Roosevelt, Theodore (1858-1919) to C. H. Betts
High-resolution images are available to schools and libraries via subscription to American History, 1493-1943. Check to see if your school or library already has a subscription. Or click here for more information. You may also order a pdf of the image from us here.
A high-resolution version of this object is available for registered users. LOG IN
Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC06422 Author/Creator: Roosevelt, Theodore (1858-1919) Place Written: New York, New York Type: Typed letter signed Date: 2 June 1911 Pagination: 3 p. ; 24.1 x 20 cm. Order a Copy
Responds to criticism from Betts over an article Roosevelt wrote in The Outlook denouncing the New York Court of Appeals for their decision to rule the workmen's compensation act unconstitutional. States that their conduct was, " ... a most flagrant and wanton abuse of a great power." Conveys his views on how the Court should be run, "My plea is for rational growth; my plea is that the court act with ordinary statesmanship, ordinary regard for the Constitution, as a living aid to growth, not as a straight jacket; ordinary regard for the laws, the rights of humanity, and the growth of civilization." Indicates that four Federal judges have written to him agreeing with his article. Refers to the fact that Lincoln wanted to reverse the Dred Scott decision just as he wants to reverse the workmen's compensation decision in New York. Typed in purple ink on Outlook stationery and addressed to Betts at the Lyon Republican, Lyon NY.
In 1910 a partial workmen's compensation act became effective in New York State. The act was declared unconstitutional in 1911 by the Court of Appeals on the ground that it was taking property without due process of law.
June 2nd, 1911.
My dear Mr. Betts:
Really it is hard to believe that you read my article on the courts, because it is an absurdity to say that I had desired the court "to render decisions in favor of the views of particular men or the temporary sentiment of the hour, and ignore constitutions and law". My contention is that the Court of Appeals in this case rendered a decision simply in accordance with the temporary sentiments of certain particular men at this hour, and ignored the constitution and the laws, as Marshall always interpreted both Constitution and laws, and that their conduct was a most flagrant and wanton abuse of a great power, an abuse which if continued will render it the duty of all patriotic men to take steps that will at least minimise the chance of such action in the future. If the course I advocated in The Outlook is combated with permanent success, it will in the end bring about just what you say fear, i.e. "political anarchy and useless revolution". It is simple nonsense to suppose that this country will tolerate permanently a line of action like that you are upholding on the part of the Court of Appeals. Isolated acts of the kind our people may tolerate from ignorance, but they would be unfit for self-government if they submitted permanently to such a course of conduct; and if the position outlined in your letter was [2] taken as a permanent course of policy, it would bring about a revolution. My plea is for rational growth; my plea is that the court act with ordinary statesmanship, ordinary regard for the Constitution, as a living aid to growth, not as a straight jacket; ordinary regard for the laws, the rights of humanity, and the growth of civilization. I wish to state with all emphasis that no man who takes the opposite ground to that which I have taken in the article in question has any right to be on the bench; and it is a misfortune to have him there. Four Federal Judges, of the United States' Courts, have written me since that article appeared, stating that they absolutely agree with it, that they regarded the action of the Court of Appeals of New York as so utterly reactionary as to be an invitation to revolution, and that they felt I was rendering a real and conservative public service in writing as I did. My dear Mr. Betts, have you forgotten that the Republican party was founded largely to protest against the very type of view concerning the courts which you now uphold! Have you forgotten Lincoln's repeated strictures on the Supreme Court for the Dred Scott decision! That decision was worse in degree, but not in kind, than the one which I assail. Have you forgotten what Lincoln wrote in his first inaugural; (in justifying the position he had repeatedly taken, that he would endeavor to secure a reversal of the Dred Scott decision - [3] just as I wish this New York decision reversed):- "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the (court) ……. the people will have ceased to be their own rulers". I protest against this servile view merely as Abraham Lincoln protested.
Sincerely yours,
Theodore Roosevelt
Mr. C. H. Betts,
The Lyon Republican,
41 Williams Street,
Lyons, N. Y.
Citation Guidelines for Online Resources
The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.