The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-11-25

| A decision recently made by Judge Given,
of Lawrenceburg. shows how far some
| county officers have drifted from the true
standard of responsibility to the people and
how prone some judges are to shield them
| from such responsibility. About year ago
| several taxpaying citizens of Franklin coun-
| ty desired to examine the records in the
| offices of the auditor and treasurer of the
county, but were denied access to the books.
| They then applied for a mandamus to COM
| pei the officials to allow them to examine
the records. On this question change of
venue was taken from Franklin to Dearborn
| county, and after hearing argument Judge
| Given declined to grant the oroer Counsel
| for plaintiffs asked for a rehearing of the
| case and it was granted. A reargument
was had and the court again denied the mo-
| ton, sustaining a demurrer TO the COM
plant The grounds assigned for the ruling
| by the court, as stated by a local paper,
were as follows:
vested with full power to make this investi-
| cation, and this superseded and deprived the
| taxpayer of the right, unless the board re-
| fused to make it on it's own motion, or on
request of the taxpayer.
2. That the relator, in order to support
mandate must charge some speclnc acts of
| fraud and peculation.
This ruling settles the case so far as the
lower court is concerned, but no doubt an
| appeal will be taken to the Supreme Court.
The principle involved is much more i'm
portant than any interest involved in the
Franklin county case, and the citizens who
began by asking to examine the public rec
| ords should push the question to last con-
| clusion In government of the people and
by the people it is monstrous for any official
to deny citizens access to the public records
of his Office, and a judicial decision sustain
ing such action savors strongly of pros
titution of justice. If the Constitution and
laws of the State are silent regarding the
right of citizens to examine public records
it must be because the right is so clearly a
| fundamental one that it was not considered
necessary to establish it by special enact
ment. Public officers elected by the people
are servants of the people, and have no
more right to refuse access to public records
than they have to appropriate public money
to private use. The reasons assigned by
Judge Given for his decision are narrow and
technical. 1t is true that the law gives the
County Commissioners power at any time to
inspect the books of the county officers,
but this is simply a check on the officers in
the hands of those who are supposed to be
watchful OF the interests of the people and
prompt in investigating any supposed ir-
regularity. 1t certainly could not have been
intended to exclude citizens from exercising
| the right of investigation in their own be-
| half either before or after an inspection
by the commissioners. Let us suppose a
case. and it is not a violent superstition, of
a Board of Commissioners and a county
officer in collision. Suppose a committee of
citizens should ask the commissioners to ex-
anime the records, and. after a perfunctory
examination. they should make a white
washing report. According to Judge Given's
decision, the citizens would be estopped
from further proceedings. The commission
ers have an undoubted right to investigate
county records of their own motion, but the
source is always higher than the stream
and the people who elect commissioners are
greater than they.
The second ground assigned by Judge
Given. namely-that in order to support a
mandate the complainant must charge
some specific acts of fraud or pecu-