Chapter Four

The Formation of Government Archives:

The Maryland Hall of Records And

The Baltimore City Archives

 

Introduction. The establishment of the two principal government archives, one in 1934 and the other

twenty years later, mark the culmination of the movement towards modern archives in Maryland . Most of the activities

directed towards records of the previous three centuries did not lead to officially established archives. The Maryland

Historical Society provided a partial solution, but the varied motivations of this organization plus its constant struggles

with its private nature and funding worked against the Society's being any more than a step along the way to the

creation of official archives. The establishment of the Maryland Hall of Records in 1934 provided a real focus for the

state's documentary heritage, although it caused some tension between the Maryland Historical Society and the Hall of

Records that detracted from the formation of an archival community and archival leadership within the state. The

Baltimore City Archives, following twenty years later, was a reminder that having both a historical society and state

government archives were not necessarily enough to provide solutions to all the modern records problems within one

state. While the Hall of Records comfortably assumed a strong leadership role, the municipal counterpart struggled for

its direction and after a promising start and temporary rebirth fell by the wayside of dynamic archival programs.

Nevertheless, both were products of a renewed and mature archival consciousness and the results of several centuries

of efforts.

The Professionalization of Local History, 1876 - 1910. The ascendancy of professional history in

the last several decades of the nineteenth century had enormous importance for the development of American archives

and for the formation of archives in Maryland . Ernst Posner, dean of American archival theoreticians, surmises that

these early professionals, with their "scientific" theory emphasizing original historical sources, was the "tap-root" for the

"systematic care of the archives of the United States ." 1Maryland was especially susceptible to historical

professionalism, hosting one of the first historical seminars at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore . This university

not only engaged historians in archives, it sent out individuals who worked in the newly established archival agencies

and it brought new life into the uses of local archival sources. Until the advent of formal graduate archival programs in

the 1960s and after, no higher education forum played a more important role than Hopkins .

When Hopkins opened its doors in 1876, the school was led by Daniel Coit Gilman, its first President.

Gilman, and his innovative ideas concerning graduate programs, not only established Hopkins as a pioneer in such

education but implanted history as an integral part of it. 2Gilman hoped to found "an institute for the education of

publicists, with history, political economy, & c, as leading subjects." 3He took to heart Henry Adams' admonition of

1877 that the school's "ultimate success may depend on getting History, Political Economy and Metaphysics well

taught there." 4To insure this result, Gilman sought scholars with well-established and highly regarded reputations

and for the instruction attempted to secure Henry Adams and then Hermann von Holst. The subject was, however,

handled part-time by Austin Scott, an associate of George Bancroft, until 1881 when taken over by the virtually

unknown Herbert Baxter Adams. 5

Adams came to Hopkins in 1876 after studying in Germany , Switzerland , Italy , and France and

receiving his Ph.D. at the University of Berlin. 6Adams, a leading proponent of the "scientific" school, emphasized

the use of original sources. One of Adams ' colleagues characterized his seminars as "laboratories where books are

treated like mineralogical specimens, passed about from hand to hand, examined, and tested." 7Another graduate of

the program described the seminar room itself as a "museum." "A favorite remark of Dr. Adams," the writer recalled,

"is that the Johns Hopkins seminary library of historical and political science begins with relics of the stone age and

ends with the newspapers." 8By 1896 the Seminar had access to over eighteen thousand books, fifty thousand

pamphlets, and numerous manuscripts. 9

Throughout his career, H.B. Adams considered local history as an essential component of his profession.

Adams notified President Gilman that he was sure "it will be a good thing for the University if we can ally with us the

Historical Societies and quasi historians in all the seaboard States." This was necessary because he desired to "see

each candidate for Ph.D. in History obtain some corporate recognition of his work, some local reputation which will

help him on in his future career." 10Logically, Adams would not miss the opportunities presented by his own milieu.

His own first publication was a treatise on Maryland history. 11And the studies of many of his students were to

open broad new areas of inquiry into Maryland 's past. Bernard Christian Steiner, for example, composed nearly one

hundred articles and books on Maryland history in a career of three decades. 12A significant portion of Adams '

prized project, the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science , was devoted to

Maryland history. 13

Professional History, Public Interest, and the Formation of the Maryland Hall of Records,

1881-1934. The problem with such an emphasis on historical sources was the paucity of archival institutions and

reliable documentary editions. A national archives was a half-century away. State archives were a generation away and

their development required the dedicated efforts of many of Adams 's own students. The best collections of records

resided in the restricted and elitist historical societies, usually as unorganized masses, or with the few documentary

editions of promoters like Peter Force and Jared Sparks. 14Adams soon realized that the future of successful

historical research required the cultivation of relationships between academia and historical societies, a pioneer form of

what became known in the 1970's as “public” or “applied” history.

Adams 's ideas were summarized in his 1884 Methods of Historical Study, 15 stressing that the

"main principle of historical training at the Johns Hopkins University is to encourage independent thought and research"

and that local history is an untouched field of study. His fundamental principle was a widely accepted axiom of the new

scientific history, but the emphasis on local history was molded by his Baltimore experience. According to Adams, the

study of the locality would foster a stronger connection between the university and its surrounding community, a

fundamental goal of Gilman and Hopkins. For Adams , American local history was necessary to understand national

history, stimulating a stronger interest in the past since "it takes hold upon the life of the community and quickens not

only pride in the past but hope for the future." Local history was a "natural" place to begin an analysis of the past

"because man is born into such associations and because an historical knowledge of them will always be the most

valuable form of historical culture, for these subjects most concern our own life, our past, present, and future." Local

history was a "living interest" rather than the dead past.

Not as explicit in Adams 's 1884 manual was his emphasis on the vocational placement of his young

historians and the necessity to use local historical materials. Two years before he explained to President Gilman his

desire "to see each candidate for Ph.D. in History obtain some corporate recognition of his work, some local

reputation which will help him on in his future career." An ancillary benefit would be the improvement of Hopkins 's

role in the Baltimore region and the South and the work of the various historical societies. 16In many ways, this was

the essence of public history, emphasizing not just employment of historians outside of the academic environment but

the active influence of historians on the public, in this case in the acquiring and building of archival and historical

manuscripts collections. That Adams achieved this goal is visible both in the re-writing of Maryland history that

occurred under his direction and in the wider resurgence of Southern historical scholarship. Adams emphasized this,

preferring to see his students published in local journals, no matter how parochial, rather than the more prestigious

national ones. In Maryland Adams pushed his students to the primary local institutions (like the Peabody Library and

the Maryland Historical Society), archaeological excavations, and visits to historical sites, and he was instrumental in

the publication of the state's records, most notably the Archives of Maryland. 17

The emphasis by the Hopkins students on Maryland was quite intense during the tenure of Herbert

Baxter Adams at the university. Between 1880 and 1900 twenty dissertations on Maryland were finished, far

outdistancing the total on any other state. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science,

started in 1883, had published twenty-six Maryland studies by the turn of the century including a number of the

dissertations. Nearly every meeting of the Historical and Political Science Association from 1879 into the early

twentieth century considered some aspect of the state's history - a 1673 Maryland land grant and its potential use and

significance, the availability of Baltimore newspapers at the Maryland Historical Society, and even the research results

of some prominent amateur local historians. 18The 1881 visit by English historian E.A. Freeman and his examination

of the colonial and revolutionary records induced Adams to lobby for their publication. The outcome of this was a new

course on the "Sources of American Colonial History," described as follows: “This will be a class course for practical

training in the use of colonial laws, archives, and documentary history of the older states of the American Union. The

class will meet in the library of the Maryland Historical Society; particular attention will be given to the State Papers of

Maryland, which have lately been transferred from the Land Office at Annapolis ." 19The donation in 1891 of John

Thomas Scharf's huge collection of records, primarily Maryland public records, further encouraged such courses, and,

in the words of William Hand Browne, Hopkins was doing for the South's history "what Harvard and Yale have done

for the New England States." 20

The subjects of these Maryland histories directed by Adams conformed to the general predilections of

the scientific historians, the study of institutions and politics. Parishes, manors, libraries, churches, education and other

institutional forms and all aspects of past political periods were thoroughly examined. Following Adams 's notions of

the relevancy of the studies, many of his students produced works on recent events or traced themes of current

interest. Typical was an essay on the early development of the municipal government of Baltimore completed not

because of some antiquarian fascination but because the city had adopted its first new charter in a century. 21Had

the average literate citizen read all of the Hopkins studies, the person would have gained a good understanding of the

state's history and the origins of recent happenings. Was such information, however, not available in the publications of

the amateurs and antiquarians?

An excellent method to perceive the contributions of the Hopkins 's students is to compare their work

with the greatest of the nineteenth century Maryland antiquarians, John Thomas Scharf. Scharf, a Baltimore journalist

and businessman, wrote ten histories, four on Maryland , between 1874 and 1887; his most notable work was his

1879 three-volume History of Maryland . Although other general state histories were published, it was not until the

1970s and the completion of three such histories and numerous other county and scholarly monographs that Scharf

became completely antiquated. Even at present, however, his history is often cited because of his inclusion of a vast

amount of primary sources (some no longer available in their original form) and coverage of virtually every conceivable

subject. The comprehensiveness of his work derived from his employment of researchers and successful solicitation of

memoirs and anecdotes from individuals, families, and institutions and his welding of them into an encyclopedic, if at

times incoherent, work. 22Although the Hopkins students used Scharf's work, their monographs were better

histories, more thoroughly reasoned interpretations, if narrower in scope and less popular. Some comparisons with

Scharf's History of Maryland will reveal something of the Hopkins renaissance in Maryland history.

One of the earliest of the Hopkins-inspired Maryland histories was Edward Ingle's Parish Institutions

in Maryland , published in the first series of the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political

Science. 23Ingle presents a stark contrast to Scharf's idea of the colonial Anglican Church, published only four

years previously. Scharf devoted only a few scattered pages to the establishment of the church in 1692 and its

subsequent influence. Scharf hardly considered the institutional mechanism of the parish but consistently blurred it into

the context of colonial politics: an established church was the reversal of religious toleration; Anglicans were part of the

"aristocratic" class opposing political independence; an established church was the reversal of religious toleration; and

the clergy was poor in quality, a natural result of official religion. 24Ingle, on the other hand, in six thousand words,

described the operation of the parish institution, the support of the clergy, its educational contributions, relationship to

the proprietary government, the technicalities of vestry elections, and care for the poor. Although Ingle also

commented on the weaknesses of the system, he did not emphasize this. Ingle stressed the working of the system as a

form of local government akin to a "school of liberty" for the American Revolution. Ingle's conclusions were not

incompatible with those of Scharf. Whereas Ingle's essay emphasized the facts of the parish's mechanism, Scharf

provided only the barest of facts with an abundance of interpretation.

The descriptions of the 1689 revolution in Maryland of Francis Sparks and Scharf read as if separated

by a chasm of time rather than only eighteen years; if anything, the two accounts show the widening gulf between the

amateur and professional histories of the period. Scharf treated this and earlier periods of civil disorder as anomalies in

Maryland 's early history. Leaders of such events, from William Claiborne in the 1620s to the end of the seventeenth

century, were consistently seen by Scharf as ignorant troublemakers and power-grabbing schemers against an

enlightened, if at times ineffectual, proprietary rule. Such rebellions can only be understood as isolated incidents; the

1689 revolution was caused by the failure of the proprietor to speedily acknowledge the ascension of William and

Mary to the English crown and rumors of a popish plot to take over the colony. 25Sparks , however, presents thirty

years of events and dissatisfaction with the Calverts as explaining the revolution. Sparks 's work is much closer to the

arguments of subsequent histories, although he tends to see the Calvert family as worse than it was and the various

mixtures of rebels uniformly as "patriots," precursors to the American Revolution. This latter work's conclusion is an

obvious overreaction to the rose-tinted extremes of antiquarians like Scharf, especially since the author's conclusions

are not borne out by his methodological excursion through the Maryland legislative records. 26

Both George Washington Ward and John Thomas Scharf expended considerable energy documenting

topics such as the development of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. 27 Ward and Scharf charted the canal from

early predecessors in the eighteenth century through the labyrinth of charters, conventions, and state and corporate

rivalries distinguishing this internal improvement project. But the two works also reflect the gap between professional

and amateur history, even in these years when amateurs and professionals mingled more freely than now. In many

ways Scharf gives an adequate outline of the canal's history. Ward's study, however, adds an entirely new dimension

to the subject. The purpose of his monograph is to show the evolution of federal involvement in the development of

internal improvement projects, a matter that prompted serious debates on the limits of the federal constitution. This

book, unlike Scharf's treatment, reflects the importance of the canal on both local and national scenes. Scharf's writing

on this subject seems to be little more than filler between the greater and more dramatic events of the War of 1812 and

the Civil War.

Such comparisons between antiquarians or amateurs like Scharf and the professionally trained Hopkins

historians suggest that the latter studies, although often concentrating on institutions at the expense of other subjects,

still provided a fuller, more accurate view of Maryland 's past – at least one that could be better questioned because it

was on archival sources. Even with dry, academic prose and predictable, if logical, organization, these new historians

rewrote Maryland 's past. While writers like Scharf liberally sprinkled their pages with primary sources and little

interpretation, the professionals presented evidence of a liberal use of the same records but with careful evaluation and

a greater concern for the state's development in the context of regional and national events. The only connection

between the amateur and professional historian was the subjects selected for study, not too surprising given their

chronological overlap of work and the conscious efforts by the professionals to prove the worth of their training (this

was, after all, long before professional history was firmly established in the academy).

The intensity of effort on Maryland history by the Hopkins faculty and students did not last long into the

twentieth century. The number of dissertations on this subject dropped dramatically from seventeen in the 1890s to

four in the first decade of the twentieth century and to one in the succeeding decade; it was not until the 1970s that

Hopkins and other university students and scholars rediscovered local history. 28The larger quantity of Maryland

studies in the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science lingered a bit longer but

eventually showed a quick decline after 1910. The reason for this loss of interest was the premature death of Herbert

Baxter Adams in early 1901. Maryland studies that appeared after this time are attributable to the dominance of the

Hopkins History department by former Adams 's students, most notably John S. Bassett on Southern history and

Jacob H. Hollander, an economist specializing on Baltimore. 29

Still, the Hopkins 's sudden and absolute departure from Maryland history from World War One until well after the

Second World War seems almost inexplicable. At the turn of the century, with groups like the Maryland Society of

Colonial Dames funding lectures on the subject, 30 the Johns Hopkins University was the center of Maryland

historical research while the Maryland Historical Society supported it with its rich collection of sources. The

subsequent neglect by the institution was so severe that the Scharf collection of papers, so celebrated in 1891 when

obtained, were completely forgotten until 1932 when briefly "unearthed" by W. Stull Holt and forgotten again until after

the Second World War. 31With the opening of the state archives in the mid-1930s, Holt envisioned the Hopkins as

taking the "lead" in the study of the area's history 32 and, indeed, for a few years Hopkins professors served on

committees of the Maryland Historical Society and taught a few courses on the subject in the evening school. 33But

from 1950 until the late 1970s Hopkins offered Maryland courses only in the evening college, taught not by a member

of the regular faculty but a local museum director more in the image of the nineteenth century antiquarian. 34

Other than the death of Adams , the reasons for a change in attitude toward Maryland history at The

Johns Hopkins University can only be conjectured. The shifting winds of professional historiography, especially away

from local history, were certainly partly responsible. The departure of Hopkin's graduates to other states deprived

Maryland of a quantity of potential research; the single exception was Bernard Christian Steiner who, while Director of

the Enoch Pratt Free Library, was the most prolific Maryland historian in the first half of the twentieth century.

35Nevertheless, the Hopkins students of 1880-1910 left a permanent legacy of excellent local history research that

in some cases, as with Jacob H. Hollander's 1899 history of the Baltimore municipal government, 36 have remained

substantial scholarly contributions. It has been only with the Maryland historical renaissance of the 1970s and after that

as much scholarly activity on Maryland 's past has been seen since the heyday of Herbert Baxter Adams at the Johns

Hopkins University . The existence of this most recent flurry of historical research in Maryland, and elsewhere, has

been encouraged by the increased preservation of historical sources in archives and libraries, a greater popular interest

in the local past as evident with the movements of historic preservation and genealogy, and the more recent

employment and identity crisis of the historical profession leading to a re-rapprochement with the public's interest in the

past. The role of the Maryland State Archives as a host for historians specializing in the early Chesapeake has been,

for example, a prime example of the re-inventing of the old Adams academic seminars of a century before where

scholars worked and debated their research surrounded by their documentary resources. The main difference is the

much better acquisition and intellectual control over the archival records.

