Page 80 |
Previous | 83 of 145 | Next |
|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
Loading content ...
so NORTH CAKOLINA BOARD OF HEALTH. Tuberculosis at Montrose, the making of said inspection being authorized by your oliice. To start with, I do not think you would be required to furnish a copy, as I know of no law to that eli'ect. The question is, then, if you prefer him not doing so, can he require that you allow him the privilege of inspecting the records and making such copies as he cares for. If the party is an officer or is connected in some like way with the institution, it is very likely that he would be entitled to inspect the records and make copies from them. If he is not connected in any w^ay with the institution, but is only a private citizen and has no personal interest in knowing what the report shows, I do not think you would necessarily have to grant the request he makes. It may be that there is something in the report which, in your opinion, it w^ould be against public policy and against the best interests of the State to be published at this time. The purpose of the law, as 1 understand it, in requiring that these reports be made to your board is that you may correct existing evils, and not that you may show to the w^orld the evils that exist. I am of the opinion that the question as to whether or not you make known these reports is a matter resting largely in your sound discretion, and if you think it best that they be not made public at this time you have the right to refuse to submit them to the general public for investigation. The following language, taken from the case of 'Newton v. Fisher, 98 N. C., at page 24, seems to be very appropriate and apply with peculiar emphasis here: ''If he has the right to make abstracts of all the records of 1886, he has the right to make them for all the years; if he has the right to copy or make abstracts ■of parts of the records, it may be the material parts, he has the right to copy the whole. If it is the right of one it is the right of all. Once concede the right, .and where will it end? The records of this Court, of all the courts, of the executive department of every public office in the State would be subject to the same right in every individual in the State, and, aside from the inconvenience and perhaps intolerable annoyance and loss of just emoluments to public officers, the •danger and risk which they might incur in possible injury to the records affecting public and private rights, make it manifest that such right can not exist. It is not the right of all, it is not the right of one." Other jurisdictions seem to agree with me in the view that I take. "While the books and documents of a public office are the property of the public, and are preserved for public uses and purposes, it is not the unqualified right of every citizen to demand access to and inspection of them; but, to entitle one to an inspection of such books and documents, other than judicial records, he must show that he has an interest therein, and desires an inspection thereof for a legitimate purpose." Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala., 299. See, also, Greenleaf on Evidence, Vol. 1, sec. 476, 16th Ed. 34 Cyc., page 595. 61 Ala., 310. Very truly yours, T. W. Bickett, By G. L. JoxES, Law Clerk. Attorney-General, pollutiox of watershed, IIox. T. W. Bickett, Raleigh, X. C., July 21, 1910. Attor}iey-General, Raleigh, N, C, ;My Dear Sir:—According to the laws of North Carolina—sections 3045 and 3047—there exists an inspection watershed; that is, an area of the natural
Object Description
Rating | |
Fixed Title * | NCHH-02: Biennial Report of the North Carolina State Board of Health [1909-1972] |
Document Title | Biennial Report of the North Carolina State Board of Health [1909-1972] |
Subject Name | North Carolina. State Board of Health -- Statistics -- Periodicals. |
Subject Topical | Public health -- North Carolina -- Statistics -- Periodicals. |
Subject Topical Other | Public Health -- North Carolina. |
Description | Publication began with the 13th (1909/1910); ceased with the 44th (1970/1972) |
Creator | North Carolina. State Board of Health. |
Publisher | Raleigh : The Board, 1911- |
Repository | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Health Sciences Library. |
Host | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
Date | 1909-1910 |
Identifier | NCHH-02-013 |
Form General | Periodicals |
Language | English |
Rights | This item is part of the North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection. Some materials in the Collection are protected by U.S. copyright law. This item is presented by the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for research and educational purposes. It may not be republished or distributed without permission of the Health Sciences Library. |
Digital Collection | North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection |
Sponsor | The North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection is an open access publishing initiative of the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Financial support for the initiative was provided in part by a multi-year NC ECHO (Exploring Cultural Heritage Online) digitization grant, awarded by the State Library of North Carolina, and funded through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). |
Volume Number | 13 |
Health Discipline | Public Health |
Digital Format | JPEG 2000 |
Print / Download PDF Version | http://archives.hsl.unc.edu/nchh/nchh-02/nchh-02-013.pdf |
Document Sort | all; group-a; nchh-02 |
Volume Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/identi/searchterm/NCHH-02-013 |
Title Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/documa/searchterm/NCHH-02 |
Catalog Record link | http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=UNCb2375275 |
