Perfecto v Meer.docx

7/25/2019 Perfecto v Meer.docx

1/13

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2348 February 27, 19!

GREGOR"O PERFECTO,plaintiff-appellee,vs.#"#"$NO MEER, Co%%e&'or o( ")'er)a% Re*e)ue,defendant-appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Francisco Carreon for oppositor andappellant.Gregorio Perfecto in his own behalf.

#ENG+ON, J.

In April, 1!" the Collector of Internal Revenue re#uired Mr. $ustice %re&orio Perfecto to pa' inco(e ta)upon his salar' as (e(ber of this Court durin& the 'ear 1!*. After pa'in& the a(ount +P/, heinstituted this action in the Manila Court of 0irst Instance contendin& that the assess(ent as ille&al, hissalar' not bein& ta)able for the reason that i(position of ta)es thereon ould reduce it in violation of theConstitution.

2he Manila 3ud&e upheld his contention, and re#uired the refund of the a(ount collected. 2he defendantappealed.

2he death of Mr. $ustice Perfecto has freed us fro( the e(barrass(ent of passin& upon the clai( of acollea&ue. 4till, as the outco(e indirectl' affects all the (e(bers of the Court, consideration of the (atteris not ithout its ve)in& feature. 5et ad3udication (a' not be declined, because +a/ e are not le&all'

dis#ualified6 +b/ 3urisdiction (a' not be renounced, ad it is the defendant ho appeals to this Court, andthere is no other tribunal to hich the controvers' (a' be referred6 +c/ supre(e courts in the 7nited4tates have decided si(ilar disputes relatin& to the(selves6 +d/ the #uestion touches all the (e(bers ofthe 3udiciar' fro( top to botto(6 and +e/ the issue involves the ri&ht of other constitutional officers hoseco(pensation is e#uall' protected b' the Constitution, for instance, the President, the Auditor-%eneraland the (e(bers of the Co((ission on Elections. An'a' the sub3ect has been thorou&hl' discussed in(an' A(erican lasuits and opinions, and e shall hardl' do nothin& (ore than to borro therefro( andto co(pare their conclusions to local conditions. 2here shall be little occasion to for(ulate nepropositions, for the situation is not unprecedented.

8ur Constitution provides in its Article 9III, section , that the (e(bers of the 4upre(e Court and all3ud&es of inferior courts :shall receive such co(pensation as (a' be fi)ed b' la, hich shall not bedi(inished durin& their continuance in office.: It also provides that :until Con&ress shall provide otherise,

the Chief $ustice of the 4upre(e Court shall receive an annual co(pensation of si)teen thousand pesos:.;hen in 1!< Mr. $ustice Perfecto assu(ed office, Con&ress had not :provided otherise:, b' fi)in& adifferent salar' for associate 3ustices. =e received salar' at the rate provided b' the Constitution, i.e.,fifteen thousand pesos a 'ear.

No, does the i(position of an inco(e ta) upon this salar' in 1!* a(ount to a di(inution thereof>.

A note found at pa&e


2/13

;here the Constitution of a state provides that the salaries of its 3udicial officers shall not bedis(issed durin& their continuance in office, it had been held that the state le&islature cannoti(pose a ta) upon the co(pensation paid to the 3ud&es of its court. Ne 8rleans v. @ea +1 In anserin& this #uestion, e should consider four periods

0irst period. No atte(pts as (ade to ta) the co(pensation of 0ederal 3ud&es up to 1* 1.

4econd period. 1*-11. In $ul', 1*, a statute as passed sub3ectin& the salaries of :civil officers ofthe 7nited 4tates: to an inco(e ta) of three per cent. Revenue officers, construed it as includin& the

co(pensation of all 3ud&es6 but Chief $ustice 2ane', speaGin& for the 3udiciar', rote to the 4ecretar' ofthe 2reasur' a letter of protest sa'in&, a(on& other thin&s

2he act in #uestion, as 'ou interpret it, di(inishes the co(pensation of ever' 3ud&e ? per cent,and if it can be di(inished to that e)tent b' the na(e of a ta), it (a', in the sa(e a', bereduced fro( ti(e to ti(e, at the pleasure of the le&islature.

2he 3udiciar' is one of the three &reat depart(ents of the &overn(ent, created and established b'the Constitution. Its duties and poers are specificall' set forth, and are of a character thatre#uires it to be perfectl' independent of the to other depart(ents, and in order to place itbe'ond the reach and above even the suspicion of an' such influence, the poer to reduce theirco(pensation is e)pressl' ithheld fro( Con&ress, and e)cepted fro( their poers of le&islation.

