  FIRST SESSION (Friday, June 28, 8:15 p. m.) The first session of the College and Reference section was held on the evening of June 28, in the banquet room of the Chateau Laurier, about 75 people being present. In the absence of Dr. A. S. Root, chairman of the section, and Miss Irene Warren, secretary, the meeting was called to order by Mr. P. L. Windsor, who had at the request of Dr. Root and of Mr. Utley, arranged the program; Mr. S. J. Brandenburg acted as secretary. Mr. THEODORE W. KOCH, librarian of the University of Michigan, read the first paper entitled SOME PHASES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES The development of college and university libraries has been so rapid during the past score of years that it may be worth while to turn back for a moment and collect a few illustrations of early ideas of library management from the history of the older universities. The most interesting ones for this purpose are those of Oxford and Cambridge, Harvard, Yale and Columbia universities. The Bodleian in its reorganized form was opened in 1602 with a stock of two thousand five hundred volumes—a fairly large collection for those days. It had been established in Duke Humphrey's day in a suite of rooms over the Divinity School "far removed" as the old university records put it, "from any worldly noise." The first rules for the government of the library were drafted by Bodley himself. While in general they were wise ones, they reflected the spirit of the times in which they were written. Sir Thomas objected to the inclusion of belles-lettres as beneath the dignity of the institution he was fostering. "I can see no good reason," said he, "to alter my rule for excluding such books as Almanacks, Plays, and an infinite number that In a manuscript copy of the works of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose in the Bodleian, is written, "This book belongs to St. Mary of Robert's Bridge: Whosoever steals it, or sells it, or takes it away from this house in any way, or injures it, let him be anathema maranatha." Underneath another hand has written, "I, John, Bishop of Exeter, do not know where the said house is: I did not steal this book, but got it lawfully." At one time folios in the Bodleian were chained to the shelves but the custom was given up and the chains sold for old iron in 1769. That the arrangements at the Bodleian were viewed with favor by library benefactors can be seen from a letter which the worthy John Hollis of London, second founder of Harvard College library, sent to the authorities at Cambridge in 1735: "You want seats to sit and read in and chains to your valuable books like our Bodleian library or Zion College in London. You let your books be taken at pleasure to men's houses and many are lost, your boyish students take them to their chambers and tear out pictures and maps to adorn their walls." Gibbon in his autobiography has commented upon the sloth of 18th century Oxford and its absolute indifference to study. The records of the Bodleian substantiate the low point to which the intellectual life of the university had ebbed. The registers of books borrowed for the decade 1730-1740 show that only rarely were more than one or two books asked for in a day. In some cases a whole week is passed over without a single entry being made. The indifference throughout the university showed itself in the management of the library. For 92 years, that is, from 1768-1860, the Bodleian was so unfortunate as to be in the hands of only two men, the Reverend John Price, of Jesus College, who died in his eightieth year, and Dr. Bulkeley Bandinel, his son-in-law, who lived to be even a year older than his predecessor. As an illustration of Price's ideas of librarianship we have it noted by Professor Beddoes that "he discouraged readers by neglect and incivility, was very careless in regard to the value or condition of the books he purchased, and had little knowledge of foreign publications." When Captain Cook's Voyages were first published there was quite a demand for the work. Librarian Price promptly loaned it to the Rector of Lincoln College, telling him that the longer he kept it out the better, for as long as it was known to be in the library he would be perpetually plagued by inquiries after it. Price has been compared to the verger who sorrowfully complained that people were continually invading his church and "praying all over the place." However, it must in justice be said that Price's correspondence as printed by John Nichols in his "Illustrations of the literary history of the 18th century," shows him to have been helpful to some of the scholars of his day. Bodleian's librarians in the eighteenth century were mostly clerks in holy or How striking is the difference between the lax administration of the 18th century and that of the 20th can be seen by a study of the Bodleian staff-calendar, an annual of over 400 pages in which are listed day by day the special duties of various members of the staff, with all sorts of suggestions for the improvement of the service. King George III in his famous interview with Dr. Johnson asked whether there were better libraries at Oxford or at Cambridge. The sage replied that he believed the Bodleian was larger than any library they had at Cambridge, at the same time adding, "I hope whether we have more books or not than they have at Cambridge we shall make as good use of them as they do,"—a reply which I always like to associate with the remark of Dr. Cogswell: "I would as soon tell you how many tons the Astor Library weighs, as how many volumes it contains." While the university library at Cambridge has never been the recipient of such large and rich donations as has the Bodleian, it is today one of the best stocked university libraries in the world. Its first benefactor was Thomas Scott of Rotheram, archbishop of York, who not only gave 200 books and manuscripts, but also the first library building. Despite other benefactions the collection appeared "but mean" in the eyes of John Evelyn when he visited it in 1654. Among the earliest gifts to one of the college libraries at Cambridge there are some volumes which raise curious questions. According to Dr. Montague R. James, the provost of King's College, Cambridge, one book has the Bury bookmark and evidently came from that source; another belonged to the canons of Hereford, another to Worcester, and another to Durham. How and under what conditions did the early collegiate and monastic bodies part with these? "Was there not very probably an extensive system of sale of duplicates? I prefer this notion," writes Dr. James, "to the idea that they got rid of their books indiscriminately, because the study of monastic catalogs shows quite plainly that the number of duplicates in any considerable library was very large. On the other hand it is clear that books often got out of the old libraries into the hands of quite unauthorized persons: so that there was probably both fair and foul play in the matter." The most famous librarian of Cambridge University library was Henry Bradshaw, who not only left a strong impress upon the paleographers and historians of his day, but did much for librarianship by his contributions to bibliography and his work on the printed catalogs issued by the Cambridge University library. He believed in making the library as accessible as possible to those who were entitled to its use. The watchwords of his administration were "liberty and discretion," liberty for the people to go freely about the whole library, examining and borrowing such books as they liked, and discretion on the part of the administration in putting such extremely moderate restrictions upon this freedom that the security of its most precious books were safeguarded and the presence of the books most constantly needed for reference was assured without undue interference with freedom of access to the shelves or the borrowing of books from the library. His management of the university library was not in all respects satisfactory, due mostly to the fact that the staff was very inadequate to the task of the attempted reclassification of the large collection of books, and also to the crowded Bradshaw used to say that whenever he was asked to send back an interesting book he "suffered from a