Professor Adams was not lax in his efforts to preserve and mine the historical records of Maryland , and

the greatest contribution of Hopkins ' may be his involvement in the movement for a state archives. When the

prominent English historian Edward A. Freeman made a lecture tour in America in 1881 and visited Baltimore , Adams

not only showed him Hopkins but also escorted him to the Maryland Historical Society for a glimpse of the Maryland

state papers. Freeman was impressed with the documents and published a letter in the New York Nation and the

Baltimore American urging that their "systematic publication would be a very great gain, and the State Legislature

would surely not refuse its help, if the matter were pressed upon it by influential person and societies in the State.”

37Both Adams and one of his more famous students, John Franklin Jameson, considered this to be the genesis of

the Archives of Maryland . 38Another one of his former students, B. J. Ramage, believed that the "revival of

interest in local history at the South is contemporaneous with the professorial career of Dr. Adams . . ." as well as the

awareness of the "importance of preserving ancient records and letters . . . ." 39

Adams 's influence on archival development was especially significant through the career of his student,

Jameson. Jameson's interest in records was stimulated by the seminars, and for several years he attempted to gain

support for the editing and publication of the records of the Virginia Company, the idea having been planted in one of

the seminars. 40A decade later, in 1895, Jameson headed the newly formed Historical Manuscripts Commission of

the American Historical Association. The purpose of this Commission was to prepare "a calendar of original

manuscripts and records of national interest relating to the colonial and later history of the United States ." 41For

Jameson, its responsibility was of the greatest importance. To a colleague he prophesied, "that, if rightly managed, it

can do a great deal for the future of historical work in this country." 42Jameson's assessment was modest. The

Historical Manuscripts Commission gave birth a few years later to another AHA project, the Public Archives

Commission, which laid (partially) the foundation for the establishment of the national archives.

The Public Archives Commission supervised between 1899 and 1910 the completion of 46 archival

reports for 32 states, two cities, and the Philippines. 43Maryland 's Commission was established in 1904. Since the

commencement of the publication of the Archives of Maryland , the State government had shown little regard for the

preservation of historic records other than the modest funding of that project or the repair and organization of records

to facilitate current usage. 44Even the State's formal recognition of a Public Records Commission involved only a

minor commitment: the members of the Commission were volunteers and the State provided only one thousand dollars

a year for two years. 45The results of the survey, however, were certainly the most significant analysis of the State's

records in a generation.

The State commission devoted a total of fourteen weeks and examined over thirty thousand volumes of

records in the Land Commissioner's Office, Superior Court of Baltimore, Court of Common Pleas, Baltimore City

Hall, and twenty-two counties, resulting in a "detailed" report of two thousand "large Pages." 46The thoroughness of

this work was certainly the chief consequence of the fine blend of Commission members and researchers. The

members of the Commission included a leading amateur historian and civic leader (Hester Dorsey Richardson), a

professional historian and librarian (Bernard C. Steiner), and a member of the legislature (Samuel K. Dennis).

47Utilizing such individuals, the Commission compiled lists of records needing rebinding and recopying, described

inadequate and adequate storage conditions, noted records known to be missing, and even analyzed habits of usage –

all well in advance of the state historical records assessment projects of the 1980s and 1990s which also brought

together historians, archivists, public officials, and other civic-minded figures to ascertain the condition of the states'

records. Typical of their descriptions is that for the Court House in Queen Anne's County:

The Court House is old and damp, and the vaults in every way unfitted for the preservation of the valuable records of the county. The sub-vault of the Clerk's office is dark and damp as a cellar and the original papers are stored in it without any possibility of preservation from mould and dampness and decay. The vault of the Register's office is a little better, but there are no facilities in either office for the arrangement and preservation of the records. It is strongly recommended that large airy additions be built to these vaults, and modern steel shelving be required, and dust and mould proof cases for the original papers, which are now in open pigeon holes or bins. Many breaks in the records could be supplied from these originals. 48

Such sentiments would also be found in the later reports, just as they had been evident in the eighteenth century

records surveys of government offices.

The final recommendations and conclusion of the Public Records Commission were certainly not

astounding, but continued the tradition of earlier reports from David Ridgley and Brantz Mayer. The Commission

initially noted the incompleteness of its work. It had not been able to study the records in one county, many of the

offices of the Baltimore Court House, the Court of Common Pleas, the offices of the Secretary of State, Comptroller,

Treasurer, and Court of Appeals, State House, State Library, and some of those in Baltimore City Hall. More

importantly, it demanded "prompt action on the part of the Assembly, for delay in the work of rescue and preservation

will prove fatal in many instances." 49Such recommendations echoed earlier reports and predicted what latter

records reports would also reveal and actions urged. Urgency of attention was always recommended, and nearly

always ignored.

More astounding, perhaps, was the lack of response by the State government, since it was the early

twentieth century, there was the legacy of the Maryland Historical Society, and the increasing attention to and use of

historical records by an array of scholars. The mandate for the work of the Commission had been the analysis of public

records "required by law to be preserved, filed or recorded in any office of the State, or of any county or municipality,

or of any officer or employee of the State, or of any county or municipality." 50Thus, the Legislature acknowledged

from the start their legal responsibility. Apparently, the Legislature interpreted its funding of the Commission as

fulfillment of this responsibility. Mrs. Richardson did mention in her summation to the American Historical Association

that a bill to establish a central archives had been drafted, 51 but this actually would not occur for three more

decades and Maryland would be among the last of the southern states to organize a public archives (although well in

advance of other states in other regions). 52Not only was a plan to find a "safe and secure building in Annapolis" for

the records defeated in the legislature, 53 the only result was the authority of the Commissioner of the Land Office

to select "records at this time [1908] most in need of preservation and restoration." Preservation and restoration

generally meant only transcription and rebinding. 54

It is difficult to understand fully why Maryland 's legislature was so reluctant to create a separate state

archives. All along the East Coast public archival agencies were being created, mainly stimulated by the professional

historians of the American Historical Association. 55Certainly in Maryland such professional research was highly

visible and significant, with theses and dissertations being completed at ever-increasing rates (see Table One), most of

these coming from area schools. 56Possibly, the fact that the Maryland Historical Society had been custodian of

selected early records discouraged such a development. A number of the western states also used existing historical

societies for this purpose. 57

TABLE ONE

THESES AND DISSERTATIONS ON MARYLAND HISTORY, 1880-1969

Theses

Decade
Dissertations

--

1880-89
4

1

1890-99
17

5

1900-09
7

3

1910-19
7

20

1920-29
10

62

1930-39
30

75

1940-49
29

101

1950-59
37

115

1960-69
61

Source: Richard R. Duncan and Dorothy M. Brown, comps., Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations on Maryland History (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1970).

Morris Radoff, in his brief overview of the formative years of the Hall of Records, suggested that the

Maryland Historical Society and the Land Office were "reluctant to relinquish their rights as archival agents for the

State." 58A professor from Hopkins appealed in 1919 not to the state but to the Maryland Historical Society "for

an aggressive search of the State for historical material." 59It was obvious that the State's involvement in archives

was inevitable, however, as the Society was on shaky financial grounds and other than the publication of the Archives

and the Maryland Historical Magazine had nothing to contribute to resolve the tenacious problem. 60What it

finally required was a massive public campaign in historical awareness, the celebration of Maryland 's three hundredth

anniversary, that made the funding of a State archives politically acceptable, even sensible.

The Maryland Tercentenary marked the high point of public cognizance and interest in history in this

state. The celebration brought together amateur historians, professionals, patriotic groups, and the general populace.

Among its many activities the Maryland Tercentenary Commission erected markers and monuments, reconstructed

buildings, sponsored plays and festivals, and produced souvenirs; its most lasting and important contribution, however,

was the creation of the Hall of Records in Annapolis. 61

The Commission recommended "a central State depository, where they [the records] may be carefully

arranged and preserved," 62 fulfilling a centuries' old interest for such an institution. Commissioner Carroll T. Bond,

a Maryland Judge and legal historian, 63 lamented the loss of some private collections of Maryland documents to

the Library of Congress and the lack of facilities for the proper storage and exhibition of museum artifacts. He

suggested the name "Hall of Maryland History." Bond also was concerned that the use of this material be restricted to

"a very few" and not "handed out as printed books are handed out in a library" and that an expert in preservation be

obtained. 64Richard Duvall responded to Bond's request by informing him, despite his criticism of the institution,

that the Maryland Historical Society was striving to collect private papers and artifacts and was more than willing to

fulfill such responsibilities. Duvall also informed Bond they were simply not ready to consider such matters. 65The

legalization of the Commission later in 1929 with the mandate that it "report to the General Assembly of Maryland of

1931 any recommendations as to what provision should be made for said Tercentenary anniversary n 1933 and

1934," reopened such debates. 66By the end of 1929 the Commission had definitely accepted the idea of a public

archives as an integral segment of its plans. 67Some of the immediate questions revolved about the location of the

building. In late 1928 many favored a site directly in the State House Circle , but by the following year an offer from

St. John's College was the preeminent option and discussions generated about this until its formal and final approval at

the very end of 1932. 68

Haggling over a location for the records facility was minor and inconsequential when compared with the

debates generated by the efforts to define the scope of the public archival program. In 1930 Governor Ritchie

requested Judge Bond to head a special committee to investigate the amount and type of records and the size and

design of the building needed to accommodate them. 69Bond's scrutiny of the records, recalling all those special

commissions and their records surveys of the eighteenth century, uncovered a serious fissure among the proponents of

the public archives. He found evidence that the Maryland Historical society was "fearful" that it would lose control of

its public records and that the Commissioner of the Land Office was also jealous of its collections under his

jurisdiction. 70It soon became obvious that the Land Commissioner was the greatest obstacle. In 1928 the

Commission noted that the "provision made for keeping [the records] in the Land Office at Annapolis is entirely

inadequate, either for the preservation of the records, or for their convenient handling by the increasing number of

persons wishing to study them." 71The vidence is certainly supportive of Morris Radoff's position that the Land

Office and the historical society were sources of friction in the formation of a state government archives. Over the next

years this conviction was compromised. In mid-1930 Duvall confided that "it has never been in my contemplation that

these records would be taken out of the nominal custody of the Commissioner of the Land Office, but that if the Hall is

erected, and the records removed there, they will be under the care of a deputy.”" 72Contributing to the dilemma

was Ritchie's concern for the gubernatorial election at the end of 1930 and his fear of pushing an unpopular project.

Daniel R. Randall, cognizant of such fears, could only note his exasperation with the whole affair and his private

announcement that if it failed he would "seek seclusion in the lowest depths of the ship of State and wave my greetings

to the Tercentenary Commission from the most nethersome porthole!" 73

After the 1930 re-election of Ritchie, matters relating to a public archives seemed to gain momentum. In

February 1931 Judge Bond presented his report, proposing the storage of five thousand bound volumes and unbound

materials in a building with two floors and a basement each 60 by 60 feet and 15 feet high; the total cost was

approximated to be a quarter of a million dollars. Shortly thereafter the Legislature approved $200,000 for the location

and construction of such a building, to be supervised by the Board of Public Works. 74Immediately after (and even

during its consideration) the passage of this legislation, criticism was loudly raised concerning its contents. Judge Bond

wanted "provisions" for an able "custodian or curator" and restrictions regarding the usage of the records in order to

place an archival program on firm footing. 75Judge Bond was cautioned by Mr. Duvall that to opt at the present for

an excessive number of regulations would only threaten the entire scheme. 76Internally the Commission continued to

discuss such aspects of the archives as its architectural style and restoration and storage techniques. 77By the

middle of 1931, however, the direct supervision of the building's construction was taken over by the Board of Public

Works and the tasks of the Tercentenary Commission relegated more to the planning of the celebrations. 78Duvall's

argument that the "Commission, composed of a body of impartial citizens having no other desire than to see a worthy

consummation of the whole matter, would be better able [to secure] competent and desirable architects . . ." fell on

deaf ears. 79

The Board of Public Works moved quickly, securing Lawrence Hall Fowler as the architect, acquiring a

site on St. John's campus, constructing the building, and formally opening the Hall of Records for operations in early

1935. 80Just prior to its formal opening, the Hall of Records Commission was established to govern the operation

of the archival program. The law also provided for the position of Archivists; outlined its responsibility as the collecting,

preservation, and cataloguing of "old court records, official documents, records, reports, old newspapers, church

records, private papers and other historical data . . . in order to encourage historical investigation and research in the

history of the state:" and enabled the turnover of records by "every State, county, city, town or other public officials in

the state . . . in his discretion" to the Hall of Records. 81

The Maryland Hall of Records tread upon unknown ground when it opened its doors for service in

1935. Most of its problems consisted of the agency's implementing its mandate to collect records, creating hostility in

every direction, especially from the Maryland Historical Society and the Land Office, both of which held large amounts

of archival materials. 82But the Hall of Records made quick and steady progress. At first it worked alongside of the

Historical Records Survey of 1936-1942, capitalizing on its findings and the expertise of its staff, most notably that of

Morris L. Radoff who transferred from the project in 1939 to become State Archivist after the death of the first State

Archivist. 83Most of its earliest collection came from the Maryland Historical Society, which transported large

batches of historical records in 1936, 1938-40, 1945, 1947, and 1953. 84 Other early accessions included the

records of the Maryland Court of Appeals and the land records of Baltimore and Anne Arundel counties. 85The

process was similar to what occurred with the establishment of every other state government archives before and after,

as well as with the National Archives, a process going on at the same time.

The early history of the Hall of Records is largely the biography of Morris L. Radoff who served as its

head for thirty-five years until 1974. Radoff steered the archives to a number of innovations and was honored for his

work being elected as President of the Society of American Archivists in 1955 and accepting the bestowal of the

Distinguished Service Award by the SAA for the Hall of Records in 1965. As one critic points out, the record of

Radoff's career runs in "three concurrent stories,"--gathering the records, designing finding aids, and developing a

practical archival "philosophy." 86A few examples of this remarkable career will suffice.

The Hall of Records staff initially received opposition from many quarters; Radoff, in most cases, was

able to resolve or circumvent these difficulties. The State Archivist squarely faced the legal problems of a peculiar

Maryland statute that defined all land and county records as non-current. Starting in the early 1940s a program of

microfilming these records was initiated. Radoff also energetically lobbied and received in 1945 an act that required all

such original records prior to 1788 to be transferred to the archives. 87He also continued his efforts at records

management, culminating in a vast program (expansive for the time, an era when records management was just

beginning to spread throughout government and business) established in 1953. 88Dr. Radoff also succeeded in

acquiring gubernatorial records and set a precedent, although there still exists no official compulsory policy, 89 and

also brought about the merging, in 1966, of the Land Office and state archives. 90

If any criticism can be made regarding Dr. Radoff's tenure it is in relation to his published finding aids.

Radoff, whose treatise on calendaring is considered definitive, believed in this elaborate and time-consuming method

since it aided historical research; in his opinion one of the reasons for the demise of the method was "the increasing

interest shown by archivists in the use of materials in their custody for administrative rather than for historical

purposes." 91Today, of course, we have witnessed a substantial shift to encompass administrative and other non-

historical approaches to the use of archival documentation. 92Although he supervised the production of a number of

noteworthy calendars, 93 they represented only a small proportion of the overall volume of records on hand at the

archives. The entries were often subjective, required far too much staff-time, and were only ideally suited to the older

records. Clearly, many of these kinds of problems were the result of such work being carried out long before the days

of archival descriptive standards, and the modern Maryland State Archives now cheerfully uses many of these

standards in providing access to its holdings. 94

The Development of the Baltimore City Archives, 1797-1927. The fiery destruction of the

Baltimore City Courthouse in 1835 forced the City's officials to grapple seriously with the care of its historical and

administrative records for the first time. The completion of a separate record office in 1839 was a major, but

incomplete, accomplishment, providing for the care of only select records and mistakenly viewed as the ultimate

answer to archival administration. The awakening of interest in the city's past, commencing in the 1870s, brought these

inadequacies under closer scrutiny. The creation of the City Library in 1874 and its gradual evolution to a full-fledged

archival program by the late 1920s, largely due to the superb work of Wilbur F. Coyle between 1903 and 1920, was

the awakening's most important result. Along with the establishment of the Maryland Historical Society and Maryland

Hall of Records, the creation of a Baltimore City Archives was another major landmark in the development of the

state's archival legacy. This municipal records program was a pioneer local government records program, although it

never fully matured to meet its potential.

In 1752 Baltimore was a town of modest, but growing, importance. John Moale, Jr., an early resident,

sketched a view of a single hotel and church, two taverns , a barbershop, a theater, a tobacco warehouse, financial

firm, brewery, and private dwellings for some two hundred residents. 95Slightly over a decade later, the town was a

bustling seaport and by the end of the eighteenth century the principal city of the state. 96The growth of this city was

nothing less than phenomenal and its economic expansion inevitably wrought a transformation of its political

significance. In the late 1760s the town became the seat of Baltimore County and within a few years a courthouse was

constructed. 97The most important change came a generation later, in 1797, when Baltimore was incorporated.

