R2 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
Mr. Montague. For a song, too. 
Mr. Doucras. But no one defends the credit mobilier, I take it. 
Mr. CerLEr. Is not the answer to Judge Summers’s question that 
the States would be placed under the general supervision of Federal 
authority, that the State need not come into this system if it does not 
wish to, as was stated in the case of Massachusetts versus Mellon, 
that you have cited, reported in Two hundred and sixty-second United 
States, page 482 of that opinion, which I quote as follows: 
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 may 
be effectively frustrated by the simple expedient of not yielding. } 
In the last analysis the complaint of the plaintiff States 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 
igs to be done without their concent. 
Mr. Dougras. Yes. 
_ Mr. Cerrer. So if the State does not wish to yield they do not come 
in. 
Mr. Doucras. Yes. Now, there are two more final points and 
then I am done. Namely, no employer is compelled to cooperate 
with the employment service. He does not have to get his workers 
from the employment service; he can have nothing whatsoever to do 
with the employment service, and if he wishes to have an antiunion 
policy, maintain black lists, and so forth, he can do that in the future 
Just as he has done in the past, or as some have done in the past. 
There is no obligation upon him to cooperate with the service. If he 
is suspicious he does not have to take any worker that is sent to him. 
Mr. MontaGUE. The bill does not touch that question. 
Mr. Doucras. No. I do not think this bill would foster illegiti- 
mate unionization in the slightest, and I brought this thing out in the 
open because I have felt that it was in the back of people’s minds, 
and it was important to get it ventilated. 
Mr. MicaeneEr. What do you mean by “illegitimate unionization ’’? 
Mr. Doucras. Unionization fostered by the Government, men 
being sent in by the employment service for the purpose of unionizing 
a plant. That is no function of an employment service at all. The 
employment service is to furnish men, union or nonunion, and no 
employment service can succeed, can even get to first base, unless 
it is founded on the principle of neutrality. 
Mr. MicaeNER. Then you believe that if this service was estab- 
lished in a State, and there is a town, for instance, where they are 
unionized, the employment service would bring in from some other 
section of the country men who were not unionized, because they 
happened to be out of work in that section of the country. 
Mr. Doucras. Now then, suppose those—— 
Mr. MicHENER (interposing). Wait a minute. Will vou just answer 
that question? 
Mr. Doveras. But let us get it defined first. 
Mr. MicaENER. Answer it first and then explain. 
Mr. Douceras. How can I answer a question unless we have it 
defined? 
Mr. Micaener. Well then, wait, I will state it again, then you can 
answer it and then you may explain.