26 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
problems are of importance. Can there be a more effective way of 
studying these problems and disseminating information and experience 
upon the same than by the United States Emplovment Service pro- 
vided for in Senate bill 3060? 
The above mentioned brief of the National Manufacturers’ Associa- 
tion contends (pp. 4 and 5) that the proposed act is unconstitutional. 
To support this contention the cases of Brazee f. Mich (241 U. S. 
340); Adams ». Tanner (244 U. S. 594); Ribnik ». McBride (277 U. S. 
354); Frothingham ». Mellon and Mass. ». Mellon, (262 U. S. 447); 
Chicago ». Tranbarger (238 U. 8. 77); and Bailey ». Drexel Furniture 
Co. (259 U. S. 20), are cited. 
In the case of Brazee ». Michigan, Brazee procured a license to 
conduct an employment agency in Detroit under act 301, Public 
Acts of Michigan 1913, and was thereafter convicted upon a charge 
of violating its provisions by sending one seeking employment to an 
employer who had not applied for help. Brezee lnimed the Michigan 
statute was invalid because it conflicted with both the State and 
Federal Constitutions. 
The Supreme Court of Michigan sustained the Michigan Statute 
and the Supreme Court of the United States held that a State may 
require licenses for employment agencies and prescribe reasonable 
regulation in respect to them, to be enforced cacording to the legal 
discretion of a commissioner. The judgment of the lower court was 
affirmed and the constitutionality of the act with respect to the 
sections in question was upheld. The court did state that the provi- 
sions of the act in respect of fees were “plainly mischievous”. The 
act in question In no way attempts to regulate private employment 
agencies nor to prescribe fees that the agency may charge. 
This case is in fact an authority to the effect that Congress has the 
power to legislate on the question. 
Another case cited in the brief of the association is Ribnik ». Mec- 
Bride (277 U. S. 354). The State of New Jersey passed an act to 
regulate employment agencies, which act required a license and also 
required that the applicant file with the Commissioner of Labor a 
schedule of fees. A schedule of proposed fees was filed and the com- 
missioner refused to grant a license upon the sole ground that the 
fees set out in the schedule were excessive. The question of the con- 
stitutionality of the act was involved. The Supreme Court of the 
United States, reversing the Court of Errors and Appeals of New 
Jersey, held that the provision regulating fees of private employment 
agencies was unconstitutional; ruling that the business of an employ- 
ment agency is not affected with a public interest so as to enable the 
State to fix the charges to be made for the service rendered. 
Mr. Justice Sanford concurred with the majority on the ground 
that he could not distinguish an earlier decision (273 U. S. 418); and 
Mr. Justice Stone delivered a vigorous dissenting opinion in which 
Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandeis joined. 
The present bill contains no similar provision, and there is not a 
word in the decision of the Supreme Court which would in any way 
indicate that Congress did not have the power to establish a Federal 
employment agency. 
Adams ». Tanner (244 U. S. 594), is also cited in the brief of the 
association as an authority in support of its contention that the pro- 
posed act is unconstitutional. Appellants conducted in Spokane well 
established employment agencies for securing employment for patrons