Title: Republican Party of Arkansas v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

400 S.W.2d 660 (1966) REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ARKANSAS by Dr. Wayne Babbitt, Vice Chairman, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Arkansas ex rel. Nancy HALL, Treasurer, Appellees. No. 5-3804. Supreme Court of Arkansas. March 28, 1966. *661 G. Thomas Eisele, Little Rock, for appellants. Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., by Fletcher Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellees. JOHNSON, Justice. This is a petition for writ of mandamus to require the Treasurer of Arkansas to make public certain of the internal or working records of the Treasurer's office, in particular, bank deposit records. On March 4, 1965, appellant Dr. Wayne Babbitt, vice chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas, appeared at the office of appellee Nancy Hall, Treasurer of the State of Arkansas. Appellant gave appellee a letter written on Republican party stationery requesting the Treasurer to provide the party with "a detailed listing of where the public funds of Arkansas are on deposit and the current total of said funds in each bank." Appellant offered to return the following week for appellee's reply. Appellee forthwith sent appellant's letter to the Attorney General with the following request: "Will you please advise this office if the records of the bank deposits in the various state and national banks over the state are public records. Also, please advise if this office is permitted to give the complete list to anyone requesting the information." The opinion of the attorney general pointed out certain state records, "amongst other things, * * * [records of] State Penitentiary inmates, state hospital patients, students in our institutions of higher learning, children in our children's colony" are not by their nature "public" records. The opinion went on to say that, "There is no constitutional or statutory authority for the State Treasurer to furnish information which she deems inappropriate in the public interest," and advised appellee that, "In view of the foregoing, I think you are soundly justified in refusing Mr. Babbitt's request." Following the directions of the Attorney General, Mrs. Hall declined to exhibit the requested records. On June 4, 1965, appellant individually and as vice chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas filed a complaint in Pulaski Chancery Court against appellee for a writ of mandamus to require appellee to make the records on bank deposits and withdrawals of state funds (since appellee took office on January 1, 1963) available for inspection and copying at reasonable times. On behalf of appellee the Attorney General filed an answer on June 15, 1965, denying that the records are public per se or that the records should be made public for political purposes, praying dismissal of the complaint for want of equity, that no lawful purpose would be served by such complaint, and because "mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of a purely discretionary duty of appellee." (At this time the General Assembly, in extraordinary session, passed the state treasury management law [Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 13-42113-431 (Supp.1965)]. This act, best known for requiring interest on bank deposits of state funds, also requires the Treasurer to prepare a daily and cumulative summary of transactions of each of the state funds, a report copy of which is to be available for public inspection. The act was approved June 7, 1965, and became effective September 6, 1965.) After trial on June 22, 1965, the court dismissed the complaint on July 6, 1965, from which comes this appeal. In this suit appellant asks us to declare that he, an Arkansas citizen-taxpayer, has the right to examine and copy the *662 day-to-day working records of the State Treasurer's office which reflect the location and amount of bank deposits and withdrawals of State funds, and to further declare that the Republican Party of Arkansas, of which he is a member, as a class have the right to examine these same records and if it so desires to publish in the party newspaper information gleaned from this examination. We are startled that we need be asked. In a brilliant opinion on the same point (State ex rel. Charleston Mail Ass'n v. Kelly, W.Va.1965, 143 S.E.2d 136) the West Virginia Supreme Court said recently: "This right, of course, is tempered by reasonable regulation in the interests of safekeeping of the records and avoiding disruption of the work of this public office. These records which are kept in the ordinary course of the business of the State Treasurer are not personal to the Treasurer but are a part of the public transactions of the office. It is obvious that exposure to public view of certain types of state records would be detrimental to