chronic paralysis of the will and could not return it until the fit had passed away." In matters of routine business he was, however, seldom behind time and his library accounts were always accurately kept. He was very strict about the observance of the library rules and could never tolerate seeing books mishandled. Dr. Zupitza, a great friend and admirer of Bradshaw, tells how one day he was making notes in ink from the famous manuscript of Bede's "Ecclesiastical history," in the Cambridge University Library when Bradshaw happened to notice him. "You Germans have no reverence," said the librarian as he rushed at the ink bottle and carried it away. A manuscript of that character was not to be approached with anything more dangerous than a lead pencil. Bradshaw had no personal ambition and was only too eager to give away such information as he possessed. He put his vast store of knowledge at the disposal of his large group of friends and their books were all the better for his bibliographical zeal. He himself left comparatively little finished work. "My province," he once wrote, "is to give help on certain details which most people don't care about." Before leaving Oxford and Cambridge, a word must be said about the individual college libraries. Many of these date from the 15th century when it was the exception rather than the rule for university students to own books. Books were rented from both booksellers and tutors. The college libraries then, as today, did not have enough copies of text-books to go around. The statutes of St. Mary's College, Oxford, dating from 1446, forbade a scholar the continual use of a book in the library for more than one hour or at most two hours, for fear that others wanting the book might be hindered from the use of it. Most of the two score colleges of Oxford and Cambridge have their own libraries, many of them filled to overflowing with precious manuscripts and old authors. While the manuscripts, like those of Corpus Christi, naturally attract scholars from all over the world, the libraries are now comparatively little used by the students of the universities themselves. This is not surprising when it is known that to some of them no books have been added for a century or more. There is no union depository catalog in a central place showing what these libraries contain and very little correlation, although there has been some specialization, as in the dramatic collection at Trinity College, Cambridge, or the modern history at Merton College, Oxford. Several years ago when I visited the Bodleian Library, I was shown around the portion known as "Duke Humphrey's library," and when I admired the old parchment bound volumes in the alcoves my guide remarked sententiously: "These books were on these shelves when the Pilgrims sailed for America." That re Illustrations of university library history in this country naturally begin with Harvard. The library there was begun on the death of its first benefactor in 1638 with his bequest of 320 volumes. The Mathers were among the largest collectors of books in their day in New England but few of their possessions passed into the college collection, most of the Mather library having been destroyed in 1775 during the battle of Bunker Hill. About the close of the 17th century Cotton Mather said of the Harvard College Library that while it was "far from a Vatican or Bodleian dimension" he considered it the "best furnished that can be shown anywhere in the American regions." The fire of 1763 which destroyed the first Harvard Hall destroyed also the entire college library, housed in an upper room, with the exception of one volume: Downame's "Christian Warfare," which was out in circulation at the time. "May Harvard Library," wrote John Barnard of Marblehead, "rise out of its ashes with new life and vigor, and be durable as the sun, tho' the building is a nuisance." This contemptuous sounding phrase, intended to describe the ruined building, can again almost be justified in connection with the overcrowded and outgrown structure of today. The first general catalog of the library, printed in 1790, containing 350 pages, devotes 100 pages to theological tracts, 50 to religious books, 3½ to Bibles, ¾ of a page to periodicals, 4 to books of travel, and ten to Greek and Latin authors—all of which shows how closely the college had held to its original purpose as a training school for the ministry. There was practically no change in the curriculum at Harvard College during the first two centuries of its existence. The old classical course as pursued by our forefathers required comparatively few books. With the introduction of such studies as modern history and languages, the sciences and economics, came the demand for access to many books, both old and new. That books were regarded as a first essential in the establishment of colleges in the New World is shown not only by the terms of John Harvard's will, which bequeathed one-half of his estate and all his library "towards the erecting of a college," but also by the picturesque founding of Yale College. Eleven ministers met in New Haven in 1700 agreeing to form a college. Each member brought a number of books and presented them to the body, and laying them on the table said these words, or to this effect: "I give these books for the founding of a college in this colony." Then the trustees as a body took possession of them and appointed the Rev. Mr. Russel of Branford as keeper of the library, which at that time consisted of about 40 folio volumes. The library with the additions which came in was kept at Branford for nearly three years, and was then carried to Killingworth. In 1765 the library had grown to 4,000 volumes, showing a growth of only 60 volumes a year through two generations. Other American university libraries showed equally modest beginnings. In a letter from President Manning to Dr. Llewellyn, 1752, is found the following reference to the early efforts made on behalf of the library of Brown University: "At present we have but about 250 volumes and these not well chosen, being such as our friends could best spare," a statement which was equally true of many other college libraries of that period. The vicissitudes of American university libraries in their early years would seem to have been enough to discourage any but the stoutest hearted librarian. Thus the King's College buildings in New York having been required by the British for a military hospital, the books were deposited in the City Hall or elsewhere. Three In his report as secretary of the Smithsonian Institution for 1850, Prof. C. C. Jewett wrote: "Our colleges are mostly eleemosynary institutions. Their libraries are frequently the chance aggregation of the gifts of charity; too many of them discarded, as well-nigh worthless, from the shelves of donors. (But) among them are some very important collections, chosen with care and competent learning, purchased with economy and guarded with prudence." In 1850 Marshall College at Mercersburg, Pa., reported that "the college library is distributed among the professors—each professor having charge of those books pertaining to his department." Until comparatively recent years the periodicals subscribed to by one of our western state universities were sent direct to the homes of the professors interested and whether they were brought to the library later for binding depended upon the whim of the professor. One of the striking contrasts between the college library of today and that of the middle of the last century is shown by a comparison of the hours of opening. The Chinese character for "library" means "a place for hiding books," and if some members of the present day faculties think there is still justification for this pictograph, what would they say of the apology for a library which their predecessors had to contend with? In 1850 the libraries at Amherst and Trinity, for example, were open once a week from 1 to 3 p. m., at Princeton one hour twice a week, at the University of Missouri one hour every two weeks. At the University of Alabama there was a rule that "the books shall ordinarily be received at the door, without admitting the applicant into the library room." Harvard with its 28 hours of opening per week was as usual in the vanguard of progress, but contrast even those liberal hours with present day schedules of 89 hours and even more per week and you see that there has been considerable progress along this line.
