UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 79 
ers” 
this 
this 
ints 
icu~ 
ows. 
vhy 
ere 
Na- 
if I 
the 
the 
and 
ica, 
ple, 
ing 
m-~ 
sau 
to 
ing 
oa 
an 
188 
ion 
AN. 
Ng - 
ITY 
a. 
Ca 
he 
ily 
nal 
the 
sen 
em 
vy I 
y to 
Tye 
1a 
eal 
“1n 
Mr. MoNTaGUE. Because the public highways are constructed in 
the interest of two provisions of the Constitution, namely, those 
establishing the Post Office Department and those establishing inter- 
state commerce. Under those two clauses the United States has 
taken care of the public highways. 
Mr. Doucras. But may I point out—I am not a constitutional 
awyer—— 
* Mr. MonTAGUE (interposing). But we have taken an oath to sup- 
port the Constitution. 
Mr. Douaras. But may I point out that Federal aid has been 
granted to highways that were not interstate in character, and that 
it has only been in the last eight or nine years, as a matter of fact, 
that the internal provisions of the Bureau of Highways have been so 
changed that Federal aid will be given only to highways interstate in 
character. 
Mr. MonTacuE. If they were not interstate, they were post roads. 
Mr. Doucras. Well, if you quote one clause of the Consitution, I 
will quote another, and I will cite the general welfare clause. 
Mr. Montague. Of course, you can cite that, but any reputable 
lawyer knows that under the general welfare clause you might run 
this entire Government. 
Mr. Doucras. Well, may I point out, Mr. Representative, that 
the United States Supreme Court in the case of Massachusetts 
v. Melon—— 
Mr. MonNTAGUE (interposing). Do not understand that I am in 
opposition to your bill at all, but I simply do not want extreme 
analogies brought in to support it. You have made a very interest- 
ing address, I will say, and I am deeply interested. 
Mr. Dougras. Well, after attempting to indicate some of the 
reasons why I do not think this bill should be opposed, may I turn 
very frankly to some of the reasons why I think this bill is opposed, 
and I think those objections should be frankly faced and frankly 
considered. 
I think the chief fear on the part of some groups of manufacturers 
against this bill is that the employment services would be used to 
colonize manufacturing plants with union organizers. That is seldom 
stated and that explicit reason did not appear in the brief of Mr. 
Emery, for the National Association of Manufacturers, but I have 
always had the feeling that it was in the back part of Mr. Emery’s 
mind, so I hope Mr. Emery will pardon me if I bring it out in the 
open. Now I should like very briefly, if I may, to deal with the 
question as to whether that possibility really presents itself under 
this bill. 
You will note in the first place that this bill explicitly states that 
the service shall be impartial, neutral in labor disputes, and free 
from political influence. So there is an explicit statement that 
their men shall not be sent into plants in order to unionize the plant. 
Furthermore, you may say this service will ‘be under the direction 
of the Department of Labor, and the Department of Labor was 
created in order to further the interests of the workers. I may point 
out that even if it were to be so that the Department of Labor was 
under the influence of organized labor, which I doubt, which I do 
not believe, but that even if it were so, the Director-General is to 
be appointed by the President and not by the Secretary of Labor. 
118208—30—grr 11——A