@an&ua&e could not be (ore plain than that used in the Constitution. It is, (oreover, one of its(ost i(portant and essential provisions. 0or the articles hich li(its the poers of the le&islativeand e)ecutive branches of the &overn(ent, and those hich provide safe&uards for theprotection of the citiDen in his person and propert', ould be of little value ithout a 3udiciar' touphold and (aintain the(, hich as free fro( ever' influence, direct and indirect, that (i&ht b'possibilit' in ti(es of political e)cite(ent arp their 3ud&(ents.

7pon these &rounds I re&ard an act of Con&ress retainin& in the 2reasur' a portion of theCo(pensation of the 3ud&es, as unconstitutional and void.

2he protest as unheeded, althou&h it apparentl' bore the approval of the hole 4upre(e Court, thatordered it printed a(on& its records. But in 1* Attorne'-%eneral =oar upon the re#uest of the 4ecretar'

of the 2reasur' rendered an opinion a&reein& ith the Chief $ustice. 2he collection of the ta) asconse#uentl' discontinued and the a(ounts theretofore received ere all refunded. 0or half a centur'thereafter 3ud&es salaries ere not ta)ed as inco(e.?

2hird period. 11-1?. 2he 0ederal Inco(e 2a) Act of 0ebruar' !, 11 e)pressl' provided thatta)able inco(e shall include :the co(pensation of the 3ud&es of the 4upre(e Court and inferior courts ofthe 7nited 4tates:. 7nder such Act, ;alter Evans, 7nited 4tates 3ud&e since 1, paid inco(e ta) on hissalar'6 and (aintainin& that the i(post reduced his co(pensation, he sued to recover the (one' he haddelivered under protest. =e as upheld in 1 b' the 4upre(e Court in an epoch-(aGin& decision.F,


3/13

e)plainin& the purpose, histor' and (eanin& of the Constitutional provision forbiddin& i(pair(ent of3udicial salaries and the effect of an inco(e ta) upon the salar' of a 3ud&e.

;ith hat purpose does the Constitution provide that the co(pensation of the 3ud&es :shall notbe di(inished durin& their continuance in office:> Is it pri(aril' to benefit the 3ud&es, or rather topro(ote the public eal b' &ivin& the( that independence hich (aGes for an i(partial and

coura&eous dischar&e of the 3udicial function> Hoes the provision (erel' forbid direct di(inution,such as e)pressl' reducin& the co(pensation fro( a &reater to a less su( per 'ear, and thereb'leave the a' open for indirect, 'et effective, di(inution, such as ithholdin& or callin& bacG apart as ta) on the hole> 8r does it (ean that the 3ud&e shall have a sure and continuin& ri&ht tothe co(pensation, hereon he confidentl' (a' rel' for his support durin& his continuance inoffice, so that he need have no apprehension lest his situation in this re&ard (a' be chan&ed tohis disadvanta&e>

2he Constitution as fra(ed on the funda(ental theor' that a lar&er (easure of libert' and3ustice ould be assured b' vestin& the three poers J the le&islative, the e)ecutive, and the3udicial J in separate depart(ents, each relativel' independent of the others and it asreco&niDed that ithout this independence J if it as not (ade both real and endurin& J theseparation ould fail of its purpose. all a&reed that restraints and checGs (ust be i(posed to

secure the re#uisite (easure of independence6 for otherise the le&islative depart(ent,inherentl' the stron&est, (i&ht encroach on or even co(e to do(inate the others, and the3udicial, naturall' the eaGest, (i&ht be darf or sa'ed b' the other to, especiall' b' thele&islative.

2he particular need for (aGin& the 3udiciar' independent as elaboratel' pointed our b'Ale)ander =a(ilton in the 0ederalist, No. ", fro( hich e e)cerpt the folloin&