That the college library of the middle of the last century was little more than In the old days at Columbia College, freshmen and sophomores were allowed to visit the library only once a month to gaze at the backs of books; the juniors were taken there once a week by a tutor who gave verbal information about the contents of the books, but only seniors were permitted to open the precious volumes, which they could draw from the library during one hour on Wednesday afternoons. In 1853, the salary of the librarian of Columbia was raised to three hundred dollars! Professor Brander Matthews, who graduated from Columbia in 1871, says that the library was at that time small and inconvenient and that he never entered it to read a book and never drew one from it during all the time he was an undergraduate. The rules of the old days forbade the use of any lights in the Harvard Library, "excepting only when the librarian is obliged to seal official letters with wax he may with proper precautions use a lighted taper for that purpose." This recalls an entry in the diary of John Langdon Sibley, who records spending "four hours with a lantern and cloak in the chilly cellar" where he found many books and pamphlets not in the College Library. Mr. Sibley, who spent 36 years in the service of the Harvard Library, has frequently been pictured as typical of the old style collector and custodian of books. The story is told of his having once completed an inventory of the library and, when seen crossing the yard with a particularly happy smile, was asked the reason for this pleased expression. "All the books are in excepting two," said he. "Agassiz has those and I am going after them." Exaggerated as this picture of him undoubtedly is, it must be said that he did lay much more emphasis upon the collecting and preservation of books than upon their use. His successor, Justin Winsor, was the author of the remark which has come to be regarded as one of the truisms of modern librarianship: "A book is never so useful as when it is in use." In his second annual report (1879) Mr. Winsor thus summed up his idea of library management: "Diligent administration, considerate forbearance, care that no rule is enforced for the sake of mere outward uniformity, and the establishment of reciprocal confidence between the government and the users of the library, open the way to many relaxations of old established prohibitions, which could not be safely allowed if a less conciliatory spirit prevailed. There should be no bar to the use of books, but the rights of others, and it is to the credit of the mass of library users that, when a librarian manifests that single purpose, he can safely be liberal in the discharge of his trust." Mr. Winsor had an exceptional faculty for organization and administration. For some time after he left the service of the Boston Public Library it was hardly noticeable that there was no librarian. This was due to the fine organization which Mr. Winsor had effected and did not prove, as Alderman O'Brien of Boston argued, that Mr. Winsor's services could easily be dispensed with. He found time for writing history during the years of his librarianship at Boston and at Harvard because he knew how to administer. No doubt in his later years the historian in him overshadowed the librarian. The salient feature of Mr. Winsor's administration of the Harvard College Library lay in the fact that he extended very materially the use of books by students. And what as to the buildings in which these libraries are housed? The earlier ones like those of Harvard and Yale, were suggestive of Gothic chapels, while the later ones, like Michigan, Illinois and Cornell, are based upon an ecclesiastical motif, and have the questionable addition of a clock tower, the usual accompanying chimes helping to break into the quiet which it is so desirable to maintain in any library. Harvard's Gore Hall was an attenuated copy of the chapel of St. John's College, Cambridge, England, and necessarily ill adapted to the needs of a library. It was poorly lighted, poorly ventilated, hard to warm in winter, damp in parts during the spring and autumn. There were no private rooms, no working room, no conversation room, and no reading room worthy of the name. The only saving thing about the management was that the advice of old John Hollis was not followed and both students and professors were allowed to draw books for use in their rooms and homes. In some cases where the library building has been presented as a gift or as a memorial, trouble has arisen from the proverbial difficulty about examining too closely into the lines of the proposed gift. Notable illustrations of this are found in the libraries of Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania and the late but not lamented library of Leland Stanford University. The Columbia University Library, the gift of ex-President Low in memory of his father, was designed by McKim, Mead & White after the plan of the head of the firm, the late Mr. Charles F. McKim. Some of you may be familiar with the story of the visitor to Mr. McKim's studio asking how he was getting on with the plans for the new library. "Oh, everything is going lovely," said he. "You see there on the wall the outline of the facade and the layout of the building. I have worked up all the details of the reading room and the large dome—but I don't know where to put the darned books." "Today," wrote President Harper, "the chief building in the college, the building in which is taken the most pride, is the library. With the stack for storage purposes, the reading room for reference books, the offices for delivery, the rooms for seminary purposes, it is the center of educational activity. The staff of assistants is often larger than the entire faculty of the same institution thirty years ago." The importance of the university library in the educational work of the institution is being recognized more fully each year. "Much of the usefulness and attractiveness of the university for its students," said President Eliot in his annual report for 1905-06, "depends on the size of the library, on the promptness with which it obtains the newest interesting books, and on the efficiency and liberality of its administration. Any need of the library is therefore a need of the whole university." The second paper was then read by Mr. WILLARD AUSTEN, assistant librarian of Cornell University. His paper, an abstract of which follows, was entitled RIGHTS OF THE USERS OF A COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND HOW TO PRESERVE THEM The problem of administering a college or university library with due regard to the rights of all the users is far from simple. A college or university community is not a democracy, where all have equal rights. The natural division into two great classes, the mature teacher and the immature student is the first apparent cause for the modification of privileges. The need of materials for teaching as opposed to the needs of the student suggests other modifications. The need for books of research at home or in the laboratory that may also be wanted for general read Any reader should be allowed to use any book in the library when and where it is most convenient to do so, so far as this can be done and preserve the rights of other users and preserve valuable materials not easily replaced for future generations of users. The ability to shift any book from the place where it is little needed to the place where it is much needed, at a moment's notice, is the ideal. Users may be roughly grouped as follows: 1. Instructors of all grades, those whose need for books is primarily for teaching. 2. Those doing research work, which class may include teachers, graduate and undergraduate students. 3. Students needing books for collateral reading. 