24 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Green. That was my impression of their attitude, of the atti-
tude of Mr. Emery, representing the Manufacturers’ Association. It
is because of their strong opposition to Senate bill 3060 that I am
dwelling particularly upon that measure.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SENATE BILL 3060
The above mentioned bill, now under consideration by this
committee, has two aspects, one sociological and the other legal or
constitutional.
The two principal attacks upon the bill have been made by
Senator Bingham in a public address on June 7, 1930, a summary
of which address is to be found in The United States Daily of
Washington, D. C., June 9, 1930; and the other is a brief filed by
the National Association of Manufacturers with the Senate Com-
mittee on Commerce.
Senator Bingham attacks the bill on four principal grounds,
namely:
First. Because it seeks to seduce or bribe the States to surrender
a vital power of self-government, etc.
Second. Because it proceeds to coerce the State into acceptance
of assistance from the United States and dominant Federal control.
Third. That the policy of the bill is in contradiction of the
Doeniniions of the President’s conference of unemployment
of 1921.
Fourth. That the bill is in contradiction of the recommendations
of the representative conference on unemployment and undertakes
to compel rather than to persuade the cooperation of the States.
Further Senator Bingham is quoted as saying:
We are continually trespassing upon the rights of the States, and are cen-
tralizing the authority that belongs to them, in agencies of the National
Government.
In its brief above referred to, the National Association of Man-
ufacturers attacks the bill on some of the grounds stated by Sen-
ator Bingham but principally upon the ground that the bill is
unconstitutional.
The statements of opposition voiced by Senator Bingham and
others against the necessity of a centralized employment system, so
far as the sociological phase of the bill is concerned and so far as relates
to the necessity and demand for the enactment of the bill, appear to
be fully answered by the testimony of Senator Wagner and others
who appeared before the Senate Committee on Commerce on March 18
and April 1, 1930, together with the statistics contained in the digest
filed by Senator Wagner in connection with his testimony before the
Senate Committee; and in the public address of Senator Wagner,
printed in the Congressional Record of May 27, 1930; as well as in the
memorandum of Senator Wagner in opposition to the above mentioned
brief of the National Manufacturers’ Association.
It, therefore, remains only to discuss the constitutional questions
raised by and the cases cited in the brief of the National Manufac-
turers’ Association, and to supplement the authorities cited in the
last mentioned memorandum of Senator Wagner, who cites, in sup-
port of the constitutionality of the bill, the following:
