UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 121 
¢ 10 
shat 
be 
Tress 
slice 
, as 
1 to 
t of 
was 
lent 
Arse 
ame 
nv. 
ty- 
ion 
3 to 
and 
zen 
the 
not 
ng 
t of 
‘are 
ral 
if 
1af 
tes 
ta- 
by 
‘ha 
“en 
on 
Ve 
Ty 
ts 
na 
18 
nu 
0 , 
1S 
nd 
of 
"S. 
3 
T= 
te 
a 
Mr. Sumners. Congress interprets the Constitution and there can 
be no remedy except that which the people apply? 
Mr. Emery. In many instances the remedy is only political. 
Mr. CeLLer. Mr. Emery, you said that the principle—I presume 
you mean State help—was abandoned. That is not quite true simply 
because we no longer have a maternity aid to States. It may be that 
the principle of maternity aid to States was abandoned, but the 
principle of State health has never been abandoned. The principle 
is still sound, as announced by the Supreme Court in that very 
maternity case, Massachusetts ». Mellon, page 482, where the court 
went out of its way to say that there was no coercion whatsoever 
upon the State; the State could say, “we will take it or we will leave 
it.” That being the case, there was nothing in the nature of duress 
or the forcing of the State to take that maternity aid. Now, can you 
not with equal force argue that there was no coercion here in this bill 
compelling the State to accept this appropriation for the purpose of 
alleviating unemployment? 
Mr. Emery. Pardon me, you have asked me two questions. If you 
will permit me to distinguish them, I will attempt to answer them. 
Mr. CerrEr. Referring to the principle now. 
Mr. Emery. First, I said that the policy pursued by Congress in 
respect to the maternity act is not a precedent, because you aban- 
doned the policy by the repeal of the appropriation, so far as that 
specific metter is concerned. 
Mr. CeLLER. You went further. You said the principle. 
Mr. Emery. I will take the second question now—pardon me. 
The second proposition as you state it is the one which the Supreme 
Court referred to in the Massachusetts case, and that was that inas- 
much as the State was offered a contribution by the Federal Govern- 
ment which it could accept or reject, it had it within its own power 
to decline the Federal trespass within its borders. But that 1s not 
what this bill does. It goes far beyond that. As I have explained 
to you, and as the bill plainly states, if you do not accept the Federal 
policy, what follows? Then we authorize the director general, 
either by agreement with the governor of your State, the legislature 
having failed to, or refused to act, and the governor failing to reach 
an agreement, to go into the State and for a year maintain within 
the State a Federal body of exchanges. That was not proposed in the 
maternity act. Nobody said in the maternity act that if the States 
do not accept the aid and pursue the Federal policy we will undertake 
to compel you to do it by a coercive measure; on the contrary, they 
said, “1f you don’t want it, don’t take it.” 
Mr. Cerper. Would you accept the bill with that provision 
stricken out, about going into the States? 
Mr. Emery. If it met the objection I am now about to state. The 
next objection to the bill, to which I called your attention, is that the 
policy of this bill is in plain contradiction with the unanimous recom- 
mendations of the President’s Conference on Unemployment, the 
committee on business cycles and unemployment, being a subcom- 
mittee of the conference, and the recommendations of the Senate 
Committee on Education and Labor investigating the causes and 
remedies for unemployment—and let me say as a preliminary explana- 
tion to this—and this goes to the very heart of the practical question 
that is here presented—first, the sources of employment are private. and