Unemployment in the United States

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1828236179

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-226169

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Unemployment in the United States

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: United States, Government Printing Office

Year of publication:: 1930

Scope:: II, 193 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Statement of James A. Emery, Washtington, D.C., representing the National Association of Manufacturers, and others

Collection:: Economics Books

UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 119 rector \gree- stab- legis- a the con- amen arged spect n of into that "nor. but ment vy be eral, t he act. 1an- iter- not the shat 1t— one such the rour ated not ent. dic- the fin ent ich vith eat ted ody an 218- to ant through its agent would undertake to compel or secure the acceptance of the policy which it proposed to put into force, by establishing a conflicting agency of its own in the State with Federal money. Mr. McKeown. It is just for one year, is it not? Mr. Emery. For one year. Of course, it would be a more aggra- vated offense if it was to be permanent. But if it is beyond the power of the Federal Government to authorize that at all, it is not mini- mized by saying he can do it for a day or a week or a year. If a man has nothing in his pocket there is no way that he can draw a dollar out of it, not even a cent, which is much less, and if a man has no power to do the thing, or Congress possesses no power to undertake to establish a policy of that character, it can not maintain it for a year, any more than it can maintain it for a day. Mr. Micuener. That was a provision in the Kenyon-Nolan bill, was it not? Mr. Emery. Yes; it was one of the reasons for its rejection at that time, I have no doubt. Mr. MicaeNER. As a matter of fact, then, this bill is not new legislation, it is not a new proposition at all; it is matter that was before the country and Congress fully in 1919 when extensive hear- Ings were held. Am I correct? Mr. Emery. Yes, sir. Mr. MicueNER. I remember those hearings, but I presumed that this bill was something new, that it presented some new solution. Am I wrong? Mr. Emery. There are only two new provisions in the bill, and I call these to the attention of the committee. The one declares, “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress that the service authorized by this act shall be impartial, neutral in labor disputes, and free from political influence.” ~ An excellent thing. And I think “B” and “C” on page 9 are new. The one provides: “In carrying out the provisions of this act the director general is authorized and directed to provide for the giving of notice of strikes or lockouts to applicants for employment.” And “C,” “In carrying out the provisions of this act the director general is authorized to provide for establishing employment offices for individual occupations.” The amount of money appropriated, the spread of the appropria- tion—if I recall correctly, the original bill provided a 3-year appro- Priation; this provides a 4-year appropriation. But otherwise all the terms of the bill, as I have said, are identical, substantially identi- cal. There may be one or two words in here that are not in there, but they do not militate against the plan that I have described to you, and which is clearly presented by the terms of the bill. I am not going to take the time of this learned committee of lawyers to present to you a great series of incontestable cases that run to the effect that this comes under the operation of the tenth amendment, among the powers prohibited to the Federal Government and reserved to the States and the people. We have had numerous cases of that kind, and one of the cases to which I referred in my brief in the Senate was spoken of this morning in a somewhat extensive argument by the distinguished counsel whom Mr. Green quoted, the case of Chicago v. Kramberger (238 U.S, 77). 1 quoted that case for only one reason, and that was this: That if the States desired to exchange their author- ity with the Federal Government, the Federal Government has na

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Unemployment in the United States

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation