The New York herald., 1868-04-10
SUPREME couHT-ceNeRAL TERM.
The Right of Citizens to Sec the Public Records
Denied-Tho Cornell Mandamus Reversed.

The Right of Citizens to Sec the Public Records
Deuied-Thc Cornell 1andamus Reversed.
Before Judges Barnard, Ingraham and Sutherland.
The People, er rel. Heysyv vs Charles @. Cornell,
Street Commissioner, Gc.-Yesterday, the appeal
made by Mr.. O'Gorman, Corporation Counsel from
the order made by Judge Barnard granting to
citizen the right to inspect the papers in the oce Of
Street Commissioner Cornell came ON to be heard.
1t will be remembered that on September 9, 1865,
Mr. Richard M. Henry, member ofthe Citizens Asso-
ciati0n appeared In the Supreme Court and made
missioner for leave to see and inspect certain
tracts in the Street Department relating to the public
works Of the city and that the Street Commissioner
refused to allow him to inspect them. Judge Bar
nard thereupon granted q mandamus requiring the
Street Commissioner to permit Mr.. Henry to see
those contracts show to the contrary to the
court The Street Commissioner appeared In court and
made affidavit admitting that he had charge ofthe
that Mr. Henry had asked TO see all the contracts
for the year 1885, that he the Street COMMISSIONER
as .e comd ms IN smd ts aes Te
whenever he chose; also that It would keep larger
number OF clerks and more otf1ce room to accommo-
date such persons their right to see the contracts
was established. Judge Barnard however, decided
that the Street Commissioner bound to show the
contracts in his Office to Mr. Henry thus establishing
the right OF any citizen to examine the public acts
and records Of the city officials. Mr.. O'Gorman ap-
pealed from Judge Barnard's decision and the argu-
ment OF appeal was heard yesterday morning. Cor
pOratiOn Counsel O'Gorman appeared for the late
Street Commissioner, Mr.. Cornell, and Joseph F.
y,
peared In support Of the decision.
After full argument the court reversed the order
below thus deciding that the citizens had not the
right to such inspection. Richard O'Gorman for ap-
pellants; ]. +. DAILY for respondent.
The Gas Contract Of the Common Council-The
Injunction Appealed From.
Christopher Pullman vs. The Mayor, de-, the COM
mon Council ana the Street Con,n,tssoner.-In 1866
the Common Council Of this city passed over the
Mayors veto resolution directing the Street Com
missioner Charles G. Cornell, to advertise for prOpO-
sails and make a contract to supply the city with
gas. From the terms Of the resolution and other
facts it understood that this contract was to be
made with some new gas company and for long
period. Mr.. Pullman, who was then member OF
the Common Council, protested against this resOu-
ti0n on the ground that 1t would authorize and was
intended to authorize contract for twenty years,
binding the city to pay over 81 100000 year for
q supply OF gas; that at the then high price Of gas
and coal s would be Waseu land and rn0us n to
man, failing to stop the scheme In the Common
Council, applied to the Supreme Court for an In
junction to sa restrain tls making Of such
aud this injunction has been held ever since. Mr..
0'Gorman, the Corporation Counsel, who opposed
the Injunction In the first instance now brings ap
peal from it to the General Term and the argument
graham, CardoZ0 and Barnard). Mr.. O'Gorman
argued on behalf Of the Common Council that Mr..
Pullman had no standing In court and no right to
bring this suit and obtain the Injunction because
the act of the Legislature which authorized him to
bring the suit was unconstitutional. Mr.. Charles
Tracy and Mr.. Joseph f. DAILY, for Mr.. Pullman
support OF the law OF 1854 chapter $685. under which
any member Of the Common Council or other citizen
may proceed to suit to restrain any unlawful waste
OF the public moneys.
The court reserved its DECISION.
r. O'Gorman for the city; Charles Tracy and J. F.
DAILY for the respondent