UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 131

. Mr. |
stroit

130)

mnberistry.

somed
 the
ward
s has

rove

ut of
read
imu-Apri]


2g, S.
‘pose
ange
t aid
‘port
hing

2

I'OW

10

im

Ar

AL
BS

its
ith
ito

v0
A

Unfortunately the Federal Government has strayed far afield from its legiti-Mate
 business. It has trespassed upon fields where there should be no trespass.
If we could confine our Federal expenditures to the legitimate obligations and
functions of the Federal Government a material reduction would be apparent.
But far more important than this would be its effect upon the fabric of our constitutional
 form of government, which tends to be gradually weakened and underined
 by this encroachment. The cure for this is not in our hands. It lies with
the people. It will come when they realize the necessity of State assumption of
State responsibility. It will come when they realize that the laws under which
the Federal Government hands out contributions to the ‘State is placing upon
them a double burden of taxation—Federal taxation in the first instance to raise
the moneys which the Government donates to the States, and State taxation in
the second instance to meet the extravagances of State expenditures which are
tempted by the Federal donations.
The second is the last utterance of the President on this subject,
addressed to Congress on December 5, 1927, when referring to the
termination of the appropriations for the continuation of aid under
the maternity act, he said:

This opens up the whole subject of State aid, which despite frequent warnings
tontinues strongly intrenched in Federal operations. While the amount of money
taken annually from the Federal Treasury for subsidies to States is not inconsiderable,
 the dangers inherent in the policy are of far greater importance. To
relieve the States of their just obligations by resort to the Federal Treasury in
the final result is hurtful rather than helpful to the State, and unfair to the payers
of national taxes. To tempt the States by Federal subsidies to sacrifice their
vested rights is not a wholesome practice no matter how worthy the object to be
attained. Federal interference in State functions ean never be justified as a
permanent continuing policy even if, which is doubtful, such interference is
warranted by emergent conditions as a temporary expedient. As shown in the
maternity and infancy act, when once the Government engages in such an enter:
prise it is almost impossible to terminate its connection therewith. We should
tot only decidedly refuse to countenance additional Federal participation in
State-aid projects, but should make careful study of all our activities of that
character with a view to curtailing them.
Then finally I direct your attention to this exceedingly brief statement
 by Abraham Lincoln in his first message to the Congress of the
United States, which goes to the— }
Mr. Tucker (interposing). Have you given all of Mr. Coolidge’s
statement that you have read?
Mr. Emery. Yes, sir. There is a preceding paragraph which I
did not read, but if the committee wishes, I will incorporate it.
Mr. Tucker. He says in that statement that he is opposed to the
further extension of that principle?
Mr. EMERY. Yes, sir. So he said in the preceding statement.
In that first statement of Abraham Lincoln's, his first message to
Congress, he said:
To maintain inviolate the rights of the States to order and control under the
Constitution their own affairs by their own judgment exclusively is essential for
the preservation of that balance of power on which our institutions rest.
That, indeed, appears to be axiomatic, but it is one of those great
axioms that is too frequently forgotten in the present day, and blessed
ts the nation that remains still true to the axioms of sel{-government.
Mr. LAGuarpia. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Emery a question
or two? I was called on the floor last night and did not have the
Opportunity then." }
Mr. Emery, you find that in time of industrial depression, when
there is unemployment, it affects the so-called labor market, and there
18 a tendency to lower wages and longer hours?