The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-08-11

The city attorney appears to have
lacked the full courage of his convic-
tons in penning the opinion that he
has given to the conference commit
tee as to the power of the city to ex-
clude the public from an examination
of the official records. The position
which Mr.. Markham takes with ref
erence to the prosecution of ancient
entirely correct. 1t appears that
regular business has been made of
searching the books for evidence OF
unpaid balances due from the city to
some individual unconscious of the
fact, and that he is then notified of
his claim and an offer to push it is
usually accepted. These claims are
largely Of the nature of benefits al.
lowed on assessments for local i'm
provements. They furnish, incidentally,
q beautiful illustration Of the worth
lsssness of notice by publication.
When q street is ordered graded the
board of public works makes up the
Toll of damages and benefits, and the
same IS duly published in the official
newspaper. This is supposed to be
notice to all parties interested. AS a
matter Of fact, a large number of
them never see the publication, and
never think of looking for it. If they
are assessed for benefits, they are in
formed of it personally by a charge
against their property. If damages
are awarded to them, they never hear
of it unless they are expectant and
look the matter up. Of course, all
these allowances are valid claims
against the city, and there ought to
be the fullest liberty to every one to
ascertain if such claims exist; and,
when pressed in proper season, they
are legitimate and must be paid.
1t is quite proper, however, as it
seems to US, for the city to plead the
statute of limitations in cases where
the claimant has slept upon his rights.
and is put in possession of a. knowI-
edge Of. them only by diligent raking
over of the records by legal firms or
bureaus devOting themselves to this
Special business. If an individual has
either felt that no damage was done
to him, or if he has been too neglect
full of his interests to look after them
there is no reason why he should not
he subject to the statute of limita-
lions in dealing with the city, which
is the whole body of taxpayers. as
Well as if only one Individual of the
lot were set against him in a private
cause. AS to this branch of the SUBJ
ject, we have no quarrel with the CITY
attorneys opinion, and we think that
the public at large will take the same
view of the equities of the case.
It is not proper, however, to make
this question and the incidents out
Of which it arises a pretext for ex-
Guiding the public from the freest and
fullest examination of the official
records. That they may be used in
certain cases for the purpose of dig
ging up old claims and bringing ac-
tions against the city does not afford
f. reason for limiting the public right
any more than the fact that a certain
number of individuals are always vio-
lent in speech would warrant a law
abridging the freedom of speech or of
the press. In all such instances the
Individual abuse of privilege is not
a sufficient reason for denying that
privilege, if it be a proper one, to the
community. There is no greater safe
guard against misfeasance in office
than free access to the city's books.
There is no way aside from that in
which the private citizen can obtain
Information that is his due. or in
which proper check can be placed
upon the action of municipal authori-
ties. 1t is true that the corporation
attorney is guarded in his language
but we know enough of the DISPOSE
ton of at least some existing officials
to understand just how they will in