42 THIRTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT

of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States by the
State of Maryland, shall be transferred as soon as practicable
after June 1, 1945 to the Hall of Records Commission, which is
hereby made the official custodian of such papers, records and
documents, with full power to certify the same as provided in
Section 127. Every Clerk of Court, Register of Wills, or other
public official, now having custody of said papers, records and
documents, is hereby directed to transfer the same to said Hall
of Records Commission and upon making such transfer, every such
Clerk, Register of Wills or other official is hereby relieved from
any duties or responsibilities in connection therewith."

It will be noted that the last mentioned Section provides that
papers, records and documents in the Court Houses of the State made
prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States by the
State of Maryland "shall be transferred" to the Hall of Records Com-
mission and that every Clerk of the Court, Register of Wills or other
public officer in whose custody such documents are "is hereby directed
to transfer" those records to the Hall of Records Commission. That
portion of Section 127 which was enacted by Chapter 18 of the Acts
of 1935 states that each public official who has custody of public
records "is hereby authorized and empowered, in his discretion," to
deposit those records with the Commission. The question for our de-
cision is, therefore, whether Chapter 248 of the Acts of 1945 creates
an imperative duty or whether it is merely permissive.

It is well settled in Maryland that whether a particular statute
is mandatory or directory depends not upon its form but upon the
intention of the General Assembly, and that the intention is to be
ascertained from a consideration of the entire Act, its nature, its ob-
ject and the consequences which would result from construing it one
way or the other. Mere words do not control except insofar as the
legislative intent may be gathered from them. Bond v. Baltimore, 118
Md. 159. The word "may" has been construed as mandatory and obliga-
tory, leaving no margin within which there may be an exercise of
discretion. Sifford v. Morrison. 63 Md. 14, See also Board of Election
Supervisors v. Welsh, 179 Md. 270. Although in every case the legis-
lative intent should control in determining whether a statute is man-
datory or directory, there are, nevertheless, certain forms and types
of statutes which generally are considered as mandatory. Unless the