4. General readers of all classes, and all persons are general readers when not reading for a definite purpose, but for general culture. Obviously the rights of all these classes are not of equal importance. To outline the means of protecting their rights, it is necessary to classify users by certain of their characteristics which bear no relation to the groups named above. First, the conscientious worker who, while using many books, never retains one beyond his real need for it, and who constantly bears in mind the possible need that others may have for a book he is using. Library rules are not made for such. The next and most difficult class to deal with are those who want to gather about them all the books they can conveniently lay hands on, with the thought, that they will "come handy some day." A large class, running down to the lowest ranks of college students, comprise those who think they must have all the material on a subject at hand at one time. Another class, largely college students, is made up of those selfish persons who, having a task, ride rough shod, if necessary, over the rights of others in doing it. Then there is the small class that can be designated by no other names than thieves and vandals, those who steal books, and cut out text or illustrations. An adequate code of rules and regulations should be drawn up, care being taken that all rules should be made for the sole purpose of preserving rights and property. Of first importance are the regulations for getting books back into the library. A time limit of one month on all books not in use for instruction or research has been fairly successful. All bound volumes of periodicals may be limited to two weeks or one month. A limit may be put on the number of volumes a user may have out at any one time. A requirement that all books must come back to the library, once a year, regardless of the use being made of them, will keep in the library many books that have been left lying around after being used. Within the library the problem of making all books available for use when needed is not a simple one. Reserve collections, and the recall of books when needed are familiar practices; but when the demand for a book is very great, its use by one person may be limited to one-half or one hour as the case may call for. The failure to return a reserved book when due interferes seriously with others' rights. In these cases students must be made to respect the rights of others, even at the cost of losing their own privileges which is often a more effective discipline than a money fine. The library shares with other departments of the college or university the duty of teaching students a due regard for the rights of others. The problem of detecting the few thieves and vandals who curse all used libraries, may require professional advice. Few seem to be brought to justice, in spite of all efforts. Whatever measures are employed to protect the users' rights and the library property, they must have their foundation in a system of classification and notation that clearly indicates in every record the character of the book and its relation to other material in the library; and in a system of record of use that tells not only where a After the discussion of Mr. Austen's paper, Mr. F. K. W. DRURY, assistant librarian of the University of Illinois, presented a paper on DO WE NEED A SHORT STORY INDEX? Is not this the day of the index? Have we not Poole, the Reader's Guide, the Portrait and the Engineering Indexes, Granger's Index to Poetry and Recitations, and the Index to Victrola Records? What Granger is to poetry, may we not compile for the short story? For if this is the day of the index, is it any less that of the short story? If we agree to omit fairy stories and folk tales and most juveniles what is the extent of short story literature? In a very brief survey of the field did I not find 404 English and American authors and 37 foreign authors in English translation whose stories have attained book form? Let us credit each author with ten titles and we have at once 4,400 stories worthy of recognition. And these do not include the vast horde of stories—literally thousands—that have appeared and are appearing monthly, weekly, yea even daily, in the magazines of the hour. How recent then shall we make our list? Shall we anticipate the Get-rich-quick Wallingford tale announced for next month? Where shall we draw our line? How inclusive shall our list be made? Shall the Saturday Evening Post and the two Sunday magazines be indexed? Or shall we stay within the circle of the Readers' Guide and the Magazine subject index? How many of the news-stand best sellers shall be admitted? Mr. Wyer shows us the million circulation figures of the Woman's World, Comfort, the Vickery and Hill list of three (Happy Hours, Hearth and Home, and Good Stories), yet these are not taken by our libraries and if indexed could be consulted with difficulty. Where shall we draw this line? Again, how far abroad shall we go? Shall the short stories in foreign tongues fraternize with their English cousins? Or shall they be aliens and only admitted when really anglicized? Do we need an index? Let us test our present resources. How do you find in which volume of Kipling is printed "Thrawn Janet" or his "Man who would be king?" How many copies of "The necklace" can you supply? Granger tells you it is in Cody's "World's greatest short stories" and your catalog may show it in De Maupassant's works, or his "Odd number." But how would you find out that this classic is also in "Little French masterpieces," in Esenwein's book on the short story, and probably in several other places. Somebody comes in and asks for "Napoleon Jackson" and you do not find it in the volumes you have by Ruth McEnery Stuart. Perhaps it is loaned out. Would not such an index show that this story appeared in the Century for January, 1902, under the title "The gentleman of the plush rocker"? Vainly have I searched through catalogs and bibliographies and even biographies to find in which book of stories by "Adirondack" Murray may be found "A busted ex-Texan." The book itself must be in hand to find this information. Try to search down a particular title by Stockton, or Bret Harte and you will soon despair. Have we not then three distinct classes of publications which can be indexed with profit? (a) Collected stories of authors, of whom we have listed at least 4,400. (b) Periodical sets, which Poole indexed by titles only, but since 1900 the Readers' Guide has by both author and title. (c) Collections of stories, of which 73 at least are available today. Can we not characterize or classify our short story by some such terms as those used in the Philadelphia free library Have you ever been disappointed in reading a story? Have you not often wished to know if it were a "good" one or "worth while" before you began it? Indeed, have you not often refrained from reading one for fear of wasting your time? How can we tell about these short stories? Are they good or bad? Detective or amorous? Psychological or mysterious? Have you ever seen a short story reviewed? Have you any way of knowing? Must we read every one to find out? Some may be characterized from the author. The Sherlock Holmes series are obviously detective stories. We can be pretty sure of Ambrose Bierce and Edgar Allan Poe. So stories in Harper's have a general tone quite characteristic. Here at once is a most important and a most difficult part of such an index. Is not the value of Granger immensely increased by the topical index? Are we not laboring patiently to classify our novels by subjects? Why not also the short story? We may now ask ourselves: What would be the scope of the entries? For discussion, we suggest:
