◆ SpookStack

L Q o resulting intolerable operation conditions; (5) hours of service, the diversity of State employment laws is & matter of common knowledge and enactment of H. R. 3 5 - would lead to untold complications and additional expense in complying therewith as compared to existing Federal law. Cannot overemphasize the undersirable nature of and chactic condition that would be created in the field of interstate railroad transportation by enactment of H. R. 3 without language excepting its epplication in instances of railroads subject to the Interstate Commerce Act." Similarly, farmers and marketers of agricultural produce complying with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act might be subject to prosecution under numerous state laws which set up different and varying standards for compliance. (See Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501.) Varehousemen subject to Federal regulation with respect to rates, discrimination, rebates, service and other matters might become subject to state regulations with respect to the same matters. Even in an area traditionally the responsibility of the Federal Government because of ite intivate reletionship to international affairs, there might be troublesome conflicts. In the field of immigration, for example, an alien subject to comprehensive Federal registration procedures might find himself subject also to discriminatory and burdensome State legislation destructive of the personal protections afforded him by the Federal law. (See Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 32). It seems doubtful, indeed that Congresé would want such results to flow from the passage of H. R. 3, but the difficulty with section 1 is that no one knows what specific results ere intended or will ensue. At the end of a long series of lawsuits it is possible, as some of ite proponents contend, thet the courts might construe H. R. 3 as merely declaratory of existing law. Thus interpreted, the bill would be a useless piece of legislation producing untold confusion and burdening the courts with a rush of litigation to no evail. However, I doubt that any member of the Senate, or that any other person, can foresee with clarity the change this bill is, intended to make. This is not merely the usual fear of litigation Which accompanies al] legislation. Usually such fear is as to & single field and is resolved with one or two cases. This bill will provoke litigation at every point of Federal-State conflict no ratter how ancient and well settled. It is thoroughly understandable that Congress should desire that its legislative intent be properly interpreted by the courts, but thie understandable objective cannot be achieved by adding H. R. 3 to the statute 7 books. Its passage would muddle and becloud not only these particular } fields in which Congress desires legislation to change the effect of certain judicial decisions, but also innumerable fields wherein delicate Federal-