86 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
Federal Government may set up one of its information offices in a
State, even where that State has not yet opened such a public employ-
ment office of its own. The reason why the emphasis was given to
the recommendation along that line by the President's unemploy-
ment conference of 1921 was to point out specifically that, of course,
it is expected that practically all of the work is to be done by the
municipal and State employment offices. It went on in detail, after
discussing the fact that some local offices exist, to say that the State
should be the unit in local organization—that is, the State rather than
the municipality on the one side—and then went on to say that the
Federal Government should assist in making these State and local
offices more efficient, and that it should not for its part do the place-
ment work. It was for the purpose of emphasizing that the States
themselves are going to spend this money, that the States themselves
2 directly responsible for the actual administrative work in these
offices.
One additional point has been developed which we have to face. It
is a new one. We did not have it 15 years ago. The United States
Supreme Court in the case of Ridnik ». McBride (48 Sup. Ct., 545)
decided in 1928 that the States can no longer regulate the fees
charged by the fee-charging commercial employment agencies. That
puts usin greater need than ever before of legislation which will provide
an efficient, permanent system of public employment offices to which
the unemployed in their weakness may go for information with refer-
ence to opportunities for work when the fee-charging agencies over-
reach the mark and impose upon the weakness of the unemployed.
That is an added reason, a new reason why we should perfect the public
employment system.
The Crarrman. Let me ask, if the Supreme Court decided that
the States had no power to regulate such a subject, by what authority
would the United States, which exercises only delegated powers, have
any power to do such a thing?
Mr. AnpreEws. It was not that the Federal Government should
attempt to fix the fees charged by the agencies, but that competition
may often be the greatest regulator in bringing about decent business
conditions.
In conclusion, I appreciate that there is no opposition to the bill,
Senate 3061, with reference to employment statistics, and that there
is no opposition to the long range planning of public works bill,
Senate 3059. There is a limited opposition to the one for the public
employment offices, although it is significant that the State industrial
commissioners meeting in annual convention at Louisville, Ky.,
about two weeks ago unanimously adopted a resolution in support of
this bill for Federal-State aid in public employment offices. It is
also, of course, apparent that there is very widespread support for
this measure throughout the whole country. There is a remarkable
demand on the part of the public that this legislation be passed before
the end of this session of Congress. The only thing, as I see it,
which is causing anyone to hesitate is the question of so-called con-
stitutionality of Federal-aid. On that point Prof. Joseph P. Chamber-
lain, of the Columbia University Law School, has prepared a short
but very good legal brief which I am simply going to file with your
committee for the record. I think it covers with complete satisfac-
