Compiled by San Diego Jewish World staff
Milestone in Legal History
Southwestern Jewish Press, September 16, 1955, Pages 18, 19, 21
Editor’s Note—The now famous Prinz v. McGinley libel trial in Newark, N.J., marks the first time in American court history that a notorious anti-Semite has been brought to justice and convicted for defamation. In view of the far-reaching effect of the lawsuit upon all Americans, and, particularly, upon the American Jewish community, the American Jewish Congress here makes available, for the first time, a full discussion of the celebrated libel case.
A lawsuit of deep significance for all Americans and particularly the Jewish community came to a successful end on March 31st when a Superior Court jury in Essex County, New Jersey returned a $30, 000 verdict in favor of Dr. Joachim Prinz, Rabbi of Temple B’nai Abraham in Newark and a national officer of the American Jewish Congress, in his libel action against Conde McGinley, editor and publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper Common Sense. This verdict is the largest recovery in a libel action ever received in Essex County. But the impact of the decision is in no way summed up by the impressive size of the money judgment. The outcome of Dr. Prinz’ litigation constitutes unmistakeable assurance of the essential balance and stability of American public opinion.
For the past ten years Common Sense has been edited and published in Union, New Jersey, by Conde McGinley, a one-time lunch wagon operator and short-order cook. Throughout most of this period the publication has indiscriminately loosed its hostility against such diverse targets as Jews, Zionism, the Talmud, Dean Acheson, the American Jewish Congress, and those who urge fluoridization of public drinking water. If only because of the violent extremism of their views, Conde McGinley and his camp-followers have until recent years been, for the most part, a source of min or irritation. Lately, however, McGinley has become the darling of some big-money bigots who have become enchanted by the phenomenon in the anti-Semitic field of an operator who is genuinely dedicated to his prejudices.
Vituperation Grows
As Common Sense has gained in influence, the extravagance of its charges has increased. The paper constantly reports “Jewish plots” to undermine Christian civilization. Testimony by McGinley indicated his belief that American courts have been corrupted by Communists “like Justice Brandeis.” Common Sense maintains that Eisenhower is a “stooge” of the Marxists and is helping to fulfill the directives of the “Protocols of Zion.” The downfall of our economy is dictated by the “Communist Jewish Federal Reserve System.”
Some of the headlines of Common Sense provide a recognizable symbol of the editor mentality. In a special issue that McGinley regards as one of the most important documents ever to have been published, a banner headline proclaimed, “Asiatic Marxist Jews Control Entire World As Last War Commences … Thousands of Plotters Placed In Key Positions by Invisible Government.” The issue featured pictures of 36 prominent Jews, a good number of them members of the Eisenhower administration. McGinley boasted that he has distributed 470,000 copies of this issue, and it is estimated that various numbers of Common Sense reach well over 100,000 readers across the country.
Agencies Condemn Paper
From time to time various public organizations and state agencies have expressed their revulsion over McGinley’s activities. The Americanism Commission, as well as the National Adjutant of the American Legion, have described them as inimical to the best interest of American democracy. Catholics were warned against Common Sense by the Holy Name Society which observed that the newspaper is anti-Semitic and that “If it would attack one religion, it would attack all.” Such conservative commentators as the Hearst columnist George E. Sokolsky, have denounced Common Sense as impairing the fight against Communism by exploiting anti-Communist fears as a cloud for anti-Jewish prejudice. The House Committee on Un-American Activities has denounced Common Sense for using patriotic claims as a “poor disguise for some of the most vitriolic hate propaganda ever to come to the attention of the Committee” and has characterized some of McGinley’s associates as “native Fascists and hate racketeers.” Finally, the General Assembly of New Jersey, the legislature of McGinley’s own home state, passed a resolution to “make known its abhorrence of the organized campaign of prejudice and bigotry and of the author of the scurrilous literature, Conde McGinley.”
Despite these condemnations, no specific action was ever taken to call McGinley to account until the Prinz action. Over the years, Jewish organization have grown reluctant to urge recourse to libel action as a means of deterring circulation of race slanders. It was felt, on the other hand, that an action in libel might be misconstrued as an encroachment upon free speech; and on the other that it might provide a forum and an audience for the hatemongers whose message might otherwise be restricted to his own ingrown clique. Rabbi Prinz’ successful suit demonstrates decisively that not only is a libel action a form of legal protection perfectly compatible with firm devotion to freedom of expression but that, indeed, it may prove a useful instrument in encouraging the free voicing of dissenting or legitimately nonconformist views.
History of Case
The suit brought by Rabbi Prinz originated when the April 1, 1952 issue of Common Sense published the following statement: “Red Rabbi Joachim Prinz of Newark, New Jersey, who not unlike Albert Einstein was expelled from Germany for Revolutionary Communistic activities, is the honorary Vice-President of the American Jewish Congress.” Rabbi Prinz shortly thereafter addressed a letter to McGinley denying any affiliation or sympathy with Communist or Communist-front activities and demanding a retraction. McGinley refused to print a retraction. In March, 1953, Rabbi Prinz filed a complaint not only seeking damages to compensate for actual loss sustained but also demanding punitive damages to be imposed at the discretion of the jury as a measure of community indignation and as a means of deterring the repeated publication of this or similar statements.