Although Baltimore developed after the enactment of the colony's most pervasive records legislation, the

city's early recordkeeping was far from sophisticated. Until the 1830s efforts to preserve it's own records were paltry.

In 1791 the clerk of the city's Commissioners was directed to "procure a Mahogany Chest to contain the records and

the Platts of the Town with two keys to the lock ." 98Similar acts came in the early decades of the nineteenth

century. In 1817 a "fire proof Closet" for selected records was constructed in the Mayor's office and a decade later an

ordinance instructed the city Register and various clerks not to allow the removal of records from their offices.

99Such legislation mimicked, of course, what had gone before with the colonial and state government records,

although there is little evidence of direct influence. Such efforts seemed merely commonsensical for providing better

protection for the records. We even today see local officials also mimic these efforts by producing vaults or by seeking

off-site storage in secure commercial records center facilities. Storage of records is, of course, only one aspect of the

management of local government records.

These urban bureaucrats did not completely neglect the administrative control of their records. The

documents of the incorporation of the city revealed some concern for the records. 100In fact, the new City 's

second ordinance directed the appointment of "persons to take into possession and safe keeping the Records, Papers,

Proceedings, Monies and accounts of the corporation of the City of Baltimore ." 101Their concerns seemed

genuine when in the first decade of the nineteenth century the old courthouse was replaced because it was determined

to be "in a state of ruinous decay, and the public records therein deposited considerably endangered." 102Like their

colonial forebears, the Baltimoreans established their best records guidelines in the face of catastrophe. Just as the near

destruction of the statehouse in Annapolis prompted the initial comprehensive records legislation, the burning of the

Baltimore City Courthouse in 1835 generated the best record care of the ante-bellum period.

Although nearly all the records were saved, the City officials were duly impressed with the significance of

the conflagration and their own remissness of the past half-century. Immediately after the event they presented a direct

appeal to the Maryland legislature for the design and speedy construction of a fireproof record office. The petition read

in part:

That your memorialist being deeply impressed with the importance of the public records . . . upon which the title to their property depend, and warned by the great danger to which these records were recently exposed . . . and knowing that they will be always more or less exposed to such danger if they be kept in a large building like that of our court house, where there are so many fires continually in use; and believing that the only effectual security and safety for those records will depend upon placing them in Fire Proof Offices detached from any building, in which they could not by any possibility be subjected to hazard or casualty. 103

With the unreserved approval of the legislature, work commenced almost immediately. The Commission,

under the chairmanship of Solomon Etting, appointed to supervise the design and construction of the Courthouse and

Record Office first met on March 25, 1835 . At that meeting it was decided to canvass the opinions and expertise of

the various clerks. 104By the end of that spring Robert Cary Long, a prominent architect of the city, had been

asked to submit proposals for buildings of several sizes; in July 1835 he was officially appointed architect of the

project. 105

Under Long's direction the work moved rapidly at first. In October the Commission considered three

alternative plans, ranging in cost from forty thousand dollars to nearly forty-eight thousand dollars, 106but by the

end of 1835, many questions had been raised concerning the suitability of Long's work. Several carpenters examined

the projected arched ceiling of the second floor and stated emphatically "that the extent of the arching required . . . will

render the building unsafe, and likely to fall." 107After considerable remedying of such defects, a plan was

approved and in April 1836 the Commission decided to "prosecute the building with vigour." 108The laying of the

cornerstone on June 29, 1836 reflected the progress being made. 109

The Baltimore City and County Record Office was finally completed in August 1839. 110The

building, done in the “Egyptian Style” according to the Commissioners, 111 was a large, graceful three-storied

building of 54 by 68 feet situated next to the new courthouse on St. Paul and Lexington Streets. The main provision of

the Record Office was for those records of the Orphans and Baltimore County Courts, with large vaults and cases and

other storage space. 112Only a few months later, however, architect Long was cautioning the Commission about

the future inadequacies of the structure (reflecting an honored tradition of society building records facilities deemed

quickly to be short of storage space). Long also prophesied that "in view of future papers and taking into consideration

the rapid increase and multiplication of records, attendant on a corresponding increase in the growth of a city, there

can be no doubt than in less than fifty years hence," the current record office would be heavily burdened.

113Records professionals for generations before and since then have experienced similar challenges that new

storage facilities are quickly filled.

The City's investment of nearly seventy-five thousand dollars 114 for the building reflected a concern for the

preservation of the records they were creating. Until after the Civil War, however, its construction represented the

main manifestation of concern. In the 1840s the extent of new records legislation involved the recopying of some worn

volumes, the sale of "all the waste and useless papers about the City Hall," and the hiring of watchmen to safeguard the

Record Office. 115The problem of the limited record care was ably expressed by John B. Seiden-Stricker,

President of the Second Branch of the City Council, in 1853. Mr. Seiden-Stricker labeled the City Hall a "Miserable

shanty" and further noted that the "accumulation of documents, now largely increased every year, are altogether unsafe,

for so poorly constructed are the walls of the building that they offer but a trifling means of protection against fire."

116Fire seemed always to be the main concern when it came to records, along with general neglect in storage and

organization. Given the better records facilities of the modern era, a concern with natural calamities like fire has

diminished (replaced by a stronger consciousness of disaster preparedness and issues about electronic recordkeeping).

There were, of course, many other concerns expressed regarding recordkeeping, such as the

xenophobia reflected in the state law passed in early 1833 that commenced the systematic compilation of Baltimore

passenger ship lists in 1833. The legislation was directed at the large number of foreign paupers supposedly being sent

by foreign almshouses and governments. By the provisions of this act a vessel's captain had a day to provide the name,

age, and occupation of every foreigner or face a twenty dollar fine for every omission and forty-eight hours to pay

$1.50 for each German or Irish immigrant over five years old or be levied a one hundred dollar fine for every omission.

There was no question that the law was intended to curtail the rate of immigration, with the act containing the statement

that the dispatch of foreign paupers was "evil" and that this "should be remedied or alleviated as far as practicable."

117It was public knowledge that this law was the culmination of several years of efforts to restrict immigration

altogether.

The concern in Baltimore over immigration dated at least as far back as 1827. In that year the annual

report of Baltimore's Health Officer, who since 1797 had the authority to inspect all vessels for evidence of disease,

118 noted an increase in the number of foreign poor: "I have been grieved to see so many persons amongst the

number brought here as passengers, so destitute of the means of support, as well as a number laboring under

disabilities both corporal as well as mental ." The Health Officer continued, "to the introduction of such without

restraint we may safely attribute in some measure the overwhelming state of our Alms House and the multiplied calls

on our charities." 119A week after receiving this report, the Mayor suggested that ship captains should be fined for

"landing paupers, idiots, and person otherwise unable to gain a support by their own exertions." 120This remained

the theme for the next several years concerning immigration with rumors of entire foreign almshouse houses being sent

to Baltimore and the efforts of the trustees of Baltimore's almshouse to end immigration because of the cost of

supporting the new settlers; the problem was serious enough that the Health Officer devoted his entire report of 1830

to the question of the foreigners complaining of the possibility of introduction of serious diseases and of many cases of

"unruly conduct." 121

An extremely caustic report by the Health Officer issued on the last day of 1832 seems to have been the

immediate catalyst for the 1833 legislation. In this report he described, in anything but a calm manner, the immigrants

as a "depraved population" being " poured in upon us." The Health Officer recommended that masters bringing in

passengers should have to report every one "who may have been convicted of any misdemeanor or crime" and that

they be returned to the port of embarkation. His report also discussed cholera being brought in, helping to renew

serious attention on the passengers. 122

Several weeks later the City Council received a report from the Joint Committee on the Almshouse and

read of statistics of immigration quadrupling in five years and of a tremendous new burden on the Baltimore public

charity. In jingoistic terms the Committee complained of an increase in the poor rates, a "swarm of foreign beggars ...

who infest our streets," "the very refuse population of foreign cities," and of those "who in consequence of their

infirmities or vices are unable or unwilling to contribute to their own maintenance." 123Several days later the Mayor

was requested to write to the Mayors of New York and Philadelphia to propose jointly approaching Congress for

restrictive laws; this approach was taken since it was believed that the municipal government had no authority to levy a

tax upon foreign immigrants. 124Eventually the state provided the desired mechanism with the 1833 law.

The rationale for the new law was the fear of disease, a financial strain on the public charity, and the

forced immigration of paupers unable or willing to support themselves. All of these explanations were largely pretenses

covering anti-immigrant sentiments and expressing the fear of a society in great flux. Contagious diseases had always

been a factor in local policies since the late eighteenth century, but the last serous epidemic had been many years ago;

there was no major health problem directly attributed to the increased immigration nearly all through the first half of the

nineteenth century and certainly not before 1833. 125The matter of foreign countries sending entire poor houses to

the United States was never substantiated even in the years when it was most frequently discussed. The effect on the

almshouse, however, is somewhat more complex and seems to have had some validity.

The Baltimore almshouse dates back to 1773 and was founded for the public maintenance of the poor,

ill, elder, physical handicapped, and the mentally deficient or insane. 126Although extant annual reports of the

almshouse are sparse, there was nearly a full run of statistics from late 1822 through early 1828 showing approximate

geographical origin of the inmates, although only in one case listing specific country of origin. In those years inmates

from outside Baltimore City and County and including other Marylanders and foreigners never exceeded more than

two percent although they exhibited a slow but steady increase from 6.8 percent in the earliest year. 127As late as

1828 foreigners were not enough of a problem to be more carefully numerated although the trustees of the institution

would still mark that pauperism has increased in the past year partly due to the "number of strangers which the public

works in our neighborhood have invited among us.” 128In later years the percentage of foreigners increased to an

average of half the inmates, 129 but during the late 1820s when the protests started the concerns seem greatly

exaggerated.

Far more important than the practical concerns of caring for these immigrants and the cost of providing

such care was the fact that the 1830s were a period of great change for Baltimore and its citizens. Over the past half-

century Baltimore had steadily grown from a small town to a thriving metropolis; starting with the 1830s the

transformation became even more dramatic. Two historians have characterized the situation. According to Jean Baker,

between 1830 and 1850 the city grew from "a manageable community ... to a vast impersonal urban center .…" Gary

Browne states that the 1830s brought an “accelerating pace of foreign immigration, industrialization, institutionalization,

and other forces of modernization that imposed a new, more utilitarian value system upon society, under physical

appearance of the city." 130One of the prevalent aspects of the change to contemporaries was foreign immigration.

From 1790 to 1820 about a quarter-of-a-million immigrants arrived in the United states, a slowed pace that

contributed to the establishment and growth of American nationalism, a nationalism later transformed to anti-immigrant

nativism with a vast increase of Europeans; from 1820 to the end of the 1850s nearly five million immigrants arrived,

with three million in the decade of 1845-1854. Across the United states, but especially in the Eastern seaboard ports,

fears of the foreigners because of their Catholicism, the potential of cheap labor, and the possibilities of rapid increases

in poverty and crime led to the creation of restrictive laws like Maryland's of 1833 and led by Massachusetts and New

York in the 1820s 131

It became apparent very quickly, however, that the new tax was not going to restrict immigration. The

number of foreigners arriving at Baltimore continued to grow until the disruption of the Civil War and resumed growth

immediately after 1865; by the 1850s, even by the approximate statistics maintained by the municipal government,

immigration was five times greater than it had been in the late 1820s, the years of intense debate leading to the

restrictive legislation. 132That things were not working well is clearly portrayed in the official municipal reports after

1833. In the end of that year the Health Officer was concerned because the $1.50 tax was less than that charged in

Philadelphia , New York , and Boston and that the law would, therefore, actually attract more immigrants to the city.

133Reports of the foreigners being "of the very lowest class of the population of Europe," 134 with shiploads of

convicts and paupers 135 and of "Emigrants of bad character," 136 finally led to the suggestion by the Mayor in

early 1838 that foreigners be sent back to Europe. 137In the same year, demonstrating that Baltimore was not

involved in anything unusual, Congress conducted its first investigation on immigration and considered briefly restricting

vagrants and paupers. 138

From the late 1830s, until the height of the Know-Nothing movement in the late 1850s, 139 concern

over the legislation seemed to accentuate the positive - helping ill and unemployed immigrants cope with their new

environment. In 1834 the German Society petitioned the City Council requesting that a portion the immigrant tax be

given to it to assist newly arrived Germans. One of the City Council committees favorably considered the petition since

the $1.50 could not be considered revenue but rather "as a police regulation to restrain the importation of foreign

paupers and to prevent them as far as possible from becoming a burden upon the City." The City Council referred the

matter to the State Legislature believing it had no authority to revise the state law and the result was a supplement,

passed March 12, 1834, authorizing the Major and City Council to give two-fifths of all income received from the

passengers to the German and Hibernian Societies for the assistance to German and Irish immigrants who composed

the vast majority of the foreigners. 140Although it is not possible to evaluate the direct impact these funds had upon

the immigrant communities, the law provided ample funds to both Societies, totaling nearly one hundred and fifty

thousand dollars. 141

More important than the aid afforded to the German and Hibernian Societies was that directed to the

Trustees for the Poor of Baltimore City and County after 1842. In that year a state law was enacted placing the

remainder of funds arising from the immigrants' tax at the disposal of the trustees "for the purpose of supporting the

foreign paupers." 142What led to this development is not certain except that the pressure upon the almshouse

created by the foreigners had been in the fore of the debates for nearly two decades. In early 1842 a committee of the

City Council examined the health care of the immigrants and while finding the legislation sufficient concluded that "no

provision has been made to shelter or protect such unfortunate beings as may arrive here in a State of disease and for

whose comfort and relief it is essential they should be immediately removed from the poisoned hold of the vessel."

143Such discussions may have prompted the funds to be directed to the Almshouse for immigrant health care along

with the construction of a hospital on the south side of the Patapsco River. 144Between 1842 and 1875 $208,970

was given to the trustees, a figure representing a substantial portion of their overall budget. 145

With the exception of the Supreme Court ruling that head taxes on immigrants were unconstitutional in

1849 and the state passing a law to avoid this ruling, 146 the Supreme Court ruled that any system of charging

foreign immigrants was a regulation of foreign commerce and therefore unconstitutional, leading to the first federal

legislation restricting immigration and marking the end of the free period of immigration and its regulation by the states.

147

One as yet unanswered question remains regarding Baltimore 's passenger ship records. The records

extant at the Baltimore City Archives cover only the period 1833-1866, although the manuscript summary volume

continues until 1875 with indication of payment to the ethnic societies and the almshouse and no federal regulation

restricting the municipal maintenance of these lists until that year. From January 1, 1820 every collector of customs was

required to maintain lists and the microfilm version of passenger lists for 1820-1891 produced by the National archives

shows that after 1866 extant lists came from the Customs Office no the municipal government. 148Either these lists

were inadvertently destroyed, which seems unlikely to have happened without some notice, or the City continued to

charge the head taxes based upon the Customs records. The only state or local legislation regarding immigration in this

period is a state law appointing a Commissioner of Immigration or "inviting capital and labor into" the state "by means

of immigration" and making it illegal for any agency, owner, or solicitor to visit vessels before inspection by the

Commissioner. 149It is possible that this may have led to the end of the City-created lists, which were superfluous

with the Federal government maintaining the same record. 150

Apart from particular controversies, such as those affecting the passenger lists, the problem with early

municipal recordkeeping was, as stated in the 1835 petition for the Record Office, a restriction of the concept of

record care to merely "security and safety." There was no thought of the needs for systematic collection, cataloguing,

publication, or real awareness of the historical significance of the documents. The careful maintenance of the passenger

ship records only developed because of the hysteria tending to surround the arrival of undesirable foreigners in the city.

Interest in more systematic and broader recordkeeping would come, however, in the gradual evolution of the

Baltimore City Library, created in 1874, to an urban archival program by the late 1920s. The impetus for this was an

awakening of interest in the city's history, comparable to the awakening in Maryland history a half-century earlier.

The Awakening of Urban History in Maryland , 1871-1929 . Modern historians have consistently

dated the beginning of American urban history with the 1930s and, most notably, the work of Arthur M. Schlesinger,

Sr. 151This viewpoint has persisted despite the hundreds of city histories composed and published before then.

152The foundation of this perspective is a solid argument, in that these earlier works often lacked a quality of any

kind; Richard Wade simply stated that they were "marred by excessive description, inadequate analysis, and a fist-

family basis." 153There can be little doubt that these works signal an awakening of some degree of the validity of

the past to the present environment of the writers. The case of Baltimore demonstrates that these early writers--

whether antiquarians, boosters, or hack writers-paved the way for the later modern urbanists and that, today, they are

the evidence of shifting notions of public memory. It is quite legitimate to suggest that without them, the records and

source materials would have been either lost or widely scattered and inaccessible.

