64 TWENTIETH ANNUAL REPORT

I would suggest that if you conclude to return these records to
Dr. Reddick, as I am advising you that you may properly conclude,
it would also be proper for you to take a receipt from Dr. Reddick in
his official capacity, setting forth what books, records and other ma-
terials are being delivered to him.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Dr. Reddick.

Very truly yours,
HLW-h HARRISON L. WINTER,

Deputy Attorney General,
cc: Dr. Robert H. Reddick.

The opinions which follow all have to do with the troublesome
problem of substitution of microfilm for original records. I am in-
cluding an opinion of October 31, 1955, which ably summarizes the
whole problem, although this opinion is well beyond the final date of
the fiscal year. Whether we shall ever extricate ourselves from this
extremely hampering prohibition is uncertain, but we must now be
finally convinced that we can do so only with the help of the General
Assembly.

January 17, 1955

DR. MORRIS L. RADOFF
State Archivist
Hall of Records
Annapolis, Maryland

DEAR DR. RADOFF:

Your letter of January 5, 1955, wherein you ask if a micro-
photograph produced in accordance with the provisions of Section
157 of Article 41 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951 Ed.)
is for the purpose of retention requirements considered to be a re-
cord, thereby permitting the disposal of the original document from
which the microphotograph was made, is hereby acknowledged.

Section 154 of Article 41 of the Annotated Code of Maryland
(1951 Ed.) states:

"Nothing in this section shall authorize the destruc-
tion of * * * (b) public records required by statute to be
maintained permanently, * * *"

I understand that this question arose because Dr. Russell S.