Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-03-07


nronor and effective administration OF
ouhlic affairs as intrusted TO the
executive branch of the Government.
GAYS Justice Robb, eff the head or an
executive department, exercising !ne
functions of his office ana keeping
within the limits OF his authority,
should be under an apprehension thar
the motives controlling his ofnciai con-
duct may at any time become the SUP
iect of inquiry in a civil suit TOT GAM
ages. II he acts, having autnoIity, ms
conduct cannot be made the founda-
ton Of a suit for damages against
him personally"
Refuses to Pass on Date.
The appellate tribunal refused to
uass on the question Of whether the
publication of the Mellon letter ap'
peared in the newspapers before ITS
publication in the Congressional Rec
ord Of March 8, 1925. Under the views
expressed in the opinion, the court
deems 1t unnecessary to determine tnat
question.
In the course of his opinion. Justice
Robb says:
saThe defense of the Secretary is that
the communication was privileged De-
cause 1t was an official communication
from the head of an executive depart
ment to the President OF the United
States, and, second, because 1t was
nublished in the Congressional Record
OF the United States prior to the pub.
iication in the newspapers. Counsei
for the plaintiff, on the other hand,
contend, first, that even il the letter
was an official communication the Se:-
rotary exceeded any privilege he might
have had by sending 1t to. the news
GQr0nd
that the publication OF the letter IN
the Congressional Record occurred
after publication by the Secretary.
Treasury Put Under Suspicion.
1.-THE declaration discloses that for
a reriod of three and q half years Mr..
Brewer conducted an investigation In
the Treasury Department of the
United States and elsewhere OF sup.
posed fraudulent Implications ana
other frauds in the counterfeitlng,
copying. Justification, sale and disposai
of bonds and other securities OF the
United States and that he submitted
written reports to the President OF
the United States and to the Attorney
General of the United States, and that
the charges were the subject of inves.
tigation and report by committee OF
Congress. 1t thus appears that the
efficiency, and to some extent at least
the integrity, of the Treasury De-
partment has been seriously chal.
lenged and that public confidence In
that department might have been i'm.
paired Not only was the head OF
the department and the President In
terested, but the matter was of vital
concern to the public.
These charges had been given wide
publicity and it may be assumed that
the President desired from the head
OF the department involved compre-
hensive statement Of the facts as they
appeared to him. Even though the
President had not requested such a
statement or report, II certainly was
not beyond the scope of the Secre-
tary's duty and authority to submit
one Moreover, failure on the part Of
the defendant to make a report to
the President might have given rise
10 or justified the implication that
the charges were not without founda-
ton.
Other Cases Cited.
The motive underlying the dis
charge of an official duty is not ma
terial. Public policy affords absolute
protection and immunity for what may
be said or written by an officer in his
Official report or communication to a
superior, when such report or com
munication is made in the course and
discharge of official duty. Otherwise
the perfect freedom which ought to
exist in the discharge Of public duty
might be seriously restrained. OF
course, when party steps aside from
duty to introduce into his report or
communication defamatory matter
wholly irrelevant and foreign to the
subject OF inquiry. a different ques.
Ainsworth, "a App, l.. c., 1877, ITS.
TN Spalding V. Villas. 161 L. s., 4s3,
<sS. the court said: We are Of opin-
ion that the same general considera
lions of public policy and convenience
which demand for judges of courts
of superior Jurisdiction immunity from
civil suits for damages arising from
acts done by them in the course OF
The performance Of their judicial
functions, apply to a large extent to
official communications made by
heads of executive departments when
engaged in the discharge of duties
imposed upon them by law. The in
ferests OF the people require that due
protection be accorded to them in re
spect of their official acts. Ir
the head OF an executive department
keeping within the limits of his au
fhortty. should not be under an ap
prehension that the motives that con
troll his official conduct may, at any
time, become the subject of inquiry ir
q civil suit for damages. 1t would
seriously cripple the proper and eff
fective administration of public Of
fairs as intrusted to the executive
branch of the Government, IL he
were subjected to any such re
straint. He may have legal authorit,
10 act, but he may have such large
discretion in the premises that i
will not always be his absolute dut,
to exercise the authority with which
he Is invested. But il he acts, hayins
authority, his conduct cannot b,
made the foundation Of q suit agains
him personally for damages, even i
the circumstances show that he is no
disagreeably impressed by the fac
that his action injuriously affects tn,
claims OF particular individuals
Giving of Views Justified.
But. it IS insisted even if it b,
assumed that the report to the Presi
dent was OF an official character, tn,
Secretary has interjected defamator,
matter wholly irrelevant and foreign
10 the subject under discussion. 81
that there has been such abuse OF tn.
privilege as TO place the communica
zion beyond the rule and to destro.
the general immunity. The basis To-
his contention is the challenge q
plaintiffs good faith and the char
aoter1zation of the charges as un
rounded. When it is considered tina
after the plaintiff had been engage,
in conducting an investigation for
period Of almost three years and ha.
not, according to the Secretary, pro
greseed beyond the point OF suspicion
ana deduction; that the President ha,
designated a disinterested ana pre