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

At a later period $ohn Marshall, hose rich e)perience as la'er, le&islator, and chief 3usticeenable hi( to speaG as no one else could, tersel' said +debates 9a. %onv. 1-1?1, pp. *1*,*1/ . . . 8ur courts are the balance heel of our hole constitutional s'ste(6 and our is the onl'

constitutional s'ste( so balanced and controlled. 8ther constitutional s'ste(s lacGs co(pletepoise and certainl' of operation because the' lacG the support and interpretation of authoritative,undisputable courts of la. It is clear be'ond all need of e)position that for the definite(aintenance of constitutional understandin&s it is indispensable, aliGe for the preservation of thelibert' of the individual and for the preservation of the inte&rit' of the poers of the &overn(ent,that there should be so(e nonpolitical foru( in hich those understandin&s can be i(partiall'debated and deter(ined. 2hat foru( our courts suppl'. 2here the individual (a' assert his ri&hts6there the &overn(ent (ust accept definition of its authorit'. 2here the individual (a' challen&ethe le&alit' of &overn(ental action and have it ad3ud&ed b' the test of funda(ental principles,and that test the &overn(ent (ust abide6 there the &overn(ent can checG the too a&&ressiveself-assertion of the individual and establish its poer upon lines hich all can co(prehend andheed. 2he constitutional poers of the courts constitute the ulti(ate safe&uard aliGe of individualprivile&e and of &overn(ental prero&ative. It is in this sense that our 3udiciar' is the balance

heel of our entire s'ste(6 it is (eant to (aintain that nice ad3ust(ent beteen individual ri&htsand &overn(ental poers hich constitutes political libert'. Constitutional &overn(ent in the7nited 4tates, pp. 1", 1!.

Conscious in the nature and scope of the poer bein& vested in the national courts, reco&niDin&that the' ould be char&e ith responsibilities (ore delicate and i(portant than an' ever beforeconfide to 3udicial tribunals, and appreciatin& that the' ere to be, in the ords of %eor&e;ashin&ton, :the Ge'stone of our political fabric:, the convention ith unusual accordincorporated in the Constitution the provision that the 3ud&es :shall hold their offices durin& &oodbehavior, and shall at stated ti(es receive for their services a co(pensation hich shall not be


4/13


5/13

2he #uestion i((ediatel' before us is hether Con&ress e)ceeded its constitutional poer inprovidin& that 7nited 4tates 3ud&es appointed after the Revenue Act of 1? shall not en3o'i((unit' fro( the incidence of ta)ation to hich ever'one else ithin the defined classes ofinco(e is sub3ected. 2hereb', of course, Con&ress has co((itted itself to the position that a non-discri(inator' ta) laid &enerall' on net inco(e is not, hen applied to the inco(e of federal

3ud&e, a di(inution of his salar' ithin the prohibition of Article ?, 4ec. 1 of the Constitution. 2osu&&est that it (aGes inroads upon the independence of 3ud&es ho tooG office after theCon&ress has thus char&ed the( ith the co((on duties of citiDenship, b' (aGin& the( beartheir ali#uot share of the cost of (aintainin& the %overn(ent, is to trivialiDe the &reat historice)perience on hich the fra(ers based the safe&uards of Article ?, 4ec. 1. 2o sub3ect the( to a&eneral ta) is (erel' to reco&niDe that 3ud&es also are citiDens, and that their particular function in&overn(ent does not &enerate an i((unit' fro( sharin& ith their fello citiDens the (aterialburden of the &overn(ent hose Constitution and las the' are char&ed ith ad(inisterin&.+8Malle' vs. ;oodrou&h,


6/13

2he 7nites 4tates Courts shift of position


7/13

upon their salaries. In vie of the fact that the #uestion is of &reat si&nificance, the (atter astaGen up in the Council of 4tate, and the =onorable, the 4ecretar' of $ustice as re#uested to&ive an opinion on hether or not, havin& in (ind the said decision of the 4upre(e Court of the7nited 4tates in the case of -(alle* %. oodrough, there is 3ustification in re%ersing our presentruling to the effect that /udges are not liable to ta' on their salaries. After &oin& over the opinion ofthe court in the said case, the =onorable, the 4ecretar' of $ustice, stated that althou&h the rulin&of the 4upre(e Court of the 7nited 4tates is not bindin& in the Philippines, the doctrine thereinenunciated has resol%ed the issue of the ta'abilit* of /udges- salaries into a 0uestion of polic*.0orthith, =is E)cellenc' the President decided that the best polic' to adopt ould be to collectinco(e and additional residence ta)es fro( the President of the Philippines, the (e(bers of the$udiciar', and the Auditor %eneral, and the undersi&ned as authoriDed to act accordin&l'.

