President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court bill of 1937 Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Hoffman, Ralph Nicholas, 1930- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 26/09/2021 09:02:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/319079 PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND THE SUPREME COURT BILL OF 1937 by Ralph Nicholas Hoffman, Jr. A Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Department of History and Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Graduate College, University of Arizona 1954 This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the Library to be made avail­ able to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without spec­ ial permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other in­ stances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: TABLE.' OF.GOWTENTS Chapter / . Page Ic PHEYIOUS CHALLENGES TO THE JODlClMXo , V . 1 IT. THE COURT BILL, '■ :e;• e X L »'L . L = a . 39 Ille THE COIBT CONTROY1ESY THROUGH MARCH, 1937 = 6l ; I?, CONTROVERSY TO COMPROMISE, JUNE 3? 1937 ® » 103 . "Vo DEATH OF THE COURT BILL „ L , „ 0 „ » = 6 .-131 VIo ■ CONCLUSIONS FACTORS: AND. FORCES THAT . ' DEFEATED THE COURT BILL L a . .. :. X .X 0 ; o • 0 167 ' BIBLIOGRAPHYo /o: s „ o . o . , » . o-,x> . 187 ' PBESBSEC; BOOSlVSLT AND THE S'WEEMl COURT BIDL vOE 1937 GES.PTER :%■. V • . PSEV10US CHil,LBBGBS :$0 THE JHDICITEY - i ' On November 3? 1936 9 Franklin Do Roosevelt received .an undeniable mandate from the. people of the United States to go ahead with his' New Deal program,. President Roosevelt in­ terpreted this overwhelming approval of the people to mean not only to continue with his New Deal, but also to eliml- : ; : - , .. ' ■ ■ 3 - : r 2 " • - ; ■' ■ nate anything that obstructed its course« In his annual State of the Union message to Congress on January 6 9 1937? the President declared § The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy suc­ cessful «> We do not ask the Courts to call non­ existent powers into being? but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legiti­ mately implied shall be made effective instru- ments for the common goode - ... ■ . The power of our democracy must not be im­ periled by the denial of essential, powers of free governmento . Your task and mine is not ending with the end of the depression= The people of the United • States have made it clear that they expect us to - 2 ■ . ;• - ■" * * . ■ v - .: World Almanac and- Book of Facts for 1917 (New Yorks: New York: World Telegram?- 1937)7 907, Raymond Moleyv After Seven Years (NeW Yorks Harper and Brothers 9 Publishers ,1939), p »' 3^6. continue otir active efforts in behalf of their. ' peacefifl •advancement o: 3 . - ‘ '' v - Although the people approved: 9 the United: States Supreme Court had disapproved throughout Booseveit's first adminis­ tration?' and by January? 1937> the Court had declared seven . out of nine major.New.Deal laws unconstitutionalo Only the TVA and the abrogation of gold clauses had escaped nullifi­ cation by that' eminent tribunal*t According to some authori­ ties 9 this disagreement was the-result of a struggle for power; that is ? which should be - the supreme legislature 9 the - Congress or the Supreme Court? :: ;The root of the problem has been said to be the wide gap. in sovereignty between the pop­ ularly elected branches and the; Snpreme Court<, ■ Other author­ ities hold that the Court's nullification of New Deal legis- :lation stemmed from its advocating a government under the : Constitution as opposed to a government above the Constitution ' . ■; . New York Times., January 7 „ 19375 P» 2 = ; - . : ^ V. f. U=So Congress9 Senate9 Reorganization of 'the Federal judiciary. Hearings before the Committee on the. Judiciary, UoSo Senate9 :77th Cong. r 1st Sess«? on S 0 bill 1392.? Parts 1-4 (Washlhgtonsv Government Printing; Office ? 1937) ? P° 49. - This does not include all of: the :New Deal Acts.: or parts of acts reviewed or d.eclaped unconstitutional by the Supreme C our t= " '' ' - : / j-;4 f::'. • '...:i;C : Robert Ho Jackson, The Struggle' for Judicial Suprema- . c.y (New Torkf Alfred A,' Nnopf ; %94l) s' pp. viii-Xo .: ;: . : r 6 : a -- lerlo jo. Pussey? The Supreme Court Crisis (New Yorks The.Macmillan Coo 9 1937), pp4 88-105o h The membership of the^ Supreme Court was unaltered dur­ ing Roosevelt's first term9 , The memhers of this Court'have been classified 5 by com­ parison to each- other in the following ways the four conserve tives? Associate Justices? Willis Tan Bevanter, James Co Me Reynolds? George.Sutherland? and Pierce Butler; the two mid- dle-of-the-foadars. