UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 121

¢ 10
shat
be
Tress

slice
, as
1 to
t of
was
lent
Arse
ame
nv.
tyion

3 to
and
zen
the
not
ng

t of

‘are
ral

if
1af

tes

taby

‘ha

“en

on
Ve
Ty

ts

na

18
nu

0 ,
1S

nd
of

"S.
3
Tte

a

Mr. Sumners. Congress interprets the Constitution and there can
be no remedy except that which the people apply?
Mr. Emery. In many instances the remedy is only political.
Mr. CeLLer. Mr. Emery, you said that the principle—I presume
you mean State help—was abandoned. That is not quite true simply
because we no longer have a maternity aid to States. It may be that
the principle of maternity aid to States was abandoned, but the
principle of State health has never been abandoned. The principle
is still sound, as announced by the Supreme Court in that very
maternity case, Massachusetts ». Mellon, page 482, where the court
went out of its way to say that there was no coercion whatsoever
upon the State; the State could say, “we will take it or we will leave
it.” That being the case, there was nothing in the nature of duress
or the forcing of the State to take that maternity aid. Now, can you
not with equal force argue that there was no coercion here in this bill
compelling the State to accept this appropriation for the purpose of
alleviating unemployment?
Mr. Emery. Pardon me, you have asked me two questions. If you
will permit me to distinguish them, I will attempt to answer them.
Mr. CerrEr. Referring to the principle now.
Mr. Emery. First, I said that the policy pursued by Congress in
respect to the maternity act is not a precedent, because you abandoned
 the policy by the repeal of the appropriation, so far as that
specific metter is concerned.
Mr. CeLLER. You went further. You said the principle.
Mr. Emery. I will take the second question now—pardon me.
The second proposition as you state it is the one which the Supreme
Court referred to in the Massachusetts case, and that was that inasmuch
 as the State was offered a contribution by the Federal Government
 which it could accept or reject, it had it within its own power
to decline the Federal trespass within its borders. But that 1s not
what this bill does. It goes far beyond that. As I have explained
to you, and as the bill plainly states, if you do not accept the Federal
policy, what follows? Then we authorize the director general,
either by agreement with the governor of your State, the legislature
having failed to, or refused to act, and the governor failing to reach
an agreement, to go into the State and for a year maintain within
the State a Federal body of exchanges. That was not proposed in the
maternity act. Nobody said in the maternity act that if the States
do not accept the aid and pursue the Federal policy we will undertake
to compel you to do it by a coercive measure; on the contrary, they
said, “1f you don’t want it, don’t take it.”
Mr. Cerper. Would you accept the bill with that provision
stricken out, about going into the States?
Mr. Emery. If it met the objection I am now about to state. The
next objection to the bill, to which I called your attention, is that the
policy of this bill is in plain contradiction with the unanimous recommendations
 of the President’s Conference on Unemployment, the
committee on business cycles and unemployment, being a subcommittee
 of the conference, and the recommendations of the Senate
Committee on Education and Labor investigating the causes and
remedies for unemployment—and let me say as a preliminary explanation
 to this—and this goes to the very heart of the practical question
that is here presented—first, the sources of employment are private. and