Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Peck 138 N.Y. 386

← Cases

People v. Peck

138 N.Y. 386 Court N.Y. Decision date 1893-06-06 English

Delivered by Eabl, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 386
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles F. Peck et al., Appellants.
(Argued May 4, 1893;
decided June 6, 1893.)

Headnote

Papers which a public officer is required to obtain in the discharge of his official duties, and which have public importance, are of permanent value and may serve a useful purpose after they have been deposited in his office or with him, are within the purview and under the protection of the provision of the Penal Code (§ 94) making it a crime for any person to remove, mutilate, destroy or conceal any paper or document “filed or deposited with any public officer by authority of law.”
“ A commissioner of statistics of labor,” appointed under the act of 1883 (Chap. 356, Laws of 1883), as amended in 1886 (Chap. 205, Laws of 1886), is a public officer within the meaning of said provision of the Penal Code, and the room assigned to him as required by the act is a public office.
Papers embodying the statistical details the said commissioner is authorized to collect are to be so collected, not for his private personal use, but for a public purpose, not merely to enable him to make his report, but for preservation in his office, and so are embraced within said provision of the Penal Code.
An indictment under said Code, against a commissioner appointed under said act, charged in substance that the commissioner sent out circulars calling for the statistical details mentioned in the act; that he obtained answers to such circulars written thereon, which were filed and deposited by him in his office in the capítol, and that he and another, joined as defendant, wilfully and unlawfully removed, mutilated, concealed and destroyed the papers and documents thus file'd and deposited. Held, the indictment was sufficient, and that a demurrer thereto was improperly sustained.
Also held, that if the papers so destroyed contained material and pertinent information, collected under and for the purposes contemplated by the act, a defense thereto that they were the private papers of the persons sending them to the commissioner, or that the information thus ■communicated was confidentially disclosed, could not be sustained.
Appeal from judgment of tiie General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made March 2, 1893, which reversed a judgment of the Court of Sessions of the county of Albany sustaining a demurrer to the indictment in the above-entitled action and which overruled the demurrer.
p. 387
This is an appeal from the judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment of the Court of Sessions of Albany county which sustained the demurrer to the indictment against the defendants and discharged them.
The indictment is as follows :
“ The grand jury of the county of Albany accuse Charles F. Peck and Elbert Eodgers of the crime of removing and destroying public documents, committed as follows:
“ The said Charles F. Peck, heretofore and at the time of the commission of the acts hereafter stated, was . and now is the Commissioner of Statistics of Labor of the State of ¡New York, a public officer and a public office duly created by an act of the Legislature of the State of New York, and as such Commissioner it became and was his duty to collect, assort, systematize and present, in annual reports to the Legislature, statistical details relating to all departments of labor in this State, and especially in relation to the commercial, industrial, social and sanitary conditions of workingmen, and to the productive industries of this State; and that at all the times hereafter referred to it was the legal duty of every person, owner, operator, manager and lessee of every mine, factory, workshop, warehouse, elevator, foundry, machine-shop and other manufacturing establishment in the State, and of every agent and employe of such owner, operator, manager and lessee of every such mine, factory, work-shop, warehouse^ elevator, foundry, machine-shop and other manufacturing establishment to furnish to such Commissioner, when requested by him, statistical and other information in their possession or under their cpntrol relative to the lawful duties of such Commissioner as above set forth, and to truthfully answer qirestions concerning such lawful duties of the said Commissioner sent to them by said Commissioner by circular.
