CD 3401 
 .04 
 Copy 1 
 
 CONDITION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS 
 IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 
 
 Report of the Chief of the Division of Public Records 
 to the Commissioner of Education 
 
 STATE OF NEW YORK 
 
 EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 1912 
 
MAY 14 W 
 
 
 
 
Hon. Andrew S. Draper LL.D., 
 
 Commissioner of Education 
 Dear sir : 
 
 All the political divisions in this State (59 counties exclusive of New 
 York and Kings, 48 cities exclusive of New York City, 933 towns, and 
 464 villages) have reported to this division as to the care and custody 
 of public records — all excepting eight villages. 
 
 All the counties have reported. All the cities have reported. All the 
 towns have reported; and all the villages have reported excepting the 
 villages of Bridgewater, Oneida co. ; Cenfei;ville Station, Sullivan co. ; 
 Clayton, Jefferson co. ; Fultonville, Montgomery co. ; Galway and Water- 
 ford, Saratoga co. ; Great Neck Estates, Nassau co. ; and Nelsonville, 
 Putnam co. Two of these eight delinquent villages were incorporated 
 only last year (Centerville Station and Great Neck Estates) and conse- 
 quently their records of the past are unimportant, if not nil. We have 
 interested the county clerk in each of the counties in measures that should 
 compel answers in the near future from the eight villages not yet heard 
 from. 
 
 The reports are from responsible officials and are now on file in this 
 division. 
 
 For the counties, we have statements from the county clerks, the 
 clerks of supervisors and the surrogates. 
 
 For the cities, we have the statements of the city clerks. For the 
 towns, the statements of the town clerks, and for the villages, the state- 
 ments of the village clerks. 
 
 This work has been carried on in obedience to chapter 380, Laws 
 of 191 1, which expressly excludes the counties of New York and Kings 
 from the jurisdiction of this division. 
 
 COUNTIES 
 
 County clerks 
 
 The county clerks of five counties report that the buildings in which 
 their records are kept are not fire-proof, and that there is neither safe 
 nor vault for the protection of their records. These counties are : Dela- 
 ware, Livingston, Schoharie, Schuyler and Steuben. In two other 
 counties, Suffolk and Richmond, the county clerk has neither safe nor 
 vault, and the buildings are only " partially fire-proof." 
 
 Six county clerks have no safe or vault and their records are in 
 buildings " supposed to be fire-proof," but in every case the building is a 
 structure erected twenty-five years ago or over. These counties are: 
 Eroome, structure built in 1878; Chemung, built in 1875; Cortland, built 
 in 1876; Niagara, built in 1856; Orange, built in 1887; and Wyoming, 
 built in 1887. 
 
 Of twenty-eight county clerks having fire-proof safes or vaults, eleven 
 are reported inadequate for the keeping and storing of all the important 
 records. 
 
 The only counties in which the county clerk's office at all measures up 
 to the modern requirements for the accommodation and safeguarding of 
 
public records are: Allegany, Chautauqua, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, 
 Essex, Fulton, Franklin, Genesee, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Mont- 
 gomery, Onondaga, Putnam, Rockland, St Lawrence, Sullivan, Wash- 
 ington and Yates — a total of twenty out of fifty-nine counties, or about 
 one-third. 
 
 The foregoing is not alone our deduction from a study of the 
 answers given, but is based on the opinions of the county clerks them- 
 selves. 
 
 The county of Schenectady has now in process of erection a county 
 building, fire-proof and with ample accommodation and safeguards. 
 
 Albany county is about to erect a new county building, but it will 
 not be finished for perhaps seven or eight years. 
 
 Rensselaer county is now making changes with a view to entire 
 protection. 
 
 Ulster county has proper safeguards but its safe and vault are 
 overcrowded. 
 
 The county clerk's records in Cattaraugus and in Warren counties 
 have neither safe nor vault for their special keeping, but, in the opinion 
 of the respective county clerks, are secure because of the fire- proof con- 
 struction of the buildings. 
 
 With few exceptions, the county clerks report that the records 
 in their possession extend back uninterruptedly to the date of the erection 
 of their counties, which makes the lack of protection against destruction 
 by fire all the more lamentable, and the necessity for prompt reform, 
 looking both to accommodation and safeguarding, all the more urgent. 
 
 The only counties that report missing records are : Herkimer, where 
 the years from 1798 to 1804 are missing; and Dutchess, where the land 
 indices are missing from 1683 to 17 18, and the court filings are very 
 incomplete prior to 1850. The county clerk of Ulster county is in 
 doubt as to whether his office has all the records. 
 
 Clerks of boards of supervisors 
 
 The clerks of boards of supervisors are, as a rule, much worse off 
 in the matter of accommodation for and protection of the records, as 
 well as to condition of the records, than the county clerks. 
 
