Evening star., 1939-05-22
High Court UphoIds
Tax on Salaries
OF Federal judges
Levy Declared Legal
On Appointees After
June 6, 1882
BY ]. A. FOX.

The Supreme Court today upheld
the constitutionahty of the law
taxing the salaries of Federal judges
appointed after June 6, 1892.
The case came up from the Court
Of Appeals Of the eighth circuit,
which had held that Judge Joseph
w. Woodrough of Omaha and his
wife were entitled to recover a
deficiency judgment of approxi-
mately $3.50 that they had paid under
protest to the Collector of Internal
Revenue covering the jurists sal.
airy of $l2,500 for 1886.
to Decision.
The I'll decision of the Supreme
Court was read by Justice Frank
furter Justice Butler dissented
and Justice McReynolds took no
part in the case. The Butler dis
sent declared the court was repudi-
ating earlier decisions.
Judge Woodrough had contended
that the law operated to diminish
his compensation in violation of
the Constitution and that it was
also violative of the principle of
separation of the three branches
of Government.
Justice Frankfurter said that Con-
greSs in this tax had committed
itself to the position that a nom
discriminatory tax laid generally on
net income Is not, when applied to
Federal judge, diminution of his
salary within the prohibition of
article three of the Constitution.
He added:
TO suggest that it makes inroads
upon the independence of Judges
who took office after Congress had
thus charged them with the common
duties of citizenship by making them
bear their aliquot share of the cost
OF maintaining the government is
to trivialize the great historic ex-
pertinent upon which the trainers
based safeguards of article three. To
subject them to general tax is
merely to recognize that judges are
also citizens and that their par
ticular function in government does
not generate an immunity from
sharing with their fellow citizens the
burden of government whose con-
stitution and laws they are charged
with upholding.'
Dissenting Opinion.
In his dissent Justice Butler said:
THE suggestion that as citizens,
judges are not immune from taxa
ton begs the question here pre-
sented. The Constitutionaitsef puts
judges on a sparate class declaring
that at stated times they shall re-
ceive for their services 'compensa-
ton that shall not be diminished
And SO their salaries are distin.
guished from income of others. The
immunity extends only to compensa-
ton for their services. No question
of comparison or reasonableness is
involved.
Admittedly the court now repu-
dates its earlier decisions on the
point now in issue. The provision
defining tenure and providing for
undiminishable compensation was
adopted with unusual accord. There
has been unanimity of opinion that
because in comparison with the legis-
lative and executive departments the
judicial is weak, its independence is
essential to our system of Govern
ment. These safeguards go far to
insure that independence and, from
the beginning. statesmen and jur.
lists have agreed that the cause for
bids diminution of judges compen-
sation by any form of legislation. The
clause in question is plain: no ex-
ception is expressed; and none may
be implied. Its unqualified command
should be given effect.
For one convinced that the judg-
ment now given is wrong, it is i'm
possible to acquiesce or merely to
note dissent and so that opinion is
written to indicate the grounds of
opposition and to evidence regret
that another landmark has been re.
moved"