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 Mr. William Green, president of American Federation of Labor

Collection:: Economics Books

38 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES “Probably it would be sufficient to point out that the powers of the State are aot invaded, since the statute imposes no obligation, but simply extends an option: which the State is free to accept or reject.” At page 482, the court further stated: ‘“ What, then, is the nature of the right of the State here asserted, and how is it affected by this statute? Reduced to its simplest terms, it is alleged that the statute constitutes an attempt to legislate outside the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and within the field of local powers exclusively reserved to the States. Nothing is added to the force or effect of this assertion by the further incidental allegations that the ulterior purpose of Congress thereby was to induce the States to yield a portion of their sovereign rights; that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States; and that there is imposed upon the States an illegal and unconstitutional option either to yield to the Federal government a part of their reserved rights, or lose their share of the monéys appropriated. But what burden is imposed upon the States, unequally or other- wise? Certainly there is none, unless it be the burden of taxation, and that falls upon their inhabitants, who are within the taxing power of Congress as well as that of the States where they reside. Nor does the statute require the States to do or to yield anything. If Congress enacted it with the ulterior purpose of tempting them to yield, that purpose mav he effectively frustrated bv the simple expedient of not yielding. “In the last analysis, the complaint of the plaintiff State is brought to the naked contention that Congress has usurped the reserved powers of the several States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been done and nothing is to be done without their consent; and it is plain that that question, as it is thus presented, is political, and not judicial, in character, and therefore is not a matter which admits of the exercise of the judicial power.” No more complete and convincing answer can be made to the contentions of Senator Bingham and to the brief of the National Manufacturers Association than the foregoing language of Mr. Justice Sutherland delivering the unanimous spinion of the Supreme Court. . The brief of the association also cites the case of Bailey ». Drexel Furniture Co. (259 U. 8. 20), in which case the Supreme Court had under consideration the child labor tax law of February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 1057-1138), which imposed a tax of 10 per cent of the net profits of the year upon an employer who knowingly employed any child within the age limits specified in the act. The Supreme Court held that the act was not a valid exercise by Congress of its power of baxation under Article I section 8 of the Constitution, but was an unconstitutional regulation by the use of the so-called tax as a penalty for the employment of child labor in the States and that this was in violation of the tenth amendment to the Constitution. The act before the court in that case and the proposed legislation (Senate bill 3060) are totally different; and the decision of the court in that case does not suggest in any way, whatsoever, that legislation, as provided for in the proposed act, would be invalid. In that case the validity of the act was defended upon the ground that it was a mere excise tax levied by Congress under its power of taxation. The court held that it was not a taxing act but was in effect a prohibi- bion against employing children below a certain age and the imposition of a penalty for violation of said prohibition. Finally it is confidently submitted that the pending bill is not only constitu- tional. but that its enactment is a political and sociological necessity. Mr. Hawn. Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry? Have not we a rule here that a member, before he can interrogate a witness, should first address the Chair and get permission to do 507? The CuairMan, We have. Mr. Hawn. I really think we ought to do it. Time is precious here. I want to hear what Mr. Green has to say and it is lacking of continuity, through no fault of his own. I say this with all due respect to my friends who interrupted him and whose interrogations. were interesting, but we have not the time for it and I think we nueht to invoke that rule.

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