The burgeoning of interest in Maryland history in the first decades of the nineteenth century virtually

ignored Baltimore's past. From the production of the first state history in 1811 until 1871 the only historical studies

consisted of Thomas Waters Griffith's brief sketch of 1824 and a collection of letters and other documents related to

Baltimore's participation in the American Revolution. 154By the 1870s, however, a complete transformation had

occurred; in that decade a number of lengthy volumes appeared. In 1871 two Maryland journalists brought to fruition

a project of two years, Baltimore: Past and Present, which included a fine historical overview by the aged Brantz

Mayer. The preface announced that this book was completed to rectify the neglect of the city's history and to offer "to

the public the first compendious account of Baltimore, and of prominent Baltimoreans ever yet published. 155

The clearest motivation of the new interest in such works as Baltimore: Past and Present was the

widespread manifestation of urban boosterism. The histories of Kansas City published between 1850 and 1930

exhibited "a dominant tradition, drawing its force from conceptions of what the city was supposed to be and what it

was supposed to become"; 156 a similar tradition was also present in Baltimore 's histories. Griffith 's early history

had originally been conceived as a guidebook to the city; despite his failure to produce such a volume, other guides

poured from local presses from the 1830s until well into the twentieth century. 157The City was rapidly expanding

in all directions and natives were eager to highlight the greatness of its past as a beacon to its present and future

greatness in order to attract new businesses. 158George W. Howard's The Monumental City, first published in

1873, announced that this "little vessel" was intended to "bring to our port the treasures which our merchants and

business men so richly deserve." 159Over half of the book was filled with advertisements and handsome

illustrations, and its appearance in three further editions by 1883 attested to its important role in the city's development.

No one individual did more to take advantage of the new interest in urban history than John Thomas

Scharf. Scharf employed numerous local historians and antiquarians to help him compile his voluminous chronicles.

Although Scharf did much outside the realm of Maryland history, the appearance of his Chronicles of Baltimore in

1874 and History of Baltimore City and County in 1881 represented the most significant of Baltimore's nineteenth

century histories. 160The Chronicles was the first detailed history of the city and Scharf himself called it an

"encyclopedia" of facts and figures. 161It also exhibited to date the greatest utilization of source materials. He

confessed to the "ransacking" of the "house of history" for "every possible and available source" and also alluded to the

added importance of his book as insurance of the preservation of "historical materials." 162Scharf's work showed

the popularity of urban history in the last decades of the nineteenth century, as his books stayed in print and he

employed many freelance writers and researchers. In his History of Baltimore City and County he boasted of

sending out over twenty-five hundred letters to person possessing valuable historical information. 163

It was also Scharf who initiated efforts for the gigantic historical festival that Baltimore gave itself in

1880. The Baltimore Morning Herald of August 1879 carried an article by Scharf reminding citizens that the one

hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the city had just passed and lamenting the lack of any notice of it.

164Soon Daniel Coit Gilman of the Johns Hopkins University and the Maryland Historical Society became

involved, proposing a major celebration. From the outset the celebration was destined to be in the booster tradition.

Mayor Ferdinand C. Latrobe stated in his encouragement of the project, that “The wonderful progress made in the

wealth, commerce and general prosperity of the city within the past few years is an evidence of what the future has in

store for it, and the honorable record of Baltimore's history and that of her people is deserving of being told not only to

the present generation, but rescued from its hiding and pigeon holes and put in some lasting shape, to be preserved for

those who are to come after us.” 165Despite some early problems such as a lack of funds and the strange

reluctance of the Maryland Historical Society to become more than a minor participant, 166 the festival that finally

occurred in October 1880 involved every inhabitant of the city. 167The official history of the event--itself a

testimony to the awakened awareness of the city's origins--described the week of celebration in the following manner:

“Old relics of every sort were hunted out and furbished up; old letters re-read; old histories thumbed anew, and finally

the quaint spectacle was witnessed of a business community of 330,000 souls totally absorbed in the study of

decorative art.” 168

To say that Baltimore historiography was transformed by the 1880 celebration is indeed an

understatement. One need only compare the 1880 festival with the modest parade in honor of Baltimore 's centennial

in 1829 to see that something had changed. 169The sesquicentennial mood also spawned a movement toward the

production of special commemorative histories. Between 1880 and the first decade of the twentieth century, historical

treatises of Baltimore's religious groups, service professions, and ethnic communities appeared. 170These urban

citizens continued to festoon their city with reminders of their illustrious past. In the immediate decades after the

celebration, numerous monuments were erected to local heroes such as John Eager Howard, Francis Scott Key,

George Peabody, Samuel Smith, and Edgar Allen Poe, enabling Baltimore to live up to its earlier designation as the

"Monumental City." 171Typical of the city's concerns was its adorning of the new courthouse between 1902 and

1920 with murals commemorating the settling of Maryland, the burning of the Peggy Steward , the 1649 act of

religious toleration, Washington resigning his commission in Annapolis in 1783, and the surrender of Cornwall is at

Yorktown; also along these lines was the city's long battle to preserve Fort McHenry as a national monument.

172The city even had the energy to stage equally extravagant celebrations in 1914 in honor of the centennial of the

Star-Spangled Banner and in 1929 for its bicentennial. 173

The way in which Baltimoreans viewed their past was bound to weaken or discourage its scholarly

excavation. After Scharf's twin studies of 1874 and 1881 numerous city biographies appeared, but none that matched

the caliber of these. The title of one 1928 opus-- Baltimore: A Not Too Serious History -- and the author's

confession that her "chief aid and support" was John Thomas Scharf who "has written the best and biggest book on

Baltimore ...." 174 summarizes most succinctly the scholarly contributions of the previous half-century. The result

was the awakening of the sensitivity of Baltimore 's inhabitants to its past. Baltimore was and is to this day the cultural

capital of the state. One inhabitant wrote in 1893 that " Baltimore . ... is a city of schools, libraries, lecture courses,

university advantages, and all that can conspire to the cultivation of intellect. 175It was only a matter of time before

this fascination with the past in this milieu was translated to something far more substantial. One example was the

establishment of the historical seminar at the Johns Hopkins University , which directed a number of professionally

trained historians to the records of the city. 176 More important was the establishment of the City Library, which

sponsored the first efforts to preserve, arrange, describe, and facilitate research into the city's historical archives.

The Evolution of the City Library into a City Archives, 1874-1927. Even by the 1970s few of the

major cities in the United States had established effective archival programs. Philadelphia , Atlanta , and Houston are

three that have attempted to do so and, interestingly, all are post-World War Two developments. 177Baltimore,

strangely enough in the light of the progress made in this direction over a half-century ago, is not to be included among

that select list.

The creation of the City Librarian's office in 1874 was a significant move toward records preservation.

Admittedly, the office was primarily for administrative and legislative reference, but the Librarian was also to "take

under his charge and keeping all the books and documents of every description, and the archives, records, papers and

proceedings of the corporation. . . ." 178The importance of this latter responsibility was certainly underscored by

the recent bloom of interest in the city's history, gaining the attention of even the urban bureaucrats. Mayor Joshua

Vansant, at the formal dedication of Baltimore's new "fireproof" City Hall in 1875 belabored the point with a

politician's flair: “The erection of this new and splendid structure, which we this day dedicate, and the collection and

depositing therein of the musty records of the city which had been passed from a garret to garret of the various

buildings which the corporation of Baltimore had from time to time occupied, and much of which was covered in piles

of dirt and rubbish because there was no proper depository of them, nor any one whose especial duty it was to protect

them, has enabled the excellent Librarian of the city to collect many records that are, at least, interesting as matters of

history.” 179 Despite this auspicious start and excellent new quarters, the City Librarian was overwhelmed with his

administrative tasks. He was simply overworked. It was not until 1876 that he was granted an assistant, whose main

responsibilities involved bookkeeping and not archival projects. 180Moreover, the Librarian spent much of his time

on special assignments such as an inventory of municipal property. 181For both 1876 and 1877 the Librarian

simply described the records as "a confused mass" and noted his futile efforts to cope with the situation. 182

By the late 1870s the circumstances of the City Librarian's office was ludicrous. In 1878 it was observed

that the increased indexing and arrangement of the records caused a concomitant increased usage of the records by the

"various departments of the City Government and citizens generally." 183The annual reports of subsequent years

echo the same attitude and conditions. In 1879 the usage increased even more to the point that the Librarian suggested

the levying of a fee: "If the information is valuable to a person, there can be no objection to paying a fee; and it will

furthermore prevent many who, form idle curiosity, consume time." The only thought that kept the meager staff

functioning at all was the hope that their work might cause "these valuable historic records . . . [to] be rescued from

oblivion, and in some substantial form be preserved among the archives of the city." 184Samuel S. Smith, the

Librarian in 1882 aptly depicted the daily routine of his office: “During office hours, almost all the time of myself and

assistant is taken up with the active duties pertaining to the library, filling orders for stationery, etc., searching for

papers and documents that are called for from time to time, and giving information to city officers and the general

public whenever required to do so. While not thus actively engaged, our spare time is devoted to arranging, indexing

and carefully filing away, in chronological order, all papers and documents in my charge, so that they may be quickly

and easily referred to at any time.” 185By 1889 over five thousand person annually visited the Library and the

Librarian succinctly and pointedly sated that its "growing business . . . makes it out of the question to properly arrange

and store away many valuable documents . . ." 186

Despite the seriousness of the problem, the City officials responded slowly and in a piecemeal fashion. In

1878 and 1879 small sums were allocated for repairs to certain record groups, but no funds were earmarked for the

use of the Librarian! 187Several years later Librarian Smith received more than enough money for stationery but still

not one cent for the most basic record repair--rebinding. 188Finally, he resorted to a different tactic, that of

requesting appropriations for specific repairs and purchase of valuable documents. The first such request came in 1883

when he asked for $1000 to buy a collection of maps because of their significance "in the many questions so constantly

arising concerning old boundaries, names, drainage, etc., to say nothing of the question of good taste, in preserving

these successive foot-prints of our city's march along the path of progress, civilization and wealth. It is equally true that

not a city in the country is so inadequately provided with such records as the city of Baltimore." 189The Librarian's

appeals to both the documents' political value and to civic pride were propitious, for he was able to purchase the

collection and, thereafter, had little difficulty in acquiring needed, albeit modest, funding. 190

By the 1890s the City Library had begun a major transformation, first noticeable with the beginning of

George C. Wedderburn's tenure. Wedderburn, a journalist and businessman, had had a bit of pertinent experience as

Assistant Doorkeeper and Superintendent of the Document Room of the United States House of Representatives from

1880 to 1882. 191No sooner had Wedderburn assumed this position than he opened fire at his predecessor,

especially complaining of the lack of administrative control of the records. He angrily noted that "there has never been

otherwise a catalogue, record or index of any of the . . . books and papers in the custody of this department . . ." He

began to rectify this at once and requested two additional assistants to better enable him to accomplish this task.

192Improvements quickly became noticeable in the Librarian's Office. The City approved the then huge some of

$3850 for record repair after the report of Wedderburn that "many old and valuable original historical documents . . .

are going to wreck . . ." 193During 1891 he as able to "preserve" nearly five hundred municipal maps by "mounting

them upon muslin, nearly every one of which were in a dirty and dilapidated condition, while many were in several

pieces and unfit for reference." 194

Soon Wedderburn's primary goal became the arousal of the government's conscience regarding the care

of its historical records. In 1892, in summing up the previous year's work, he requested the division of responsibility

between the more mundane administrative burdens such as printing and stationery supply and the care of the archives.

"The archives and records are public property," he bluntly declared, "and I most respectfully ask that their condition be

looked into, or else that a special committee upon the library be appointed." 195In succeeding years he further

requested the publishing of the "early records" 196 and the establishment of a fund for the purchase of books and

manuscripts of importance to the city's history. 197Probably due to Wedderburn's influence, the new City

Courthouse had the largest single allotment of space set aside for records storage. 198Wedderburn's final report of

1895 carefully summarized his efforts of the previous six years in the direction of better record care and, once again,

firmly requested that some substantial action be taken by the municipal government; it was obvious by this time that he

believed little had been accomplished. 199

Wedderburn's successor, an energetic man with an eye for detail, agreed that little had been done since

1890, or even 1874. The new Librarian was shocked to discover the absence of a catalogue, and the requisite

utilization of reading "over a number of lists or by relying on the memory." 200For the next seven years he devoted

himself to establishing such a catalogue for as many of the records as possible. 201With the exception of his desire

to see a small room set aside as a museum of "historical records, relics and documents," the wider vision of a full

archival program, such as Wedderburn had pushed for, was lost. The summation of his philosophy of the City

Library's function shows his emphasis on the purely administrative, with historical record care in a somewhat

secondary role: “The importance of the City Library is . . . greatly underestimated. It comes in contact with all the City

Departments, perhaps more than any other. It is the medium of communication for official publications between this

city and other cities of the world, and can, therefore, if properly conducted, be the means of supplying valuable

information, not only to city officials, but to the people generally. Then, too, when it is remembered that the Librarian is

the custodian of all the official papers, books and documents from the time the city was incorporated, as well as many

of the records of Old Baltimore Town, some of them dating back as far as 1729, the importance of the office will be

more fully appreciated.” 202

The role of the City Library began a dramatic transformation in 1903 when the young city journalist,

Wilbur F. Coyle, assumed the post. In his first report he announced his intentions to fight for "better preservation of the

archives, documents, etc., of the city" and proceeded to paint a vivid rendition of the Library's condition. "The `carnival

of confusion' is being added to and aggravated yearly," Coyle mused, "and the problem just how to attack the dirty

heap is becoming more vexed." 203But Coyle did not hesitate for long in just how to assail the dilemma. He began

with the purchase of filing boxes--sixty-five hundred in 1905 alone--steel cabinets, historical reference works, and the

systematic ransacking of all the offices of the government for historical treasures. 204And treasures he discovered.

In 1908, in a closet "designed as a repository of overcoats and hats," he found papers of George Washington, John

Adams, and James Madison. 205

Coyle's contribution to the evolution of the City Library was his stress on its value as an historical

repository. Coyle confessed to assuming his position with the "conviction that Baltimore knew little of itself" and the

determination to correct this. In 1909 he summed up his philosophy: “The City Library is unique. It is a historical

library of Baltimore for Baltimoreans; of Maryland for Marylanders, and it should never be anything else. This

dominating feature should not be eliminated, curtailed or subordinated in the interest of any other, but the City Librarian

should be encouraged, and the requirements of his position demand that this be his most important work.”

To this end he even installed a permanent print gallery of Baltimore scenes. "This collection is not art; it is

history. It represents the ` Baltimore of yesterday,' not the Baltimore of today; just a glimpse through the spectacles of

the past." 206Of course Coyle's aim encompassed more than history. He called the Library "a storehouse of

information concerning the City and State . . . [and added that] the City Library is not limited to matters purely

historical, but includes data on financial, commercial, industrial, social and economic conditions . . ." But, he further

reflected, the basis of his peculiar labor "necessitates a Knowledge of history [and] an appreciation of the value of

records." 207

Coyle even succeeded in bringing the archives of the city to the public. In 1916, for example, he

published an article in the Municipal Journal entitled "Preservation of Historical data and Official Records of the City

a Function of City Library," and outlined its importance to understanding the city's past. In it he congratulated himself

on his own success in providing "greater space than heretofore that is being devoted to Baltimore in school histories

and geographies" and his steady supply of facts and illustrations to publishers. 208Even more significant was his

overseeing the editing of four volumes of early city records between 1905 and 1909. Their purpose was to preserve

the records and to make them far more accessible to the increasing research demands. 209Even today these

volumes remain the only systematic effort at the publication of Baltimore's government archives.

In 1920 Wilbur F. Coyle resigned as the head of the City Library after having established it as a strong,

efficient operation; this resignation ultimately led to the creation of a separate City Archives. An article in a local

newspaper just before this retirement lavished praises on Coyle's tenure, noting his energetic style and ability to

establish standards in the office. 210Although his annual reports gave the impression that all was well, the new

Librarian, John A. Slowik, was not up to the mettle of his predecessor. 211In 1926 a controversy erupted over the

need for this office, the argument being that the position had been since its creation a "fat piece of political pie,"

normally given to political cronies. The single exception had been Coyle's excellent service of seventeen years, which

"made the office more than respectable" and gave it "a field of growing usefulness." 212As a result, the following

year the Bureau of Archives was created, relegating the City Library (which was finally abolished in 1932) to a

secondary administrative position within the Department of Legislative Reference, which had been originally organized

in 1907.

Largely due to Coyle's efforts, especially his collecting and editorial abilities, City officials perceived the

greater importance of the Librarian's archival responsibilities. The 1927 transformation pulled the purchasing and

maintenance of stationery and printing into a separate division, allowing the restoration of the Library to its "main

purpose for which it was originally established . . . to keep under the control of this department books, documents,

pictures, plats, maps . . . pertaining to Baltimore from its inception." The Bureau of Archives had as its "objective," the

preservation of the City's Records. 213An archives expert was brought in for a preliminary study to establish an

effective program 214 and Baltimore, seemingly, had entered the modern period.

