Williams v. Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith, 10579.

Decision Date14 December 1950
Docket NumberNo. 10579.,10579.
Citation185 F.2d 1005
PartiesWILLIAMS v. ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B'NAI B'RITH et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Nathan Boone Williams, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Henry G. Fischer, Washington, D. C, with whom Mr. Harry S. Wender, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

Mr. Milton I. Baldinger, Washington, D. C., for appellee Adolph J. Sabath.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges, and ROBERT N. WILKIN, District Judge, retired (sitting by designation).

WILKIN, District Judge.

This is an appeal from summary judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which dismissed the appellant's libel suit against the appellees. The case was submitted on the pleadings, affidavits and motions of all parties for summary judgment.

The statements alleged by appellant to be libelous were published in the book issued by the appellee, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, on or about March 25, 1948, entitled "Anti-Semitism in the United States in 1947," and in the Appendix to the Congressional Record of August 15, 1947, by leave granted to the appellee, Adolph J. Sabath.

Earlier in 1947 Upton Close had published a pamphlet, written by Williams, entitled "The Anti-Defamation League and Its Use in the World Communist Offensive." On the cover of the pamphlet there appeared the following statement by the publisher: "A picture of what more and more Americans regard, with alarm, to be a secret police among us; and its relation to the world movement which threatens our civilization, reported by an Army Reserve Intelligence officer."

And, on the inside cover page, in an editor's note by Close, the following statement was made: "With painstaking care, Major Robert H. Williams (Military Intelligence, Reserve), counter-intelligence, as conscientious an officer as our military intelligence ever had, and a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica supplement, `Ten Eventful Years,' has prepared the following report."

The League considered such statements by Close an "attempt to cloak the * * * discredited canards against the League and the Jewish community in general with the ostensible and pretended authority of the U. S. Military Intelligence * * *" Anxious to ascertain the official status of Williams, the National Chairman of the League, Meier Steinbrink, wrote to the then Secretary of War, Robert P. Patterson, on May 1, 1947, asking for an official War Department statement with respect to appellant's military record. On May 28, 1947, Secretary of War Patterson replied as follows:

"Mr. Williams served as a major in the Army of the United States (Air Corps) during World War II. He was for a time an intelligence officer in the air squadron overseas, but he was not concerned, in that capacity, with the investigation of Communists or any subversives. His work had to do with weather and air intelligence. He is not now a member of the Air Reserve and is no longer connected with the military service.

"Any statement made by Mr. Williams was not made as an agent of the War Department, but was made as a civilian without the consent of or prior approval of the War Department. His statements cannot be considered as reflecting the attitude of the War Department."

At about the same time, according to an uncontroverted affidavit, the Washington office of the League communicated with the Military Intelligence Section of the General Staff (G-2) and was advised by the executive officer of Military Intelligence, Colonel Carter Clark, that Williams "is not and never was a member of Military Intelligence; that Military Intelligence is G-2; and that nobody who is not in G-2 is in Military Intelligence."

On July 10, 1947, appellant became "an officer in the Military Intelligence Reserve," according to his affidavit.

The complaint set forth three particulars in which the publication of the League was libelous:

"(1) Plaintiff described as among those which `expressed unfriendly sentiment in 1947.'

"(2) Plaintiff described as `Alleged author.'

"(3) The statement: `it was revealed that Mr. Williams is not, and never was a member of Military Intelligence or Military Intelligence Reserve.'"

Williams contended that the words used by the League with respect to him "being untrue in fact are actionable per se."

On or after July 26, 1947, appellee Sabath, a member of the House of Representatives of the United States, caused to be published in the Appendix of the Congressional Record the letter from the Secretary of War to Meier Steinbrink, together with a prefatory statement by Sabath. The appellant contended that such "extension of alleged remarks not made in speech or debate in either House of Congress containing divers and sundry false statements and innuendo with respect to this plaintiff and made with malicious intent" was "outside the protection of the immunity provision of the Constitution of the United States."

The trial court sustained the motions of both appellees and entered final judgment in their favor. There was no opinion, but the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Tavoulareas v. Piro
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 22, 1987
    ...v. Vaughan, 278 F.2d 23, 26 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 822, 81 S.Ct. 57, 5 L.Ed.2d 51 (1960); Williams v. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 185 F.2d 1005, 1007 (D.C.Cir.1950). Gariepy, 207 F.2d at 16; Thomson v. Cash, 119 N.H. 371, 402 A.2d 651, 653 (1979); James v. Gannett Co......
  • Hoffman v. Washington Post Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 23, 1977
    ...its words together in context. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 563 & comment d (1977); Williams v. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 99, 185 F.2d 1005, 1007 (1950). In the instant case, there is no material dispute over the meaning of the article in question. In additi......
  • Methodist Federation for Social Action v. Eastland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 25, 1956
    ...in the Senate, but in the publication and circularizing of the libelous documents." In the case of Williams v. Anti-Defamation League, etc., (Sabath), 88 U.S. App.D.C. 99, 185 F.2d 1005, 1006, the plaintiff sought damages for an alleged libel. The defendant Sabath, a member of the House of ......
  • Johnson v. Johnson Publishing Co.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1970
    ...Washington Times Co. v. Hines, 55 App.D.C. 326, 327, 5 F.2d 541, 542 (1925). See also Williams v. Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 99, 101, 185 F. 2d 1005, 1007 (1950); Sullivan v. Meyer, 67 App.D.C. 228, 229, 91 F.2d 301, 302 2. Gariepy v. Pearson, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 33......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT