A Copy of the Declaration of Independence is Not a Public Record?

An interesting legal case has just been decided involving a copy of the Declaration of Independence made in 1776. A judge ruled that the copy, made by a public official and sent to public officials, is not a public record.

In the summer of 1776, the state of Massachusetts had copies of the Declaration printed by Ezekiel Russell, then working in Salem, and apparently a copy was sent to each town within the state. What is now the State of Maine was still a part of Massachusetts at that time, so a copy was sent to the town clerk of Wiscasset, Maine. The Wiscasset town clerk copied the Continental Congress’s words into Wiscasset’s official records.

The printed document was later found in the attic of Solomon Holbrook, Wiscasset’s town clerk from 1885 to 1929. His family put it on the market, and after passing through different hands, it ended up with a Virginia collector a few years ago. Officials in Maine heard about the sale and sued to get the paper back on the grounds that it remained an official public record.

The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision holds that the official Wiscasset record of the Declaration is the version that the clerk copied in 1776—or at least that Maine couldn’t prove the printed document was still a government document.

It makes for an interesting story. I bet the court verdict would have been different, had it been heard by the Maine Supreme Court since Maine has a very strong law about the ownership and misappropriation of public documents.

The private collector probably can now sell the document for several million dollars. In fact, it sold in 2001 for $475,000, and we can assume that the value has increased significantly since then.

You can read more in an Associated Press story by Michael Felberbaum at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inx9h3p2xLtbEgWdQX3CGw-5VFnAD96K3A8G5.

You can read the court decision at http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1080987.pdf.

Comments

[Dae Powell]

Perhaps the document could be turned over to Congress and they could auction it off to pay part of the stimulous debacle.

Happy Dae.
http://ShoeStringGenealogy.com

[Timothy Eastman]

The document is clearly not official town record, since it was not created by the town. Copies were printed and sent to all the towns so people would have a copy and be able to read it. Once the clerk copied it into his town ledger, the ledger became the official town record of it.
Documents of such import today are photcopied (or made available on the internet) and sent to the proper locales. If the receipient makes another copy for their records then the origianl copy no longer is their official record, the copy of the copy is.
The fact that Mr. Holbrook never gave this document to the succeeding clerk, as he did the ledgers and other town records, shows that they did not believe it was their official town record, either.
The state would certainly like to get this document back into their pocession for its historical value and to disply it to the public. It would help increase their tourism thus increasing state finances.
The state should make a fair market offer to Mr. Adams to buy the document back. Mr. Adams should sell quickly, as the state is probably not finished with their attempts to get it back.

[Susan Daily]

If Solomon Holbrook had been the town clerk in 1776, then maybe it might be argued that it no longer was viewed by him as a public record. But the fact that it remained in the town archives for 100 years until he became clerk, makes it seem as if it was misappropriated by him when he discovered it in the town files. I would argue that he had no right to take the document, nor did his family have the right to sell it.

This could set a bad precedent for all public offices. If you make a copy of an original document, then it is okay to keep the original?

When I worked in a public agency, I discovered original Louis Kahn architectural drawings in a drawer full of blueprints. I realized how easy it would be for someone in the public employ to steal his original documents. Just because it is easy doesn't make it right. I still worry about them, twenty years after I left that job.

[Tim]

I'm going to have to agree with the court. Since the document was made in 1776 when neither Maine nor Massachusetts were actually states, it can not be an official state document. Which is why, I would guess, the court said they could not prove it was.

It is obviously an important historical document, but not an official state document. As a remnant of the state's existence as an English colony, it really had no business being in the official state records to begin with.

Historical, yes. Official, no.

[2burmdad]

The court decision is very clear.

The broadside copy of the Declaration was essentially a means of disseminating the information, similarly to set of photocopies in the current age.

The Clerks were to enter the wording into the official records of the town, etc. Those official record books are just that.

As genealogists, we generally are familiar with older records, in that deeds were presented to the recorder, and the clerks copied the information into the books. The original deed was returned to the presenter, it's official work completed by the recordation.

Unromantic and unpatriotic as it may seem, after the town recording act was concluded, the broadside was little more than trash. That was what the court decided.

Of course, now we have electronic filings of documents into the court and recordation systems.