 Thirteen have no safes at all and are in buildings not fire-proof. 
 The counties in which these conditions exist are as follows: Cayuga, 
 Chenango, Delaware, Erie, Hamilton, Lewis, Livingston, Otsego, Rock- 
 land, Schuyler, Tompkins, Ulster and Washington. 
 
 In Allegany county the supervisors' records are missing from 1824 
 to 1829 and for 1843. 
 
 The court house in Broome was burned in 1897 and most of the 
 supervisors' records were destroyed. The clerk can not tell the years at 
 present. 
 
 In Erie, Livingston, Seneca, Tompkins and Wyoming counties there 
 are missing records, but the clerks can not say how many or what years. 
 
 In Cayuga county the clerk has no knowledge of records prior to 
 1858. Clinton county has no records prior to 1856. The Columbia county 
 records were destroyed by fire, except those of recent date. Cortland 
 county has' lost all records prior to 1866; Dutchess county all prior to 
 1862; Essex, prior to 1852; Madison, all prior to i860; Onondaga, all 
 prior to 1854; Putnam, all prior to 1846; Ulster, all prior to i860. In 
 
Monroe county the supervisors' proceedings of 1851 and 1852 are missing. 
 In Orange county the clerk writes : " Records previous to ten years ago 
 have been thrown in the attic of the county building." In Washington 
 county the records of years prior to 1856 are reported as "scattering." In 
 Rensselaer county all records prior to 1894 were destroyed by a former clerk. 
 In St Lawrence county one volume of the supervisors' reports, containing 
 records of years in the forties, is missing. 
 
 Surrogates 
 
 Of the surrogates, fourteen report that they have not safes of proper 
 size to hold all important papers, and that the safes would not prove fire- 
 resisting in case of the destruction of the building. These counties are: 
 Broome, Cortland, Dutchess, Erie, Essex, Orleans, Otsego, Queens, 
 Richmond, Schoharie, Seneca, Sullivan, Tompkins and Wayne. 
 
 In Cattaraugus county all completed records are preserved in the 
 surrogate's office at the county seat, Little Valley, but all current records 
 of pending cases are at the law office of the surrogate in the village of 
 Salamanca; there is no safe in this office. 
 
 Franklin county has a brick vault in the court house, which is 
 altogether too small and not fire-proof. 
 
 The safe of the Hamilton county surrogate is large enough only for 
 the records of the last ten years. His records are in somewhat chaotic 
 state but they are to be indexed and filed the coming year. 
 
 As to the condition and the continuity of the records, reports are 
 generally satisfactory, which again only impresses the imperative neces- 
 sity for efficient protection against destruction or loss. 
 
 CITIES 
 
 City clerks 
 
 From the city clerks the most satisfactory answer is from the city 
 of Middletown, where there was erected in 191 1 a city hall of brick and 
 stone with tile and concrete floors. As to the city's vaults, which are 
 sufficient for the storage and protection of all the city records, the city 
 clerk writes : " We are informed by the architect that should the building 
 be burned the vaults would stand alone like a chimney." 
 
 This is the method of security in construction ordered in Massa- 
 chusetts cities and larger towns, and assures indestructibility from fires 
 of all records so far as human assurance can be given. 
 
 As a whole, the reports of the city clerks as to the preservation and the 
 continuity of their records are satisfactory. There are a few exceptions. 
 
 In Albany, the city clerk's records from 1746 to 1773 (Book no. 8) 
 are missing. In Hudson, records from September 1840 to May 30, 
 1848, and from April 185 1 to August 1863, are missing. In Elmira, one 
 volume of original common council proceedings has been lost or destroyed. 
 In Binghamton, the city clerk says that there are " some records prior 
 to 1897 which were destroyed by fire in that year." In Buffalo, the 
 births and marriages prior to 1878 are missing. In Fulton, the records 
 are preserved but not filed or arranged, nor are the former clerk's 
 
records written up. In Lockport, " some records of vital statistics were 
 destroyed by fire in 1881." Watertown reports that "Most all records 
 are complete since the board of education was organized." 
 
 In twelve of the cities the safes or vaults are inadequate for the 
 accommodation and protection of all the city clerk's records. The names 
 of these cities follow : Gloversville, Hornell, Ithaca, Newburgh, Niagara 
 Falls, Ogdensburg, Oneida, Oswego, Rensselaer, Syracuse, Utica and 
 Watervliet. Of these twelve cities, not one of the city clerks' offices 
 is in a fire-proof building, except in the city of Syracuse. 
 
 TOWNS 
 
 Town clerks 
 
 Of the 933 town clerks, 364 (or more than one-third) are absolutely 
 without any protection from, fire — no safe, no fire-proof building, no 
 metal shelving, nothing. Forty-three have safes that are not fire-proof, 
 and fifteen have the records in their private safes. 
 
 As to the condition and continuity of the records, not in one quarter 
 of the towns do satisfactory conditions exist. It is no exaggeration to 
 say that the general attitude in towns toward the keeping and preservation 
 of public records has been one of careless indifference. The cor- 
 respondence by this office necessary to the securing of statements from 
 the town clerks was a work of many discouragements before its final 
 completion. 
 
