroad company 1 Mc McMullan Ic Mullan Mulian 35 and in 1842 au in Massachusetts Machu Massachusetts In the t e leading case of Farwell vs 1 Boston and W V R It Corp 4 Met 49 9 The very ver ale able opinion of ot Chief Jus Justice Jus JustIce tice Shaw in iii time uie tle last case cae has bas largely dominated the law on this thi subject dur tier during durIng ing the last fifty years ears and contains contins the most plausible statement that cati or ba be baglen given glen of the grounds supporting the public policy poloy which compels a workman entering the service of ot a master to assume the whole risk of an alt Injury that may ma be done him by y the master through the misconduct of ot a a follow fellow servant The Tle vigorous language of ot this statement however appropriate it may ma have been at that time has a touch of ot grim irony iron when read in the light of existing con conditions cn conditions in the employment of labor In England in 1880 the rule was as changed by b the employers liability act and Is Isnow Isnow Isnow now practically abolished as to large classes of workmen by Ly b the compensation act ac passed during the present 1897 year yi ear This rule has hal been bel dealt with by legislation in several of ot our sister states It was first formally I recognized in this state In Burke vs vs Norwich and W R H Co 24 U Conn 44 49 with wih a strong protest against the sufficiency of ot the grounds for a prin principle ciple demonstrated too firmly in other Jurisdictions to be b differently treated here In Darrigan vs N Y T X 2 B E R Co 62 52 Conn cnn onn the application of or the rule was somewhat modified and possibly possibly bly bl cases casu may arise arie where the legitimate legit legitimate mate exercise of ot the duty dut of ot the court courtin in applying established principles to novel conditions na may my involve some urn lim limitation Haton or of its Is apparent reach But thin the evil is too to be remedied by judicial actions it needs radical treatment through wise legislation No change changa having been made since then by the legislature of Connecticut the rule was necessarily applied to the Hoxsie case Subsequently Subsequent and on ac tic account account count of that decision the federal federl law was altered alered so as aa to make mak it in terms applicable to actions In the state courts court Hoping that this letter may remove any misunderstanding of my request and that you OU will WIl conclude that under I these Uiese circumstances it is not an unreasonable unreasonable Yours one truly I am I SIMEON BALDWIN BALDWI I I II |