The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-09-18
HE'S NOT SURPRISED.
Alden Freeman Says He Expected as
Much from Attorney-GeneraI.

Alden Freeman, of East Orange, said
today that he was not surprised at the
opinion of Attorney-General Robert H. Nc
Carter, delivered yesterday, denying Mr..
Freeman the right to see copies OF af-
hdavits presented in 1886 to the Supreme
Court to serve as a basis for disbarment
proceedings against Justice ]. Franklin
Fort, of East Orange, who may be NOM
mated by the Republican party at Trenton
tomorrow for Governor.
81 have Just received the Attorney-Gen-
erals letter, which was sent to William
Riker, jr., of Orange. clerk of the court,
and will consult my counsel before decid-
ing on what further action l shall take
said Freeman. THE opinion of Attorney
General McCarter does not surprise me in
the least. I fully expected him to stand
bv the system Of which he is so conspicu-
Gus a part. If those who are working on
behalf of popular rights in this State were
as loyal to their principles as their OPP
ponents are to the special interests Of a
| few, the outcome of the contest in New
Jersey would not long be in doubt.
Mr.. Freeman declined to amplify the last
| paragraph in his statement.
Acknowledgement McCarter's stand was
as follows:
A request has been made to you for
| COMES of certain affidavits presented to
the court in 1856, to serve as a basis Ior
the disbarment of Hon. j. Franklin Fort,
ard you have asked my opinion as 10 y4 y
| subject some examination and reiectioh
and have reached the conclusion mat you
should. not comply with TINS request. Ing
situation as l understand 1t, is as toi-
lows:
were presented to the Supreme Court TOT
the purpose above Indicated, and the court,
after consideration, declined to even ISSUE
an order to show cause requiring answer
to be made. evidently deeming that no
case was made requiring action on us
mart. Since this time the papers have re-
NAMED in your office. but l do NOT COLI
slider that they have become, or are now,
n,1hiic records, to which the pubic are
ent,tIed 10 access, or of which you are
nnder obligation to make copies.
ANY nerson conceiving that q memper VI
the bar has been ,derelict IN pTOles tn tMa
court papers, under oath or otherwise, vito
the object of having the court institute an
inquiry to see If the designated persUh
should be removed from the list or It's ON.
GERS. The Supreme Court, as is well
known. seriously considers all such appii-
cations. but in many instances they
amount to nothing. because they are, IN
the Judgment of the court, based upon no
foundation, and are the product of spite,
or other malevolent feeling. When these
applications thus presented are denied by
the court, the papers, in my Judgment, do
not become part of the files.
They could properly be destroyed or re-
turned; but to conclude that their mere
presentation constitutes them public rec
ords. within the technical sense OF that
term, would. insmy Judgment, be conducive
Of great harm, and subject anyone, nc
matter OF how high n character, to as
saults from his enemies without even tine
usual redress OF a prosecution for libel. II
the court in this case had acted in the
matter, and a final Judgment OF disbarr-
ment had been entered, perhaps the pro-
ceedings would then become records with
the privileges OF the public In
reference thereto. but, affecting as they
do. the disciplinary powers Of the court
over It's own officers. and when the pro.
ceedings are so groundless that the conrt
declined to require the accused to answe,
them, ] find no warrant for the view thai
the papers are. nevertheless. public records
me mere facs that they happen to bt
round III your Office under these circum.
stances no more renders them subject t.
public inspection than Is true OF cor.
~respondence or other documents that ma,
be round within the four walls of youl
once, yet have never been looked
upon as public records. In a word, M
view Is that the papers really belong K
the court, that without the express
order of the court y5u are under no obi
cation to eithet COPY them or disclose
their contents to the public at large. Th.
strongest public policy would seem to b.
against a contrary view, which IN THU
case. after twenty-one years, would brini
to light statements Of persons which ma
be mere hcarsay. and which were Of suci
E Insufficient character that the cour
deemed them unworthy OF even an answer
and to meet which accusations or sug
gesfions after this lapse OF time the proc
may have become missing or Witnea8e
have died