Ho 
1S 
1 
7 
¥é 
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 115 
control and authority of a Federal official in the regulation of a 
matter of purely internal police. 
My distinguished friend Mr. Green, for whose views on these very 
serious matters I have very great respect, presented to you a brief 
this morning which undertook to anticipate the discussion that I shall 
present to you, in which he cited various cases that I have called 
attention to in the course of this brief discussion, as though they 
questioned the validity of this particular bill. The purpose of those 
cases were merely to illustrate what I think you will accept as an 
established fact in law, and that is that the regulation of employment 
agencies, whether public or private, is a matter for the internal police 
of the separate States. I think nobody will question that fact, that 
the regulation of employment agencies within the States is not to be 
found as a Federal function under any authority of the existing 
constitution. 
Mr. Cerier. May I interrupt to ask a question there, Mr. 
Chairman? 
The CuarrmaN. Put your questions down and ask them at the 
conclusion of the statement. 
Mr. Emery. And preliminary to an examination of these pro- 
positions, I want to call your attention to the fact that this is not 
a new proposal in legislation. This bill is identical even in language, 
with substantially two exceptions, with S. 1142 and H. R. 4305, 
identical measures proposed in the Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, 
which were the subject of hearings for nearly six weeks by a joint 
committee of the House and Senate. Mr. Kenyon introduced the 
Senate bill, Mr. Nolan of California the House bill, and at the con- 
clusion of those hearings the matter was abandoned. So this is not 
a new proposal of legislation but one that has been rejected in the 
past by Congress, and the two matters that have been introduced 
mto it and were not found in the original biil were the declaration 
that in the operation of these agencies they were to be impartial, 
an excellent thing in itself, to which, of course, no one could make the 
slightest objection; and furthermore, that in their administration 
authorization was given for the formation of advisory councils of 
employers and employees to confer and advise upon employment 
problems that came up from time to time—an excellent thing in 
itself, which is being done today. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, in the discussion of what I may call the legal 
phases, I take as my text the splendid statement made by the dis- 
tinguished Senator from New York when he was discussing the con- 
stitutionality of the flexible tariff in the Senate, and he has put this 
matter so well that I could not improve upon it, when he said: 
The Supreme Court is not the only guardian of the Constitution. Each one of 
us is under a coequal duty with the members of the behch to defend and maintain 
the Constitution and vote only in favor of legislation that conforms with the re- 
quirements of that instrument. There are innumerable situations where Con- 
gress in the last resort is the determinant of consiitutionality and where from its 
decisions there is no appeal to any court. The standard of constitutionality 
which each one of us must apply is somewhat different from the standard which 
the Supreme Court employs in passing on legislation. When the constitutionality 
of a bill is contested in the courts, every doubt is resolved in favor of its con- 
stitutionality; every fact which is assumed by Congress to be a fact is not disputed 
by the court unless the assumption flies violently in the face of reason, and when 
we in this body pass upon a bill we can not give ourselves the benefit of these 
doubts. We ought not knowinglv to write into a bill assumptions of fact which