Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-12-06
OUR COURT RECORDS.
Their ValuS-Why They Are Not Tran
scrIbed In Accordance With Law.
Z IL.

To the Editor ofHe Dispatch:
Your editorial in Sundays issue under
the caption Save Our Records" should
attract public attention 10 this important
subject. Our clerks offices are the repo-
sitories of mine of historical information
nowhere else preserved, and as Mr. Brock
well saws, I'VE have suffered toomany valu-
able records to perish without enort 70
protest 10 give opportunity Tor turther
stigma in this regard and yet as far as
these old records are concerned many OF
the offices are little better than junk-shops,
the books being piled away in obscure cor
ners and the papers thrown prOmiscuously
into boxes or old trunks,
The laws enacted upon the subject are
amply sufficient were their PROVISIONS com
plied with: but this is not TO be expected
so long as the present divided response
bility exists. the records being in the Gus
tOdy of the courts. and the duty ana means
of protecting them lodged IN city councils
and boards OF supervisors. While these
bodies are generally composed OF very
worthy and reputable citizens, a very
large promotion of them do not belong To
that class which appreciates the value OF
the musty and discolored records OF the
past, which the law has committed to them
for safekeeping. or even TO the class which
appreciates the value of the records and
papers which are daily filed in our clerks
offices.
The Code of Virginia (section 1885, pro-
vides for rebinding and transerlbing sucn
records as the judges OF the Circuit, Cor
poratlon. and County courts deem TO be IN
need thereof, but as the cost Is a charge
upon the CITY or county the control OF the
finances in the hands of city councils or
boards of supervisors. the judges some
times hesitate TO act without the concur
renee of or in opposition to those bodies
and because of the divided responsibility
the matter IS indefinitely postponed. Sec
ton 926 of the Code requires every
county 10 provide fre-proof clerks
ofice for the preservation OF ITS re-
cords, and though this provision, is
found in the Code Of lS49 less than
a fourth of the counties of the state have
complied with the law. and some OF these
only after their most valuable records had
been DESTROYED by fire. A bill will be pre-
sented TO the next General Assembly
making il the duty of circuit, corporation.
and county judges to enforce compliance
with this statute. :, /,
In few instances judges have compelled
compliance with the law, and one circuit
Judge, the writer is informed, has issued
rules against the boards of supervisors OF
every county in his judicial circuit TO
show cause why the mandate OF the sta
tute should not DO complied with.
Is not the DISPATCH, as well as its corre-
spondent, j. +. West, in error IN saying
that the records of Northampton are the
only complete records In the State prior 70
1902 The records of Lancaster, which run
back TO about the same period, have never
been DESTROYED so far as the writer Is IN
formed. and the records OF Essex, including
those Of the old county of Rappahannock,
which 90 back 70 1856, are complete except
as TO some of the oldest marriage-bonds,
which were destroyed by Federal soldiers
ut the close OF the war and the partial mu-
tilation OF few OF the older records by
moths. 1t is 10 be hoped the DISPATCH
will continue 10 impress the public and
especially the Legislature with ths impor-