Description
Fixed Title * | Page 80 |
Document Title | Biennial Report of the North Carolina State Board of Health [1909-1972] |
Subject Name | North Carolina. State Board of Health -- Statistics -- Periodicals. |
Subject Topical | Public health -- North Carolina -- Statistics -- Periodicals. |
Subject Topical Other | Public Health -- North Carolina. |
Description | Publication began with the 13th (1909/1910); ceased with the 44th (1970/1972) |
Creator | North Carolina. State Board of Health. |
Publisher | Raleigh : The Board, 1911- |
Repository | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Health Sciences Library. |
Host | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
Date | 1909-1910 |
Identifier | NCHH-02-013-0090 |
Form General | Periodicals |
Page Type | all; organizational news |
Language | English |
Rights | This item is part of the North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection. Some materials in the Collection are protected by U.S. copyright law. This item is presented by the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for research and educational purposes. It may not be republished or distributed without permission of the Health Sciences Library. |
Filename | biennialreportof13nort_0090.jp2 |
Digital Collection | North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection |
Sponsor | The North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection is an open access publishing initiative of the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Financial support for the initiative was provided in part by a multi-year NC ECHO (Exploring Cultural Heritage Online) digitization grant, awarded by the State Library of North Carolina, and funded through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). |
Volume Number | 13 |
Page Number | 80 |
Health Discipline | Public Health |
Full Text | so NORTH CAKOLINA BOARD OF HEALTH. Tuberculosis at Montrose, the making of said inspection being authorized by your oliice. To start with, I do not think you would be required to furnish a copy, as I know of no law to that eli'ect. The question is, then, if you prefer him not doing so, can he require that you allow him the privilege of inspecting the records and making such copies as he cares for. If the party is an officer or is connected in some like way with the institution, it is very likely that he would be entitled to inspect the records and make copies from them. If he is not connected in any w^ay with the institution, but is only a private citizen and has no personal interest in knowing what the report shows, I do not think you would necessarily have to grant the request he makes. It may be that there is something in the report which, in your opinion, it w^ould be against public policy and against the best interests of the State to be published at this time. The purpose of the law, as 1 understand it, in requiring that these reports be made to your board is that you may correct existing evils, and not that you may show to the w^orld the evils that exist. I am of the opinion that the question as to whether or not you make known these reports is a matter resting largely in your sound discretion, and if you think it best that they be not made public at this time you have the right to refuse to submit them to the general public for investigation. The following language, taken from the case of 'Newton v. Fisher, 98 N. C., at page 24, seems to be very appropriate and apply with peculiar emphasis here: ''If he has the right to make abstracts of all the records of 1886, he has the right to make them for all the years; if he has the right to copy or make abstracts ■of parts of the records, it may be the material parts, he has the right to copy the whole. If it is the right of one it is the right of all. Once concede the right, .and where will it end? The records of this Court, of all the courts, of the executive department of every public office in the State would be subject to the same right in every individual in the State, and, aside from the inconvenience and perhaps intolerable annoyance and loss of just emoluments to public officers, the •danger and risk which they might incur in possible injury to the records affecting public and private rights, make it manifest that such right can not exist. It is not the right of all, it is not the right of one." Other jurisdictions seem to agree with me in the view that I take. "While the books and documents of a public office are the property of the public, and are preserved for public uses and purposes, it is not the unqualified right of every citizen to demand access to and inspection of them; but, to entitle one to an inspection of such books and documents, other than judicial records, he must show that he has an interest therein, and desires an inspection thereof for a legitimate purpose." Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala., 299. See, also, Greenleaf on Evidence, Vol. 1, sec. 476, 16th Ed. 34 Cyc., page 595. 61 Ala., 310. Very truly yours, T. W. Bickett, By G. L. JoxES, Law Clerk. Attorney-General, pollutiox of watershed, IIox. T. W. Bickett, Raleigh, X. C., July 21, 1910. Attor}iey-General, Raleigh, N, C, ;My Dear Sir:—According to the laws of North Carolina—sections 3045 and 3047—there exists an inspection watershed; that is, an area of the natural |
Digital Format | JPEG 2000 |
Print / Download PDF Version | http://archives.hsl.unc.edu/nchh/nchh-02/nchh-02-013.pdf |
Document Sort | all; group-a; nchh-02 |
Volume Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/identi/searchterm/NCHH-02-013 |
Title Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/documa/searchterm/NCHH-02 |
Catalog Record link | http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=UNCb2375275 |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Page 80