ARCHIVIST OF THE HALL OF RECORDS 43

respective clerks of court and department heads to discuss problems
relating to their records and assigned areas, and to determine future
requirements.

In general, the survey indicated that:

a) The quantity of records which might be destroyed under existing
law was so small that their destruction would release little space
for other purposes;

b) The cost of microfilming records over twenty-five years old would
be almost prohibitive;

c) A central records depository for the storage of relatively inactive
records could be established in the courthouse basement at a frac-
tion of the cost of microfilming them;

d) The establishment of such a depository and the re-arrangement of
space in the courthouse would provide room for the additional
courtrooms and offices needed in the immediate future, and

e) A more permanent solution to the congested condition in the court-
house would result from the adoption of other methods of record-
ing current records, i.e., microfilming.

As a result of the survey, we recommended that a central records
depository be established in that part of the basement which was air-
conditioned and that it be equipped with standard record-center shelv-
ing. We also recommended improvements to the area—i.e., tiling the
floors, additional lighting, etc., which would make it available for use
by the public, if necessary. The total cost of the equipment and im-
provements recommended were estimated to be approximately $35,000.
In addition, we strongly urged the use of recording systems for some
record series, which would create records in other than paper form.

A detailed report of our findings and recommendations was sub-
mitted to the Courthouse Committee on March 17, 1964. It was sub-
sequently reviewed by the other justices of the Supreme Bench and by
the clerks of court. While the clerks were reluctant to abandon their
present methods of recording, they all agreed that a central records
depository would bring about an improvement in the courthouse and
provide much of the additional space needed. However, there was con-
siderable question as to whether the State or Baltimore City should
bear the expense of equipping, staffing, and maintaining the depository.
The clerks were also concerned about their legal responsibility for the