XV.-REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ARCHIVES COMMISSION.

WILLIAM MACDONALD, Chairman.

HERBERT L. OSGOOD.

JOHN MARTIN VINCENT.

CHARLES M. ANDREWS.

EDWIN ERLE SPARKS.

REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ARCHIVES COMMISSION.

DECEMBER 30, 1902.

To the Council of the American Historical Association:

The Public Archives Commission respectfully submit herewith a partial report on the archives of Oregon, prepared by Prof. F. G. Young, of the University of Oregon, and a further report prepared by Mr. Eugene C. Barker, of the University of Texas, on the Bexar archives, this last being a reprint, with additions and corrections, of an article prepared by the late Prof. Lester G. Bugbee, a former member of the commission, and published in the Quarterly of the Texas Historical Society.

There are in preparation reports on the State and county records of California by Prof. Kendric C. Babcock, of the University of California; on the records of Illinois by Prof. Francis W. Shepardson, of the University of Chicago; on the county records of North Carolina by Prof. John S. Bassett, of Trinity College; and on the county records of Maryland by Rev. Charles William Sommerville, of Baltimore. Plans are also under consideration for the preparation of a comprehensive report on the Spanish records of the Southwest.

The report by Prof. H. L. Osgood on the archives of New York has been followed up by efforts in two directions. In the first place, it was thought that the time was favorable for the printing of at least a part of the Minutes of the Common Council of the city of New York. Therefore, with the cooperation of the New York Historical Society, the proposition was submitted to Mayor Low. It met with his approval. An appropriation of $7,000 has been made for the purpose. A committee, consisting of members of the New York Historical Society, has been appointed, and under a resolution of the board of aldermen has already undertaken the work of editing these records. The minutes which have been selected for publication are those of the period between 1675 and 1776,

and they will fill about seven volumes in print. The publication of these records will be made a feature of the approaching celebration of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the bestowment of municipal rights on the city of New York.

A representation has also been made to the mayor setting forth the need of better care of the city's records. The organization of a municipal record office was recommended, in which should be deposited the records of extinct jurisdictions and those which are not needed in the transaction of current official business. On this recommendation definite action has not yet been taken.

In the second place, the report revealed such neglect and loss of local records in the sections where the inquiry was made as to make it seem almost a necessity that some steps should be taken to remedy this evil. The only method through which the State, as a whole, can be reached and a genuine reform effected, is that of supervision through a State record commissioner. The admirable results which have been attained by the record commissioner of Massachusetts suggested the adoption of a similar policy in New York. In order to bring the subject properly before the authorities concerned, the cooperation of the New York Historical Society was again sought. A committee of that society was appointed, which entered into communication with all the historical and patriotic societies of the State, for the purpose of securing their assent to the presentation of a joint memorial to the governor and legislature on the care of local records and the necessity for the creation of a State record commission. The cooperation of these societies was without difficulty obtained. A memorial was drawn,

which has already been signed by the proper officers of all the societies referred to, and it will be submitted to the governor and the legislature at the opening of the session in January. The following is a copy of the memorial:

To His Excellency the Governor and the

Senate and Assembly of the State of New York:

Your memorialists respectfully represent, that the law of the State of New York intrusts the custody of the public records of counties, villages, cities, and towns to the clerks of those respective jurisdictions, to county supervisors, to surrogates, registers of deeds, and to heads of departments in the large municipalities. The law also requires that when the term of office of any supervisor or town clerk shall expire, or when such officer shall resign, he shall, when required, deliver upon oath to his successor

all the records, books, and papers in his possession or under his control and belonging to the office held by him. In the case of the death of such officers, their executors or administrators, when such demand is made upon them, shall deliver the books and papers belonging to the office of their testator or intestate.

The law also provides that a public officer may demand from any person in whose possession they may be the delivery of the books and papers belonging to his office. If such demand is refused, complaint may be made to the proper judicial authority, and after due time has elapsed and it still appears that books or papers are withheld, the justice or judge may commit the offender to the county jail till he delivers them or is otherwise discharged. After such commitment official search may be made and the books and papers, if found, shall be delivered to the complainant. The law also declares that a person is guilty of grand larceny who steals or unlawfully obtains or appropriates a record of a court or officer, or a writing, instrument, or record filed or deposited according to law with any public officer or in his office.

Your memorialists further represent that, though the above is in substance the law of the State of New York, yet to the best of their knowledge and belief it is by no means properly executed or obeyed, especially on the part of town and village officials throughout the State. They also believe that, though in principle the law relating to public records has always been the same as it is to-day, yet by local officers, and those connected with them, it has in all past years been to a large extent violated or ignored. In very many localities, and perhaps in nearly all of them at times, records which are really public have been treated as private property. Outgoing officials have retained them in their possession. They have been stored away in private houses or offices, and for generations have lain unnoticed or have been consciously regarded as a part of the family possessions. While in private possession, whether by accident or otherwise, many such records have been utterly destroyed. When not destroyed by the process just described they have become inaccessible and for all practical purposes nonexistent.

Your memoralists further represent that, according to their best knowledge and belief, in many localities public records receive very inadequate care at the hands of their legal custodians. In some cases they are lost or destroyed through carelessness. In others, private parties are permitted to borrow, abstract, or remove them, and in such cases they are likely never to find their way back to the offices where they belong. Those which are actually in the possession of existing clerks are often packed away in inaccessible places. As a rule no attempt is made suitably to arrange old papers, or to preserve, bind, and copy old minute books. In the large cities, because of the crowded condition of the offices, it is almost impossible to consult the records which are there deposited. Furthermore, local records, as a rule, are not kept in fireproof buildings, safes, or vaults, and therefore are continually exposed to destruction by fire. Every year some are lost in this way. The failure properly to secure records against destruction in this form is often due to the unwillingness of boards of supervisors, or of village and town boards, to make the necessary appropriations.