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