Please cite to the original publication
I count it a privilege to join in the Southwestern Law Journal's tribute to
Dean Galvin as he drops the reins ofadministration. It is gratifying to know
that he will continue as an active teacher and legal scholar-roles that he
successfully pursued during his long tenure as dean of the Southern Methodist
University School of Law, despite the centrifugal forces that inevitably pull
educational administrators away from the classroom and library.
My own association with Dean Galvin goes back many years, almost to a
time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, namely, the end of World War II. Our closest encounters, however, occurred in two debates
in the late 1960's. The first was conducted in the pages ofthe Harvard Law
Review (volumes 80 and 81), where, with Joseph A. Pechman and Richard A.
Musgrave, we debated the merits of a comprehensive income tax base. Such
was the force of our rhetoric that each ofus succeeded, at least in his own
opinion, in defending his original territory. In one of his sallies, Dean Galvin
suggested, indeed expressed the hope, that the existing tax structure would
sink into "a dank, miasmic, myxomycetous sump" so that we could make a
new start; but with admirable realism, he also predicted that we would have to
make do with the quagmire for the foreseeable future. In our other debate,
recorded in book form as The Income Tax: How Progressive Should It
Be?, we again grappled with slippery imponderables in an argument that furthered my own education and that, I hope, others found useful.
In offering the remarks below to this testimonial in Galvin's honor, I look
forward once again to his comments, criticisms, and corrections.
Date of Authorship for this Version