George Washington to New Hampshire, 29 December 1777 (Detail, GLC03706) Great Depression, World War II, and the American West: Court Restructuring – Two Perspectives Perspective B - Gannett Letter by Debbie Coicca Cinco Ranch High School Katy (Houston), Texas National Archives http://www.archives.gov A respect for the principle of separation of powers is deeply ingrained in every American. The nation subscribes to the original premise of the framers of the Constitution that the way to safeguard against tyranny is to separate the powers of government among three branches so that each branch checks the other two. Even when this system thwarts the public will and paralyzes the processes of government, Americans have rallied to its defense. In 1935-36, the Court struck down eight of FDR's New Deal programs, including the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Public antijudicial sentiment intensified; many critics questioned the constitutionality of the concept of judicial review itself. After his election victory, however, FDR submitted to Congress early in February 1937 a plan for "judicial reform," which forever came to be known as his attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court by adding six additional justices. Letters poured into the White House and the Justice Department both attacking and supporting the President's plan. One of the most outspoken members of the press was the Rochester, NY, newspaper publisher, Frank Gannett. The document is a letter sent by Gannett to the Office of the Solicitor in the Justice Department and then referred to the Attorney General. Like many others in the file, it expresses the concern that the real issue is not judicial reform but the continued expansion of executive power. President Roosevelt has cleverly camouflaged a most amazing and startling proposal for packing the Supreme Court. It is true that the lower courts are slow and overburdened, we probably do need more judges to expedite litigation, but this condition should not be used as a subtle excuse for changing the complexion and undermining the independence of our highest court. Increasing the number of judges from nine to fifteen would not make this high tribunal act any more promptly than it does now, but it would give the President control of the Judiciary Department. A year ago I predicted that this is exactly what would happen if Roosevelt was reelected. The Supreme Court having declared invalid many of the administration measures, the President now resorts to a plan of creating a Supreme Court that will be entirely sympathetic with his ideas. Provision has been made for amending the Constitution. If it is necessary to change the Constitution, it should be done in the regular way. The President is mistaken if he thinks he can conceal his real purpose of packing, influencing, and controlling the Supreme Court by confusing that objective with a long dissertation on the slow action of our various courts. The Supreme Court has been the anchor that has held America safe through many storms. Its absolute independence and integrity must never be in doubt. Our Government is composed of three departments, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. These are the foundations of our Democracy. As a result of the election and the transfer of powers by so-called emergency measures, the Executive now dominates the Legislative Department. The President now proposes also to dominate the Judiciary. Do we want to give to this man or any one man complete control of these three departments of our Government which have from the beginning of the Republic been kept entirely separate and independent? This proposal should give every American grave concern for it is a step towards absolutism and complete dictatorial power. Frank E. Gannett ____ 1. Define the term "judicial review" and explain its origin. 2. According to newspaper publisher, Frank Gannett, what is Roosevelt’s true motive for "judicial reform?" 3. What solutions does Gannett offer to rectify this problem? 4. Explain the metaphor that Gannett uses for the Supreme Court. In your viewpoint describe another appropriate metaphor that could be used for the Supreme Court. 5. Explain the long-term concerns that motivated Gannett to write this letter? Do you agree with his interpretation of this issue? Why or why not?