Trial began on March 22 in the Court of Judge Howard Ewart, in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Newark. Rabbi Prinz was represented by Jerome C. Eisenberg of Newark who had, as his associate, Philip Baum, staff council of the American Jewish Congress. McGinley was represented by Douglas C. Baker of Newark and by Albert W. Dilling and Kirkpatrick W. Dilling of Chicago, the former husband and the son, respectively, of the notorious Elizabeth Dilling, author of “The Red Network” and herself three times indicted for seditious conspiracy.
The trial itself lasted eight days. The members of the jury –all non-Jews—included two Catholics and one Christian Scientist. Every prospective juror who was Jewish was peremptorily challenged by counsel for McGinley.
McGinley Strategy
McGinley’s strategy was to divert attention from the truth or falsity of the libel and instead to seek to convert the proceedings into a sounding board for his prejudices concerning Zionism, “Talmudism” and the American Jewish Congress. During cross-examination of Rabbi Prinz, McGinley’s lawyers sought repeatedly to introduce evidence bearing upon what they alleged to be Talmudic and Zionist doctrine. They questioned Prinz intensively about the bona fides of his loyalty as an American citizen in the face of his avowed Zionist sympathies. They sought to establish that Zionism necessarily entailed divided allegiance and questionable loyalty to America. They cited approvingly the propaganda of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism. They sought to emphasize a similarity between the civil liberties and civil rights positions adopted by the American Jewish Congress and those supported by Communist-front organizations.
The presiding Judge, however, refused to be distracted by these attempts. His ruling prevented any far-ranging excursion into the nature of Rabbinic Judaism or into the character of Rabbi Prinz’s theological beliefs. Judge Ewart further restricted inquiry concerning the private opinions and views of persons with whom Rabbi Prinz came into contact with during his 15 years of public activity in the United States.
Bishop Theodore R. Ludlow, retired Protestant Suffragen Bishop of the Episcopalian Diocese of Newark, and former Governor Alfred Driscoll of New Jersey both appeared as character witnesses for Dr. Prinz and testified as to his reputation for unswerving loyalty to the United States and to its institutions of government.
Witnesses for McGinley included William O’Brien, alleged author of the libelous article, and former officer of the National Action League; David Gordon, who has renounced his Judaism and is now editor of the anti-Semitic newspaper, “Tradition;” Benjamin Freedman, retired toilet goods manufacturer and founder and main financial prop of the League for Peace with Justice in Palestine, and Elizabeth Dilling, who was offered as an “expert” on “Socialism, Marxism, Talmudism, Communism and Zionism.”
At no time during the trial was there any suggestion that Prinz or the organizations with which he is associated were Communist or Communist-dominated. Instead, the theory of the defense was that the term “Red” was intended to be descriptive of a broad range of political views from “parlor pinks” to card-holding Communist Party members. Indeed, while on the stand, McGinley explicitly denied that he thought Dr. Prinz could be considered a Communist.
Legal Significance
The case is legally significant in that it represents a finding for the first time by any court in the United States that falsely to call a man a “Red” is, as a matter of law, to be guilty of defamation. As one of his defenses, McGinley had claimed that the statements he made about Dr. Prinz were true. Judge Ewart held, however, that on the evidence introduced by McGinley, no jury could reasonably find that the allegations about Dr. Prinz were true. He therefore directed a verdict for Rabbi Prinz and he instructed the jury that if it found the libelous charge to have been made maliciously, it could return an award of punitive damages given in the absence of proof showing actual financial loss by the plaintiff.
After deliberating three hours and forty-five minutes, the jury returned with a ten to two verdict –permissible under New Jersey law in civil cases –awarding $5,000 as compensatory damages and $25,000 as punitive damages. McGinley failed to seek an appeal during the time period specified in New Jersey and the decision is now final.
The value of this litigation cannot be overestimated. An action in libel is designed to afford a means of deterring the spreading of lies and of compensating those who have been falsely charged and falsely accused. We have been witness over the past several years, to the uncontrolled and reckless vilification of reputable members of the community merely because they have advocated unpopular or misunderstood political causes. By and large, these persons have been defenseless against character assault. Rabbi Prinz’ victory, however, now stands as a substantial deterrent to those who may seek to encourage a dishonest equation of liberalism with subversion.
Rabbi Prinz’ courage in prosecuting his action, and the decision of the American Jewish Congress in helping to bring his suit, offer an example of the kind of effective education through law that is possible under the American system. Prinz v. McGinley will stand as an unusual precedent because it establishes the practicality of a libel action as an effective reply to the circulation of race and religious libels, and, in addition because of its inevitable deterrent effect upon the smearing of civil liberties and civil rights activities as Communist-inspired. In a very genuine sense, Rabbi Prinz’ victory is a victory for freedom of belief, expression and association in this country.
*
Adventures in San Diego Jewish History” is sponsored by Inland Industries Group LP in memory of long-time San Diego Jewish community leader Marie (Mrs. Gabriel) Berg. Our “Adventures in San Diego Jewish History” series will be a regular feature until we run out of history. To find stories on specific individuals or organizations, type their names in our search box.