172 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
Mr. Mo~NTacUuE. How could the United States impose upon the 
States the determination of the employees, the selection of the officials 
for their own employment exchanges? 
Mr. BacamanN. I do not understand that they could; but what 
they could do, under this bill, is not to make the appropriation to the 
States unless the States did adopt the legislation as is. 
Mr. MonTaGUE. I can see that. 
Mr. Bacamann. You say you have not that purpose. 
Mr. CeristoraERSON. If I may suggest, Senator, I think the com- 
mittee all appreciate the facts that have been stated both in the 
opening and al along as to the benefits of helping unemployment, but 
we would like to hear what your idea is on the question of the right, 
under our Constitution, to create these organizations throughout the 
{and—just along the line of Governor Montague’s question. 
Senator WagNER. We are not creating the organization; the State 
is doing all of that. We are simply giving Federal aid, just as we give 
Federal aid in many other instances. If there is any constitutional 
objection to this, then all of your Federal aid is unconstitutional. 
Mr. Tucker. Oh, no. 
Senator WAGNER. Your maternity legislation—— 
Mr. CrristoruersoN. Of course, the good roads, that is under the 
provision for establishing post roads, and so forth. 
Senator Wacner. All right, What about your Department of 
Agriculture—your appropriations for the Department of Agriculture? 
That comes under the general welfare provision of the Constitution. 
What about your Department of Labor? If this is unconstitutional, 
the appropriation you make for the Department of Labor is uncon- 
stitutional. If this is unconstitutional, the appropriation you make 
for the health service is unconstitutional. If this is unconstitutional, 
the vocational school appropriation is unconstitutional. If this is 
unconstitutional, the Bureau of Fisheries is unconstitutional. All of 
these appropriations are constitutional, or one-third of your Govern- 
ment would just collapse. 
Now, you have an employment service to-day, a Federal employ- 
ment service to-day. Nobody has ever suggested that the money 
expended for the employment service is unconstitutional, or is not 
authorized by the Constitution. Why, I have been used to these 
constitutional arguments? I remember away back in the State of 
New York, when we first tried to limit the hours of labor for women 
in factories, the argument made there was—it is unconstitutional; how 
can you interfere with the individual who wants to work long hours: 
how can you stop him by legislation? 
Mr. Montacugs. That is your State constitution. 
Senator Wagner. Yes: and also the Federal Constitution—due 
process of law. 
Mr. Keown. May I suggest, Senator, there is no inhibition in the 
Constitution against making this appropriation at all, is there? 
Senator WagreRr. 1 do not know of any; I think it is absolutely 
authorized under the Constitution, or all of these other functions we 
are performing are unconstitutional. Let me give you an illustration. 
When I was in the State Senate in New York (Doctor Andrews here 
was in this fight) about 52 protective laws were passed. One of them 
was to prevent women working in factories at night. It was tested 1n 
the court. Thev said, “How can vou prevent, under the constitution.