The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1898-10-21

regarded. 1t was handed to the
Mayor privately and not at council
meeting. The Mayor filed it. not
among the city records, but with his
private papers. Members of the city
council who asked to see it have been
refused and the Mayor has publicly
stated that he did not regard it as
public property and that it was his
intention to allow to one to see it.
In taking this position the Mayor
says he is acting on the advice of the
city attorney who is of the opinion
that the law does not require the pc.
tition to be made public or placed
among the public records. And he
gives as his reason for not wishing to
have 1t made public the fact that u
great many who signed it did 50 on
his promise that their names should
not be made known.
The REGISTER would not venture
to take issue with the city attorney
on a legal proposition, although it
seems very strange that any law
should allow any legal instrument to
be regarded as private property upon
which hang such momentous public
interests, and it is certainly contrary
to all precedent.
But admitting that the law allows
this petition to be so sequestered, is
it fair, IS 1t good public policy, Is it
in accordance with the spirit of re-
publican institutions?
Is it fair that IA minority of the tan
payers, doubtless very small minor
ity of the voters, should be able to
put the majority to the expense of n
special election, and to do it privately
without coming out into the open
Ought not the majority to have at
least the privilege of inspecting that
petition so as to know whether or not
it complies with the law? The May
or says this petition will never be
made public unless the election is
contested, in which event he admits
that he would have to produce it,.
Does he not by this course practically
compel contest to be instituted in
case anybody is dissatisfied with the
outcome of the election? Does he not
deliberately involve the city i'm law
suit by making it necessary for "A suit
to be instituted in order for the fact
to be ascertained whether or not the
petition complies with the law? II
the petition is all right why not let
the people see it instead of forcing Il
law suit?
The very corner stone of republican
institutions is publicity. LET in the
light" has been the watch word OF
every fight for individual rights and
for public honesty. We have come
II loug way from the star chamber
and the inquisition. Our legislative
bodies and our law courts are open
to the public. Our statute books are
full of provisions for the publication
of the proceedings of public officials.
The county and State spend thous-
ands of dollars annually to let the
people know exactly every detail OF
the public business. And yet the
city OF lola is involved in an expense
of at least II hundred dollars and is
asked to vote for proposition that
involves, all told, principal and in
terest, Gig hty-eight thousand dollars,
on petition which nobody but the
Mayor has seen. In matter of as
grave importance as this ought there
not to be the greatest possible pub
LEFTY at every step? Even if it is
good law, is it not bad public policy
to conceal and keep away from the
people the one document upon which
the whole proceeding is based ?