ARCHIVIST OF THE HALL OF RECORDS 59

a method of recording, and we therefore urged the sponsor of the
bill to amend it in order to include microfilming. This was done
and there was every expectation that the amended bill would pass,
but unfortunately, it did not. Since microfilming and photostat-
ing are now almost the only means of recording found in Maryland
courthouses, they will surely have to be dealt with within the near
future. It is our hope that House Bill No. 354 can be revived at
the next session."

On February 1, 1954, the Archivist wrote in reference to this bill to the
Honorable Thomas E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who
replied as follows:

"Dear Mr. Radoff:

"By carbon of this letter I am asking Dr. Everstine to prepare
House Bill No. 354 of the 1954 session as amended [italics sup-
plied] so I may reintroduce it for you in the coming session."

Unfortunately, through a misunderstanding in the office of the Depart-
ment of Legislative Reference, the bill was reintroduced and passed, but not
as amended. All that has been accomplished, therefore, is that we have
removed any doubts as to the effectiveness of the law passed in 1949 but
omitted from the Code of 1951. We now have on the books a law which
regulates the form and character of documents which may be recorded by
photostat, a method of recording used in a third of the counties, but none
regulating the form and character of instruments which may be recorded
by microfilm, the method of recording in use in two-thirds of the counties
of Maryland. At this writing, steps have been taken to have this law properly
amended during the 1955 Session. Whether now or later, the existence of
microfilm as a method of recordation must be acknowledged.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

We have all become so used to the substitution of microfilm for original
records, both in business and in government, that it seemed wothwhile to
raise the question whether our laws which require the maintenance of original
records for three or more years at great expense in storage space might not
be satisfied by the maintenance of microfilm copies for a like number of
years. As the following opinion indicates, the Attorney General of Maryland
is not convinced of the totality of this modern metamorphosis.