The evening star and Newark advertiser., 1907-12-12
FREEMAN MUST
PAY FOR FORT
ATTACK
Supreme Court Decides Ap-
plication to See Records
Is Without Merit.
Especial to the Evening star.1

TRENTON, Dec. 12--Justice Hen
erickson filed in the Supreme Court to-
day an opinion deciding against Alden
M, Freeman. of East Orange, in his
application for writ of mandamus
to compel William Riker, jr.. clerk of
the Supreme Court. to furnish Free
man with copies of the papers filed
twenty y-oI,e years ago in the proceed
ings which were brought seeking the
disbarmen. of former Justice John
Franklin Fort, the Governor-elect. The
opinion not only refuses to grant the
application, but puts the costs of the
application upon Freeman.
Shortly before the Republican State
convention at which Justice Fort was
nominated for Governor, and after it
had become evident that he would be
the candidate, Freeman made applica-
tion to Supreme Court Clerk Riker for
copies of the papers in the proceedings
for the disbarment of Justice Fort
With his application Freeman sent a
check signed in blank, stating that it
was to cover the fees for certified
copies of the papers. Mr.. Riker referred
the application to Attorney General
McCarter, who rendered an opinion that
inasmuch as the Supreme Court, at the
time the proceedings were brought, held
there was no good ground for disbar-
ment and refused the application, there
! fore the records were not public prop
erty and copies should not be fur
nished
After Mr. Fort had been nominated
Freeman renewed his attack, this time
making application for writ of man
damus to compel Mr.. Riker to furnish
him copies of the records. An order to
show cause was granted by Chief JUS
tice Gummere. and argument was
heard on the opening day of the No
vember term.
The syllabus of the opinion is as follows
Il. Where a citizen and taxpayer
having an interest only as one OF the
general public asks the court In the
exercise of its sound discretion TO al
low a writ of nandamus to compel its
clerk to permit him to inspect and have
copies of certain ex-parte afhdavits filed
for the purpose of obtaining a rule to
show cause why an attorney should
not be dlsbarred, upon the ground that
the applicant desired to be informed
as to the fitness of the attorney for
| public office. so that he might intel
ligently advise the voters OF the polit-
/ ical party of which he was the county
chairman, with regard thereto, he ought
TO show that the Issuing of the writ
would conduce to that end and that he
himself is actuated by proper motives
in making the application,
| 20. In the present case. it appearing
by the afiidavjts of the petitioner that
the ex-parte affidavits in question were
filed twenty-one years before the ap-
plication, and that the court to which
| they were presented deemed them in
! sufficient to authorize a rule to show
cause in the matter, and that the at
torney In question was not at any
time called upon TO respond to the
| same. and that from the circumstances
| developed by the application no good
was or is likely to be accomplished by
allowing the writ and that the peti-
toner was actuated rather by the zeal
of the partisan than by a desire sole
ly TO promote the public veal, the ap-
| plication was denied"
The opinion holds that the court does
not accede to the view that the affldavits
are not public records. 1t says that al
/ though no proceedings were had thereon
the adffiavits were the proper foundation
for an application to the court are founC
among its files, and would be sufficient tC
serve rs the basis of an indictment fol
perjur. if wilfully false. 1t Is held tha
such papers are unlike those that are en-
tirely outside of any judicial proceedings
and only casually placed among the filei
of the court, Continuing, the opinion says
The right of a citizen TO inspect
j public records. in the absence Of a
statute authorizing such inspection has
been the subject of at least two de-
cisions by this court.
One of the decisions vindicated the
right to inspect recommendations for
saloon licenses, and the other held that
voter was entitled to mandamus
OBSCURE an inspection of registry lists
for an election although his only in
terest was as voter, and no litigation
/ was Intended"
The opinion points out that both of thes,
cases recognized the necessity that th'
motives of the petitioner were proper
In concluding. the opinion says:
1T Is perhaps too much to say that
the application Is not made In good
faith for the public ends, which are Its
ostensible object. But the petitioner
seems TO have been informed OF the
charges in other ways and could on that
information. have formed his opinion as
to the merits of the candidate, and
could have advised, If indeed he did
not advise. the party of which he was
the official head; and the pressing OF
the application after election when it
could not possibly be OF any benefit for
the purposes set forth in his petition,
i indicates that he was actuated rather
by zeal of the partisan than by desire
solely for the public veal. - the
result that the application must be de-
MED. with costs. "