“ That heretofore and in the year 1891, between the 1st day of January and the 31st day of December in said year, and in the year 1892, between the 1st day of January and the 1st day of September in said year, the said defendant, Charles F. Peck, as Commissioner of Statistics of Labor of the State
p. 388
of New York, in pursuance of the duties devolved on him by law to collect, assort and systematize statistical details relating to all departments of labor in this State, and especially in relation to the commercial, industrial, social and sanitary condition of the workingmen, and to the productive industries of this State, sent circulars to the owners, operators, managers and lessees of the mines, factories, work-shops, warehouses, elevators, foundries, machine shops and other manufacturing establishments of this State, which said circulars did then and there contain questions asking for statistical information relating to the lawful duties of such Commissioner, and relating to the details of all departments of labor in this State, and especially in relation to the commercial, industrial, social and sanitary condition of workingmen in this State and to the productive industries of this State, and did at the times aforesaid receive answers to the questions contained in said circulars from the owners, operators, managers and lessees of the mines, factories, work-shops, warehouses, elevators, foundries, machine shops and other manufacturing establishments of this State, which said answers were contained in and written on the circulars so sent out by the said Charles F. Peck as Commissioner of Statistics of Labor of the State of New York, and which said answers, then and there being, were and are the statistical details relating to all departments of labor in the State of New York, and especially in relation to the commercial, industrial, social and sanitary condition of workingmen of the State of New York and to the productive industries of the State of New York, and which said circulars containing the questions aforesaid, and the answers aforesaid, were sent to and received by the said defendant, Charles F. Peck, as such Commissioner of Statistics of Labor of the State of New York, by due authority of law, at his office in the New Capitol in the city of Albany, and known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the State of New York, he, the said Charles F. Peck, being then and there a public officer of the State of New York, and received and filed and deposited by said Charles F. Peck in the office of the Bureau of Labor
p. 389
Statistics of the State of New York at the headquarters thereof in the New Capitol, in the city of Albany, the said Bureau of Labor Statistics being and was then and there a public office of the State of New York, and being then and there received, tiled and deposited by due authority of law, and being and were then and there public records, books, papers and documents of the State of New York.
“ And the grand jury further say that the said Charles F. Peck and Elbert Rodgers, on the 11th day of September, 1892, at the city of Albany, in this county, feloniously, wilfully and unlawfully did remove, mutilate, conceal and destroy the public records, books, papers and documents so as aforesaid, filed and deposited by due authority of law in the office of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the State of New York, in the New Capitol, at the city of Albany, the same being then and there a public office of the State of New York, and the same being then and there filed and deposited by due authority of law with the Commissioner of Statistics of Labor of the State of New York, at his office in the New Capitol, in the city of Albany, he being then and there a public officer of the State of New York, and which said public records, books, papers and documents aforesaid did then and there relate to and were the official statistical details relating to all departments of labor in the State of New York, and especially in relation to the commercial, industrial, social and sanitary condition of the workingmen of the State of New York, and to the productive industries of the State of New York for the years 1890 and 1891, and were and are the official and public records, books, papers and documents of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the State of New York, and the official and public records, books, papers and documents of the People of the State of New York.
