Page:Nash v. Lathrop.pdf/5

Mass.]  expected that the immemorial custom of furnishing copies to the public would be continued. The construction claimed by the respondent is in derogation of the right of the public, and ought not to be adopted unless such was clearly the intention of the legislature. It was its intention, without doubt, that Little, Brown & Co. should have the exclusive right of publishing the authorized series of Massachusetts Reports, but we cannot see in the statute any intention to give to that firm the right to suppress and keep from the public the opinions of the justices until they should print them in the Reports. We are therefore of opinion that the claim of the respondent cannot be sustained.

Similar questions have arisen in several cases in other jurisdictions. While such cases have not the weight of authorities, because each case depends in some measure upon the statute of the state in which it arose, differing from our statute, yet the general current of the cases supports the principles upon which our decision rests. Banks v. Manchester, 23 Fed. Rep. 145; Myers v. Callaghan, 20 Fed. Rep. 441; Chase v. Sanborn, 4 Cliff. 306; Little v. Gould, 2 Blatchf. 165; Banks v. ''West Pub. Co.'' (U. S. Cir. Ct. Minn.) 27 Fed. Rep. 50.

In order to prevent misconstruction, we desire to add that, while it is the duty of the reporter to allow the public free access to the opinions in his custody, he has the right to make such reasonable regulations, as to the method of examining and obtaining copies of them, as he may deem necessary to secure the safety of his papers, and the orderly administration of the affairs of his office.

Mandamus to issue.

See, also, Davidson v. Wheelock, (U. S. Cir. Ct. Minn.) 27 Fed. Rep. 61.

1.

2.

3.

4.