38 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
“Probably it would be sufficient to point out that the powers of the State are 
aot invaded, since the statute imposes no obligation, but simply extends an option: 
which the State is free to accept or reject.” 
At page 482, the court further stated: 
‘“ What, then, is the nature of the right of the State here asserted, and how is it 
affected by this statute? Reduced to its simplest terms, it is alleged that the 
statute constitutes an attempt to legislate outside the powers granted to Congress 
by the Constitution, and within the field of local powers exclusively reserved to 
the States. Nothing is added to the force or effect of this assertion by the further 
incidental allegations that the ulterior purpose of Congress thereby was to induce 
the States to yield a portion of their sovereign rights; that the burden of the 
appropriations falls unequally upon the several States; and that there is imposed 
upon the States an illegal and unconstitutional option either to yield to the Federal 
government a part of their reserved rights, or lose their share of the monéys 
appropriated. But what burden is imposed upon the States, unequally or other- 
wise? Certainly there is none, unless it be the burden of taxation, and that falls 
upon their inhabitants, who are within the taxing power of Congress as well as 
that of the States where they reside. Nor does the statute require the States to do 
or to yield anything. If Congress enacted it with the ulterior purpose of tempting 
them to yield, that purpose mav he effectively frustrated bv the simple expedient 
of not yielding. 
“In the last analysis, the complaint of the plaintiff State is brought to the 
naked contention that Congress has usurped the reserved powers of the several 
States 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. Justice Sutherland delivering the unanimous 
spinion of the Supreme Court. . 
The brief of the association also cites the case of Bailey ». Drexel Furniture Co. 
(259 U. 8. 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 
baxation under Article I section 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 that case 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 prohibi- 
bion 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 constitu- 
tional. but that its enactment is a political and sociological necessity. 
Mr. Hawn. Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry? 
Have not we a rule here that a member, before he can interrogate 
a witness, should first address the Chair and get permission to do 
507? 
The CuairMan, We have. 
Mr. Hawn. I really think we ought to do it. Time is precious 
here. I want to hear what Mr. Green has to say and it is lacking 
of continuity, through no fault of his own. I say this with all due 
respect to my friends who interrupted him and whose interrogations. 
were interesting, but we have not the time for it and I think we 
nueht to invoke that rule.