You will readily see the elements of a dictionary catalog here, and it is debatable whether to separate the entries in the three groups as above, or to alphabet them together. Shall we double star the 100 best and star the 500 next? Are not these questions too perplexing, is not the labor of compilation too arduous, and is not life too short for the reading and classifying all these titles, for one person to attempt this task alone? It has seemed so. Hence this question mark rampant, hence this interrogational presentation, hence this request for co-operation. Without the subject characterization one man could do it, but would not one of the most valuable features be omitted? With definite assignments, under an editor-in-chief, is not this index possible? Is it not needed? In the discussion it was brought out that the Chicago public library had made a list of fairy tales, that the Cleveland public library had begun a list of short stories not in periodicals, and that titles of stories frequently occur in reference lists on subjects like, for example, Hallowe'en. After a discussion of Mr. Drury's paper, Mr. ROBERT KENDALL SHAW, librarian of the Worcester (Mass.) free public library, spoke on the subject IS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CENTRAL REFERENCE BUREAU DESIRABLE? This subject has been so fully treated in recent years, notably by Mr. Lane in an address at Oberlin college in June, 1908, and in several reports of the Association of college librarians, that only an outline will be attempted here. A natural preliminary inquiry presents itself: Is reference work in all its phases adequately performed already? With a well trained library staff, whose work may be supplemented by the inter-library loan; by writing letters; by the use of the priceless though incessant telephone; or by seeking the aid of some such bureau of inquiry as that of Thos. Nelson's Sons, The Boston Transcript, The New York Times or Notes and Queries, are we keeping our public satisfied, and the voice of conscience still? If not, and if the question of creating some central agency for auxiliary reference service is to be discussed, shall this central agency take the form of a central lending library, with its permanent building, book reservoir and staff to administer it, or of a central reference bureau, which will receive all kinds of inquiries, and answer them, as far as possible, by consultation in libraries already existing, or in other institutions which may possess the desired information? That a central lending library, equipped and maintained under the auspices of the A. L. A. is today or even tomorrow impracticable, can scarcely be denied by intelligent librarians. The writer believes that no adequate endowment could be secured; that if any funds were obtained for this purpose, years would be required to build up a useful collection; that such a collection would, to a great extent, duplicate existing material; that running expenses would be far greater than for an information bureau, and that there are, in short, other more pressing needs. If a central reference bureau is to be established, what form shall it take? Shall it be attached to some institution already in operation or exist independently? The latter seems preferable, as it could then maintain a consistent policy, unhampered by political or other undesirable influences; proceed unhampered with singleness of aim and method; be governed by persons disinterested and none others; and restrict its collections exclusively to the purposes which its founders intended it to pursue. Where should such an agency be established? At some library center like Boston, New York, Philadelphia or St. Louis? At A. L. A. headquarters? At the Library of Congress or under the auspices of some active state library commission? The two institutions specifically mentioned are already doing a large work in this direction. The duties and opportunities of this bureau would be: to collect and co-ordinate the public-service records of American libraries and cognate institutions (e. g. supply information on special collections, subject bibliographies, reading lists, etc.); by questionnaires, visits and in other ways obtain supplementary information along these and similar lines; to get results printed and disseminated; to furnish definite information on lending conditions now obtaining in American libraries, and, when possible, to improve them; and to serve as a free registration and employment agency for librarians and library assistants. Although this last suggestion has not been proposed, to the writer's knowledge in earlier schemes, its importance as a practical measure, is obvious. To the large body of faithful and efficient workers who have not enjoyed the benefits of a library school training such an agency would render signal service. The unfortunate but frequently recurring repetition of reference research would, in large measure, be prevented if librarians were enabled to derive prompt assistance, in case of knotty problems, from a competent central agency. Their duty to dispatch to this agency solutions to such questions of probably common interest as they had themselves discovered, would be equally obvious. The trend of library thought in the thinking world today is toward centralisation and co-ordination of effort; witness the sense of the Brussels conference of 1910 that central information bureaus should be established in all countries of progressive library spirit; the success and practical value of the gigantic Gesammtkatalog; and the expected benefits from the youthful Boston co-operative information bureau. That American librarians are looking toward a fuller development of inter-library loans, and away from a central reference bureau, is the consensus of the recent (1910, March and May) symposium conducted by the Library Journal. Our duty now is, by sympathy, interest and contribution, to forward the work of the Library of Congress and the A. L. A. headquarters, and to make our own lending conditions the most generous in our power. Mr. C. H. Gould, chairman of the committee on co-ordination, stated that the subject just presented had a close relation to several matters before his committee, and gave a rÉsumÉ of their report submitted in print to a general session of the conference. Dr. Andrews, as a member of the Committee, added that in his opinion photo After further discussion, the chairman asked Dr. W. K. Jewett, librarian of the University of Nebraska, to serve as chairman of the nominating committee and to select two others to serve with him. The session then adjourned. SECOND SESSION (Monday, July 1, 2:30 p. m.) The second session was held Monday afternoon, July 1, in the ballroom. The first paper was by Mr. J. C. M. HANSON, associate director of libraries, University of Chicago, and was read in his absence by Mr. M. G. Wyer, librarian of the State University of Iowa. The paper follows. SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE DEPARTMENTAL LIBRARY PROBLEM IN UNIVERSITIES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
The pros and cons of the departmental system have been summarized in several of the articles mentioned above. In his annual report as librarian of Harvard college for 1898 Mr. Lane calls attention, on the one hand to the more convenient use of books in a small collection, and in case of scientific subjects, the possibility of having the books in or near the laboratory. On the other hand he emphasizes the increased difficulty of consultation on the part of persons not immediately connected with the department, less careful supervision, increase in expense of administration, less security from fire, lack of that reinforcement which every department of a general library receives from all related departments, tendency to narrowness, and growth of special collections beyond a convenient size. On September 28, 1900, Professor E. D. Burton, the present director of the libraries of the University of Chicago, and Professor H. P. Judson, now president of the university, presented before the faculty briefs for and against the following proposition: That a limit should be placed in the near future to the development of the departmental library system. The affirmative urged that it was for the advantage of the departments whose interests and relationships are widespread, notably of philosophy, history, political economy, political science, and sociology, that all the library resources of the university should be gathered in one building and brought under one administration and catalog system. The convenience of scholars coming from a distance demanded concentration also facilitated the practical administration of the libraries. As departments grew and the number of books increased, the departmental library system became unwieldy. In the negative the following advantages of the departmental system were emphasized: The importance of close connection with the classrooms, especially the seminar rooms. For the departments which have laboratories the retention of the libraries in connection with the laboratories was indispensable. Granting the importance of serving the convenience of