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice;Owen Jo Roberts; and the three liberals, Associate Justices, Bouis Do. Brandeis,' Harlan Fo Stone, and .Benjamin No Cardbzoo Hughes and Roberts, either one or both, more often than not voted with the four conservatives? .there­ fore, a majority of the msj or New Deal legislation held, void was by either a five to four or six to three decision. The four conservatives believed strongly in 1alsset faire, un- disturbed property rights, and the sanctity of contracts, The public's reaction to the President’s 11 horse and buggy11 . V ■. ■- • - ' ; i . ' ; ' 9 ' ' press conference of May 31; 193% may have given further in- centive to the Court to continue nullifying New Beal vv.vv ■■■ ■ 7 ' ' - . - • - - - . 1 . ’ n,- , ■ . - . Carl Brent Swisher, American Constitutional Develop­ ment (Boston: .Houghton. Mifflin. Co-,-, 19^3-1 P° 920* 8 . ' ■ v - ; ^ ■ ■■. - - : ■■■ -. - - Alfred Haihes Cope and Fred Krinsky (eds,), Franklin D , Roosevelt and The-Supreme Court (Boston: D, C, Heath and Com- pany, 1992), p, vih 9 " " . ...1 - . _ ■ ' t ' -■ ' :- - New York Times, June 1, 1935s p,71= 'measureso Here was a President? backed by probably tiie largest 1; ' :"- l : /' '' 11' ' : popular mandate ; in Imerican history^ but at- the same time . cbnfronted with a judiciary 3 which threatened:. to ;blqck the • -greater: part of his legislative program'. 'Something::was':^ , • : bound to 'happen, and it dido On February '5<) 1937? Presi­ dent Roosevelt proposed to ;Oo^^eas.a'|feiil:^to-';.r^rganize''":.:. the Judicial branch of the government. With regard to the Supreme Oburt of the United States,, the, bill would allow the /President; to appoint one new justice — not to exceed a total . of fifteeh—=for.each member;oh the Court, who would not re­ tire with full salary within six months after reaching the - .V ''v:' ' ;ii2 fy': d'"'' ' age of seventy years B The problem.of this thesis is to ana­ lyze the. tactics, pressures^ and problems connected with this attempt of President Booseveit: to challenge the judi- cial branch nf the gayernmente; n . - The President’s challenge to the Supreme'Court was ; i , 10 ; ; y ' ' : . p - 'y 'p :„"1; i'-'".' ' ' : - ' ' " ' : . ' > . ' ' Joseph -Alsop and Turner Catledge 9 The 166 Days (Gar- den City: Doubleday, Doran and Coo, Inc6, 1938), ppT"h=7<> -;; .Sears^Family World .Atlas (Chicago § Sears , Boebuck and - . Company, ^ 1953) ? PP° A-29-A=31i y : ^ ■ ;':':'. y v i : .IJ^S o: -Congr 6S s Senate, Congressional Be cor d^ 75 th Cong- - ress,, 1st •Session, LXjIXI ? Part I (Washington:' Government Pfimting Cffiee, a937) 9 880^ i nothing new, and to understand its significance a brief ex­ amination of the origin of judicial;review andpast eontro- .versies, between the judiciary and the two popularly elected branches of goverhnient Is in bhder»; '/ (d / The United States Constituion declares in Article I'll, Section I s . Uy ’; 'v: . ■ '"j' ■■ ' ': ":v u'd. The judicial •power of the UnitediStatesU' • - shall be vested in one Supreme Cbuft, and. inT: \ : such inferidr Courts as_ the Congress may from • . time to time ordain and establish^ 13 .^ffer having listed in Article III, Section II, the types of cases to which the judicial power of the United States shall extendpthe Constitution/states: . : . : In all Cases affecting Ambas s ador s., "other' . public Ministers and/ Consuls, and those in which 1/ , a State shall be a Party, the supreme CoUrt shall have original durisdi-etiono In all other Cases : , before mentioned the supreme Court shall have ■ ap­ pellate Jurisdiction^ both as ,to Law and Fact, , v .with Such Exceptions , and under such Regulations ; • as thevCongre.Ss:shall makc.i iM-. - /■. In Article VI,, the .Constitution affirms §- . ■ t;./ : . ' This Constitution, and the laws of the United /States which shall be ■ made: in 'Pursuance thereof , and all Treaties made9 or which shall be made, / . under the Authority: of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land| and the Judges in .. : every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in /■ ■- The Cbhstltutlon of the United States (Washington: The Haskin,Service, / [Uodoj ) , p, 23« • 14 . • ibid o : ^ : r --.' . : 6 the C?onstitution df-Laws of any State to the . oohtnary.notwithstandinge .15 No clause .canbe found. intheConstituion.which specifical­ ly grants to the Supreme Court the power of judicial re- : ■ - riewc- v " ; V : -X':' -: ' : 6".: Many differences e>f; opinion exist as to the constitu­ tional legality in the origin of judicial, review« .