
    
      The State vs. Commissioners of Public Buildings for Georgtown District. The State vs. Commissioners of Public Buildings for Horry District.
    
    Commissioners oí Public Buildings have the power, under the Acts of ’27 and ’37, to raise money by taxation, to defray the expense of such recording in the district offices, as they may by law be required to have done. Per Evans, J.
    Although it may be within the power of the court to order the commissioners to have the papers, in the several offices, of a date prior to the Acts of ’39 and ’40, transcribed into books, on the plan and according to the directions of those Acts, yet it is not obligatory on the court to make such order; and before such order can be made, there should be a special report of the Solicitor, setting forth the state and condition of the papers, so that the court may perceive the necessity for having the recording done.
    
      Before Evans, J. at Georgetown and Horry. Spring Term, 1845.
    These cases, which were in every respect similar, were rules against the Commissioners of Public Buildings for the districts of Georgetown and Horry. At Fall Term, 1843, the Solicitor reported — “ There is much, recording to be done in all the offices, for the terms preceding those of the present incumbents.” On the report the following order was taken, viz : “ If is ordered that the Commissioners of Public Buildings for this district, be furnished with a copy of so much of this report as relates to the recording necessary to be done in the several offices in this district, and that they be required to have the recording done according to law.”
    The work not having been done, the following rule was taken out against them, at Fall Term, 1844, viz: “ It is ordered, that the Commissioners of Public Buildings do shew cause, on the first day of the next term of this Court, why they should not be indicted for failing to comply with the order of the Court, Fall Term, 1843, requiring them to transcribe the public records of the several offices of this district, as required by law.”
    At this term the commissioners answered the rules, and shewed for cause why they should not be indicted “ that the Act of 1837, the only Act to which it is c.ontended their authority on the subject can be traced, confers on the Commissioners of Public Buildings no power whatever to transcribe any of the records in any of the public offices, except such as they aie specially ordered and directed by the Court of Common Pleas ; and further, that the Act in question gives them no authority whatever to raise the means to defray the expense of such recording.”
    The judgment of his Honor the presiding Judge, is as follows :
    
      “ I do not think the cause shewn by the commissioners is sufficient. The Act of 1827, (6 Stat. 821,) “ to provide for repairing of Court Houses and Jails,” gives to the Commissioners of Public Buildings full powers of taxation, to enable them to discharge the duties required of them by that Act. The 6th clause of the Act of 1837, 6 Stat. 578, amends that Act, so as to require them'to do many other acts than those required by the Act of 1827, and among the provisions of the said clause is the following, viz : “ To cause to be made and completed such records and books in the several offices named in the 1st section of this Act, in their respective districts, as may be directed and ordered by the said Court of Common Pleas and General Sessions, whose duty it shall he, from time to time, to give such directions and make such orders as may be necessary for the completion, cfec., in the said offices respectively.”
    
      “ At Fall Term, 1843, on the report of the Solicitor, that there was much recording to be done in all the offices for the terms preceding those of the present incumbents, the Court ordered that a copy of the report be served on the Commissioners of Public Buildings, and that they be required to have the recording done according to law. The work not having been done, a rule was taken out against them at Fall Term, 1844. The commissioners, by their return, make the question whether they have the power of taxation necessary to enable them to carry the order of this court into execution. On this subject I think there is no doubt. The Act of 1827 gives them the power of taxation for certain objects. The Act of 1837 amends that Act, so as to require of them the performance of other acts, and of course the two Acts are to be construed together, and the power of taxation for the purposes of the first Act is extended to the subjects of the 2d Act.
    
      “ The commissioners also suggest a difficulty arising out of the order of the Court, at Fall Term, 1843, as to what they are to have recorded. The Act of 1837 requires them to cause to be made and completed such records and books as may be directed or ordered by the court. The order requires them to have the recording done according to law. If this order had been made before the Acts of 1839 and 1840, regulating the public offices, it would admit of doubt as to what papers in said offices were required to be recorded. But these Acts remove the difficulty, and the obvious meaning of the order is, that the commissioners shall have such papers in the several public offices recorded, as by law are now required to be. The object of the Legislature seems to have been to introduce uniformity, and to have the public records put in such condition as will afford easy access to them, and at the same time to preserve them prom mutilation and decay.
    