The Emergence of a Modern Municipal Records Program, 1927-1983.

Despite these promising starts in the development of a municipal records program, the Baltimore City

Archives disintegrated into a morass through mishandling and lack of direction, until by the 1970s it was an archives in

name only. The process of decline was by no means even or rapid. In the late 1930s the regular staff of the archives

was assisted by as many as six workers of the Historical Records Survey of the Works Progress Administration.

215The result of this work was about twelve hundred detailed worksheets completed by 1942, when the HRS

ended. 216These worksheets, presenting the efforts of at least twenty different catalogers, clearly picture a vast,

disorganized mass of records. There were over two hundred boxes of cancelled checks for only one decade (1917-

26), indicating that these records had not been weeded or examined for historical and administrative values. Until the

1940s, then, there were few new attempts to manage the records of Baltimore 's municipal government. These early

efforts were restricted to historical records, although there never were local criteria for determination of the term

historical . The HRS surveyed records and indexed by name and subject numerous so-called historical documents but

neglected the questions of storage, provenance, inventories and administrative histories, and a general guide. For three

decades, however, the HRS efforts constituted Baltimore 's municipal archives.

An article in a local newspaper in 1947, only a few years after the HRS labors, revealed to the public a

horriblepanorama of "dirt-covered, water-soaked, tattered" records strewn about the basement and attic of city hall,

itself a structure badly needing maintenance. This article prompted replies by officials of Maryland Historical Society,

the State archives, and various citizens' groups. Interestingly, the state archives offered to care for these records in

Annapolis but never pursued the matter further. 217With the exception of the selective preservation of the records

of Annapolis -- Maryland 's first major urban center and state capital--the State archives provided few guidelines for

the care of municipal records.

The response of the municipal government was slow. At the beginning of June 1948 the mayor

established a committee consisting of the city comptroller, president of the city council, director of public works, city

solicitor, and director of legislative reference to review all records and to formulate a "plan for putting order and system

in the keeping of records. 218Under the leadership of Dr. Horace Flack, director of legislative reference, the

records committee sent out a questionnaire to all departments soliciting the recommendations for retention periods and

ascertaining what records were in existence. This committee, however, never proceeded beyond seeking useless

records for destruction, mainly cancelled checks and outdated bonds. Flack spent much of his time contesting the

notion that the cost of an independent survey was justified (one consulting firm, Records Engineering, Inc., suggested

$42,000). He believed that an ordinance of 1941 enabling the destruction of records older than five years with the

approval of the city solicitor and himself was satisfactory, that municipal officials were the most qualified to make

judgments regarding the value of records, and that a thorough weeding of the municipal records would so reduce their

volume as to provide easy storage. 219Flack, over-zealously endeavoring to save money and obviously trying to

protect his authority for the maintenance of records given him in the earlier ordinance, headed a committee that faded

gradually into inactivity and had no real results. A confusion of destruction with management was the only legacy of this

committee.

The outbreak of the Korean War nearly revived the dormant records committee with a new slant

towards microphotography. The City Treasurer wrote a letter to the Mayor in late 1950 suggesting the appointment of

a "Committee for Safeguarding City Records" in order "to determine the city records should be microfilmed or placed

in safekeeping as a matter of precaution in the event of war." 220At this time no committee was organized but funds

were shifted from civil defense for the purpose of purchasing a camera, storage equipment, supplies, and hiring staff for

the filming of essential operating records. This program was initially under the direction of Flack who continued to

block the formation of a new committee and survey efforts. 221

While the city's records were being filmed piecemeal, a plan was introduced to move tons of records

from city hall to a temporary storage area several miles away. This idea attracted the attention of several members of

the City Council who argued for a centrally located records center with a specialized staff. When the matter of funding

such a move of records came before the Board of Estimates, it reactivated a records committee. This committee was

not under Horace Flack but J. Neail McCardell, the City Comptroller, a change because of Flack's earlier failure

regarding the records survey and solution to the records problem. McCardell immediately contacted Records

Engineering, Inc. and urged that such private consultants be hired to conduct a survey. Local newspapers immediately

picked up the story and encouraged matters to continue to proceed thusly. In the meantime the microphotography unit

was shifted from legislative reference and placed under the city auditor, Horace C. Beck, Jr. Beck soon called for a

separate, permanently established micro-photography unit with full-time staff, a regular budget, and its placement under

the City Comptroller, not legislative reference, since "experience has shown that this has not been completely

satisfactory." Sentiment now dictated that an outside consultant be employed in order to gain proposals quickly for the

records work. 222

On 22 May 1953 the Board of Estimates considered the recommendation of the Committee on

Safeguarding City Records to engage Records Engineering, Inc. to do a government-wide survey at a cost of $55,000

and in four phases to ensure the municipal government's satisfaction with the firm's work. The objective of the survey

was to determine "economical and efficient methods and procedures in the management and retirement of current and

noncurrent records involved in the conduct of the business of the city." Records Engineering would identify records,

propose retention schedules, develop procedures for an ongoing records program, determine records suitable for

microfilming, and suggest a scheme for the establishment and maintenance of a records center. 223The first phase

was completed by the end of August 1953, and the pleased city officials funded the remainder of the study. 224In

March 1954, the entire survey was completed, reports issued, and the debate over its findings begun.

Overall, the efforts of Records Engineering, Inc. were a major success. Not only did the firm survey the

records of twenty-nine agencies holding about forty thousand linear feet of records, but its prime recommendation for

the establishment of the position of records management officer and the Records Disposal Committee was adopted

with few modifications. However, several aspects of the survey were extremely poor and continued to plague the

creation of an effective program for the municipal government's historical records. It was quite obvious from the tone

of the reports and the actual recommendations of retention schedules that the consulting firm was emphasizing the

notion of an effective management program as that which would destroy as many records as quickly as possible. Over

eighty percent of nearly six hundred recommended schedules called for the retention of records for five years or less;

only thirty-four schedules, or less than six percent, called for permanent retention and only two of these because of

historical significance 225Records Engineering, Inc. made no specific proposals for an archival program except that

the Records Management Office would be under the City Comptroller, and historical records, only vaguely defined,

would continue to be sent to the Department of Legislative Reference which had already been declared as being not

appropriate for their preservation. The reduction for records and the proportionate reduction of records storage cost

were reiterated and was the theme of the reports. Furthermore, Records Engineering, Inc. seemed little aware of or

interested in the records identified by the HRS.

Events between the end of the survey in March and the passage of the ordinance in June establishing the

Records Management Division somewhat modified the neglect of historical records. The recommendation that the

records management agency be placed under the City Comptroller was not heeded; instead, the function was placed

under the Department of Legislative Reference, giving a single agency responsibility for both the current and historical

documents. This development was predictable with the retirement of Flack a year before and the cooperation and

leadership to his successor, Dr. Carl Everstine, since early 1953. 226More important was the intervention of Wilbur

H. Hunter, Jr., director of the municipal museum, who proposed first to his own trustees and then, with their approval,

the city council an amendment to the pending legislation that historical records could be loaned to the museum and the

director of the museum would be a member of a records disposal committee. Hunter, since his involvement with the

museum, had seen it as an official repository for such records and urged that it, not legislative reference, be the "proper

permanent depository for those historical records which have no further immediate connection with the official activities

of the various city department." With the exception of this last item, the legislation incorporated Hunter's suggestions.

227

It is clear from examining the 1954 ordinance that the possibility of beginning a comprehensive records

program was within grasp. Providing explicit details on the nature of records and their creation, maintenance, and

disposition and having a procedure (albeit, a weak one) for the care of historical records, the success of such a

records program was dependent upon proper financial support by the municipal government and the hiring of an

individual capable in current records management and sensitive to the potential historical importance of all records. It

was in both of these areas that the municipal government failed, and the fledgling records program floundered.

Getting the records management operation started in 1954-55 was difficult for Everstine, who frequently

appeared before the Board Estimates pleading for new funds or the transfer of funds to purchase office and records

storage equipment. 228These first years also witnessed bitter battles over obtaining secretarial help and

microphotographers. 229By the end of 1956, however, because of the improvements in the physical appearance of

the stored records, funds were being obtained regularly for records storage and the size of the staff was starting a

gradual growth. 230The establishment in 1958-60 of a separate microfilming program for vital records by the new

records management officer, C. Frank Poole--similar to what had been tried a decade earlier--was made possible

with a relatively easy acquisition of funds above the normal budget. 231

Despite the early growth of staff and annual reports boasting of successes in gaining control of records,

especially through microphotography, the Records Management Office was rapidly losing ground in its purported

duties. Even in the area reflecting the largest proportion of staff, microphotography, 232 the demands on this service

outstripped its capabilities. By 1962 the records management officer was complaining of not being able to keep up

with the necessary microphotography and that municipal agencies were establishing their own microfilming units without

any supervision resulting in duplication and the destruction of records without proper authorization. 233This

problem was never brought under control and, as a result, is a problem still plaguing this division.

Even more illustrative of the City's lack of concern for an effective program were the repeated failures to

obtain a proper facility for a records center. In its early years records were scattered about rooms in city hall and in

portions of other buildings sharing space with other agencies; this arrangement not only caused great difficulty with the

management of the records but created animosities with the other departments because of the competition for space.

234There were at least five attempts between 1958 and 1971 to persuade the city to provide better facilities for its

records and to eliminate a serious restriction to successful completion of its responsibilities. 235The earliest success

was in 1965 when the Department of Legislative Reference endeavored to have a records center incorporated in to

the proposed plans for the Inner Harbor redevelopment. Mayor Theodore R. McKeldin even supported the concept

of a center with fifty thousand square feet of space for administrative offices, a reference library, microphotography,

and records storage with temperature and humidity controls. This plan, like the others, never proceeded beyond

preliminary planning stages. 236After this failure no serious efforts were made again.

Perhaps even more crucial for the development of a municipal records program than city staff and

financial support were the interests and qualifications of the person selected to fill the position of records management

officer. C. Frank Poole held this position from 1955 until his retirement in 1977 and brought no experience regarding

historical records and only a limited vision of a total records program. This, of course, was the fault of the City and

reflected it's emphasis on the destruction of records. 237Still, at least initially, Poole endeavored to do something

about the historical records. In 1956-57 he worked out a plan for the sampling of a massive set of tax records

extending back to the eighteenth century seeking the advice of Hunter; the staff of the Maryland Historical Society; and

Morris Radoff, the State archivist. Although Radoff urged that all the records be maintained, the sampling procedure

was put into motion; the years have proved Radoff to be correct with much historical information lost forever.

238Several years later Poole also investigated the lamination process of records preservation and had several

hundred documents preserved in this manner. 239

Such efforts were few and often produced more harm than good. More indicative of the true state of

affairs was Poole's effort in 1961 to destroy completely the files of the Mayor's office going back to the beginning of

the City government in 1797 because these were only a "curiosity," infrequently consulted, and would be too costly to

maintain. Only with the intervention of Hunter and the offended sensibilities of the incumbent Mayor was this stopped.

Modest funding from surplus funds within the agency were used for the hiring of two graduate students from The Johns

Hopkins University for a weeding and sorting project under the direction of Hunter. 240

Without question the additional hiring of a trained archivist in the early years of the records management

program would have planted the seeds of an effective program for the municipal government's historical records. Frank

Poole readily admitted that and summarized the problem in a letter of 1968 to his supervisor asking for an investigation

of the maintenance of the historical records: “Notwithstanding the limited assistance given to me in the area of historical

records, there is no planned program for enhancing the use of such records. Researchers attempting to make use of

them become discouraged very quickly because of the condition of the records and poor accessibility to them.

Although Records Management has a special interest in the historical value of all records, our primary function during

the last thirteen years has been in the area of microfilming, storage of records having a relatively short retention period,

the retrieval of information and the disposition of records not classified as historical. Moreover Records Management

does not have the personnel qualified to properly evaluate records of historical value.” 241But the problem was

more complex. The chief City official interested in the historical records continued to be Wilbur Hunter, director of the

Peale Museum . Hunter was not an archivist, had little knowledge of the fundamentals of such work, and often made

mistakes in the selection of what documents should be retained for historical value. Beyond Hunter, Poole relied on the

opinions of heads of municipal agencies regarding the value of their records, often creating inconsistent and ridiculous

schedules. This continued to be the situation until the mid-1970s.

The retirement of the records management officer in late 1977 provided an opportunity to change three

decades of the municipal government's neglect of its permanent records. It must be stressed, however, that such an

opportunity was available only because the public's awareness of the city's past had been heightened within recent

years. From the late 1940s until the late 1960s, when the municipal records of historical significance continue to

deteriorate and were being lost and abused, there was little interest in these materials. The Baltimore Sun articles had

aroused interest briefly, but in the absence of a strong, dedicated group of individuals concerned within the unearthing

of Baltimore 's history, the momentum soon dissipated. Wilbur Hunter's concerns and efforts, despite his mistakes,

were usually solitary endeavors. By the early 1970s, however, it was obvious that a flourish of research was underway

on Baltimore 's past through new efforts in historical preservation, published histories, historical conferences, the work

of archivists and librarians, and the popularity of genealogy and commemorative festivals. 242

The events that led up to the appointment in early 1978 of the city's first professional archivist stem

directly from this renaissance. Baltimore's municipal government has had, of course, a significant role in the history of

the city--a role that had been almost completely neglected until the late 1960s and the new historical investigations; an

1899 monograph from The Johns Hopkins Press remained the main historical study on the municipal government until

a political study of 1968. In the past decade increasing interest has been focused upon the municipal government and

the value of its records for research. 243Recognizing this fact, a newly established Baltimore archival repository, the

Baltimore Region Institutional Studies Center (BRISC), endeavored to assist the municipal government in establishing a

viable archives program. Dr. Theodore Durr, director and founder of BRISC, had first become interested in the

records of the city's planning department because of their affinity with collections already at his repository. In 1973 he

made an agreement with that department to catalog their records with an ARCHON automated retrieval system,

providing the form of access that planning department staff believed necessary to continue its work. 244In this

endeavor the records management officer cooperated fully and even discussed the prospects of other historical

records being sent to BRISC. 245Spurred on by the removal of the administrative offices and their records from

city hall in 1975 for its renovation and the recovery by a local junk dealer of some miscellaneous nineteenth century

bills and receipts inadvertently tossed out, staff of BRISC and other institutions formed the Baltimore Congress for

Local Records and History and formulated a large grant to the National Historical formulated a large grant to the

National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) for the full development of a municipal archives

program. Submitted in early 1977 the grant was rejected primarily because of the lack of a professional archivist on

the municipal payroll. 246However, the junk dealer's activities embarrassed a government sensitive to portraying a

positive image continually, and the background efforts by outsiders to preserve its records led to a search for a

professional archivist for the post of records management officer vacated in the fall of 1977.

Having been the curator of manuscripts at the Maryland Historical Society for five years, the author was

aware that the municipal records were not being properly cared for and researchers not encouraged to use them; he

was not, however, prepared for what he discovered in mid-January 1978. 247Arriving at the late nineteenth century

warehouse partially utilized as a records center, he found confused, mistreated historical records, a lack of finding aids

to any of the records with the exception of the HRS index, a staff totally unequipped and insensitive to historical

records to the degree that ordinary mending tape was being used for repairs, and evidence everywhere indicating that

these records had been neglected for an extremely long time. Examination of the management of the current records

revealed a program that had not advanced much beyond that established in the mid-1950s, but which was, at least,

functioning and which still provided potential for improvement.

After discussions with the acting director of Legislative Reference, the budget analyst, and other

municipal officials, it was readily apparent that the City's new commitment to an archival program went little beyond

the employment of the archivist. Genealogists and librarians wrote to the Mayor asking that more financial support be

given to the records program, but the Mayor's response was that the City had hired a professional archivist. This

response was not surprising. There had been virtually no communication for years from or about the records program.

Many municipal agencies did not even realize that this division existed and proceeded to attempt to solve their records

problems completely on their own. To suddenly appear before the Mayor and the Board of Estimates and request

thousands of dollars for a program they had no cognizance of and in a time of severe fiscal restraint would not only

bring a negative response but could damage future requests for assistance.

The direction taken was to bring attention to the importance of the records program. The first endeavor

was to apply for a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) as seed money

for revitalizing the archives program. The records agency had never received a grant from the municipal government

before, and the contacts already made with the NHPRC through BRISC and the efforts of just a year before made this

a logical road to follow. Receiving an NHPRC grant would bring attention to the historical records and show municipal

officials that such records were important enough to receive funding from an outside agency. A grant was made in

1978 for the arrangement and description of the mayoral and city council records, the largest record group in the

records center and also the most important for the administrative history of the municipal government (with the

delicious irony that less than two decades ago they had been threatened with destruction). Upon the completion of the

project another grant for a records survey of municipal agencies was obtained. Both grants were beneficial in

subsequent budget requests and, more importantly, smoothed the way for the creation of two new assistant archivist

positions.

