SOMERVILLE.

A safe has been provided for the overseers of the poor, one for the school committee, and another for the water board. All records are now protected.

SPRINGFIELD. A new safe has been procured for the overseers of the poor and another for the school committee. The water commissioners, the city engineer, the highway department, and the sewer department have offices in a building apart from the city hall, and vaults have been built for them. The records of the assessors, except for the two latest years, are unprotected.

WORCESTER. A new safe has been purchased for the water commissioners, only sufficient, however, for a part of their records. A metal closet has been put into the oflice of the overseers of the poor, which is expected to protect the records, in case of fire, until they can be removed. The records of the assessors are unprotected, and the condition of affairs is so far from creditable to the city that the subject was referred to the city government in the inaugural address of his Honor the Mayor in January last.

In addition to those cities named above that should make further improvement, Lawrence and Northampton should protect the records of the assessors, and Newton and Waltham those of the overseers of the poor. The loss of the latter to a city would be the source of litigation and great expense.

In the following cities no additional protection was needed for the records in 1889: Chelsea, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Quincy, and Woburn. (The interior of the city hall in Haverhill was burned in 1889, and remodelled immediately after.)

Boston is among the most poorly equipped cities and towns in the State, so far as the safety of its records is concerned. As stated elsewhere, most of the records in the old court house are not in safes or vaults, and there is no watchman in the building. No attempt at safety is made for any of the records of the assessors, and there is not sufficient room for them. Neither the treasurer, the auditor, nor the collector has sufficient safe room. The plans of the sewer department (containing the record of underground work, which could not by any possibility be replaced), those of the city surveyor, and of the city engineer are all above the second floor of the city hall, and there is no pretence that the upper part of the building is fire-proof. The street

commissioners have a small worthless safe, containing a part only of their rapidly accumulating records. The records of the school committee are not protected. The registrars of voters have comparatively few of their records protected, and the destruction of their records in the office at No. 14 Beacon Street just before an election would probably prevent the citizens of Boston from taking part in it. The commissioners of public institutions have many records in their care unprotected, largely those of the cities and towns annexed to Boston.

In justice to myself, and that the officials of small towns who have been urged to take action for the protection of their records, almost to the point of compulsion, may not feel that I have paid undue attention to them to the neglect of Boston, I feel it necessary to state the facts in regard to Boston. On the 24th of November, 1889, and again on the 17th of February, 1890, I addressed communications to his Honor Mayor Hart, who in each case forwarded them to the city government, urging action. As a result, the vaults mentioned elsewhere were built. The gradual vacating of rooms in the old court house, which commenced soon after, and the removal of some offices from the city hall to that building, where the construction of vaults would have been easy and inexpensive, and the preparation of plans for annexing the court house to the city hall, led me to delay further urging. Then followed the idea of a new city hall and a new building for the registry of deeds and registry of probate. Finding in January, 1894, that the project for a new city hall had been dropped, and that such records as had been taken to the court house were not in safes or vaults, and there was no watchman in the building, I addressed a communication to his Honor the Mayor, urging action, and adding that the members of the city council may not be aware that the city is liable to indictment for failure to provide fireproof receptacles for the records." This was not transmitted to the city council, and on January 31 I sent a duplicate, addressed to his Honor and the city government. As on the 8th of March that communication had not been transmitted, I addressed still another to his Honor, asking if there was any reason why the matter should not be laid before the city

government at once. I added that "the records in the office of the city registrar have a value to many towns, inasmuch as the earliest records of births, marriages, and deaths in towns as far distant as the present Worcester County are contained in volumes there, and in behalf of these towns I consider that I should urge measures for their safety." The matter has never been presented to the city government, nor have any replies to the several communications reached me. Before this report is transmitted, the matter will be laid before the mayor elect.

One hundred and eighty-one towns were notified that better provision should be made for the protection of their records, and the improvement in the way of protection for the records in the towns is summarized as follows:

Ninety-four towns have bought one safe.
Fifteen towns have bought two safes.

Two towns have bought three safes.

Forty towns have provided one vault, either by the construction of a new building or by building it in an old one.

Three towns have built two vaults.

One town has built two vaults and bought one safe.

One town has built one vault and bought three safes.

