UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 173 
she | 
gals 
hat 
the 
om- | 
she 
yuh 
ht, 
the 
fate 
rive 
ynal 
tha 
of 
wre? 
O11. 
nal, 
:on- 
ake 
nal, 
5 IS 
| of 
I~ 
0y- 
ney 
not 
ese 
1 of 
aen 
WOW 
1s, 
i11e 
-he 
aly 
we 
on. 
ere 
elm 
lin 
On, 
women working in factories at night if they want to? That is depriv- 
ing them of liberty, of their right to contract.” But, of course, the 
court came up to date; it had not the old-fashioned notion of consti- 
sutional government. 
Mr. Montague. You were dealing under a constitution then of 
anlimited powers; you were dealing with the New York constitution. 
The Federal Constitution is a Constitution of limited powers; you 
were dealing with a constitution of unlimited powers. There 1s a 
vast difference. I do not say this is unconstitutional, but I say there 
«s a vast difference in the two cases. 
Senator WAGNER. The question of being deprived of the freedom 
of right to contract—that right is guaranteed by the State consti- 
jution and the Federal Constitution—due process of law, of course. 
That is protected under both Constitutions. 
Mr. Tucker. Yes. 
Mr. MonTaGUE. That is clearly under the police regulation of 
your State. 
Senator Wagner. That is the argument made here, that we are 
ziving the money to the State in return for a surrender of its police 
powers. Why, the States do not give up anything; they exercise 
their police power by saying “All right; we will take this money 
and we will collect these statistics for you; we will cooperate with 
the other States.” It is no more than if I make a contract with you 
0 buy your house for a certain sum of money. I do not give up my 
right to contract when I make that contract with you; I exercise 
my right to contract. So the State is not giving up anything; it 
sxercises the right which it has, It may reject or accept, as it pleases. 
And all of this talk about coercion of the State is untenable, to put 
it very mildly. Mr. La Guardia asked Mr. Emory, “Well, if you 
are opposed to this, do you favor a Federal employment exchange 
in the States,” and he sald, “Yes; provided they cooperate with the 
States.” And a little while later, in opposition to this bill, he said 
‘The objection I have here is that if the State does not accept the 
Federal aid, then the Government may itself erect an employment 
sxchange.” Now what sort of logic is that? 
Mr. SumNERs. Senator, are you through with that particular 
statement? 
Senator WacenNer. I did not finish my historical recitation of the 
axperience we had in the State of New York. That case went to the 
Court of Appeals and they sustained the constitutionality of the 
egislation. They said the State has an interest in its individuals 
and has an interest in their helath and their welfare, and this is a 
protective measure in the exercise of its power to protect the health 
of the people of the State. And that is what this is. Men are 
starving, hungry, in a country of plenty and some one will talk 
about some constitutional inhibition of a power which, we have 
seen exercising from the formation of our Government. And this 
argument is as old as the Government itself. 
Mr. Bacuman. I want to say I do not want to be misunderstood. 
[ have great respect for the opinion of the Senator and the opinion 
of the court in the State of New York, and as I understand this bill, 
[ am not disturbed about the constitutional features of it; because 
[ can see very clearly you try to get around whatever constitutional 
questions mav be presented against it by the wording of the bill.