In vie of the fore&oin&, inco(e and additional residence ta)es should be levied on the salariesreceived b' the President of the Philippines, (e(bers of the $udiciar', and the Auditor %eneraldurin& the calendar 'ear 1? and thereafter. . . . . +E(phasis ours./

8f course, the 4ecretar' of $ustice correctl' opined that the 8Malle' decision :resolved the issue ofta)abilit' of 3ud&es salaries into a 0uestion of polic*.: But that polic' (ust be enunciated b'Con&ressional enact(ent, as as done in the 8Malle' case, not b' E)ecutive 0iat or interpretation.

2his is not proclai(in& a &eneral ta) i((unit' for (en on the bench. 2hese pa' ta)es. 7pon bu'in&&asoline, or other co((odities, the' pa' the correspondin& duties. 8nin& real propert', the' pa' ta)esthereon. And on inco(es other than their 3udicial salar', assess(ents are levied. It is onl' hen the ta) ischar&ed directl' on their salar' and the effect of the ta) is to di(inish their official stipend J that theta)ation (ust be resisted as an infrin&e(ent of the funda(ental charter.

$ud&es ould indeed be hapless &uardians of the Constitution if the' did not perceive and blocGencroach(ents upon their prero&atives in hatever for(. 2he undi(inishable character of 3udicialsalaries is not a (ere privile&e of 3ud&es J personal and therefore aivable J but a basic li(itation uponle&islative or e)ecutive action i(posed in the public interest. +Evans vs. %ore/

Indeed the e)e(ption of the 3udicial salar' fro( reduction b' ta)ation is not reall' a &ratuit' or privile&e.

@et the hi&hest court of Mar'land speaG

2he e)e(ption of the 3udicial co(pensation fro( reduction is not in an' true sense a &ratuit',privile&e or e)e(ption. It is essentiall' and pri(aril' co(pensation based upon valuableconsideration. 2he covenant on the part of the &overn(ent is a &uarant' hose fulfill(ent is as(uch as part of the consideration a&reed as is the (one' salar'. 2he undertaGin& has its onparticular value to the citiDens in securin& the independence of the 3udiciar' in crises6 and in theestablish(ent of the co(pensation upon a per(anent foundation hereb' 3udicial prefer(ent(a' be prudentl' accepted b' those ho are #ualified b' talent, Gnoled&e, inte&rit' andcapacit', but are not possessed of such a private fortune as to (aGe an assured salar' an ob3ectof personal concern. 8n the other hand, the (e(bers of the 3udiciar' relin#uish their position atthe bar, ith all its professional e(olu(ents, sever their connection ith their clients, anddedicate the(selves e)clusivel' to the dischar&e of the onerous duties of their hi&h office. 4o, it

is irrefutable that the' &uarant' a&ainst a reduction of salar' b' the i(position of a ta) is not ane)e(ption fro( ta)ation in the sense of freedo( fro( a burden or service to hich others areliable. 2he e)e(ption for a public purpose or a valid consideration is (erel' a no(inal e)e(ption,since the valid and full consideration or the public purpose pro(oted is received in the place ofthe ta). 2heor' and Practice of 2a)ation +1/, H. A. ;ells, p.


8/13

3ud&es, and the 3udiciar' incurs the displeasure of the @e&islature and the E)ecutive. In retaliation theinco(e ta) la is a(ended so as to lev' a ? per cent on all salaries of &overn(ent officials on the levelof 3ud&es. 2his naturall' reduces the salar' of the 3ud&es b' ? per cent, but the' (a' not &ru(blebecause the ta) is &eneral on all receivin& the sa(e a(ount of earnin&, and affects the E)ecutive and the@e&islative branches in e#ual (easure. =oever, (eans are provided thereafter in other las, for theincrease of salaries of the E)ecutive and the @e&islative branches, or their per#uisites such asalloances, per die(s, #uarters, etc. that actuall' co(pensate for the ? per cent reduction on theirsalaries. Result $ud&es co(pensation is thereb' di(inished durin& their incu(benc' thanGs to theinco(e ta) la. Conse#uence $ud&es (ust :toe the line: or else. 4econd conse#uence 4o(e fe

3ud&es (i&ht falter6 the &reat (a3orit' ill not. But Gnoin& the frailt' of hu(an nature, and this chinG inthe 3udicial ar(or, ill the parties losin& their cases a&ainst the E)ecutive or the Con&ress believe that the

3udicature has not 'ielded to their pressure>

Respondent asserts in ar&u(entation that b' e)ecutive order the President has sub3ected his salar' tothe inco(e ta) la. In our opinion this shos obviousl' that, ithout such voluntar' act of the President,his salar' ould not be ta)able, because of constitutional protection a&ainst di(inution. 2o ar&ue fro( thise)ecutive &esture that the 3udiciar' could, and should act in liGe (anner is to assu(e that, in the (atter ofco(pensation and poer and need of securit', the 3udiciar' is on a par ith the E)ecutive. 4uchassu(ption certainl' i&nores the prevailin& state of affairs.