 It is pleasant to be able to record, however, that the work of this 
 division received hearty welcome in sporadic cases, and that before the 
 investigation resulted in answers from all towns the effect of the cor- 
 respondence was to stimulate pretty generally knowledge of the value 
 of public records and interest regarding their care. Many letters from 
 town clerks and other town officials are on file in this office, illustrating 
 this salutary change and development. 
 
 VILLAGES 
 
 Village clerks 
 
 A matter of interest in connection with the village inquiries was 
 the discovery that villages, once incorporated and still appearing as 
 incorporated villages in the Legislative Manual, had some time since 
 failed to elect officers or to act within their rights and responsibilities 
 under incorporation, the political control of the territory and property 
 of the village reverting to the town of which the village area is a part. 
 
 Instances of this lapsing are the villages of Bridgewater and New 
 London in Oneida county, and Oramel in Allegany county. 
 
 The village of Great Neck Estates, mentioned on the first page of 
 this report, has not held an election or chosen any village officers since 
 its incorporation in the spring of 191 1. This, with the village of Bridge- 
 
 6 
 
water, mentioned in a foregoing paragraph as having forfeited its in- 
 corporation, reduces the number of villages not heard from by two, 
 leaving only six political divisions of the entire State now without record 
 on file in this office. 
 
 Of the 464 village clerks, 191 are without safes or other protection 
 of any kind for their records. Forty-nine have safes, inadequate either 
 in size or in quality. Nine use bank vaults for their records, and 11 
 keep their records in their private office or home safes. 
 
 To describe the condition and care of village records, generally, 
 would be to repeat the summing up of the conditions in the towns. The 
 awakened interest as to village records and progress already made, as 
 well as promises for the future, are evidenced in the correspondence of 
 this division. Twelve village clerks have promised, without urging, to 
 have a new safe or vault for their records in the near future. 
 
 IN CLOSING 
 
 The theory upon which this division has prosecuted its work was 
 that results under the law could be obtained best and most quickly by 
 acquainting, through correspondence, the entire State with the provisions 
 of the law of 191 1 and the value of public records, at the same time 
 inducing answers from responsible officials themselves as to present 
 conditions in their various political divisions, these answers being made 
 a permanent record of this division and an enduring and constant basis 
 of information as to conditions now existing, or rather the officials' repre- 
 sentations as to these conditions, throughout the entire State. 
 
 The ultimate object and result of the examination ordered under 
 the present law must be to correct conditions as they affect the present 
 and the past, and to safeguard future records through a strong and 
 comprehensive enactment that will place New York State in the fore- 
 front of the movement for the conservation of public records. 
 
 The problem is much more complex in New York than in almost any 
 other state of the Union, not so much because of its great area and cos- 
 mopolitan population, as because of the density of its population in some 
 parts and the sparsity of its population in others, and the method under 
 which its political divisions are created. 
 
 For instance, in Massachusetts a town is a political entity, undivided 
 in its autonomy and responsibility. In New York, a town may contain 
 many villages, each village having exclusive jurisdiction over practically 
 all local functions of government within its boundaries, leaving to the 
 town jurisdiction in such matters only over that part of the town's area 
 not confined in any one of its incorporated villages. 
 
 At least two villages in this State, Saratoga Springs and White 
 Plains, have a population and wealth greater than many of the cities in 
 the State; and conversely, there are a number of villages of 250 and 
 fewer inhabitants. 
 
 A corrective law must comprehend these characteristic and peculiar 
 conditions through its strength on the one hand and its elasticity on the 
 other. It should prescribe not alone for the standardization of safes 
 and vaults, graded as to locality and uses, but for the standardization in 
 a state-wide way of paper, ink, binding and care in the making and 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 027 211 106 6 
 
 keeping of public records. Penalties for neglect should be provided in 
 the case of offending individuals as well as delinquent official bodies. 
 
 A study of all the laws affecting public records, local and general, 
 now on New York's statute books, of which there are hundreds, must 
 precede the drafting of a worthy and efficacious enactment. This work 
 should proceed concurrently with personal visits to the various political 
 divisions of the State for the verifying of the reports now on record; 
 for the extension of the division's information as to the minor record- 
 making and record-keeping offices; and for promoting general publicity 
 regarding public records. 
 
 When this work shall have been done, legislation should be possible 
 in the Legislature of 19 13 that will effectively cover New York's char- 
 acteristic conditions and needs, with the corrective and compulsory 
 features as certain and as agreeable of acceptance in the smallest village 
 as in the largest city or town within the jurisdiction of this Division of 
 Public Records. 
 
 Respectfully submitted 
 
 Thomas C. Quinn 
 Chief, Public Records Division 
 
 Albany, N. Y., April 5, 19 12 
 
 
 Wwm 
 
 rani 
 — 
 
 nil