UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 27 
who paid fees therefor. An act by the State of Washington was 
passed prohibiting charging employes fees for such service. Appel- 
lants filed a bill in equity in the United States District Court to 
restrain the enforcement of the act alleging it to be unconstitutional. 
The Supreme Court, on appeal, held the act violated the fourteenth 
amendment. The sole ground upon which the court based its con- 
clusion was that the State did not have the power to prohibit private 
employment agencies from charging an employee a fee. 
This question is not involved in the proposed legislation, and the 
case does not in any way suggest that such legislation as is now under 
consideration would be unconstitutional. 
In the last mentioned case Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered a very 
strong and illuminating dissenting opinion in which Mr. Justice 
Holmes and Mr. Justice Clarke concurred. Mr. Justice McKenna 
also dissented. 
Mr. Justice Brandeis reviewed the evils of private employment 
bureaus, the necessity of aid in solving the employment question by 
the Federal Government and reviewed the Federal legislation having 
for its purpose the solution of the larger problems of unemployment. 
He referred to the immigration act of February 20, 1907 (34 Stat. 
898), which created within the Bureau of Immigration and Naturali- 
zation a division of information charged with the duty of promoting 
“a beneficial distribution of aliens.” The services rendered by this 
division included, among others, some commonly performed by em- 
ployment agencies; it undertook to place aliens in positions of em- 
ployment but its operations were national in scope. He also referred 
to the Act of March 4, 1913, creating the Department of Labor. 
which Act resulted in the transfer of the Bureau of Immigration, 
including the division of information, to that Department (37 Stat. 
728) 
Mr. Justice Brandeis stated, page 607: 
By this transfer the scope of the division’s work was enlarged to correspond 
with the broad powers of the Labor Department. These were declared by 
Congress to be “to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners 
of the United States, to improve their working conditions and to advance their 
opportunities for profitable employment.’ 
The underlying principle of the sections of the above-mentioned 
Acts is the same as the underlying principle of the proposed legislation, 
the only difference being that the proposed legislation affords a 
greater opportunity for service by the Federal Government in co- 
operation with the States. 
The question of the constitutionality of legislation along the lines 
of the pending bill was not involved in the case; but the dissenting 
opinion of Mr. Justice Brandeis apparently anticipated further 
progress In legislation of this type and clearly and emphatically 
shows that such legislation is constitutional. 
In the case of Chicago & A. R. R. Co. ». Tranbarger (238 U.S. 77), 
cited in the brief of the association, the Supreme Court had under 
consideration a statute of Missouri requiring railroads to open drains 
across and through its right of way and road bed so as to form proper 
drainage. The property owner sued the railroad company for 
damages growing out of its failure to comply with this statute. The 
railroad defended upon the ground that the law was ex post facto and 
also a violation of the provisions of the 14th amendment. The