2he 3ud&(ent ill be affir(ed. 4o ordered.

(oran, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, &uason, (onte)a*or, Re*es and &orres, JJ.,concur.

Seara'e O)o)/

O+$ET$., 0., dissentin&

It is indeed e(barrassin& that this case as initiated b' a (e(ber of this Court upon hich devolves thedut' to decide it finall'. 2he #uestion of hether the salaries of the 3ud&es, the (e(bers of theCo((ission on Elections, the Auditor %eneral, and the President of the Philippines are i((une fro(ta)ation, (i&ht have been raised b' an' interested part' other than a 3ustice of the 4upre(e Court ithless e(barrass(ent to the latter.

2he #uestion is si(ple and not difficult of solution. ;e shall state our opinion as concisel' as possible.

2he first inco(e ta) la of the Philippines as Act No. ??, hich as approved on March ", 11, totaGe effect on $anuar' 1, 1. 4ection 1 +a/ of said Act provided

2here shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annuall' upon the entirenet inco(e receivedin the precedin& calendar 'ear fro( all sources b' e%er* indi%idual, a citiDen or resident of the

Philippine Islands, a ta) of to per centu( upon such inco(e. . . . +E(phasis ours./

4ection +a/ of said Act provided

4ub3ect onl' to such e)e(ptions and deductions as are hereinafter alloed, the ta)able netinco(e of a person shall include &ains, profits, and inco)e deri%ed fro) salaries, a&es orco(pensation for personal service of whate%er +ind and is whate%er for) paid, or fro(professions, vocations, businesses, trade, co((erce, sales, or dealin&s in propert', hether realor personal, &roin& out of the onership or use of or interest in real or personal propert', also


9/13

fro( interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of an' business carried on for &ain orprofit, or &ains, profits, and inco)e deri%ed fro) an* source whate%er.

2hat inco(e ta) la has been a(ended several ti(es, speciall' as to the rates of the ta), but the above-#uoted provisions +e)cept as to the rate/ have been preserved intact in the subse#uent Acts. 2he presentinco(e ta) la is 2itle II of the National Internal Revenue Code, Co((onealth Act No. !**, sections 1,

and of hich incorporate the te)ts of the above-#uoted provisions of the ori&inal Act in e)actl' thesa(e lan&ua&e. 2here can be no dispute hatsoever that 3ud&es +ho are individuals/ and their salaries+hich are inco(e/ are as clearl' co(prehended ithin the above-#uoted provisions of the la as if the'ere specificall' (entioned therein6 and in fact all 3ud&es had been and ere pa'in& inco(e ta) on theirsalaries hen the Constitution of the Philippines as discussed and approved b' the ConstitutionalConvention and hen it as sub(itted to the people for confir(ation in the plebiscite of Ma' 1!, 1?


10/13

(e(ber of the Court hen the Constitution tooG effect, (aGes no difference. 2he salaries of 3ustices and3ud&es ere sub3ect to inco(e ta) hen he as appointed in the earl' part of 1!

In the li&ht of the antecedents, the prohibition a&ainst di(inution cannot be interpreted to include or referto &eneral ta)ation but to a la b' hich said salaries (a' be fi)ed. 2he sentence in #uestion reads:2he' shall receive such co(pensation as (a' be fi)ed b' la, hich shall not be di(inished durin& theircontinuance in office.: 2he ne)t sentence reads :7ntil the Con&ress shall provide otherise, the Chief$ustice of the 4upre(e Court shall receive an annual co(pensation of P1*,, and each associate$ustice, P1 It is to us inconceivable that the fra(ers ever intended torelieve certain officers of the %overn(ent fro( sharin& ith their fellos citiDens the (aterial burden ofthe %overn(ent J to e)e(pt their salaries fro( ta)es. Moreover, the Constitution itself specifies hatproperties are e)e(pt fro( ta)es, na(el' :Ce(eteries, churches, and parsona&es or conventsappurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildin&s, and i(prove(ents used e)clusivel' for reli&ious, charitable,or educational purposes.: +4ec. ?, Article 9I./ 2he o(ission of the salaries in #uestion fro( thisenu(eration is in itself an elo#uent (anifestation of intention to continue the i(position of ta)es thereonas provided in the e)istin& la. 1nclusio est e'clusio alterius.

