a. 
3 
y 
> 
sl 
¥ 
| 
™ 
3 
a 
g 
: 0 
fig 
RL 
{; 
2» 
i353 
if o 
z NN 
@ 
NY 
1 
A 
5 
in 
+ 
1 
> 
tn 
+ 
ND 
™) 
ih 
00 
| 
- 
oo 
oO 
0 
OO 
(a) 
oO 
NY) 
-— 
3 
0 
0 
+ 
0 
if 
> 
5 
O 
0 
+ 
> 
7 © 
n 
al 
N 
> 
oo 
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 155 
dd do. And, of course, I direct my statements to Senate bill 
Or two of the witnesses that have appeared before the com- 
quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court in Massachu- 
5 Mellon, in support of their statement that the Supreme Court 
-id the maternity act unconstitutional. I merely wish to clear 
question that they have raised about that. The court specifi- 
eclined to pass upon or discuss the constitutionality of that 
‘he court said, further: 
‘Ve No power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground 
¥ are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when 
ification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a 
Te issue, is made to rest upon such an act. 
portions of that opinion that have been presented to your 
‘tee in support of the aot as constitutional were those parts of 
nion wherein the court set, out to explain that the plaintiffs in 
vo suits had not suffered the sort of direct injury that the court 
1st be brought before them before a justiciable issue could be 
ed. 
rence has been made, ag usual, to the general-welfare clause 
Constitution and, in response to the suggestions that the 
d general-welfare clause of the Constitution grants to Con- 
thority to legislate upon mafters not directly committed to 
control under the Constitution, and that there are fields 
those embraced within the limited powers delegated to the 
Government in which it is appropriate the Congress should 
for what it considers the general welfare of the country, I 
call the committee's attention to the following pronounce- 
I the Supreme Court of the United States, covering the period 
te early days of the Republic and coming down to the present 
d, if the committee please, I have excerpts from these opinions 
would. like to submit. I would like to state the titles of the 
nd the dates of the decisions and. ask leave to include in the 
brief quotations from each of these decisions. 
CHAIRMAN, Without reading them? 
PEckHAM. Without reading them. . 
Cuarrman, Well, that is your privilege; you can exercise 
’ECKHAM. And in that connection T cite the case of New York 
(1 Det. 102, 139), decided in 1837; In re Raher (140 U. S. 
«cided in 1890; Kansas ». Colorado (206 U. S. 46), decided in 
Pucker. That is Judge Brewer's opinion? 
mera Dogan U. S. 251), decided in 1918 | 
mer v. Dagenhart (247 . S. , decic r 1 
id like to direct mn to the fact that in the Dagupon, 
+ dissentin: opinion was not based upon any recognition o J e 
by of the a to legislate in matters of local concern for 
eral welfare but, on the contrary, was predicated upon the 
the minority of the court that the power to regulate commerce 
the States included the power to prohibit the transportation 
state commerce of articles that Congress: deemed should be 
Q 
0 
J 
Te)