dor 
as. 
lo 
he 
rk 
T- 
nt 
r= 
ed 
te 
qr 
{32 
0 
m 
1i- 
er 
y 
ot 
18 
1t 
ns 
1e 
In 
~f 
at 
“A 
f 
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 155 
tion could do. And, of course, I direct my statements to Senate bill 
3060. 
One or.two of the witnesses that have appeared before the com- 
mittee quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court in Massachu- 
setts v. Mellon, in support of their statement that the Supreme Court 
had held the maternity act unconstitutional. I merely wish to clear 
up the question that they have raised about that. The court specifi- 
cally declined to pass upon or discuss the constitutionality of that 
act. The court said, further: 
We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground 
that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when 
the justification for some direet injury suffered or threatened, presenting a 
justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. 
The portions of that opinion that have been presented to your 
committee in support of the act as constitutional were those parts of 
the opinion wherein the court set out to explain that the plaintiffs in 
these two suits had not suffered the sort of direct injury that the court 
said must be brought before them before a justiciable issue could be 
presented. 
Reference has been made, as usual, to the general-welfare clause 
of the Constitution and, in response to the suggestions that the 
so-called general-welfare clause of the Constitution grants to Con- 
gress authority to legislate upon matters not directly committed to 
Federal control under the Constitution, and that there are fields 
beyond those embraced within the limited powers delegated to the 
Federal Government in which it is appropriate the Congress should 
legislate for what it considers the general welfare of the country, 1 
wish to call the committee’s attention to the following pronounce- 
ment of the Supreme Court of the United States, covering the period 
from the early days of the Republic and coming down to the present 
time and, if the committee please, I have excerpts from these opinions 
which I would like to submit. I would like to state the titles of the 
cases and the dates of the decisions and: ask leave to include in the 
record brief quotations from each of these decisions. 
The CuarrmaN. Without reading them? 
Mr. Proxram. Without reading them. 
Wa Crarman. Well, that is your privilege: you can exercise 
that. . 
Mr. PEckaaM. And in that connection T cite the case of New York 
v. Miln (11 Pet. 102, 139), decided in 1837; In re Raher (140 U. S. 
545), decided in 1890; Kansas ». Colorado (206 U. S. 46), decided in 
1906, . 
Mr. Tucker. That is Judge Brewer’s opinion? 
Mr. Pecan. Yes, sir. : 
Hammer ». Dagenhart (247 U. S. 251), decided in 1918. 
I would like to direct attention to the fact that in the Dagenhart 
case the dissenting opinion was not based upon any recognition of the 
authority of the Congress to legislate in matters of local concern for 
the general welfare but, on the contrary, was predicated upon the 
belief of the minority of the court that the power to regulate commerce 
between the States included the power to prohibit the transportation 
In interstate commerce of articles that Congress deemed should be