Developing these new positions was one of the other areas initially emphasized. In a staff of eight there

was only one professional archivist, the others having only limited involvement with records management and

microphotography and none having the proper educational background or experience that would enable retraining.

One person could not arrange and describe all of these records and also spend time on administrative matters

necessary to enhance the program. Student interns were acquired almost immediately through contacts made at the

historical society, but here it was obvious also that few could be utilized effectively if dependent upon one individual's

attention. With the vacating of a microphotographer's position and the momentum gained by the NHPRC grant, a new

position was created and filled in late 1979. The combination of this permanent position, the grant position, and the

capability of hosting a greater number of student interns enabled the cataloging of numerous records--over fifty record

groups encompassing more than four thousand cubic feet. Another part-time position for continued surveying of

records became permanent in 1982.

The NHPRC grant also helped the partial revision of the original 1954 ordinance to strengthen the

archives aspect of the total records program. By this 1978 amendment the title of Records Management Officer was

changed to City Archivist and Records Management Officer; the agency likewise to the City Archives and Records

Management Office, and the Records Disposal Committee to just the Records Committee (stressing the new emphasis

on comprehensive records management). It was with the Records Committee that another avenue of work also

appeared. This committee had been established in 1954 to oversee the approval of records schedules and the program

in general but had not met since 1955. Consisting of the Auditor, Solicitor, Comptroller, Treasurer, Director of Public

Works, Director of the Municipal Museum, and Director of Legislative Reference, the potential for acquiring

assistance and influencing municipal policy seemed limitless. Four of the seven were appointed by the Mayor and

constituted a majority of the Board of Estimates. Showing them the condition of the records and communicating with

them on a much more frequent basis gained their assistance in the seeking of grants, the revision of the ordinance, and

in slight increases to the budget when the majority of agencies were facing cuts or being forced to maintain the same

level of spending.

Building a new constituency for the use of the historical records became a critical issue. In early 1978

these records were virtually unused, mainly because of the general lack of finding aids. Almost from the start lectures to

genealogical groups, historians, and area undergraduate and graduate classes were prepared along with articles and

other publications about the records in the Baltimore City Archives. 248For a while the archives developed a solid

image with Baltimore residents and others providing good material for arguing for the maintenance of the records. In

1978 there were only slightly over eight historical researchers a month; in 1979 this increased to over thirty, and in

1981 to nearly fifty. 249Such usage helped to make a case that the municipal government had a responsibility to

maintain these records properly for their use by the public.

Utilizing a fairly established records management program to benefit the historical records was another

area of emphasis. Through contacts with agencies about the microfilming or storage of current records, inquiries were

made about other records; in a few cases this has led to accessions of valuable permanent records. 250This also

involved reevaluating records schedules and revising a few to provide for the screening of these records--especially

administrative correspondence files--to salvage items of historical significance. Another method was the usage of funds

slated for other peripheral functions to buy equipment and supplies in order to start arrangement and description of

these records. Most of the first orders of acid-free boxes and folders, map cabinets, and chairs and desks for

researchers were acquired in this manner. The progress of the reorganization of the Baltimore City archives was

substantial when compared with what existed prior to 1978, but it turned out to be an ephemeral change. To have a

full-fledged municipal archives, Baltimore needs a modern, climate-controlled records center, a much larger staff

enabling constant supervision of municipal records and a survey for all records, an in-house conservation program or

funding for conservation, and a published guide to the records. Twenty years ago this author concluded that “The

future of this program is still uncertain, as are most such programs in the current economic and political climate; but the

author is convinced that the only logical, effective manner to continue is to stress a comprehensive records program

that supports the efficient management of local government, the cost-savings of current records management, and the

cultural benefits of an archives program.” For whatever reasons, these efforts failed. While the State archives secured a

modern facility in the 1980s and continues to be strong, the Baltimore program declined. Today, it has a skeleton staff,

provides minimal services, and is virtually unknown in archival circles. 251

The fate of the Baltimore City Archives was one of the weakest aspects of Maryland's archival legacy,

begging all sorts of questions as to why with the emergence of a state government archives, a more focused statewide

historical society, and a substantial archival community, the records of Maryland's largest city continue to face such

poor management. Poor administrative placement, declining fiscal resources, and a lack of sustained professional

leadership are all possible explanations.

1 American State Archives (Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1964), pp. 16-17. For concise statements of the elements of scientific history, see John Higham, History: Professional Scholarship in American (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1973), pp. 92-103, and W. Stull Holt, "The Idea of Scientific History in American," in Historical Scholarship in the United States and Essays (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1967), pp. 15-28.

2 His program is fully described in Francesco Cordasco, Daniel Coit Gilman and the Protean Ph.D.: The Shaping of American Graduate Education (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960).

3 Hugh Hawkins, Pioneer: A History of the Johns Hopkins University , 1874-1889 (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1960), p. 55.

4 Ibid., p. 169.

5 Ibid., pp. 169-73.

6 For a full biographical treatment of his life see J.M. Vincent, "A Biographical Sketch," in Herbert B. Adams Tributes of Friends. With a Bibliography of the Development of History, Politics and Economics of the Johns Hopkins University, 1986-1901 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1901), pp. 9-23.

7 Holt, "Idea of Scientific History," p. 17.

8 Jacob H. Hollander, "Growth of a Museum," Baltimore American, 2 February 1891 .

9 Cordasco, Daniel Coit Gilman, pp. 144-146.

10 Herbert Baxter Adams to Daniel Coit Gilman, 3 July 1882, in W. Stull Holt, ed., H istorical Scholarship in the United States, 1876-1901: As Revealed in the Correspondence of Herbert B. Adams, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 56 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1938), p. 55.

11 Maryland's Influence in Founding a National Commonwealth . Or the History of the Accession of Public Lands . Fund Publication, no. 22 ( Baltimore : Maryland Historical Society, 1877.

12 See Richard H. Hart, Lewis Henry Steiner and His Son Bernard Christian Steiner (n.p., 1936).

13 Of 318 studies published between 1882 and 1945, 55 were on Maryland . Volume 17 (1899), for example, was devoted completely to the economic history of Maryland and the South and four of its six studies were specifically about the state. For a description of the Maryland emphasis, see Patricia Dockman Anderson, “Laying the Foundations: Herbert Baxter Adams, John Thomas Scharf, and Early Maryland Scholarship,” Maryland Historical Magazine 89 (Summer 1994): 170-183.

14 See David D. Van Tassel, Recording America's Past: An Interpretation of the Development of Historical studies in America 1607-1884 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960): Leslie W. Dunlap, American Historical Societies, 1790-1860 (Madison, Wisconsin: Privately printed, 1944)' and Lester J. Cappon, "American Historical Editors Before Jared Sparks: `They Will Plant a Forest ...,'" William and Mary Quarterly, 34d series, 30 (July 1973): 375-400 and "A Rationale for Historical Editing Past and Present," ibid ., 3rd series, 23 (January 1966): 56-75.

15 John Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 2, nos. 1-2 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1884). Quotes are from pages 5, 15-16, 26-27.

16 Herbert Baxter Adams to Daniel Coit Gilman, 3 July 1882, in W. Stull Holt, ed., Historical Scholarship in the United States, 1876-1901: As revealed in the Correspondence of Herbert B. Adams, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 56 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1938), p. 56.

17 Johns Hopkins University Circular no. 4 (April 1880), pp. 20 (December 1882), pp. 30-32, 38.

18 John Hopkins University Circular no. 2 (January 1880), pp. 16-17; no. 8 (January 1881), pp. 97; no. 15 (May 1882, pp. 207-08; no. 22 (April 1883), p. 94; no. 25 (August 1883), p. 156. One of the main purposes of the Historical and Political Science Association was to provide an arena for the presentation of work by the Hopkins students, especially preliminary work on dissertation topics, and for the interaction of Hopkins men and local amateur historians.

19 John Hopkins University Circular , no. 24 (June 1883), p. 133.

20 Johns Hopkins University Circular no. 89 (June 1891), pp. 110-13 (quote p. 113).

21 Thaddeus P. Thomas, "The City Government of Baltimore" (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, 1895) published under the same title in the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 14th series, no. 2 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1896).

22 For Scharf's methodology see Edward C. Howard's introduction to the reprint of Scharf's History of Baltimore City and County, 2 vols. (Baltimore: Regional Publishing Co, 1971), 1: iii-v and Richard J. Cox, "A New Source for Maryland Genealogy: John Thomas Scharf's Unpublished Biographical Dictionary of Maryland," Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin 15 (August 1974): 140-48.

23 1st series, no. 6 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1883).

24 History of Maryland from the Earliest Period to the Present Day, 3 vols. (Baltimore: John B. Piet, 1979), 1: 367, 592; 2: 29-34, 125-27.

25 Ibid., chapters 5-7, 9.

26 Francis Edgar Sparks, Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 14th series, nos. 11-12 (Baltimore: Johns hopkins University, 1896). For the vast improvement of his approach compare it to the "modern" studies of Michael G. Kammen, "The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689," Maryland Historical Magazine 55 (December 1960): 293-333 and Lois B. Carr and David W. Jordan, Maryland's Revolution of Government 1689-1693 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974).

27 Ward, The Early Development of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Project, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 17th series, nos. 9-11 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1899); Scharf, History of Maryland, 3: chapter 37.

28 For a sampling of this rediscovery, see Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds., Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland : Proceedings of the First Conference on Maryland History, June 14-15, 1974 (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).

29 Bassett, for example, offered a course on Southern history for graduate students emphasizing the collections of the Peabody Library and the Maryland Historical Society; Johns Hopkins University Circular no. 107 (June 1893), p. 125. Hollander offered courses on the economic development of Baltimore ; ibid., no. 120 (July 1895), p. 100.

30 Ibid., no. 149 (January 1901), p. 25; no. 155 (January 1902), p. 31; no. 161 (March 1903), p. 33.

31 Ibid., no. 441 (September 1932), p. 61.

32 Ibid., no. 471 (October 1935), p. 49.

33 Ibid., no. 481 (November 1936), p. 86; no. 518 (July 1940), pp. 41-42; no. 527 (July 1941), p. 47; no. 552 (July 1944), p. 46; no. 553 (November 1944), pp. 20-21; no. 559 (Jul 1945), p. 45.

34 Wilbur H. Hunter, director of the Municipal Museum from 1946 to 1978, taught courses on the history of the Chesapeake Bay region and Baltimore almost continuously during this period. Compare the description of the courses in Johns Hopkins University Circular, no. 598 (June 1950), p. 57; no. 738 (May 1969), p. 89; and new series (unnumbered), May 1975, p. 98 and May 1976, p. 105.

35 For a bibliography of Steiner's publications see Richard H. Hart, Lewis Henry Steiner and His Son Bernard Christian Steiner (n.p.: Privately published, 1936); Herbert B. Adams Tributes of Friends with A Bibliography of the Department of History, Politics and Economics of the Johns Hopkins University, 1976-1901 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902) and Publications of Members and Graduates of the Departments of History, Political Economy, and Political Science 1901-1915 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1915).

36 The Financial History of Baltimore (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1899).

37 Herbert Baxter Adams, "Mr. Freeman's Visit to Baltimore," introduction to Edward A. Freeman, An Introduction to American Institutional History, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 1 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1982), pp. 8-10.

38 Ibid. John Franklin Jameson to Edwin F. Gay, 6 August 1923, in Elizabeth donnan and Leo F. Stock, eds., An Historian's World: Selections from the Correspondence of John Franklin Jameson, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 42 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956), p. 293.

39 "Professor Herbert Baxter Adams," in Herbert B. Adams Tributes of Friends, p. 63.

40 Donnan and Stock, eds., An Historian's World, p. 41n.

41 Posner, American State Archives, p. 18.

42 John Franklin Jameson to Albert Shaw, 3 November 1986 , Donnan and Stock, eds., An Historian's World, pp. 67-68.

43 Posner, American State Archives, pp. 18-19.

44 For an example of the funding procedures involved for the Archives refer to the Journal of Proceedings of the Senate of Maryland . . . January Session 1902, pp. 77-81, 120, 139-40, 178. Typical of the administrative care of records was the consideration of completing and indexing records of the Prerogative Court ; Journal of Proceedings of the Senate of Maryland . . . January Session 1898, p. 1051.

45 Condensed Report of the Public Records Commission of Maryland for the Years 1904-05 (n.p., n.d.), p. 3. See also Hester Dorsey Richardson, "Report of the Public Records Commission f Maryland ," American Historical Association Annual Report, 1905, 1: 367-68. It is possible that the Commission had actually begun its work before official recognition by the legislature; "Report of the Public Archives Commission," American Historical Association Annual Report, 1903, 1: 411.

46 Condensed Report, pp. 4-5.

47 Other "investigators" included persons such as Albert Levin Richardson, journalist and amateur historian; John C. Hildt, professional historian; George W. McCreary, professional librarian; Charles O. Clemson, lawyer; and Beverley W. Bond, Jr., professional historian.

48 Condensed Report, p. 11.

49 Ibid., pp. 13-14.

50 Condensed Report , p. 3 (italics mine).

51 "Report," p. 368.

52 Posner, American State Archives, pp. 20-21.

53 Journal of Proceedings of the state of Maryland . . . . January Session 1904 , pp. 378, 494, 528, 875.

54 This act provided $3000 a year for two years; Laws of the State of Maryland . . . . 1908 , pp. 169-70.

55 Posner, American State Archives, pp. 19-24. Although the relationship between historians and archivists was often rocky in the formative years, most archivists came out of the ranks of professional historians; see William F. Birdsall, "The Two Sides of the Desk: The Archivist and the Historian, 1909-1935," American Archivist 38 (April 1975): 159-73.

56 Between 1890 and 1969 the University of Maryland and Catholic University in Washington , D.C. had well over half the M.A.s (240 of 382). Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland had over half of the Ph.D.s in the same years (105 of 202).

57 Posner, American State Archives, p. 22.

58 First to Fourth Annual Reports of the Archivist of the Hall of Records (n.p., n.d.), p. 9.

59 "Dedication of the Memorial Building," p. 29.

60 Other than the Archives, the Society's most notable contribution was the publication in the Maryland Historical Magazine of Louis Dow Scisco's survey of colonial Maryland records. See 21: 261-70, 356-61; 22: 62-67, 186-89, 245-49, 349; 23: 20-26, 243-46; 24: 17-23, 224-28; 25: 28-29, 206-08; 26: 61, 135-38, 228-33; 27: 36-41, 123-27; 28: 44-48, 228-33; 29: 116-20, 299-304; 30: 271-77; 31: 36-39, 242-47; 32: 30-34, 286-91; 34: 284-90; 36: 215-19; and 38: 176-82.

61 Unfortunately there is no study of this celebration. For the impact of such events see Carl Abbott, " Norfolk in the New Century: The Jamestown Exposition and Urban Boosterism," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 85 (January 1977): 86-96 and William Lloyd Warner, The Living and the Dead: A Study of the Symbolic Life of Americans . Yankee City Series, vol. 5 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), part two.

62 Richardson , "Report," p. 368.

63 Bond wrote The Court of Appeals of Maryland: A History (Baltimore: Barton-Gillet Co., 1928) and edited the Proceedings of the Maryland Court of Appeals, 1695-1729 (Washington, D.C.: American Historical Association, 1933).

64 Carroll T. Bond to Richard M. Duvall, 28 December 1928 , MS. 574; MdHi.

65 Richard M. Duvall to Carroll T. Bond, 3 January 1929 , MS 574, MdHi.

66 First to Fourth Annual Reports, p. 40.

67 Ibid., p. 9.

68 Minutes of the Celebration Committee, 18 December 1928 , MS. 574 and First of Fourth Annual Reports, pp. 9-11.

69 First to Fourth annual Reports , p. 10.

70 Daniel R. Randall to Richard M. Duvall, 4 June 1930 , MS. 574, MdHi.

71 Minutes of the Celebration Committee, 18 December 1928 , MS. 574, MdHi.

72 Richard M. Duvall to daniel R. Randall, 5 June 1930 ; Richard M. Duvall to Albert C. Ritchie, 27 June 1930 ; Richard M. Duvall to Daniel R. Randall, 20 June 1930 , MS. 574. The 9 December 1930 published report of the Maryland Tercentenary Commission expressed these exact sentiments; a copy is in MS. 574, MdHi.

73 Daniel R. Randall to Richard M. Duvall, 19 June 1930 , MS. 574, MdHi.

74 First to Fourth Annual Reports , pp. 10-22, 40-42.

75 Carroll T. Bond to Richard M. Duvall, 5 February 1931 , MS. 574, MdHi.

76 Richard M. Duvall to Carroll T. Bond, 7 February 1931 ; Richard M. Duvall to Daniel R. Randall, 27 July 1931 , MS. 574, MdHi.

