Show I I 18 REPLY TO THE I 1 LATEST BALDWIN EPISTLE Former President Makes Out a Complete te Case Against the th Con Connecticut L LS 1 S S cut Candidate J JN NEW N EW YORK NOT Noy i Another letter the third written by T ii Roosevelt in hi i reply to similar from frem rem E B Baldwin Democratic candidate for governor of C in m the recent controversy concerning Judge Baldwins attitude atti de toward labor was given out here tonight It is dated November 2 and says sa ia I part partIn partIn I I In your answer to my letter you entirely miss mise the point of ef r the criticism I am not interested in your opinion as a law writer I am interested in your opinion as a judge My criticism of you as a reactionary was based not i upon what you may have said as a law writer but upon up n what you did as aa aaa asI asa a judge l Your long Ions citations from fromin 1 in courts courts of oC Connecticut Cuu are ar entirely 1 and aM b sUle the point I Know as aa every l layman an knows that it Is III yet a function o 0 a judge to make no JU Rotc laws When hen there IB Is no statute en n fl acted b t by tile the lawmaking bodies of the I people the courts are no doubt bound II 1 to fo follow i rec ni i tweet tween us u t rl ti n 1 ili u I S 1 iI I c cl 1 I I Congress of the United atai iau r l lag ing the th of to o I r Continued l on Page la e Seven 5 I REPLY TO BALDWIN EPISTLE Continued from Page One their s for negligence Sec Section den tion E i of that act provided That any contract rule regulation or device whatsoever the purpose or intent of ot which shall shaU be to enable any common carrier to exempt itself from any lia liability created by this act shall shad toj to that extent be void In that act Congress declared that every should have new legal rights for tor compensation for tor injuries occasioned by the negligence of the railroad itself In placing this clause which I have bave Quoted in the act Con Congress Congress Congress gress was no doubt influenced by the fact that in England an employers liability act enacted many years ago was made a dead letter by employers Insisting that their should sign contracts agreeing to waive the benefits of the statute and go with without without without out the legal rights which the statute statue proposed to give them Liberty of Contract Contrad Denied In the case decided by you which I have criticised you declared that this clause was unconstitutional as being in violation on of the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States as tending to deprive the parties to such a contract of liberty and property without the process of law You say specifically as to the railway It denies them one and all the tho liberty of contract which the constitution of the United States State secures to every per person person person son within Its Us Jurisdiction Your Tour declaration speaks for Itself In substance It amounts to stating that the right to give up their rights under the law is a thing to be protected and not their right to receive i those benefits that the right to con contract contract i tract to get killed is property of which they cannot be deprived that the right to get killed comes under the Ute head of life Ute liberty and property which the tar fifth filth amendment to the United State Stator constitution says cannot be taken away awa without due process of ot law aimed at e giving the thA rail r rad ad a II sub substance an e You con can construed construed trued the they act as r him a 0 shadow j by b solemnly declaring that to give him the substance is la w to take away his property in the shadow Perversion of Constitution I I criticised your decision because it itis ItIs itis is to me an on incredible perversion of the constitution of ot the United States I criticised it because I am against so socialism socialism and this decision and every decision like It makes for socialism or something worse Every strained construction of the constitution which declares that the nation Is powerless to remedy indus industrial Industrial industrial trial conditions for lor law gives aid to those s a of our American system of government who wish to fur furnish furnish furnish nish in its place some new vague and foolish substitute The result you attempted to accomplish in this would pro produce produce produce duce I am told a strange anomaly The United States supreme court has bas held that public policy polley would not per permit permit permit mit a railroad company to make con contracts contracts contracts tracts with shippers of freight that the tho railroad company shall not be De re responsible responsible responsible for tor Its own negligence tn In transporting that freight You Tou say that the railroad cannot be forbidden to con oon contract contract tract with Its Ita employee that it shall not be responsible for maiming or killing them by negligence I protest that there is no public pol pal policy polIcy icy which makes freight more tant than human lives Jives and I criticised your decision dec lion because you say that the constitution would not Dot permit penult protection protection protection tion of ot the lives of ef ever every emp ye to the satin sAUle extent to which without out a statute freight is in the United States protected now My sty criticism is not as some of your our supporters endeavor to have the public believe bellve a II criticism m of the Judiciary in i general It is simply and solely a erit crit criticism I of you for having gir given n an ex lX extraordinary and con construction to the fifth amendment of the constitution of the United States State so 80 o as asto asto to pervert its it purpose and by BO so doing to nullify and destroy an essential hart of a most important federal statute |