Harris v. Walsh
| Decision Date | 03 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3489. |
| Citation | 277 F. 569 |
| Parties | HARRIS, Adjutant General, v. WALSH. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted November 8, 1921.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
John E Laskey, Peyton Gordon and Grant T. Trent, all of Washington D.C., for appellant.
Frederick C. Bryan, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia adjudging appellant, Peter C. Harris Adjutant General of the United States Army, in contempt of court, and requiring him to produce a certain affidavit in his official possession, or stand committed for failure to comply with the order of the court.
The order was made in a divorce proceeding pending in a court of competent jurisdiction in Summit county, Ohio, wherein Harry H. Walsh is plaintiff and Mary H. Walsh is defendant. The subpoena duces tecum issued out of the District Supreme Court, commanding the appellant to appear before a notary public in this city to testify on behalf of the plaintiff and to produce the affidavit in question.
Plaintiff Walsh, in his petition for divorce, charges neglect of duty and extreme cruelty on the part of his wife, in that she, by filing this affidavit with the draft board at Akron, Ohio, caused him to be inducted into the military service of the United States.
The single question presented is whether appellant is required to respond to the order of the court and produce the affidavit as therein directed. By the act of Congress of May 18, 1917 (40 Stat. 76), and acts amendatory thereof (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Secs. 2044a-2044k), the President was invested with full power 'to increase temporarily the military establishment of the United States. ' The organization of the selective draft system was left largely to the discretion of the President. The act of Congress declared that the selective draft 'shall take place and be maintained under such regulations as the President may prescribe not inconsistent with the terms of this act. ' Rules and regulations were accordingly promulgated, known as the 'Selective Service Regulations.' Section 11 of the rules protected from publication 'answers of any registrant concerning the condition of his health, mental or physical,' without the consent of the registrant, and imposed a severe penalty on any one--
'who shall divulge or impart, to any person not entitled under the foregoing paragraph to receive the same, any information contained in the record as to a registrant's physical condition, or as to his answers concerning dependency.'
The rule further provided that--
'The portions of such records as are hereinbefore held to be confidential shall not, without the consent of the registrant, be produced and published in response to any subpoena or summons of any court, except as they may be so produced and published for the purpose of being used in the prosecution of the registrant, or of any person acting in collusion with such registrant, for perjury or for any violation of the provisions of the Selective Service Law or of these Rules and Regulations.'
It will be observed that the foregoing are exceptions to the general provision of the rule that--
'All records required by these Rules and Regulations to be filed with and kept by local and district boards, Adjutants General, and other persons in connection with the registration, examination, selection, and mobilization of registrants under the Selective Service Law, and these regulations, shall be public records and shall be open during usual business hours for public inspection of any and all persons.'
Section 12 of the regulations provides, as stated in the opinion of the court below:
'That whenever any registrant or other person (except one of the class of persons named in the proviso of the foregoing section 11) applies to a local or district board to inspect any of the records of such boards, such registrant or other person shall not be permitted to search through such records; but it shall be the duty of members or clerks of local and district boards and other persons having the custody of such records to discover, open and point out to the registrant or other person the portion of the record containing the information requested by such person so applying; subject to the limitations as to disclosures provided in the foregoing section 11.'
While it may be said that this regulation merely restricts the method by which persons may consult the records, it is further explained by note 2, which, among other things, provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Terminal RR Ass'n of St. Louis, 3933.
...this conclusion is supported by the authorities. Federal Life Insurance Co. v. Holod, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 713; Harris, Adjutant General, v. Walsh, 51 App.D.C. 167, 277 F. 569; Graham v. Squier, 9 Cir., 132 F.2d 681; Annot. 129 A.L.R. Defendant, arguendo, claims a waiver by plaintiff of the pri......
-
McGlothan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 9594.
...a privilege in the records to the individual concerned as well as to the government does not expressly appear. Cf. Harris v. Walsh, 1922, 51 App.D.C. 167, 277 F. 569; Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Holod, D.C.M.D.Pa.1940, 30 F. Supp. 713. The legislative history does suggest, however, that some c......
-
Universal Airline v. Eastern Air Lines
...regulations regarding their records and reports. Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 469, 470, 20 S.Ct. 701, 44 L.Ed. 846; Harris v. Walsh, 51 App.D.C. 167, 277 F. 569; Ex parte Sackett, 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 922; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Grant, 234 Ky. 276, 27 S.W.2d 980; Gourley v. Chicago & E. ......
-
Altman v. Third Nat. Bank in Nashville
...Ed., secs. 2377, 2379, especially page 801. Defendants rely on Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Holod, D. C., 30 F.Supp. 713, and Harris v. Walsh, 51 App. D. C. 167, 277 F. 569. These cases, however, are in point. They arose under World War I regulations, which not only made the information confide......