77 Richard M. Duvall to Carroll T. Bond, 14 September 1931 ; Carroll T. Bond to Richard M. Duvall, 12 December 1931 ; Richard M. Duvall to Carroll T. Bond, 14 December 1931 , MS. 574, MdHi.

78 Albert C. Ritchie to Richard M. Duvall, 23 May 1931 , MS. 574.

79 Albert C. Ritchie to William L. Marbury, 3 June 1931 , MS. 574. After this the Commission hardly discussed the Hall of Records except to plan for its opening and to make certain announcements concerning its progress; First to Fourth Annual Reports , pp. 11-12.

80 First to Fourth Annual Reports , pp. 11-12. For Fowler's design see the Architectural Record 79 (1934): 194-97.

81 First to Fourth Annual Reports , pp. 43-46.

82 Morris L. Radoff, "Maryland Hall of Records," Manuscripts 20 (Spring 1968): 18.

83 Papenfuse, "`A Modicum of Commitment.'"

84 Records of these transfers are in MS. 2008, MdHi.

85 First to Fourth Annual Reports of the Archivist of the Hall of Records , 1935-59 (n.p., n.d.), pp. 27-30; these reports, published annually until 1972, preserve in detail the development of the Hall of Records.

86 "News Notes," American Archivist 29 (January 1966): 122. Most of my comments on Radoff are based upon Audrey C. Land, "Introduction," Law, Society, and Politics, pp. ix-xvi.

87 Gust Skordas, " Maryland 's County Records --The Eclectic Approach," American archivist 25 (April 1962): 199-206.

88 See ibid. and Nineteenth Annual Report of the Archivist , 1953-54, pp. 50-38.

89 Morris L. Radoff, "How to Transfer the Governor's Papers," American Archivist 23 (April 1960): 185-89.

90 Radoff, " Maryland Hall of Records," p. 18.

91 "A Guide to Practical Calendaring," American Archivist 11 (April 1948): 123-40; (July 1948): 203-22.

92 See my Managing Records as Evidence and Information ( Westport , Conn : Quorum Books, 2001) as an introduction to this shifting emphasis.

93 Calendar of Maryland State Papers No. 1 The Black Books , Publication of the Hall of records Commission, no. 1 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1943); Morris L. Radoff, Calendar of Maryland State Papers No. 2 The Bank Stock Papers , Publications of the Hall of Records Commission, no. 5 (Annapolis: Hall of Records, 1947); Roger Thomas, Calendar of Maryland State Papers No. 3 The Brown Books , Publications of the Hall of Records Commission, no. 6 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1948); Calendar of Maryland State Papers No. 4 Part 1 The Red Books , Publications of the Hall of Records Commission, no. 7 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1950); Calendar of Maryland State Papers No. 4 Part 2 The Red Books , Publication of the Hall of Records Commission, no. 8 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1953); Calendar of Maryland State Papers No. 4 Part 3 The Red Books, Publication of the Hall of Records Commission, no. 10 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1955); and Calendar of Maryland and State Papers No. 5 Executive Miscellanea , Publications of the Hall of Records Commission, no. 11 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1958).

94 The paucity of adequate, published finding aids was eliminated with Radoff's successor, Edward C. Papenfuse. Papenfuse, holding a Ph.D. in American history from the Johns Hopkins University, brought new vitality and, based upon his previous use of computers as bibliographer for the American Historical Review , a new vision in gaining intellectual control over the rapidly proliferating collections of the Hall of Records.; see his "The Retreat from Standardization: A Comment on the Recent History of Finding Aids," American Archivist 36 (October 1973): 537-42. For evidence of more recent work, see Timothy Pyatt, Dean Yates, and Stephanie Thorson, “Devices and Desires: Realizing Wider Understanding and Access to Maryland 's Recorded Heritage,” Maryland Historical Magazine . For the many different guides to the records at the Maryland State Archives, visit its Web site at http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/refserv/html/findaid.html.

95 See Lois B. McCauley, Maryland Historical Prints 1752 to 1889: A Selection from the Robert G. Merrick Collection, Maryland Historical Society, and Other Maryland Collections (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1975), pp. 3-7.

96 An excellent description of this is in Clarence Could, "The Economic causes of the Rise of Baltimore," Essays in Colonial History Presented to Charles McLean Andrews by his Students (Freeport, N.Y: Books for Libraries Press, 1966), pp. 225-51.

97 Morris L. Radoff, The County Courthouses and Records of Maryland; Part one: The Courthouses . Hall of Records Commission Publication no. 12 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1960), p. 25.

98 First Records of Baltimore Town and Jones' Towns 1729-1797 (Baltimore: n.p., 1905), p. 75.

99 Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Baltimore, Passed at Their First and Second Session, Held February, 1797, and February, 1798 (Baltimore: John Cox, 1875), pp. 17-19.

100 An Act to Erect Baltimore-Town, In Baltimore County, Into a City, and to Incorporate the Inhabitants Thereof (Baltimore: John Hayes, 1797), p. 13.

101 Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Baltimore, Passed at Their First and Second Sessions, Held February, 1797, and February, 1798 (Baltimore: John Cox, 1875), pp. 17-19.

102 Radoff, County Courthouses and Records, p. 27.

103 A copy of the petition is in the Baltimore Court House Commissioners' Minutes, MS. 69, Maryland Historical Society (hereafter cited as MdHi).

104 Minutes, 25 March 1835, MS. 69, MdHi.

105 Minutes, 2 June, 9 June, 3 July, 7 July, 1835, MS. 69, MdHi.

106 Minutes, 6 October 1835, MS. 69, MdHi.

107 Minutes, 15 December 1835, MS. 69, MdHi.

108 Minutes, 2 April 1836, MS. 69. Throughout the construction other architects, such as William Strickland, were consulted because of Long's inexperience with groined arching; see Solomon Etting to William Strickland, 1 February 1837, MS. 69, MdHi.

109 There are notes describing the ceremony of this occasion in MS. 69, MdHi.

110 Minutes, 6 August 1839, MS. 69, MdHi.

111 Minutes, 6 August 1839, MS. 69, MdHi.

112 A Photograph of the exterior of the building is in Frank D. Thomas, A Monograph of the New Baltimore Court House (Baltimore: n.p., 1899). a 1837 modified architectural drawing by Long show the layout of the three floors; the drawing is at the MdHi.

113 Robert Cary Long to the Commissioners for Repairing the Court House, 16 December 1839, MS. 69, MdHi.

114 Minutes, 1 June 1840, MS. 69, MdHi.

115 Ordinances (1845), p. 54; Ordinances (1846), pp. 106-07; Ordinances (1847), p. 66.

116 The City Hall, Baltimore: History of Construction and Dedication (Baltimore: Mayor and City Council, 1877). p. 11.

117 Laws of Maryland 1832, chapter 303.

118 Ordinance 11 (1797).

119 Report of the Health Officer, 1 January 1828.

120 Mayor's Message , 7 January 1828, p. 143.

121 Communication of the Health Officer , 23 December 1828; Mayor's Message , 5 January 1829, p. 159; Journal of the Proceedings of the First Branch , 27 February 1829, p. 140; Health Officer's Report, 30 December 1829; Mayor's Message, 4 January 1830, p. 173; Journal of the Proceedings of the First Branch, 3 March 1830; pp. 154-55; Health Officer's Report, 26 December 1830; Health Officer's Report, 29 December 1831; and Journal of the Proceedings of the First Branch, 10 February 1832; pp. 131.320.

122 The Health Officer's Report , 31 December 1832.

123 Report of the Joint Committee on the almshouse respecting paupers, 17 January 1833 , City Council Records, RG16, Series 1, 1833-1143, Baltimore City Archives (Hereafter cited as BCA).

124 Baltimore City Council Committee of Ways and Means, 22 January 1833, City Council records, RG16, Series 1, 1833-1019 BCA; Jesse Hunt to Gideon Lee and John Swift, 4 February 1833 Mayor's Records, RG9, Series 2, Box 10, 1833-364-365, BCA.

125 For a convenient summary of the serious epidemics between 1793 and 1819 see Douglas G. Carroll, Jr., "Yellow Fever Epidemics of the Late Eighteenth Century in Baltimore," Maryland State Medical Journal 21 (September 1972): 47-52.

126 For background on this institution see Douglas G. Carroll, Jr. and Blanche D. Coll, "The Baltimore Almshouse: An Early History," Maryland Historical Magazine 66 (Summer 1971: 135-152; Katherine A. Harvey, "Practicing Medicine at the Baltimore Almshouse, 1828-1850," ibid., 74 (Fall 1979): 223-37; and Douglas G. Carroll, Jr., "A History of the Baltimore City Hospital (1773-1963)," unpublished manuscript, Maryland Historical Society, 1965.

127 The following are the available statistics relating to the percentage of almshouse inmates from outside of Baltimore City and County:

 

Total
Total
Percentage of
Year
Inmates
"Strangers"
"Strangers"
Nov. 1822 - April 1823
2987
204
6.8
May 1823 - April 1824
5377
337
6.3
May 1824 - April 1825
5011
377
7.5
May 1825 - April 1826
4708
368
7.8
May 1826 - April 1827
5324
526
9.9
May 1827 - April 1828
5955
607
10.2
Total
29362
2419
8.2

 

These figures are based upon manuscript reports in the City Council Records of the Baltimore City Archives, RG16, 1824-494, 495, 901; 1825-189; 1827-1114, 1115; and 1828-287.

The Baltimore Almshouse Admission and Discharge Book at the Maryland Historical Society, MS.1866.1, from the year 1823 into the middle of 1826 provides detailed biographical data concerning the inmates. Although this is certainly an incomplete record of all he inmates, it does provide another view of the geographical origins of the residents. The following table show the nationality of the individuals and whether a long-term resident (having been in Baltimore five years or more) or newly arrived.

Total
Foreign
Percentage of
Long-Term
Year
Inmates
Inmates
Foreigners
Resident
1823
677
168
24.8
76
1824
632
190
30.1
56
1825
652
138
21.2
62
1826
269
45
16.8
19
Total
2230
541
24.3
213

Although this document shows a higher percentage of foreigners in the almshouse it may be misleading. Foreigners of longer residences were probably not as noticeable as those having arrived within a year or so. Subtracting long-term residents leaves only 328 foreigners in these years and a percentage of 4.7, closer to the official statistical reports.

128 Report of the Trustees for the Poor of Baltimore City and County, 1828, City Council Records, RG16, 1828-284, BAC.

129 The following shows the percentage of foreigners in the Almshouse based upon the published Report of the Trustees for the Poor of Baltimore City & County, 1844-53:

Total
Total
Percentage of
Year
Inmates
Foreigners
Foreigners
1844
1440
507
35.2
1845
1493
532
35.6
1846
1698
732
43.1
1847
1726
853
49.4
1848
1532
637
41.6
1849
1773
859
48.4
1850
1610
845
52.5
1851
2205
1175
53.3
1852
2285
1179
51.6
Total
15762
7319
46.4

130 Jean H. Baker, Ambivalent Americans: The Know-Nothing Party in Maryland (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), pp. 15, 23; Browne, Baltimore , p. 139.

131For a good overview of the history of American immigration see Maldwyn Allen Jones, American Immigration , the Chicago History of American Civilization, ed. Daniel J. Boorstin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). For a study of New York that shows a similar development to Baltimore's immigrant restrictions see Robert Ernest, "Economic Nativism in New York City During the 1840s," New York History 29 (April 1948): 170-86.

132 The following are the aggregate totals of immigrants arriving at Baltimore Between 1827 and 1875:

 

Annual Average of
Years
Total of Immigrants
Immigrants
1827-29
4853
1617.7
1830-39
56548
5654.8
1840-49
66479
6647.9
1850-59
83355
8335.5
1860-69
50223
5022.3
1870-75
41067
6844.5
Total
302525
6174.0

These figures are based upon the report of the Joint Committee on the Alms House, 17 January 1833 , RG16, Series 1, 1833-1143, and "Passenger Ships Arriving in Port of Baltimore , 1833-75, both at the Baltimore City Archives.

133 Report of the Health Officer , 16 December 1833 .

134 Health Officer's Report , 29 December 1835 .

135 Samuel Smith to the City Council, 12 July 1837 , RG16, Series 1, 1837-979, BCA.

136 Report of the Select Committee on the Subject of Emigrants, 14-20 July 1837, RG16, Series 1, 1837-1089, BCA; Health Officer's Report , 26 December 1837.

137 Mayor's Message , 1 January 1838 , [p. 3].

138 Marion T. Bennett, American Immigration Policies: A History (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1963), p. 12.

139 In that year Mayor Thomas Swann urged the Maryland Legislation to completely abolish foreign immigration; Mayor's Message , 18 January 1858 , p. 26.

140 German Society of Maryland to the City Council, [1834], RG16, Series 1, 1834-687, BCA; Laws of Maryland 1834, chapter 177; resolution 57 (1834).

141 The German Society received $138,665.64 and the Hibernian Society $10,643.25 reflecting the overwhelming proportion of German immigrants; based upon "Passenger Ships Arriving in Port of Baltimore 1833-75," BCA.

142 Laws of Maryland 1841 , chapter 175.

143 "Report of the Joint Committee on Health on the subject of a Shelter for Sick Emigrants," 16 February 1842 , RG1, Series 1, 1842-631, BCA.

144 Carroll, "A History," p. 17; ordinance 48 (1847). In 1847 a number of foreign passengers were found to be suffering from "Ship Fever" which prompted efforts to provide better medical care; Report of the Joint Committee on Health on the Communicant from the Major & other Petitions relative to the Health Department, 3 June 1847, RG16, Series 1, 1847-876, BCA.

145 Based upon "Passenger Ships Arriving in Port of Baltimore 1833-75," BCA. The published reports of the Trustees for 1843-1852 shows about eighteen percent of the budget coming from this source ($34,100.02 out of $186,117.93).

146 The Maryland law gave ship captains the option of either paying the head tax or an elaborate and expensive bond system, Laws of Maryland 1849, chapter 46.

147 Jones, American Immigration, p. 250; Bennett, American Immigration Policies, pp. 13-18.

148 See Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at Baltimore 1820-1891 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1967).

149 Laws of Maryland 1866, chapter 37.

150 The City lists are included in the National archives microfilm of passenger records of 1820 to 1891.

151 For example, Eric E. Lampard, "American Historians and the Study of Urbanization," American Historical Review 67 (October 1961): 2-3, and Charles N. Glaab, "The Historian and the American Urban Tradition," Wisconsin Magazine of History 47 (Autumn 1963): 13.

152 For examples of the number of histories being produced see R. Richard Wohl and A. Theodore Brown, "The Usable Past: A Study of Historical Traditions in Kansas City," Huntington Library Quarterly 23 (May 1960): 237-59, and Daniel Horowitz, "The Meaning of City Biographies: New Haven in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin 29 (July 1964): 65-75.

153 "An Agenda for Urban History," The State of American History , 3rd. Herbert J. Bass (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970), p. 44.

154 Thomas Waters Griffith, Annals of Baltimore (Baltimore: William Woody, 1824) and Robert Purviance, A Narrative of Events Which Occurred In Baltimore Town During the Revolutionary War. To Which Are Appended, Various Documents and Letters, the Greater Part of Which Have Never Been Heretofore Published (Baltimore: Joseph Robinson, 1849).

155 Baltimore: Past and Present. With Biographical Sketches of Its Representative Men (Baltimore: Richardson and Bennett, 1871) p. 3. The historical essay by Mayer is on pp. 7-146.

156 Wohl and Brown, "The Usable Past," p. 238. For an overview of the phenomenon refer to Frank Freidel, "Boosters, Intellectuals, and the American City ," The Historian and the City eds. Oscar Handlin and Hohn Burchard (Cambridge: M.I. T. Press and Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 115-20.

157 For Griffith see above, pp. 39-41. Typical of the guidebooks was that of John C. Gobright, The Monumental City, or Baltimore Guide Book, Being a Reliable Directory for Citizens and Strangers to the Prominent Objects of Interest, Together With a Description of the Prominent Mercantile and Manufacturing Houses (Baltimore: Gobright and Torsch, 1858).

158 For the city's expansion see Charles Hirschfeld, Baltimore , 1870-1900: Studies in Social History . Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, series 59, no. 2 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1941).

159 George W. Howard, The Monumental City , Its Past History and Present Resources (Baltimore: J.D. Ehlers and Co., 1873). All four editions-of 1873, 1876, and 1878, and 1883--are available at the MdHi.

