Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-10-11
EXAMINING THE RECORDS
An Important Decision Rendered by Justice
Ii Cole.
Interpreting the Statute Giving Ac-
cess to Public DOcuments-Mnn-
dnmus Refused G. c. Bulklcy.


Justice Cole of the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia today decided the
case of the United States ex rel Charles c.
Buckley VS.. Benjamin Butterworth, COM
missioner of patents, in favor of the COM
missioner. The case is especially interest
ing, as it defines the law relating to the
power of individuals to compel a federal
official to give access to records of the gov
eminent. While it bears particularly upon
records Of the patent Office, it has an I'M
portant bearing upon all Other departments
of the government. The commissioner of
patents was represented in the case by w.
A. Megrath, law clerk of the patent office.
The relator had applied for a manda:nus
against the commissioner requiring him 10
permit the relator to examine the applica-
tion for patent, claiming that the facts
stated in the application We're needed as
evidence in suit. The commissioner
claimed that a sufficient showing was not
made in the application to inspect that the
desired copy was material evidence, and he
denied the request. The decision reads:
1T is conteEded by the rela:or that he
is entitled to such copies the showing
made before the respondent by virtue of
section 800 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States which is as follows:
Section S92. Written or printed copies
of any records books, papers, drawings
belonging to the patent office, ana OF let
tiers patent authenticated by the seal and
certified by the commissioner acting
commissioner thereof, shall be evidence in
all cases wherein the originals could be
evidence; and any person making applica-
ton therefor and paying the fee required
by law shall have certified copies thereof
THE construction placed upon this sec
ton by the relator is that any person is
entitled to copy of any record doc
ument in the patent office upon application
therefor alleging that he requires it as
evidence. But this is clearly an erroneous
construction. There are undoubtedly some
of the records and papers of the patent
office which are public records, and of
these any person is entitled to copies, upon
paying the usual fee therefor, but there
are others not public records, and of these
no one is entitled to copies without show
ing that they are material evidence for
him. and the commissioner of patents can
not be required TO furnish copies until
such showing is made The papers in ques-
ton are evidently of the latter character.
Section $50 of the Revised Statutes of
the United States provides for the admis-
sion in evidence of copies Of records and
papers on file in any Of the executive de-
partments upon the certificate of the head
of the department, under it's seal. There is
regulation in each of the departments
including the Interior Department, that
any person applying for copy to be used
as evidence under that section shall file
along with his application, certificate
from the court in which the case is pend
ing, or judge thereof, to the effect that
the paper or record, copy of which is
sought is competent and material evil
dence for the party making the application.
This seems to be a reasonable regulation,
and one within the competency of The head
of the department to make under the act
Of Congress authorizing the heads of de-
partments to make all necessary rules and
regulations for the proper transaction of
business before their respective depart
ments, not inconsistent with law OF
course, this regulation does not apply to
any paper or document which is in its ma
ture public, but is, Intended to apply to
those which, although filed and permitted
or required by law to be filed in the depart
ments, are in their nature private. No per-
son is required1to submit his private papers
to others, or to produce them in court on
the demand Of a party to suit on his al
legation or claim that they are material
evidence for SUCH party, but only in ODE
dience to the mandate Of the court in which
such suit is pending, and it is only reason
able that when q public officer has under
his control a paper or document in its ma
ture private, or such as the public gener-
ally is not entitled to have access to as a
public record, he should not be compelled
to produce it or deliver copies OF it until
in which the case is pending that it is re-
Quired as evidence.
1.-The certificate, or order which the reg
ulation in question provides for is the
equivalent Of subpoena duces tecum and
the statute in question was enacted to
avoid the necessity OF using such process
to obtain papers required as evidence from
the executive department of the govern
ment. The court in which suit is pending
and not the department officer Is the an
propriate tribunal to determine whether a
given paper should be produced as evidence
spondent, upon such certificate from the
Circuit Court OF the United States for the