;e have thus far read and construed the pertinent portions of our on Constitution and inco(e ta) la inthe li&ht of the antecedent circu(stances and of the operative factors hich prevailed at the ti(e ourConstitution as fra(ed, independentl' of the construction no prevailin& in the 7nited 4tates of si(ilarprovisions of the federal Constitution in relation to the present federal inco(e ta) la, under hich the

3ustices of the 4upre(e Court, and the federal 3ud&es are no, and since the case of -(alle* %s.oodroughas decided on Ma' , 1?, have been, pa'in& inco(e ta) on their salaries. ;ere this a(a3orit' opinion, e could end here ith the conse#uent reversal of the 3ud&(ent appealed fro(. But

ours is a voice in the ilderness, and e (a' per(it ourselves to utter it ith (ore vehe(ence ande(phasis so that future pla'ers on this sta&e perchance (a' hear and heed it. ;ho Gnos> 2he %ospelitself as a voice in the ilderness at the ti(e it as uttered.

;e have to co((ent on An&lo-A(erican precedents since the (a3orit' decision fro( hich e dissent isbased on so(e of the(. Indeed, the (a3orit' sa' the' :hardl' do nothin& (ore than to borro therefro(and to co(pare their conclusions to local conditions.: hich e shall presentl' sho did not obtain in the7nited 4tates at the ti(e the federal and state Constitutions ere adopted. ;e shall further sho that inan' event hat the' no borro is not usable because it has lon& been ithdran fro( circulation.


11/13

;hen the A(erican Constitution as fra(ed and adopted, there as no inco(e ta) la in the 7nited4tates. 2o this circu(stance (a' be attributed the clai( (ade b' so(e federal 3ud&es headed b' Chief$ustice 2ane', hen under the Act of Con&ress of $ul' 1, 1*, their salaries ere sub3ected to an inco(eta), that such ta) as a di(inution of their salaries and therefore prohibited b' the Constitution. Chief$ustice 2ane's clai( and his protest a&ainst the ta) ere not heeded, but no federal 3ud&e dee(ed itproper to sue the Collector of Internal Revenue to recover the ta)es the' continued to pa' under protestfor several 'ears. In 1*, the 4ecretar' of the 2reasur' referred the #uestion to Att'. %eneral =oar, andthat officer rendered an opinion in substantial accord ith Chief $ustice 2ane's protest, and also advisedthat the ta) on the Presidents co(pensation as liGeise invalid. No 3udicial pronounce(ent, hoever,as (ade of such invalidit' until $une 1, 1, hen the case of$%ans %s. Gore+


12/13

8ur collea&ues i(port and transplant here the dead li(bs of $%ans %s. Goreand (iles %s. Graha)andatte(pt to revive and nurture the( ith painstaGin& anal'ses and dia&noses that the' had not suffered afatal blo fro(-(alle* %s. oodrough. ;e refuse to 3oin this heroic atte(pt because e believe it isfutile.

2he' disre&ard the actual da(a&e and (ini(iDe it b' tr'in& to discover the process b' hich it as

inflicted and he (otivations that led to the infliction. 2he' sa' that the chief a)e-ielder, $ustice0ranGfurter, as a =arvard &raduate and professor and that the =arvard @a $ournal had criticiDed $%ans%s. Gore6 that the dissenters in said case +=ol(es and Brandeis/ ere =arvard (en liGe 0ranGfurter6 andthat the' believe this to be the :inarticulate consideration that (a' have influenced the &rounds on hichthe case 8Malle' vs. ;oodrou&h ent off.: 2his ar&u(ent is not valid, in our hu(ble belief. It as notonl' the =arvard @a $ournal that had criticiDed $%ans %s. Gore. $ustice 0ranGfurter and his collea&uessaid that the decision in that case :(et ith ide and steadil' &roin& disfavor fro( le&al scholarship andprofessional opinion,: and the' cited the folloin& ClarG,Further)ore 2i)itations 3pon Federal 1nco)e&a'ation, ? 5ale @. $. "


13/13

Foo')o'e/

FEvans vs. %ore,

Documents

Perfecto v Meer.docx