visiting investigators, their convenience must always be subordinated to that of the large number of students and professors of the university. Practically all the valuable results of concentration could be secured by a catalog of all the departments in the general library and a system of underground book railways and telephone communication. The latest summary which has come to my attention is one by Mr. Hicks in the Columbia university quarterly for March, 1911. There is little that can be added to the arguments presented in these statements. Perhaps the following points in favor of the departmental system might be emphasized: (1) Books in the same room with the reader and free access to them is a great inducement to study. It increases the use of books, makes it easier for the investigator to consult books in use by others, and also to consult with colleagues in regard to questions which arise during the investigation. The student feels more at home, less subject to inspection and observation by officials. This adds to the pleasure which he may take in his work and to the feeling of personal respon (2) The ability of a departmental library to make collections of minor publications in the line of its special investigation to an extent difficult or even impossible for the general library may also be conceded. Against the system more emphasis should be placed on the following: (1) As Mr. Lane points out segregation of books in departments tends to narrowness. While seminary methods of instruction should lead the student to avail himself of the entire resources of the university library, the departmental system as carried out in many universities tempts him to limit his investigations to the departmental library. The narrowing influence of this must be obvious to those who have observed how various subjects and classes overlap and intertwine, how material of importance is found in unexpected places, in general collections, transactions and proceedings of societies and institutions, government reports, and encyclopedic works, not in the departmental library, the loss therefore of that reinforcement which each department should receive from all other related departments. (2) The use of the departmental library is often limited to students of a particular department. It becomes difficult therefore for others to gain access. If admitted, they are hampered by special rules and arrangements unfamiliar to them. Books are as a rule not allowed to circulate and their withdrawal for use in connection with other related works becomes difficult. (3) Many valuable books of reference which cannot well be duplicated are placed beyond the reach of the majority of students and professors. (4) It increases the liability to loss, because when there are many departmental libraries open many hours a day it becomes practically impossible to provide in all of them adequate supervision at all times. (5) The growth of the departmental libraries beyond a convenient size and the incidental disadvantages of inadequate shelf space, disorder, lack of accommodation for students, the relegation of less used books to garrets and cellars. (6) To provide fairly complete catalogs, author, title, and subject, for a large library is becoming more and more difficult as the collections increase in size. To provide these catalogs also for a number of departments, or to furnish copies of the sections likely to interest a given department, would require an expenditure of time and money quite beyond the means of any university, and entirely out of proportion to the advantages to be gained therefrom. The absence of satisfactory catalogs in departmental libraries will therefore have to be reckoned with and must be emphasized as one of the most serious disadvantages of the system. I realize that no argument is likely to change the conviction of certain professors and departments, that the departmental system is the only one which merits consideration, or the view on the other hand of other professors and students, perhaps also the librarian, that a strong general library with small working collections in the departments, largely duplicating books in the general library, is in the interest of the great majority and offers the only reasonable solution. It may, nevertheless, be convenient to have at hand a summary of the question with references to the literature on the subject, especially if governing bodies should be called upon to regulate the issue as has been the case in Italy and Prussia. The development of the departmental, problem in university libraries dates back to about 1870. While a great many seminar collections, especially in Germany, were started prior to that year, they had not as yet reached a size which called for funds, special administration, or space, to a degree sufficient to embarrass the general library and the university. It may have its interest to give a brief outline of the development of the system In his "Eine Reise durch die GrÖsseren Bibliotheken Italiens," Departmental collections are to be considered as part of the university library. The library commission of the university is to superintend the departmental libraries through the director of the university library. Second copies of books already in the university are to be purchased only in case of the most pressing necessity, and periodicals are not to be duplicated. Books are to be transferred from one library to another according to definite agreement. Books are to be accessioned in the university library and to be entered in its author catalog and stamped with the university library stamp. The approval of book appropriations on the part of the ministry depends on compliance with these regulations. The library commission had apportioned the annual book appropriations as follows: six-tenths to departmental libraries, laboratories, clinics, collections, etc., four-tenths to the general library. Whether the Prussian ministerial regulations adopted soon after were based on the Italian is not known; but the similarity of the problem has undoubtedly led to considerable uniformity in the measures adopted. It was in 1891 that the situation in the Prussian universities had reached a point where some government intervention seemed called for in order to regulate the relations between the university libraries and the so-called institutsbibliotheken. The regulations formulated (printed in the Zentralblatt fÜr Bibliothekswesen, 1897) specified in part as follows: Departmental libraries cannot dispose of their books; when no longer needed they are to be turned over to the university library. They are reference libraries and no books can be loaned except by order of the university council, or at Berlin which has no council, by the ministry. All students of the university are admitted to the use of the departmental libraries. The university library shall make an author catalog of the books in the departments, one copy for the departmental library, the other for the union catalog in the general library. The university library can loan books to the departmental library for a semester, provided they can be spared. While the government passed the regulations it neglected to provide sufficient appropriations to carry them out, the result being that the union catalog referred to was begun at only two universities, Berlin and Bonn, and at the former lack of help soon caused a considerable accumulation of arrears. The experience gained showed that, an indication in the catalog of the general library, that a given book can be found in a department is of little value. The general library has not on that account been able to dispense with the purchase of a copy, the distance to the departmental library and the difficulty of securing access making it necessary to duplicate. Occasionally a student has been referred to a departmental library, but it has not happened frequently enough to warrant the extra expenditure, or the duplication of catalogs. It has on the other hand proved of great assistance to the departmental library, and in Bonn its continuance is strongly urged by the departments. The same holds true of Berlin, although instances have been recorded where a department has refused to accept the catalog prepared by the general library. In other respects the departments