“ And the grand jury aforesaid further say that the public records, books, papers and documents aforesaid have been and are withheld by the said Charles F. Peck and Elbert Rodgers, and have been and were removed and mutilated by the said Charles F. Peck and Elbert Rodgers, and have been destroyed
p. 390
by the said Charles F. Peck and Elbert Eodgers, so that the grand jury are unable to give a better description of them than as above set forth, and so that the grand jury are unable to set them out in detail and are unable to set them out in words.and figures.
“ And so the grand jury aforesaid charge and accuse the said Charles F. Peck and the said Elbert Eodgers with feloniously, willfully and unlawfully removing, mutilating, concealing and destroying public records, books, papers and documents contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.
“JAMES W. EATON,
“District Attorney of the Oowity of Albany P
The defendants demurred separately to the indictment on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime.
Edward J. Meegan for appellant.
The proper pleading on the part of the defendants to raise the questions of law decisive of the validity of the indictment herein was a demurrer. The indictment does not charge a crime. (1 Bishop on Crim. Pro. [1st ed.] § 411; 1 Rice on Ev. 34, 35, 39; Keyser v. Hits, 133 U. S. 138 , 146; Cary v. State, 76 Ala. 78 ; Mayor v. State, 2 Sneed, 11 ; Wells v. J., etc., Co., 47 N. H. 235 ; Weatherbee v. Dunn, 32 Cal. 106 ; State v. Wagner, 61 Maine, 178; Code Crim. Pro. § 275; Penal Code, § 94; Wood v. People, 53 N. Y. 573 ; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 543 ; People v. Dumar, 106 N. Y. 502 ; 1 Whart. Crim. Law [7th ed.], § 396.) The law creating the office of commissioner of statistics of labor does not provide a place that he shall call his office or bureau of labor statistics. Nor does it require the commissioner to keep a file or deposit of any records, papers or documents of any kind that may come to him. His duty is to collect, assort, systematize and present in annual reports to the legislature statistical details relating to all departments of labor. (Laws of 1883, chap. 356; Laws of 1886, chap. 205.) There is no express provision of law that required the circulars and answers thereto to he filed, or that
p. 391
makes them public documents or records. (Penal Code, § 94; People v. Gates, 13 Wend. 317 ; In re Carryell, 22 Cal. 179 ; Fleming v. Newson, 1 H. L. Cas. 376; 1 Greenl. on Ev. §§ 483, 484.) If the court holds that the third or charging part of the indictment sufficiently refers to the circulars and answers referred to in the second, or inducement part, of the indictment, then the defendants insist that said circulars and answers were not filed or deposited in the commissioner’s office, or with him, by authority of law, and, therefore, no crime is made out against the defendants. (Smith v. Laurence, 12 Mich. 431 ; Dunn v. Gaines, 1 McL. 321; Keller v. Killin, 9 Iowa, 329 ; Moore v. Brown, 10 Ohio, 198 ; Willard v. Whitney, 49 Maine, 235; Taylor v. Com., 44 Penn. St. 355 ; Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117 ; George v. Toll, 39 How. Pr. 504 ; Coyner v. Boyd, 55 Ind. 454 ; Reineman v. C. C. & B. H. R. R. Co., 7 Neb. 313 .)
James W. Eaton for respondent.
The contention of appellants that because there is no express provision of law declaring the papers in question to be public papers or requiring them to be kept, the demurrer should be sustained, is fab lacious. (Laws of 1893, chap. 179; Penal Code, § 57; 1 Greenl. on Ev. § 483; Evanstun v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 660 ; Kyburg v. Perkins, 6 Cal. 675 ; Burton v. Tuite, 78 Mich. 363 ; Bell v. Kendrick, 25 Fla. 778 ; Kerr v. Farish, 52 Miss. 101 ; F. B. C. Co. v. Geist, 37 Mo. App. 509 ; S. L. G. L. Co. v. St. Louis, 86 Mo. 495 ; Doherty v. Matsell, 16 N. Y. S. B. 593.) The allegation in the indictment that the papers in question were filed and deposited by authority of law with Peck, as a public officer, and in his public office, is sufficient and not demurrable. (Franklin v. State, 24 Fla. 55 ; Bell v. Kendrick, 25 id. 778.) The indictment is sufficient in setting forth the offense as the statute defines it, and it is not necessary to state any circumstances save those which constitute the definition of the offense in the statute. (Phelps v. People, 72 N. Y. 334 .) The indictment should be sustained and the judgment of the General Term affirmed.
p. 392
(Read v. People, 86 N. Y. 381 ; People v. Dimick, 107 id. 18-31; People v. West, 106 id. 293-295; People v. Barber, 48 Hun, 198 ; People v. Klock, Id. 275-277 ; People v. Everest, 51 id. 19-23; People v. Burns, 53 id. 274-276.)

