H6 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
from time to time, to the country as a whole, and ascertain in what particular
part of the country he can find employment.
The individual States have not undertaken to collaborate with their sister
States and with the Federal Government to such an extent as to bring about a
proper coordination for obtaining the best results from a national aspect. To
accomplish this end there must be some center, that is, there must be some clear-
ing house, and the best and only way to secure this is by Federal legislation es-
tablishing a Federal agency which shall cooperate with and aid the States in
the endeavor to solve the all-important question of unemployment, so far as the
individual States are willing to cooperate through their own legislatures.
The importance of the question of employment is admitted in the brief of the
National Association of Manufacturers filed in opposition to the Senate bill 3060,
and above referred to. This brief states, page 1, that the association and its
members are ‘‘vitally interested in employment problems, and, individually and
in cooperation, are continually engaged in the study and exchange of information
and experience for the purpose of securing a better regularization of employment.”
The brief, therefore, concedes that the study of employment problems and the
exchange of information and experience upon these 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 Employ-
ment Service provided for in Senate bill 3060?
The above mentioned brief of the National Manufacturers’ Association contends
(pp. 4 and 5), that the proposed act is unconstitutional. To support this conten-
tion the cases of Brazee ». Michigan (241 U. 8. 340); Adams ». Tanner (244 U. S.
594); Ribnik ». McBride (277 U. 8. 354); Frothingham ». Mellon, and Massa-
chusetts v. Mellon (262 U. 8. 447); Chicago v. Tranbarger (238 U. 8. 77): and
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (259 U. S. 20), are cited.
In the case of Brazee v. 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. Brazee
claimed the Michigan statute was invalid because it conflicted with both the
State and Federal een
The Supreme Court of Michigan sustained the Michigan statute and the
Supreme Eourt of the United States held that a State may require licensees for
employment agencies and prescribe reasonable regulation in respect to them,
to be enforced according to the legal discretion of a commissioner. The judg-
ment 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
provisions 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 ». McBride (277 U.
8.354). 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 commissioner refused to grant a license upon the sole ground that the
fees set out in the schedule were excessive. The question of the constitutionality
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 employment agency is not affected with a public interest so as to
enable the State to fix the charges to 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. 8. 418); and Mr. Justice Stone delivered
a vigorous dissenting opinion in which Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice
Brandeis joined. LL
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. 8. 594), is also cited in the brief of the association as
an authority in support of its contention that the proposed act is unconstitutional.
Appellants conducted in Spokane well established employment agencies for
securing employment for patrons who paid fees therefor. An act by the State
of Washington was passed prohibiting charging employees fees for such service.
Appellants filed a bill in equity in the United States district court to restrain the
