UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 29 
by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been done and nothing 
is to be done without their consent; and it is plain that that question, as it is thus 
presented, is political and not judicial in character, and therefore is not a matter 
which admits of the exercise of the judicial power. 
No more complete and convincing answer can be made to the 
contentions of Senator Bingham and to the brief of the National 
Manufacturers Association than the foregoing language of Mr. 
Jrstinn Sutherland delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme 
ourt. 
The brief of the Association also cites the case of Bailey ». Drexel 
Furniture Co. (259 U. S. 20), in which case the Supreme Court had 
under consideration the Child Labor Tax Law of February 24, 1919 
(40 Stat. 1057-1138), which imposed a tax of 10 per cent of the net 
profits of the year upon an employer who knowingly employed any 
child within the age limits specified in the act. The Supreme Court 
held that the act was not a valid exercise by Congress of its power 
of taxation under Article I, sec. 8, of the Constitution, but was an 
unconstitutional regulation by the use of the so-called tax as a penalty 
for the employment of child labor in the States and that this was in 
violation of the tenth amendment to the Constitution. 
The act before the court in that case and the proposed legislation 
(Senate bill 3060) are totally different; and the decision of the court, 
in that case does not suggest in any way whatsoever, that legislation, 
as provided for in the proposed act, would be invalid. In thatcase 
the validity of the act was defended upon the ground that it was a 
mere excise tax levied by Congress under its power of taxation. The 
court held that it was not a taxing act but was in effect a prohibition 
against employing children below a certain age and the imposition of 
a penalty for violation of said prohibition. 
Finally it is confidently submitted that the pending bill is not only 
constitutional, but that its enactment is a political and sociological 
necessity. 
Mr. BacaMaNN. Mr. Green, do you know of any State that is 
opposed to this legislation? ] 
Mr. Green. None whatever. I have not heard of a single State 
that is opposed to this legislation. 
Mr. Bacumann. I might say to you that the State Department of 
Labor of the State of West Virginia favors the legislation. 
Mr. Green. Well, I have heard from a number of the State authori- 
ties who I feel are clothed with authority to represent the sentiment 
of their respective States and they have all expressed their approval, 
hearty approval, of this proposed legislation. They insist that it 
will help them materially in the States to deal with the unemploy- 
ment problem. 
Where is the difference between it and our Federal road building 
plan? We match the money of the States in building roads. Where 
1s the difference? Are not these human beings seeking employment 
as important as road building? Where is the legal difference? I 
respectfully ask that the Committee examine this brief carefully and 
particularly the quotation of the Supreme Court in the opinion ren- 
dered on the Maternity Act. 
Mr. LaGuarpia. Is it not true that States that have gone into this 
problem through legislative commissions and otherwise, invariably in 
their reports point out the necessity of having cooperation with other 
States and uniformity in the system of unemployment agencies?