      “ It is therefore ordered, that the rule be made absolute, and an attachment issue, unless the commissioners shall, on or before the first day of the next Spring Term of the Court of Sessions and Common Pleas for Georgetown district, commence to have recorded (and to complete as soon afterwards as practicable,) all the papers in the several offices of the Clerk, Sheriff, Ordinary and Commissioner in Equity, of a date anterior to the terms of the present incumbents, which by the several Acts now regulating the said offices, are required to be recorded, and which have not already been recorded.”
    The judgment in the case of the commissioners for Horry is the same.
    The commissioners appealed, and now moved that the decision of the presiding Judge be reversed and the rules discharged, on the grounds relied on in the answers thereto.
    
      Munro, for the motion.
    
      Bailey, Attorney General, contra.
   Curia, per Evans, J.

These cases are alike, and will be considered together. I think there is no doubt that, under the Act of 1887, 6 Stat. 578, taken in connection with the Act of 1827, 6 Stat. 321, commissioners of public buildings have a right to raise money, by levying a tax, for the purpose of executing any of the duties which, by these Acts, they are required to perform. Before the passing of the Acts of 1839 and 1840, the law regulating the several district public offices, was very vague and uncertain ; what papers were required to be recorded, was to be gathered rather by inference from the fee hills, than from any positive enactment on the subject. The mode of arranging the papers was left to the judgment of the several officers, and consequently there was no uniform rule. With a view to correct this evil, the Act of 1837 was passed, whereby the commissioners were required “ to cause to be made out and completed, such records and books as may be directed and ordered by the Court of Common Pleas and Sessions, whose duty it shall be, from time to time, to give such directions and make such orders as may be necessary for the completion of the records and books in the said offices, respectively.” By this Act, the whole matter was submitted to the direction of the court. It may be, that it is within the discretion of the court to order the papers in the several offices, of a date prior to the' Acts of 1839 and 1840, to be transcribed into books, on the plan and according to the directions of those Acts; but there is nothing in them indicating the will of the legislature, that the directions of those Acts, in relation to the recording or transcribing of the subsequent records, should be conformed to in relation to those of prior date. But from the fact which had come to my knowledge, of what had been done in some of the districts, I supposed, at the time I ordered the rule to be made absolute in these cases, that the papers in the district offices had been generally recorded, according to the directions of the Acts of 1839 and 1840; but I learn from my brethren, that the old papers have been copied or recorded into books in only a few districts in the State, and therefore I most cheerfully acquiesce in their opinion, that there is nothing in the several Acts of the Legislature which requires the old papers in the several public offices to be transcribed into books (which, we understand, is the recording to which the solicitor’s report refers.) The whole subject is committed, by the Act of 1837, to the direction of the court, and the court cannot act understandingly on the subject, without a full report on the state and condition of the papers. If they are in a proper state of preservation, we do not see that there is any necessity to incur the great expense of copying them into books. The words of the Act are, — “ to have completed such records and books.” What may be the exact meaning of these words, it may be difficult to determine, with any great certainty ; but there is nothing in them making it obligatory on the court to order all the records to be transcribed. There is, certainly, great propriety in having the papers arranged and numbered with proper indexes, on the plan and according to the system pointed out in the Acts of 1839 and 1840. If any of the books or records, in the several offices, are deficient in any of these particulars ; or if any of them are mutilated or in a state of decay, so as to require them to be transcribed into books, in order to preserve them, these matters should be brought to the view of the court, by the Solicitor’s report, and the court will then make such order and give such directions as it is empowered to do by the Act of 1837. But until such report be made, we are of opinion that no order should have been made on the subject, and the motion is granted.

Richardson, O’Neall, Butler, Wardlaw and Fkost, JJ, concurred.  