New-York tribune., 1879-01-03
THE DUTIES or OFFICIALS.

JUDGE DAYlS'S EMPHATIC DECISION.
HE HOLLIS THAT OFFICERS ARE sERyANrs OF THE
PEOPLE NOT OF HE MAJOEIrY THAT ELECTED
THEM-A MANDAMCs AGAINST COUNTY CLERK
GUMBLEroN.
JUDGE Davis has decided that the commit
tee OF the Bar Association is cned ID peremptory
mandamus against County CLERK Gum5letOn 10 compel
him TO SHOW the committee the book OF fees mechan
les liens Tire decision however, goes further, and
holds that all books kept by executive officer must
be open TO cxanhnltOn. His opinion is Is follows:
"ThIs matter brought before the Court by motion
founded upon petition aud aidavits. 1t met at The
outset by afdtys the part OF the respond
ent. 1t is wesettled practice that the Court on m0-
founded adavlts has the most discretion "a
respect the extent which II Will supple
mcntary afidayits from either both par
ties, or adopt other appropriate modes Of
satisfying itself whether the motion ought TO
be granted denied. In the exercise of that dis
cretOn this case, the Court has allowed b0thof The
parties To bring before 1t all such dhd%E' dId papers
the counsel OF either have thought II piop t0 pre-
sent, and, animated solely by tnr hope That Wnat
scanned to II TO be unreasonable ana Useless cpnro-
LINK. mepttorei n, the statue 10 10. cx uiiucd with
the intention, II such AAminatOn were O'lo"cd, 10 aJ
rbc r. .po,lcnt has rrset 10 avail himself u such
OupUrtuLJ aus dIhJtylts on the Haft rI rcltiOF.
showing such refusal and on the part o. tho su dent,
Of the Court been received. Upon al ihc pdprl- AMI
nr''..dp.,. now b..ure the Court I am UnWIlhuky
rL " tl. r,rvcti, ib.,t the conduct o! ire trsll..
dent ma, been thc ots SINCE nous ana rY i've,
with m,cTt not u permit the hOok, u oc tAHhn ".
to prevent sucn examination 80 idr as 10 AS power
When the REALTORS made their hrSt application
@ &c p "nrr,, nv thr statute They we're not only
not produced bui their examination Was refused
Tho safutc was then clearly violated and the ~
the relatOrs PLAINLY Denied 10 tLem. The subsequent
written attcup. at negotiations between the rra 0rs
and the respondent does NOS in my opinion affect the
rh OF the rlutoy>, founded up the prcr M gal acts
oil the ryspoucnt because lt l. manifest ttt tle deay
of the RESPONDENT sending his letter uut after the
s. Bour, o the follow ing day. ana untl after tho
rriptofs hpd prepared papers tor thlS mOloi ana MS
re,,, on IN. morning before the notion was made 10
a.w tnc re- make such examination a. ms let
ter rendered to them show that MS pI"iyssrd WLng-
ness and Offer to nave the books examined was heltf
The duty OF the respondent under the statute was
too plalu 20 admit o. discussion lie cho>' !" N"'t.
for reasons dIlfcut % understand lie STANDS az
public ctr deny ng rights 10 the r"alors %nlch the
statute manes II nis explicit dnty 10 allow an prIs"S
10 enjoy All officers rms country are the servants" "I
the people; ana whether he position be conferred by
popular ballot or by the appointment ol he o.
other Nu' hOIIty, this relation IS not changed An ocr
IS never the repre-, ntatlye OF the majority mt ei'cts
accepts the office and enters upon lis duties, both
by lw and under the theory Of our system OF govern
uen his altogether due 10 The people ana
not to any other body or power An officer who does
not recognize ths truth ought not 10 accept the service
Of Office and H. having d.CePeu, hc i"l's ~ ,9
H. lie sets himself above the law ana against lhr sprlb
of our Int cal Institutions The Court, win the kDd
est possible ,entOns, endeaIOfcd To relieve the re-
spoadeut from ceu,ure OF standing III That position
he deliberately 10 aS>lul anu h'tp IT,
The remedy ought 10 bc certain ana prremptOly.
II Is urged that the Court ou-ht under the clrcuu-
stances Of the case. 10 grant an alternative mduuhhus
Cu.i Is always the practice where materia question ~
fact remains be tried. But IN thIs case ho'hihS pC
an inlnarral question Is presented ana la' a" 'i'h
IL iounu IN favor of the respondent WOud not lcnt|c
he Court my judgment, from the duty oi issuing me
prrruptorY writ. For, II II were fOund mat thc
respondent dtd by his letter tender an eXaninaon oI
tnr hooks III good faith. that tact WOud he uL-
ayuug since hv Immediately, when surh eSaHiha,luh
was so ght. refused Il ON uuiustlhabie glOhuus nus
conduct dl~arm the reaIors OF the rsAts "tl
winch rue prryiOs direct refusal .bY himself ana rs
drruiy had coiucd them. They were entitled Ia appy
o tr Cou tur relief, and upon all The papers aho pro-
Greetings that have since occurred of Dtcn pltst'iGH
would be a mockrry OF law 10 deny II 10 thell. inc
otlrr questions III the case were disposed Ol Dy the
former opinion. the peremptoIy writ is thereloi1
granted. with costs az the IlocettlhgS Inc oiuei va"
be settled upon one day , notice. Ill,
Mr. CiumbieOu wa' in conference for Drlet tne WIN
hia counsel Edwin K. Meade, but lar a. cOuld Dc as
ccrfaucd ne aud lis counsel propose 10 await tho
rlnrr action of the Court. Tnr Bar Association Com
nItIre held meeting. Dut de uuc,. to give any nfOra
non of its resolutions, except tAdJ IL hha gwen hOt
10 the County Clerk that the order "Ould Dc SctIed