UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 141 
out 
ome 
It 
tis 
ny, 
*e 1S 
Mr. 
wuld 
cht 
this 
uc- 
1i0I'- 
ald 
on, 
ted 
vod 
ies. 
vas 
10r=- 
not 
his 
nd- 
ral 
cal 
nt 
<q 
hig 
nt. 
Ao 
alr 
Ce 
ar- 
ler 
he 
ad 
alr 
1. 
ne 
ne 
id 
0 
; Vo 
- 
1g 
9:1 
30 
. Mr. Capwaraper. No; I do not admit that it is losing the country. 
Of course, Mr. Representative, the Constitution is not anything 
sacred. It is not the word of God. I do not claim that it is. It 
is made for man and not man for the Constitution. I am fully with 
you there. But all I say is that, if you take a broad view of these 
things; a temporary emergency is no excuse for doing away with a 
settled institution that has proven its benefits in practice. Do you 
think that this country has not grown and become a model of govern- 
ment and of organization for the whole world by virtue of the Con- 
stitution? Ido. I think the Constitution is what made it what it is. 
Mr. McKeown. But you think the world is in a pretty bad shape 
now, with Soviet Russia in a stir, and all these other countries in a 
stir and 3,000,000 men out of employment in this country. 
Mr. Capwaraper. I think the world is in a terribly bad shape; 
yes, sir; and I do not propose therefore that you should follow the 
example of Russia by establishing a central despotism or any thing 
of the kind. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. You understand, of course, that the Constitu- 
tion must necessarily be construed in the light of the time in which 
we are living and the conditions under which we are living? 
Mr. CapwarLapkr. Yes, sir. It is left flexible for that sery reason. 
You gentlemen want to make it inflexible, want to make uniform 
rules administered from Washington and regulate everybody accord- 
ing to the will of some director appointed here, instead of letting the 
problem be handled in the States and in the communities where they 
arise by the people familiar with them. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. You understand likewise that economic and in- 
dustrial conditions have changed since the framing of the Constitu- 
tion? 
Mr. Capwaraper. All the more reason for leaving it flexible. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. That is your answer to that. 
Mr. CADWALADER. Yes, sir. 
Mr. LAGuarpia. You understand, of course, that when the Con- 
stitution’ was adopted labor was peculiarly a local question, 
but since we have had an economic unification of the country— 
whether we like it or not, it is here—do you not believe that 
constitutional limitations must necessarily be construed in the light 
of these changed conditions? 
Mr. Capwaraper. Constitutional limitations, certainly; ves. But, 
Mr. Representative, there is no evidence before this committee or 
in existence, so far as I know, that labor must be told to go hither 
or thither; that we have reached the economic stage where a 
bureau in Washington should tell labor where to go or tell industry 
where to go to get labor, contrary to their own view of the situation 
and to their own needs. 
1 Mr. LaGuarpia. Coming from New England, as I understand you 
o— 
Mr. Capwaraper. No; I do not. I come from Baltimore. If I 
did come from New England, I would not care to have Washington 
dictate to me how we should handle our labor problem. 
Mr. LaGuagrpia. You know that owing to conditions in certain 
States that have not kept abreast of the times in providing for proper 
legislation, industries in enlightened States have had to meet unfair 
competition from industries in these other States?