Evening star., 1942-05-25
Mrs. Patterson verdic'
In Sweeney Libel Suit
Upheld on Appeal
Opinion Says Publisher
Defended on Grounds
Of Privilege and Truth

Ine court OF Appeals To-Day up
held a lower court ruling which
granted Judgment to Mrs. Eleanor
M. Patterson, publisher of the
| Washington Times-Herald, and
others, defendants in a libel suit
filed by Representative Martin l..
Sweeney of Ohio.
The local suit was one of a number
instituted by Mr.. Sweeney against
newspapers carrying the Pearson
and Allen column. One of the de-
PENDANTS, the Schenectady Union
Star, which sought to avoid going
to trial on the issue, recently lost in
the Supreme Court, which divided
A and thereby upheld a decision
of the Second Circuit Court of Ap-
peals ordering the case tried on its
merits.
Mr.. Sweeney had asked for $780,
900 for alleged injuries to his repu-
tation by an article in the Times
Herald saying he opposed the ap-
pointmenC of a man to Cleveland
| judgeship because the man was a
Jew. The article was written by
Drew Pearson and Robert E. Allen,
who were the other defendants.
District Court had granted a
motion of the defendants for judg-
ment on the pleadings and Mr..
Sweeney had appealed from the
ruling.
Tribunals Opinion.
The appellate tribunal, in the out
set of its opinion, pointed out that
Mrs. Patterson and the others had
defended on the grounds of 'privi-
lege and truth"
In its opinion, the court said:
The cases ION the subjec0 are
in conflict, but in our view it is not
actionable to publish erroneous and
injurious statements of fact and in
| furious comment or opinion regard
ing the political conduct and views
of public officials, so long as no
charge of crime, corruption, gross
immortality or gross incompetence is
made and no special damage results :"
The court said Mr.. Sweeney's suit
alleges, in the usual language of
libel suits, that appellees MRS. Pat
terson ct all intended to and did
injure his reputation; but alleges no
special damage"
Not "LibelOus Per Sc"
The opinion continued: Such a
publication (as the article in ques-
tom is not 'nbelous per Sc We
need not consider whether 1t is
privileged. Appellant (Mr Sweeney
might be entitled to relief if he
had lost his seat in Congress, or had
lost employment. as lawyer or
otherwise, or had been put to ex-
pense, or had suffered any other
economic injury, by reason of ap-
pellees' (Mrs. Patterson ct all
statements. We do not decide that
question, since it is not before us.
Appellant alleges no such injury.
Gases which impose liability for
erroneous reports of the political
conduct Of officials reflect the obso-
lete doctrine that the governed must
not criticize their governors. Since
Congress governs the country, all
inhabitants, and not merely the con-
stituents of particular members, are
vitally concerned in the political
conduct and views of every member
of Congress.
Protection Of Public.
Every one, including appellees
CMrs. Patterson ct all and their
readers, has an interest to defend.
and any one may find means OF
defending it. The interest of the
public here outweighs the interest
Of appellant. (Mr. Sweeney or any
other individual. The protection of
the public requires not merely dis
cussion, but information.
Political conduct and views which
some respectable people approve, and
others condemn, are constantly i'm
puted to Congressman. Errors of
fact. particularly in regard to
mans mental states and processes,
are inevitable. Information and
discussion will be discouraged and
the public interest in public knowl-
edge of important facts will be
poorly defended, II error subjects
it's author to libel suit without
even showing Of economic loss.
Whatever is added to the field of
libel is taken from the field of free
debate. If other public interests
are thought to outweigh, in respect
to some utterances, the public in
terests in knowledge and debate,
they call for legislative changes
in public law rather than judicial
changes in the law of libel"