Chapter 356 of the Laws of 1883, as amended by chapter 205 of the Laws of 1886, provides as follows :

“ Section 1. The governor shall, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint, within ten days after the passage of this act, and thereafter tri-ennially on the first Wednesday in April, some suitable person who shall be designated 6 Commissioner of Statistics of Labor,’ with headquarters in the new capítol at Albany.

“ Section 2. The duties of such commissioner shall be to collect, assort, systematize and present in annual reports to the legislature, within ten days after the convening thereof in each year, statistical details relating to all departments of labor in the State, especially in relation to the commercial, industrial, social and sanitary condition of workingmen, and to the productive industries of the State.

“Section 3. Said commissioner shall also have power to send for persons and papers, to examine witnesses under oath, to take depositions, to cause them to be taken by others by law authorized to take depositions; and said commissioner may depute any uninterested person to serve subpoenas upon witnesses, who shall be summoned in the same manner and paid the same fees as witnesses before a county court; and any person or owner, operator, manager or lessee of any mine, factory, workshop, warehouse, elevator, foundry, machine shop or other manufacturing establishment, or any agent or employee of such owner, operator, manager or lessee, who shall refuse to said commissioner admission therein for the purpose of inspection, or who shall, when requested by him, willfully neglect or refuse to furnish to him any statistical or other information relative to his lawful duties, which may be in then1 possession or under their control, or who shall willfully neglect or refuse, for thirty days, to answer questions by cir

p. 393
cular or upon personal application, or who shall knowingly answer any such questions untruthfully, or who shall refuse to obey the subpoenas and give testimony according to the provisions of this act, p’ovided that no witness shall, against his will, be compelled to answer any question respecting his private affairs, shall for every such willful neglect or refusal, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction therefor, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty or more than two hundred dollars.”

Section 4 provides that the commissioner shall receive an annual salary of $2,500 and his expenses, and that he may appoint a clerk at an annual salary of $1,200.

.There can be no doubt that the commissioner is a public officer. He has a fixed term of office, a salary, and discharges duties for the public. He is to have and keep an office in the capítol where he and his clerk are to discharge their principal functions. What can a statute mean which requires a public officer to have his “ headquarters ” at the capítol ? It does not mean temporary headquarters, but permanent headquarters during his term of office. It does not mean that he is to occupy the corridors, rotunda or some other open space in the capítol. Obviously it means that, like the other public officers, he is to have a room in the capítol for his occupation and for the discharge of his duties. The statute gives him the right to such a room, and thus it is made the duty of those who, by law, have charge of the capítol, to assign him a room, and if they should refuse to do so they could be compelled by mandamus. The indictment shows that he did occupy a room in the capítol as his office, which was styled the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So here was a public officer and a public office officially occupied by him.

This act has relation to the workingmen of the state engaged in productive industries. They constitute a very large portion of the people. They are generally without capital and more or less dependent. The relations between capital and labor are yet an unsolved problem, and statesmen and scholars are engaged in its solution. Measures for the amelioration of

p. 394
the condition of workingmen and the promotion of their welfare are frequently agitated, many of which are based upon imperfect knowledge and crude ideas. Knowledge of the facts, knowledge of the social condition, the wages, the material needs of the workingmen, of the profits of labor and of capital, and of the condition of the productive industries, must precede any intelligent legislation, any - remedial measures looking to the welfare of workingmen, and the wise and beneficent solution of the problem above mentioned. So the main purpose of this act is to get at the facts. The primary duty of the commissioner is to collect the facts—called in the act statistical details—fin relation to labor and production. Having collected the facts, then he is to assort and systematize them, and then present them in his annual report to the legislature. He is not to collect the facts merely to enable him to discharge a duty, but m the discharge of a dirty. He is to collect them, not for his private, personal use, but for a public purpose — not merely to enable him to make his report, but for preservation so long as they can be useful. These statistical details for a single year would be inadequate for accurate deductions and generalizations. For that purpose a series of years are needed. One year may be abnormal as to the conditions of labor and industries, and thus the statistical details for that year might be misleading and illusory. The facts gathered are not only for the use of the commissioner, but for everybody who has occasion to use them — for lawmakers, for students of sociology, political economy and the science of government, and for the general historian; and they may become more valuable as the years go by and the opportunity to gather them has in a great measure passed away. Could it have been the intention of the legislature that there should be no means to test the accuracy and value of the report of the commissioner ? Is he, under the act, to be permitted to present a picture of the condition of labor and the productive industries the accuracy of which, in consequence of the suppression of the facts, cannot be tested ? Shall an inferior state officer be
p. 395
the sole judge of the significance and value of the facts he gathers under the act ? Can he be permitted to manipulate the facts to sustain some pet theory of his own, or even to serve some perverse purpose, without the opportunity of detection and exposure ? It is obvious that the act would be worse than useless—might even be dangerous in its operation—if the statistical details are not to be preserved; and the manifest purpose of the act makes it important that they should be preserved. If untruthful answers be given to questions contained in circulars sent out to the persons named in the act, any person giving such answers is guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be convicted and punished * and to this end it is important that the written answers be kept. The act clothes the commissioner with extraordinary powers to gather the facts. He may use compulsory process for that purpose, and yet may he destroy the papers and documents in which they are contained at any time after receiving them ? The duty to preserve them after he has received them and they have reached his office, we think is plain, and is implied in the act, and just as much a part thereof as if expressly written therein. United States v. Babbit, 1 Black, 55 , 61; Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. 221 .

