The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1905-02-02
MandamuS Case Argued Be-
fore Supreme Court
CONVENTIONS OF SIDES
The Petitioner Advances Eight Reasons
on His Side The State
Auditor Responds With
Four.

montpelier FEB. 1.-The Clement
vouchers case was argued in supreme
court today. Clarence P. Cowles and
Sherman R. Moulton appeared for Mr..
Clement and w. W. Miles Of Barton
and H. r. Graham for the defendant.
The defendant auditor claimed in ar
gument that the vouchers the petitioner
demanded to see were not public rec
ords: that they do not show anything
respecting the management OF the states
funds; that they simply verify the cor
rectness Of the accounts Of the salaried
officers Of the state boards and com
missions and other accounts; that they
have nothing to do with the expenses
of the state institutions and their dis
bursements Of money belonging to the
state; that none of the vouchers reiat.
ing to the accounts of the state disburs.
ing officers are required to be kept in
the office OF the auditor Of accounts;
that the only public records Of the
accounts Of the state institutions are
to be found at those institutions; that
the petition for the mandamus does not
set out such facts as entitle the pc
titioner TO a writ of mandamus for
the following reasons or pleadings:
Il Because they do not show any
duty on the part of the defendant to
exhibit the vouchers
a.. Because they do not show any
title or interest in the petitioner snf-
lieient to entitle him to the writ.
g. -. -.
allegations that the vouchers we're pub
lie records.
4. Because the petitioner does not
show that he has no adequate remedy
at law.
The reasons the petitionee believes
the petition should be denied on the
proof were:
1. The evidence does not show the
defendant was in duty bound to exhibit
the vouchers demanded.
2. The evidence does not show the
requisite interest in the petition.
3. That III any view Of the case he
had not the right Of inspection demand
ed ii he had any right.
A. That the case shows il the voueh-
ers Ind hcen exhibited to the peti.
tioner they could IN no way have served
any purpose in disclosing the manage
ment of the states money.
5. That il the petitioner desired to-
investigate the expenditure Of money
by any or all Of the state institutions
lie should have gone to those insitu-
lions where record Of their fisbui'se-
ments Is kent in accordance with the
statutes, which require true and lust
account to be kept.
6. laat only m abstract OF those
accounts are sent to the auditor of
accounts.
I. That The conrt should ut grant
an examination of the Nouahers a. they
could perform no useful service to the
petitioner or any citizen of the state.
The petitioner, Percival N. Clement,
claimed his petition should be granted
on the grounds that
I. The vouchers demanded were pub
lie records
z. That citizen and taxpayer hav.
ing legitimate purpose fer SO doing
has right to examine public records.
3. That when an examination Isl
sougl for publ purpose the Interest
Of citizen and taxpayer is sufficient.
That ohe purpose Of q citizen and
taxpayer in seeking to inspect the aud
tors vouchers in order to search f0r
negligence, the existence of which be-
uss reasonable grounds to believe, with
view Of taking action toward correct
ing tile same, Is sufficient.
s. The fact that it would cause in
convenience to permit the examination
or that the vouchers are numerous,