UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 85 
ant 
Ave 
ub 
‘an 
Irs. 
ee 
1 
ed 
\n- 
on 
ni- 
ve 
his 
of 
N- 
18- 
a0 
re 
er 
ee 
ir, 
£i- 
‘or 
nt 
118 
v? 
ts, 
or 
up 
r- 
80 
of 
TO 
Qo 
(3 
8, 
3e 
Po 
1g 
W 
in 
'y- 
d- 
Sf 
+d 
z. 
TR 
hal 
favor and only 361% votes opposed to “a system of national em- 
ployment offices with due provision for cooperation with existing 
State and municipal systems.” (Report of the President’s Confer- 
ence on Unemployment, p. 84.) 
1 The CHAlrMAN. What was the question submitted in the referen- 
um? 
Mr. AxprEws. I was quoting verbatim—‘‘a system of national 
employment offices with due provision for cooperation with existing 
State and municipal systems.” 
Mr. SumnErs. Right on that point, does this bill contemplate the 
organization indicated by that resolution, in your judgment? 
Mr. ANprEWS. Yes, I think it does. so far as it is possible to tell 
from the language. 
Mr. SumnERs. Do you regard this bill as setting up a scheme of 
cooperation, as distinguished from subordinating the States to Federal 
control? 
Mr. Axprews. The provisions for cooperation has always been 
to the forefront in all these discussions, and it has always been a 
Federal-State-aid proposition, if that is what you mean, and it was 
outlined in great detail by the 60 conferees who came from the 
different States in 1919. 
. Mr. SumnEeRrs. My question with reference to that point does not 
Indicate an antagonistic attitude on my part. 
Mr. Axprews. I understand. 
Mr. Sumners. I want that point pretty well cleared up. 
Mr. ANnpreEws. Yes. The Federal-State aid plan is specifically the 
basis of thls proposition laid down by these representatives of the 
governors from all over the country. 
Mr. Montacue. May I ask, is not this the first bill that has ever 
been introduced to effectuate those resolutions? 
Mr. AxprEws. It is not. 
Mr. Montacue. It is the first one to appear before this committee. 
Mr. AxprEws. There was a bill introduced in this House by our 
friend Congressman Nolan of California some years ago. 
Mr. Mo~TaGUE. But it, was not referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. 
Mr. Axprews. I think that went to the Committee on Labor and 
was reported favorably. That was about 1919. It was introduced 
in the House by Congressman Nolan and on the Senate side at that 
time by Senator Kenyon, now Judge Kenyon of Towa. There is 
nothing new in the whole proposition. It is a well seasoned matter 
and has been discussed in all of its details for 15 years. 
On Monday of this week, June 9, the industrial relations committee 
of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce indorsed all three of these 
unemployment bills, including Senate 3060, the Federal-State aid 
proposal for the employment office system. 
I realize that Senator Bingham in his radio talk has referred to 
two or three details in the bill to which he takes exception, and those 
details are objected to by Mr. Emery of the National Association of 
Manufacturers. 
Particularly distressing to them is the provision for the gathering 
of information—and all that a public employment service can do is to 
collect and furnish information—in the gathering and dissemination 
of the information concerning opportunities for emplovment the