have neglected to follow the regulations. It has been said, for instance, that instead of turning duplicates over to the university library certain departments have disposed In his report before the Versammlung Deutscher Bibliothekare, 1896, Dr. Naetebus gives an excellent survey of the departmental libraries of the Prussian universities, reporting in all on 367 different collections. A perusal of his report and of the discussion which followed shows that the problem in Prussia is in most respects similar to our own. In the Zentralblatt fÜr Bibliothekswesen, 1909, p. 103, et seq., Dr. Erman criticizes the regulations of 1891 for not specifying or providing means for enforcing them. Incidentally he says with reference to the development of the departmental libraries, that while the original plan had been to make the books most urgently needed by students in seminars and laboratories more convenient of access than was possible in the overworked and overcrowded university libraries, various circumstances had co-operated towards gradually making these collections more comprehensive than they were intended to be, to include in fact almost all the literature in a given field or in related and overlapping fields of knowledge, thus making the departmental libraries quite independent of the university library. While the original plan had seemed to furnish welcome relief to the university libraries, its recent extension had threatened seriously to cripple them. It was perhaps the lack of funds on the part of the university libraries which had caused the difficulty in the first place. The departments finding that certain expensive books could not be obtained through the university library began to purchase them for their own use. As the funds of the departments were too small to permit of extensive purchases, every effort was made to increase them by special and extra appropriations, this being so much the easier as the directors of the departments were frequently the most influential and powerful men in the faculties, and funds which otherwise would have fallen to the university library were thus diverted to the departments, extending the size and scope of their working collections far beyond the bounds originally intended. Dr. Erman states that many professors have according to his own experience sought to secure practically all new accessions of value for the departmental library, leaving for the general library only the books seldom or never asked for. To discontinue the university library altogether and divide its collections among the departments would seem a far simpler and more logical plan, and there should be no hesitation in considering its realization provided there seemed any hope that forty departmental libraries would replace the university library and perform its functions in a satisfactory manner. Unfortunately, such a solution seems out of the question. It would prove disastrous to the university in various ways. There would be lost to it the one department alike common to all members of the faculty and to the student body. Very few work in so narrow a field that they would be served by consulting only one of the departmental libraries. The younger instructors and students who might not have any department, would be at a great disadvantage. If the university libraries were ever discontinued Dr. Erman thinks that there would soon arise an irresistible demand for their restoration. He also thinks that the increase in the administrative expense resulting from a departmental system would be so great as to be practically prohibitive. In Germany as with us, the desirability of some modus vivendi by which university libraries and the departments could be made to work in harmony and mutually assist one another, has repeatedly been emphasized. As it is, the professor to whom a general library was once a vital question, but who has now at hand a well equipped departmental collection, is likely to lose all interest in the former and devote himself entirely to the development of the latter. Here in America the separation may not as yet have reached the point where, as in a case cited by Dr. Er Another eminent German librarian who touches on this problem is Dr. Milkau. In Kultur der Gegenwart, Abt. 1, p. 579, he states that in certain universities the total appropriation of all departmental libraries sometimes equals or even exceeds that of the general library. Originally intended as collections of reference books to be used in connection with instruction, they have gradually grown to considerable size, so that their supervision and regulation is year by year becoming more difficult. Dr. Milkau would not abolish the departmental libraries; on the contrary he freely grants their great value and superiority in some respects to the university library. There must, however, be co-operation between the departmental libraries one with another, and with the university library. Purchase of sets and expensive books must not be decided upon regardless of what is already in the university. Each department must limit itself strictly to its own particular field and omit all works not urgently needed, or of some permanent value. He offers as a remedy for the problem the following: To limit the size of the departmental collection, setting a maximum number of volumes not to be exceeded, a cure which seems a little too radical to find favor with all parties concerned. In the discussion on the report of Dr. Naetebus referred to above, Dr. Gerhard, of Halle, insisted that the only way to secure relief would be through radical measures on the part of the government, viz., to cut down the departmental appropriations to a point where they would be forced to restrict purchases to the books most urgently needed for use in connection with instruction, the appropriations thus saved to be turned over to the university library. Dr. Roth, of Halle, complained of the lack of system in the development of the departmental libraries due to the frequent change of directors. He, however, considered the power of departments to secure books through gift and exchange an important and valuable factor, one not to be underestimated. Dr. Erman, Breslau, agreed with Dr. Gerhard and stated that there must be a readjustment of the funds appropriated for the purchase of books for the university and departmental libraries. There could be no complaint with the development of large and comprehensive collections in the departments, if at the same time the university libraries received enough to secure at least a small part of the books needed to keep their collections up to date. There would never have been so large a development of the departmental libraries if the university libraries had been in a position to answer the demands made on them. As it is, when an expensive book is wanted and the university library has not the funds to secure it, there immediately appear from two to three copies in as many departmental libraries, while there is no copy in the university library. The situation which results is intolerable. If in Breslau instead of 31,000 marks a year for the university library and 31,000 for the departmental libraries, the former had 40,000 and the latter 20,000, it would mean an immense improvement for all concerned. Dr. Geiger, TÜbingen, and Dr. Frankfurter of Vienna, reported that essentially the same or even a worse state of affairs exists in Wurtemburg and in Austria. The radical measures recommended by Dr. Gerhard and others were not approved by Dr. Naetebus, especially on account of the ability of departmental libraries to secure gifts and exchanges not within the reach of the university library. Since this discussion took place I understand that the book funds of the Prussian university libraries have been materially Departmental Libraries at the University of Chicago The extraordinary development of the departmental library system at the University of Chicago is due largely to a number of causes and conditions, many of them accidental and peculiar to the university. The main reason was probably the lack of a general library worthy of the name; also the fact that some of the strongest men on the faculty favored the departmental system. In the president's report (Decennial Publications, first series, 1903, vol. 1, p. 266-290) is