It is true that the commissioner may under the act obtain pertinent information by observation, which may not be reduced to writing, and thus become a record. But if he examines witnesses under the act, it is implied that such examination is to be reduced to writing, and all the pertinent information which is furnished to him in writing under the act should be preserved by him in his office. It belongs to the public, is obtained at the public expense for the public, and should be preserved until it may be destroyed, or otherwise disposed of by authority of'law.

Such we believe to be the scope and purpose of the act.

It appears from the indictment that the commissioner sent out circulars calling for the statistical details mentioned in the act, and that he obtained answers to such circulars written thereon, which were filed and deposited by him in his office in

p. 396
the capítol, and that he and the other defendant subsequently-destroyed the papers and dociunents thus filed and deposited ; and the indictment was found against them under section 94 of the Penal Code, which provides as follows:
“ A person who wilfully and unlawfully removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals or obliterates a record, map, book, paper, document or other thing filed or deposited in a public office Or with any public officer by authority of law, is punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by both.”

We can perceive no defect in this indictment. The facts alleged therein show the commission of a crime. As we have shown, the circular and answers written thereon were public papers or documents. They were deposited and also, according to the general and common understanding of the term, “filed” with a public officer by authority of law, and the indictment alleges that the defendants feloniously, willfully and unlawfully destroyed them.

It matters not, as we have shown, whether this destruction took place before or after the commissioner had prepared. his report. As the destruction is alleged to have taken place on the eleventh day of September, it was certainly before he had made his report to the legislature.

To test the matter a little further, suppose the commissioner resigns, or is removed from his office after he has, at great labor and expense, obtained these statistical details, can he destroy the papers containing them ? Can he use such parts of them as tend to support some theory or some policy which he wishes to maintain and foster, and destroy the rest ? Can a clerk in his office or some stranger take and destroy them without responsibility under the law? Are these valuable papers absolutely without protection except such as the commissioner may voluntarily give ? Can he not be compelled to deliver them over to his successor in office under the Revised Statutes and under the Code as now amended ? The answers to these questions, it seems to us, are quite obvious.

The learned counsel for the defendants claims that these

p. 397
circulars, with the answers thereon, were not “ statistics ” as defined by the authorities which he cites. But that they contained statistical details — the primary elements out of which a table or system of statistics could be framed — cannot be doubted.

It is quite true that every paper that comes into a public office in the performance of the duties of the officer who has charge of the office, is not within the section of the Penal Code claimed to have been violated by the defendants. It is not easy to give a definition or description so comprehensive and accurate as to include every paper contemplated by the section. It is enough for the present purpose to say that papers which a public officer is required to obtain in the discharge of his official duties, which have public importance, and are of permanent value, and may serve a useful purpose, after they have been deposited in his office or with him, are under the protection of the law.

If these papers had actually served their whole purpose so that they could no longer be of any use, they could have been destroyed with impunity, as it cannot be supposed that it was intended by the law to save such papers from destruction.

If these papers contained material and pertinent information collected under the act and for the purposes contemplated by the act, then the indictment could not be defended on the ground that the papers were the private papers of the persons sending them to the commissioner, or that the information thus communicated was confidentially disclosed. The statute makes it the duty of the commissioner to procure the information and makes it the duty of the persons designated to give it, and when the information is given it becomes public, and is for a public purpose, and no stipulation or promise on the part of the commissioner can give it any other character.

We regard this as a plain case involving no abstruse questions of law. We have not, therefore, deemed it important to-refer to or criticise the authorities, having more or less bearing, cited upon the argument. They will be found in the. carefully prepared briefs submitted.

p. 398
We ought not to close this discussion without referring to the very able prevailing opinions delivered in the court below. We would have rested our decision upon those opinions but for the novelty of this case and its public importance.

The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases cited