individual citizens, such as adoption records and state hospital case histories; and, just as obviously, exposure to public view of other types of state records would be detrimental to the public pocketbook, such as highway department records of location of proposed highways. These types of records are not under consideration here. Suffice it to say, our holding in Gaspard v. Whorton, 239 Ark. 849, 394 S.W.2d 621 (on ballot applications), is equally apropos here: "The denial to the public of reasonable access to public records by public officials is not conducive to the perpetuation of our form of government." The Attorney General argues relative to the requested records that, "They were just records of deposits in banks." * * * "There was no right under statute, common law, nor any other law to inspect these records of bank deposits." In answer to the argument that there is no common law right to inspect these records, we adopt as our own a rule earlier promulgated by the Michigan Supreme Court (Nowack v. Fuller, 243 Mich. 200, 219 N.W. 749, 60 A.L.R. 1351), that if there be any rule of the English common law that denies the public the right of access to public records, it is repugnant to the spirit of our democratic institutions. Regnat PopulusThe People Ruleis the motto of Arkansas. It should ever remain inviolate. The decree of the trial court is accordingly reversed and remanded with direction that the writ of mandamus issue. McFADDIN, J, dissents. McFADDIN, Justice (dissenting). There are two reasons for my dissent: (1) the Majority Opinion is too broad in its holding; and (2) the entire case is moot. The Majority has ordered the Trial Court to issue a writ of mandamus. For what? Here is a part of what the appellants alleged, and prayed, in the complaint: Under the Majority Opinion the Trial Court will issue a writ of mandamus in accordance with the above allegations and prayer; and I dissent from such broad holding. My views are those expressed in the text of American Jurisprudence,[1] and the cases that I now cite: In 45 Am.Jur. p. 427 et seq., "Records and Recording Laws" § 17 et seq., in discussing the persons entitled to inspect public *664 records, the holdings are summarized in this language: I agree with what the Supreme Court of Rhode Island said In Re Caswell's Request, 18 R.I. 835, 29 A. 259, 27 L.R.A. 82, 49 Am. St.Rep. 814: "* * * no one has a right to examine or obtain copies of public records from mere curiosity, or for the purpose of creating public scandal." In Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299, 46 Am. Rep. 318, the Supreme Court of Alabama used this language: The appellants in this case allege that they want to see all the records that have been kept in the office of the State Treasurer since Mrs. Nancy Hall became State Treasurer in 1963. I think that such is a curiosity search. No good reason is shown why all these records of the past years should be made available; and I find no evidence in this record that shows any good reason for wanting all this information, back to 1963. The witness Babbitt was asked: These answers of the witness, Babbitt, show clearly that he was on a "fishing expedition" for curiosity; and, under the cases I have cited, such mere curiosity does not justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Furthermore, I think appellants' suit is moot because of Act No. 12 of the First Special Session of 1965 of the Arkansas Legislature.[2] That Act was approved on June 7, 1965. It is entitled: "An Act to Institute a Comprehensive State Treasury Management Law; and for Related Purposes." Section 5 of the Act requires that the several funds shall be separately listed in the records of the State Treasurer; and Section 5(B) of the Act provides: Then Section 8(J) of the Act provides: Now, these sections, as quoted, are the publicity sections of the Act, and they state exactly what records shall be open to the public; and these sections of the Act give the appellants all the information that the Legislature has seen fit to give. In the quotation from American Jurisprudence, heretofore copied, it is said: " * * * a statute providing for the inspection of certain specifically enumerated public records is construed as excluding from its effect all records not expressly mentioned." This is an application of the maxim, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius." So I think that Act No. 12 of the Acts of the 1965 Special Session lists the records that the appellants have the right to inspect; and that such Act makes this suit to be moot. [1] Attention is also called to the following: Annotation in 10 L.R.A. 212, "Inspection of Public Records"; annotation in 27 L.R.A. 82, "Right to Inspect Public Records"; and annotation in 169 A.L.R. 653, "Enforceability by Mandamus of Right to Inspect Public Records." [2] This Act may be found on Page 2434 of the printed Acts of 1965.