OCR Text |
Show -6- the concern of State legislation by auxiliary Federal legislation. 20 Follow- ing the English device of grants-in-aid,1 the Federal government has latter- ly sought to stimulate through financial assistance State action in matters subject to State-control but involving an interest common to the whole coun- try, 22 Another method is seen in the regulation of interstate preserves through the practical fusion of distinct State administrative agencies by means of joint sessions and joint action in order to deal as a unit with legally separate parts of a common interest.22a These six instances illus- trate extra-constitutional forms of legal invention for the .solution of prob- lems touching more than one State. They were neither contemplated nor speci- fically provided for by the Constitution. in Conference of the Representatives of the Provinces, 37-38. In 1919 a Na- tional Industrial Conference of the Representatives of the Dominion and Pro- vincial Governments was held in Ottawa to consider the subjects of industrial relations and labor laws. . A resolution was adopted calling for a further con- ference for the consideration of means and methods of unifying and coordinat- ing the existing Provincial legislation bearing on the relations between em- ployers and employees. See Official Report of Proceedings and Discussions, Appx. p. 18. This conference met the following year and submitted its re- port. See 20 Labour Gazette (1920, Can.) No. 5» Further conferences have been held at Ottawa in 1922 on unemployment, in 1923 on the obligations of Canada under the labor sections of the Treaties of Peace, and in 1921+ on win- ter employment* We are greatly indebted for the Canadian data to H, H« Ward, Esq» * De- puty Minister of the Dominion Department of Labour, and to F» A» Acland, Esq., King's Printer* Liquor legislation and game statutes are- illustrations of a resource of Federal legislation complementing State action, which is by no means ex- hausted. See Wilson Act of Aug. 8, 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 313); Lacey Act of May 25, 1900 (31 Stat, at L, 188); Webb-Kenyon Act of Mar. 1, 1913 (37 Stat. at L. 699)» The scope and validity of such legislation has been frequently before -fche oourts. In re Rahrer (1891) ll+O U. S. 5h5$ 11 Sup. Ct. 865s Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Ry. Co. (1917) 2l+2 U. S» 311* 37 Sup. Ct, 180; Rupert v« United States (1910, C. C* A. 8th) 181 Fed. 87 • See also United States v. Green (1905, N. D» N* Y«) 137 Fed* 1795 The Wilson v. United States (1820, C C. Dt Va.) Fed. Cas. No. 17,8ij.6. 21Webb, Grants-in-Aid (1911). 2^MoDonald, Federal Subsidies to the States (1923); Beard, American Government and Politics (J+th ed« 1921+) i+1+3* Arneson, Federal Aid to the States (1922) 16 Pol. Sci. Rev. 1+U3; Douglas, A System of Federal Grants- in-Aid (1920) 35 Pol. Sci. Quart. 255, 522. An interesting illustration of the combined use of grant-in-aid and compact is furnished by the so-called Weeks Leiw of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. at L» 961); see Annual Report of Dept* of Agriculture (1911) 1*02. The most recent use of this power is the Sheppard-Towner Act of Mar. 23, 1921 (1+2 Stat. at L. 22t+), which was before the Court in Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923) 262 U» S. l+L+7* 1+3 Sup* Ct» 597« See Corwrin, The Spending Power of Congress (1923) 36 Harv» L. Rev. 5i|8; Bur- dick, Federal Aid Legislation (1923) 8 Corn. L* Quart, 32l+« See also Budget Message of President Coolidge (192U) 66 Cong. Rec» 33, 35; Report on Federal Subsidies to States (Wash., Deo. 1921+) Editorial Research Rep* ^ 1895 tke States of New York and New Jersey appointed commissions |