160 The Chronicles of Baltimore ; Being a Complete History of " Baltimore Town " and Baltimore City from the Earliest Period to the Present Time (Baltimore: Trunbull Brothers, 1874) and History of Baltimore City and County From the Earliest Period to the Present Day: Including Biographical Sketches of Their Representative Men (Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1881).

161 Chronicles , p. v.

162 Ibid., pp. v, vii-viii.

163 History of Baltimore City and County , p. vii.

164 Edward Spencer, ed., An Account of the Municipal Celebration of the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Settlement of Baltimore October 11th-19th, 1880, With A Sketch of the History, and Summary of the Resources of the City (Baltimore: Mayor and City Council, 1881), p. 22.

165 Spencer, An Account of the Municipal Celebration , p. Abbot, " Norfolk in the New Century: The Jamestown Exposition and Urban Boosterism," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 85 (January 1977): 86-96.

166 Spencer, An Account of the Municipal Celebration , pp. 28-32.

167 It was actually the funding of the German community of the city which pushed forward the mired-down penniless planning committees; Spencer, An Account of the Municipal Celebration , p. 32.

168 Spencer, An Account of the Municipal Celebration , pp. 47-48. See especially the description of the procession of history and industry, pp. 71-101.

169 The description from the Baltimore American of 8 August 1829 is published in " Baltimore 's Centennial, 1829," Maryland Historical Magazine 24 (September 1929): 237-45.

170 John R. Quinan, Medical Annals of Baltimore From 1608 to 1880.... (Baltimore: Issac Friedenwald, 1884), stated (p. 5) that the impetus for this volume was the 1880 celebration. Other works include Baltimore : Seine Vergangenheit und Gegenwart.... (Baltimore: C.C. Bartgis and Brother, 1887); Clarence H. Forrest, Official History of the Fire Department of the City of Baltimore .... (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co., 1898); Clinton McCabe, History of the Baltimore Police Department 1774-1907 [ Baltimore ]: Fleet-McGinley Co., [1907]; Joseph T. Smith, Eighty Years: Embracing a History of Presbyterians in Baltimore With an Appendix (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1899); J. Albert Cassedy, ed., The Fireman's Record.... (Baltimore: William V. Day and Co., 1891); and Isidor Blum, The Jews of Baltimore : An Historical Summary .... (Baltimore: Historical Press Publishing Co., 1910).

171 William Sener Rusk, Art in Baltimore: Monuments and Memorials (Baltimore: Norman, Remington Co., 1924) and Ephraim Keyser, " Baltimore the Monumental City --Why?" Art and Archaeology 19 (May-June 1925): 229-38.

172 Emily Emerson Lantz, "Murals Baltimore Court House," Art and Archaeology 19 (May-June 1925): 259-64 and James E. Hancock, "The Story of Fort McHenry and Its Restoration," Baltimore 24 (March 1931): 13-14, 46-50.

173 Frank A. O'Connell and Wilbur F. Coyle, comps., National star-Spangled Banner Centennial Baltimore, Maryland September 6 to 13, 1914 (Baltimore: National Star-Spangled Banner Centennial commission, 1914); "Pageant of the History and Progress of Baltimore," Baltimore 22 (September 1929): 3, 67ff, and Baltimore 1729-1929: Two Hundredth Anniversary (Baltimore: Baltimore Municipal Journal , 1929).

174 (Baltimore: Norman Remington Co., 1928), p. 7. The closest to the quality of Scharf's work was a festschrift edited by Clayton Colman Hall, ed., Baltimore: Its History and Its People , 3 vols. (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1912).

175 Jacob Frey, Reminiscences of Baltimore (Baltimore: Maryland Book Concern, 1893), p. 365. Anyone who questions this statement should examine the Baltimore Hand Book of colleges, Schools, Libraries, Museums, Halls, & C. (Baltimore: Cushings and Bailey, 1876).

176 For examples of the finished research projects see the following essays in the John Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science : Thaddeus P. Thomas, City Government of Baltimore , series 14, no. 2 (1896); Milton Reizenstein, The Economic History of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (1827-53), series 15, nos. 7-8 (1897); F.R. Rutter, The South American Trade of Baltimore, series 15, no. 9 1897); Herbert B. Adams, Public Educational Work in Baltimore, series 17, no. 12 (1899); and Leonard Owens Rea, The Financial History of Baltimore, 1900-1926, series 47, no. 3 (1929).

177 Charles E. Hughes, Jr., "The Philadelphia Program," American Archivist 21 (April 1958): 131-42; Dale A. Somers, Timothy J. Crimmins, and Merle E. Reed, "Surveying the Records of a City: The History of Atlanta Project," American Archivist 36 (July 1973): 353-60; and James B. Speer, Jr., " Houston Metropolitan Archives and Research Center ," Rice University Review 9 (Summer 1974): 11-15.

178 Ordinances (1874), pp. 126-28.

179 City Hall, Baltimore , p. 97.

180 Ordinances (1876), pp. 113-15.

181 Ibid., pp. 111-12.

182 Mayor's Message . . . . (1877), pp. 803-08 and (1878), pp. 768-69.

183 Ibid., (1879), p. 93.

184 Ibid. (1888), pp. 495-98. See also (1880), pp. 1047-48.

185 Ibid. (1883), p. 488.

186 Ibid. (1890), p. 1073.

187 Ordinances (1878), p. 117 and (1879), pp. 11-12.

188 Mayors Message (1882), pp. 863-64.

189 Ibid. (1884), pp. 1105-06.

190 Ibid. (1885), pp. 1409-11; Ordinances (1885), p. 15; Ordinances (1886), p. 104; Mayor's Message (1886), pp. 1409-12, Mayor's Message (1891), pp. 372-76.

191 Biographical sketch in the Dielman File of the MdHi.

192 Mayor's Message (1891), pp. 372-76.

193 Ibid. (1891), pp. 376 Ordinances (1891), p. 101.

194 Mayor's Message (1892), pp. 388-89.

195 Ibid. (1893), p. 361.

196 Ibid. (1894), p. 388.

197 Ibid. (1895), p. 357.

198 This was 13,080 square feet of a total of 79,899 square feet. See Instructions for Architects In Preparing Plans In Competition for A New Court House to Be Erected In the City of Baltimore , Maryland . . . (Baltimore: Guggenheimer, Weil and Co., 1893).

199 Mayor's Message (1896), pp. 171-74.

200 Ibid. (1897), pp. 207-08.

201 Ibid. (1898), pp. 1067-68; (1899), pp. 850-51; and (1901), p. 4.

202 Ibid. (1900), p. 7. This sort of perspective was generally reflected in the description of the office as found in the City's new charter of 1898. Although his archival duties were listed first they consisted mostly of seeing that a full set of records were available and information from them generally available. Thomas G. Hayes, ed., The New Charter of Baltimore City (Baltimore: Guggenheimer, Weil, & Co., 1898), pp. 111-14.

203 Reports of the City Officers and Departments Made to the City Council of Baltimore (Baltimore: Public Printer, 1904), City Librarian's Report, p. 3.

204 Reports (1906), City Librarian's Report, p. 6; (1907), p. 6; and (1908), pp. 3, 6.

205 Ibid. (1909), pp. 3-4.

206 Ibid. (1910), pp. 3, 6.

207 Ibid. (1912), p. 4.

208 This article was reprinted in Ibid. (1916), pp. 4-10.

209 First Records of Baltimore Town and Jones' Town 1729-1797 (1905); Records of the City of Baltimore (City Commissioners) 1797-1813 (Baltimore: City Library, 1906); Records of the City of Baltimore Eastern Precincts Commissioners 1812-1817, Western Precincts Commissioners 1810-1817 , (Baltimore: City Library, 1901); Records of the City of Baltimore (Supplement) 1729-1813 (Baltimore: City Library, 1909).

210 Baltimore Sun , 1 October 1919, in City Library File of the Subject File of the Maryland Department, Enoch Pratt Free Library (hereafter cited as EPFL).

211 Mayor's Message (1925), p. 152 and (1927), p. 191. These two reports cover the years 1923-26.

212 Baltimore Sun , 4 October and 13 October 1926, City Library File, Subject File, Maryland Department, EPFL.

213 Augustus C. Binswangler, ed., Facts and Figures Maps, Charts, and Graphs and VIIIth Quadrennial Message Mayor William F. Broening to IInd Unicameral City Council With Reports From All City Agencies (Baltimore, n.p., 1932) pp. 38, 40.

214 Baltimore Sun , 1927, Baltimore Archives file, Vertical File, Maryland Department, EPFL.

215 Baltimore Sun, 22 April 1937.

216 These worksheets are in the Hall of Records in Annapolis.

217 Baltimore Sun , 18 November 1947, 19 November 1947; Baltimore Evening Sun , 18 November 1947, 20 November 1947, 21 November 1947.

218 Baltimore Evening Sun , 7 June 1948; Baltimore Sun , 8 June 1948.

219 Horace E. Flack to Walter F. Perkins, 16 June 1949; Walter F. Perkins to Horace E. Flack, 20 June 1949; Horace E. Flack to Walter F. Perkins, 5 July 1949, all City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, Baltimore City Archives (Hereafter cited as BCA). Ordinance 659 (1941).

220 John J. Ghingher to Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., 21 December 1950, Mayor's Records, RG9, Series 23, box 296, folder 251, BCA.

221 Minutes of the Board of Estimates, 19 September 1951, p. 1774; 17 October 1951, p. 1920; 7 May 1952, pp. 831-32, RG36, Series 1, BCA.

222 Minutes of the Board of Estimates, 7 May 1952, pp. 831-32 and 4 June 1952, pp. 1056-57, RG36, Series 1, BCA; Baltimore Sun , 5 June 1952 and 18 October 1952; Baltimore Evening Sun , 6 June 1952; Howard C. Beck, Jr. to John J. Ghingher, 26 January 1953, Mayor's Records, RG9, Series 23, box 296. folder 251, BCA.

223 Minutes of the Board of Estimates, 22 May 1953, pp. 955-57 and 10 June 1953, pp. 1124-25, RG36, Series 1, BCA. A complete copy of the 10 June 1953 contract is in City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

224 Minutes of the Board of Estimates, 26 August 1953, p. 1610, RG36, Series 1, BCA; Minutes of the Records Committee, 26 August 1953, City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

225 The two sets of records declared to be of historical significance were a set of old survey records purchased by the city in the early twentieth century and old arrest dockets, going back to the mid-nineteenth century, scattered about in the Police department. The schedules, 592 in total, consist of 263 recommending retention one year or less, 224 recommending two to five years, 34 recommending six to ten years, 37 over ten years, and 34 permanent. All of these are based upon the unpublished reports in City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 3, BCA.

226 Minutes of the Committee for Safeguarding City Records, 12 May 1953, City Archives Administrative Riles, RG29, Series 2, BCA; Minutes of the Committee on Records, 23 March 1954, 20 April 1954, also in RG29, Series 2, BCA.

227 Minutes of the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Museum, 11 May 1954, RG21, Series 1, BCA.

228 Minutes of the Board of Estimates, 14 April 1954, p. 692; 25 May 1955, p. 875; 13 July 1955, p. 1205; 5 October 1955, pp. 1688-89, RG36, Series 1, BCA.

229 Minutes of the Board of estimates, 22 September 1954, pp. 1886-897; 27 July 1955, pp. 1271-72; 7 December 1955, pp. 2080-81; 14 December 1955, p. 2112, RG36, Series 1, BCA. Carl Everstine to the Records Disposal Committee, 8 September 1955, City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

230 Minutes of the Board of Estimates, 4 April 1956, pp. 595-97; 27 February 1957, pp. 420-21; 4 February 1959, pp. 225-26, RG36, Series 1, BCA.

231 C. Frank Poole to Frank Milani, 12 August 1958; C. Frank Poole to John R. Kerstetter, 24 November 1958; C. Frank Poole to John J. Ghingher, 15 December 1958, all City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA. Minutes of the Board of Estimates, 21 January 1959, pp. 125-26, RG36, Series 1, BCA.

232 The number of microphotography staff changed as follows: 2, 1955; 3, 1956; 4, 1957-59; 5, 1960-67; 6, 1968-75; 5, 1976-77; 4, 1978-79; 3, 1980.

233 C. Frank Poole to george B. Brain, 27 September 1962 and C. Frank Poole to Joseph Allen, 1 May 1964, both Cit Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

234 William M. Kinnersley, Jr. to C. Frank Poole, 10 January 1956, City Archives Administrative Files, RG 29, Series 2, BCA. Carl Everstine to J. Harold Grady, 21 April 1961 and Esther Lazarus to J. Harold Grady, 25 April 1961, both Mayor's Records, RG9, Series 24, box 332, folder 127, BCA.

235 Philip Darling to carl N. Everstine, 3 december 1958; C. Frank Poole to William Boucher III, 10 October 1963; Philip Darling to C. Frank Poole, 27 August 1964; C. Frank Poole to Thomas J. D'Alesandro III, 9 February 1968; and C. Frank Poole to H.A. Pressman, 8 January 1971, all City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

236 Theodore R. McKeldin to C. Frank Poole, 30 July 1965; C. Frank Poole to Theodore R. McKeldin, 28 July 1965; C. Frank Poole to Philip Darling, 26 July 1965; C. Frank Poole to William H. Potts, Jr., 10 June 1965, all City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

237 Poole had spent twenty years working with the records of the General Motors plant in Baltimore. Carl N. Everstine to the Records Disposal Committee, 7 June 1955, 29 August 1955, both in City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

238 C. Frank Poole to the Records Committee, 10 February 1956; Wilbur H. Hunter, Jr. to C. Frank Poole, 29 February 1956, 27 November 1956, and May 1957, all in City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

239 Minutes of the Board of Estimates, 27 May 1959, p. 1043 and 29 July 1959, pp. 1438-39, RG36, Series 1, BCA.

240 C. Frank Poole to Harrison L. Winter, 17 March 1961; Harrison L. Winter to C. Frank Poole, 21 March 1961; C. Frank Poole to Harrison L. Winter, 24 March 1961; Wilbur H. Hunter, Jr. to C. Frank Poole, 23 March 1961, all in City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA. Minutes of the Board of Estimates, 14 June 1961, pp. 1113-14, RG326, Series 1, BCA. Baltimore Evening Sun , 20 September 1962. C. Frank Poole, "Screening the Papers of Baltimore's Mayors," AA 25 (April 1962): 219-22.

241 C. Frank Poole to Leon A. Rubenstein, 23 august 1968, City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

242 See Richard J. Cox, "Understanding the Monumental City: A Bibliographical Essay on Baltimore History," Maryland Historical Magazine 77 (March 1982): 70-111.

243 Jacob H. Hollander, The Financial History of Baltimore (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1899). Other studies focusing on the municipal government are Alan Anderson, The Origin and Resolution of an Urban Crisis Baltimore, 1890-1930 , Johns Hopkins Studies in Urban Affairs (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1977); Gary L. Browne, Baltimore in the National, 1789-1861 Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980); and James B. Crooks, Politics & Progress: The Rise of Urban Progressivism in Baltimore 1895 to 1911 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968).

244 A copy of this agreement is in the City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA. BRISC also obtained a small grant from the NHPRC for this project.

245 W. T. Durr to C. Frank Poole, 5 June 1973, City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

246 Baltimore Sun , 1 February 1976; Baltimore Sunday Sun , 24 October 1976; Baltimore Sun , 1 March 1977, 4 January 1978. A copy of the proposal is in City Archives Administrative Files, RG29, Series 2, BCA.

247 The author had written an article with Patricia M. Vanorny about Baltimore 's records and was somewhat familiar with the situation. See "Records of a City: Baltimore and Its Historical Sources," Maryland Historical Magazine 70 (Fall 1975): 286-310.

248 Publications included "Baltimore City 1797 Special Tax List," National Genealogical Society Quarterly 66 (September 1978): 188-91; "Some Early Residents of Baltimore, Maryland, 1785-1795," ibid . 67 (September 1979): 201-09 and (December 1979): 283-86; "Genealogical Research in the Baltimore City Archives," Maryland Magazine of Genealogy 2 (Fall 1979): 49-54; "Resources and Opportunities of research at the Baltimore City archives," Working Papers from the Regional Economic History Research Center 4 (1981): 1-18; Tracing the History of the Baltimore Structure: A Guide to the Primary and Secondary Sources (Baltimore: Baltimore City Archives and Records Management Office, 1980); and, with William G. LeFurgy and Susan Wertheimer David, Governing Baltimore: A Guide to the Records of the Mayor and City Council at the Baltimore City Archives (Baltimore: Baltimore City Archives and Records Management Office, 1981).

249 Total of the historical researchers are as follows: 99, 1978; 363, 1979; 397, 1980; 580, 1981.

250 The minutes of the Civil Service Commission going back to its creation in 1919 were found in a routine administrative visit to one of its offices and acquired several months later.

251 See the very cursory description of its present limited services on the Baltimore City Department of Legislative Reference Web site at http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/other/legisref/legisref.html.