Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-04-30
INSPECTION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.

The decision of the local Police Court
that State officials have rights even re-
porters of sensational journals are bound
to respect, is eminently Just. Public
Offices in office hours must unquestionably
remain freely open to the people. Public
records are also to be always subject to the
inspection of the people. But it must be
evident, to even the dullest intelligence,
that there are times in the course of the
preparation of public records and the
discharge of public duty, when it would be
the hight of folly, and defeat the ends
of justice and do incalculable harm, to
permit Tom, Dick and Harry to rumage
through the desks of public officials and
paw over their documents, correspond
ence, etc.
Especially in the office OF the Executive
is there need of maintenance of such
privacy as is essential to the discreet dis
charge of the importantduties of that high
Office, and the law itself recognizes that in
relation with that Office there is a certain
amounted secret service. Moreover, while
it is the right of the citizen to demand
and have inspection of public records, OBJ
viously this must he asked and granted
under such propers,and usual regulations as
prevail in public offices generally. The
applicant must accept as the public record
that which the official exposes to him as
such; he has no absolute right to go be-
hind the bar OF the office, though he may
demand records to be brought TO it. If the
officer fails to expose the public record, it
is at his peril, and the remedy Of the citi-
zen who is refused is in application to the
Courts for enforcement Of his rights. He
certainly cannot take the law into his OWE
hands and proceed to explore the ofioe
and search where he is forbidden. Wher
he does these things, and so bemeans him
self as 10 be offensive, his ejectment, it ap
pears to us, is entirely defensible.
1t Will not do to run away with the idei
that in a public Office, the public OF an,
individual member of it has the right t
do as he pleases, and act according to hi
OWE judgment as 10 how the office shoul
be regulated. In public as in privat
offices, certain reasonable orderly regula
tions are not only necessary but by all rea
sonable people ere looked for. The officia
incumbent, representing the people,
expected to sustain the dignity of I'll
State in his Office and command respect 70
it. The reporter of a sensational journa
is entitled to no broader privileges in
State officials public rooms than any othe
citizen. Each must ask for what he wants
if his requests are denied wrongfully, h
must, as we have already said, appeal t
the Courts. At any rate, no one ca
reasonably contend that the citizen ha
the right to enter public Office and over
haul documents and desk compartment
which are distinctly forbidden t
him. Even officials are expected t
have matters in correspondence and prepa
ration, of which the general public hs
not the right of immediate and unregulate
inspection. If it were not so, no publ
official could properly conduct the bushes
of his department, prepare his records or b
held responsible for the integrity of singl
document in his possession. Indeed, we ar
not certain but that the Courts wou,
hold, if a case should be brought to tLei
attention, that an official could lawful,
refuse inspection of any public documen
in manuscript, except the examination
made under the eye of the principal or
deputy, to the end that the risks of falsifi
cation or abstraction should never eate
in, perils against which, most assuredly
the custodian of public documents has tn
right to guard by reasonable regulation.