182 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
In other words, take care of American citizens first.
¥ % % (2) Not an inhabitant of the State or district in which the services
of such laborer or mechanic are so used.
Mr. Moore. I see the purpose of the bill; it just has to do with
the employment of local labor.
Mr. CasLe. With the employment of local labor.
Mr. Moore. And not with relation to the contract.
Mr. CaBLeE. No. The contractor, however, would have to take
into consideration the availability of local labor and the price he
would have to pay for that labor, rather than geing in some other
part of the country and importing a lot of cheap labor into the home
city of yourself or myself, on the construction of a post office or other
(Government building.
Mr. Dyer. Do you think Congress has the authority to so legislate.
Mr. Cable?
Mr. CaBiE. I do not think there is any doubt about it. It is a
Government building. 1 think we have gone so far, in improving
some harbors, such as out in Hawaii, as to provide as to the labor.
But my particular interest is in H. R. 8374. I {eel the conditions in
this country are such that Congress should take some action and since
this is the committee to which the Senate bills have been referred, I
feel it is up to the committee to give further consideration to the
proposition of unemployment in the country, and the method of
relieving the same.
[ want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing.
Mr. Dyer. We are very glad to have heard from you, Mr. Cable
MANUFACTURERS AND EMPLOYERS AssoCIATION OF SourH DAKOTA,
Stour Falls, S. Dak., May 23. 1930
Hon. C. A. CHRISTOPHERSON.
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR:
a a
3
Another measure which is creating much comment is the Wagner bill, 8. 3060,
which was passed by the Senate on the 12th and will undoubtedly come up before
the House for consideration soon. This creates a United States Bureau of Em-
ployment and adds another expensive bureau to the Federal system and would
duplicate work which is adequately handled at the present time. (At the present
time South Dakota does not expend Government funds for employment service
operations—it would be entirely out of line with present tendencies toward econ-
omy and adjustment of expenditures to add such services—as might be done
through the 50-50 subsidy embraced by this bill—to our already heavy State
expenses. While this bill would not force such operations, it opens the wav and
ancourages them.)
The control of operations financed by a State should be in the hands of the State.
This bill gives the Federal Government the right to invade these internal policies
of the individual states. Where conditions are as unique and different from other
States as they are in South Dakota, the police powers should remain intact in the
hands of the State and its citizens.
It is a most extraordinary attempt to control the labor situation through Federal
standards and regulations. It estalMshes a precedent which, if encouraged,
would open the way for unlimited Federal control.
The most dangerous part of the bill, it seems to us, is that provision which
covers the use of the $1,000,000 per year for the establishment of Federal bureaus
in States which have none or in States which do not comply with the provision
relating to State acceptance of Federal aid and control. This makes it almost 2
rompulsory matter to take aid and control or invite Government competition for
the existing bureaus already established. The bill also provides that the Federal
officials may settle the matter with the governor of the State, not through leais-
lative action.