Two towns have enlarged the vault.

One town has rented a vault.

One town has rented safe room.

One town has become the owner of a building supposed to be fire-proof.

Two towns have voted to build vaults.

Four towns are erecting buildings containing vaults.

One town has voted to build a town hall.

One town has had a legacy for a library building, in which the town will probably place a vault.

Among the towns which have made the improvements noted are many not included among the one hundred and eighty-one notified, -towns which, while not so deficient in accommodations for their records as to absolutely require more safe room, yet where it was a great benefit to provide it, and towns to which buildings have been presented containing vaults. Consequently there are still many of the one hundred and eighty-one where action must be taken.

COPYING.

The difficulty in finding experts who can decipher the ancient chirography, or who fully understand that a copy should be a copy, and not a translation nor an abstract, is shown by many of the copies in existence. Copyists who did not understand the meaning of double dates, as March 1, 1654-5, have taken strange liberties with the figures. One volume has numerous instances where a child born about a year after its parents were married is recorded as born just before. For instance, the marriage having taken place March 11, 1654-5, meaning 1655, and being copied as written, and the birth March 1, 1655-6, but being for some reason copied 1655 without the 6, leaves the false and discreditable fact that the birth was ten days before the marriage. One copyist noted that there seemed to be instances where the date was in doubt, and two years were given.

The copyist who destroyed the original as being no longer of use; one who had the clerk note that the copyist "has used his own language in the copy;" and another who concluded that the boundary line that ran to the old "still" must have been to the old "stile," and so recorded it for conveyancers to puzzle over, have thrown discredit on copy

ists.

The law is not plain as to the certification of copies, and, in fact, it would be impossible for many of the clerks to read the ancient records and be able to certify to the accuracy of a copy. Sums have been appropriated for copying which were so ridiculously small that no person could give the time necessary to make a conscientious copy.

For these reasons I have not urged the copying which the law requires, realizing that a bad copy is worse than none, as being misleading. Some copying has, however, been done in the towns, as appears below, and in several others it has been authorized and will soon be commenced.

AGAWAM. Records of the description of all highways as laid out by the county commissioners or the selectmen. BARNSTABLE. The second, third, and fourth volumes. second and third have been indexed.

The

BELLINGHAM. The records of births, marriages, and deaths, and intentions of marriage from 1719 to 1827.

BERKLEY. The births, marriages, and deaths recorded in the first three volumes have been alphabetically arranged and copied. BILLERICA. The first four volumes of town proceedings, and the first and second of births, marriages, and deaths.

BOXFORD. Records of births, marriages, and deaths, and marriage intentions from 1685 to 1844. The copy includes records of baptisms also.

CHELMSFORD. The first volume of the records of proceedings is being copied.

CONCORD. Records of births and deaths from 1874 to 1894. CUMMINGTON. Records of births, marriages, and deaths from 1762 to 1804.

DRACUT. The first three volumes of the records of proceedings.

DUDLEY. Records of proceedings only from 1642 to 1770. FALMOUTH. The second and third volumes of the records of proceedings.

FRAMINGHAM. Records of the location of all roads.

HANOVER. Three hundred dollars have been appropriated. The copying of the volumes most needing it has been commenced.

HARVARD.

Records of births and marriages from 1732 to 1845. HATFIELD. Records of town proceedings from 1705 to 1740, and of births, marriages, and deaths from 1668 to 1844. These have been indexed. The proprietors' records from 1671 to 1767 are mostly copied. A committee was chosen in 1891 to examine the records and have such as they deemed necessary copied.

IPSWICH. The records from 1720 have been, or are being, copied.

LUNENBURG. The third volume of births, marriages, and deaths. LYNNFIELD. The records of meetings of the North Precinct of Lynn from 1711 to 1752, and births, marriages, and deaths from 1763 to 1849.

MANSFIELD. Records of births, marriages, and deaths from 1771 to 1844, and of intentions of marriage from 1839 to 1886. MENDON. Records of marriages and marriage intentions from 1804 to 1833.

NATICK. Records of births, marriages, and deaths from about 1720 to 1843.

NORTON. First volume of the records of births, marriages, and deaths.

PEMBROKE.

of the town.

Records of the Society of Friends, copied by vote