found an "Outline history of the legislation of university bodies on the question of departmental libraries and their relation to the general library." The first sentence reads: "The system of departmental libraries for research work, supplementing the general library of the university, dates from the organization of the university itself." This would indicate that the departmental libraries were considered supplementary to the general library. However this may have been at the outset, later developments show that the general library has been so entirely outstripped and overshadowed by the departmental collections that in 1910, at any rate, when the writer had his first opportunity to observe conditions at close hand, the general library was found to consist of some 75,000 volumes of odds and ends, a mere conglomerate which would have been of little service, except for the fact that it was the only collection on the campus from which books could be drawn somewhat freely and to which undergraduates had general access. Appropriations for books amounted to $25,265, of which the general library had only $1550; the departmental libraries, $23,715. (See above, Dr. Gerhart's complaint about the situation at Halle, 31,000 marks for the general library, 31,000 for the departments). While the original plan had no doubt intended that departments should abstain from ordering books of interest to several departments, that books of general interest therefore should be purchased only by the general library, the latter was unfortunately prevented by lack of funds and equipment from meeting these demands, the inevitable result being that the departments soon ceased to look to the general library and ordered for their own use any book to which a professor might have occasion to refer in his courses, regardless of whether it was in the general library or in another departmental library. Whether in placing orders he was intruding on the domains of a related department may or may not have been considered. At any rate books on exactly the same subject are now found in a number of departmental libraries, editions of the same book are separated and there is duplication of copies to an extent hitherto unheard of, as far as I know, in any university library. That the president and faculty have been aware of the situation and have tried to find a solution, of that there is evidence enough. Mr. Bishop in his articles in the Library journal, vol. 28, has given a survey of the discussion which took place at the University of Chicago in 1898-1901. A full report is found in the Decennial Publications, first series vol. 1 quoted above, and in the University record vol. 5. It has been referred to also by Mr. Henry E. Bliss in his recent article in the Educational review, April 1912. The solution attempted, perhaps the only one possible at the time, consisted in a grouping of related departmental collections. The following group libraries were formally approved by the library board in 1899: Classical, Modern Languages, and Historical. In 1900 the university senate approved the general plan that all departments having laboratories should re On November 4, 1900, these reports were referred by the library board to a committee of three, one of whom was the Associate Librarian, Mrs. Dixson. The committee reported on March 16, 1901 (see University record March 22, 1901) in favor of maintaining the departmental system, but recommended the centralization as far as possible at one point in a central building of the administration of the libraries, and of the books of the university not in use in the departments. After much discussion of the report and a later modification of it, it was decided to refer the matter to a commission consisting of professors and trustees appointed for the purpose of making a thorough study of the entire problem. The outcome of the work of this commission was a decision to place in buildings connecting with the general library the following departmental or group libraries: Philosophy, History and Social Sciences, Classics, Modern Languages, Oriental Languages, the Divinity School, the Law School. That further, the departmental libraries of Chemistry, Physics, Geology, and the Biological sciences, be retained in the department buildings of these departments, it being understood that these departments may place such books as they desire in the general library building. The library of Mathematics and Astronomy should be associated with the library of Physics. Time will not permit any detailed consideration of the report of the commission. It was approved by the Congregation, August 28th, 1902, and adopted by the Board of trustees September 12th of the same year. It is the plan laid down in this report that has in the main been followed in the location and erection of the Harper Memorial library, dedicated on June 11, 1912, and which it is also proposed to follow in the separate buildings to be provided for the Historical Group, Philosophy, Modern Languages and Classics. When completed this plan will bring the Humanities, with the exception of Geography into buildings adjoining the General Library, connected with it or with one another by bridges. Since the adoption of the report nearly ten years have elapsed during which there has been some progress in the direction of centralization, at any rate of management and control of libraries. A somewhat uniform system of rules and regulations was adopted in 1911. In the same year a common system of catalogs and classification was finally approved. The catalogs will include:
N. B. Catalogs in the departmental libraries will not according to the present plan include analyticals or other added entries which may be provided in the dictionary and classed catalogs of the general library. Even with the limitations here indicated the catalog plan as outlined may seem a little ambitious and likely to prove expensive and difficult to maintain. In view of the present situation, as well as the outlook for the future, even assuming that departments which in 1900 favored a departmental system should be indisposed to change their attitude, it seemed nevertheless the safest plan to adopt. The general library aims to build up a strong central reference collection. This collection It is no doubt true that heads of departments and their associates frequently take a personal pride in their departmental library and feel a certain responsibility for its growth and development. I have known cases where a department would resent any suggestion that a part of its books might to good advantage be transferred to the general library or to another department in exchange for material in these libraries bearing more directly on the special line of study which the department is supposed to represent. The fact remains, nevertheless, that these libraries frequently show in their development a lack of that strong coordinating influence so essential to systematic growth. A detailed examination of their collections soon reveals the fact that books have been ordered principally with reference to their use in connection with courses given in a department, no one apparently questioning the right of one department to poach on the premises of another or on that of the general library. There has resulted, therefore, a situation which cannot be remedied by any catalog, no matter how exhaustive or how perfect. This leads me to go a step further and to venture the assertion that the lack of a strong central library can not be compensated by merely bringing together related departmental libraries into the same or adjoining buildings. It is even doubtful if it would be worth while to prepare an exhaustive union catalog of such libraries without considerable migration of books from one department to another. A few illustrations taken at random from the books which have come under my observation during the past month or two in connection with the recataloging, will, I think, bear me out in this statement. General works on science are in a number of libraries, mainly in Geology, Biology, and the general library, but also in a number of other departmental libraries. The History library includes many books which deal solely with Education, Medicine, Music, Art, Religion, Technology, and other subjects, overlapping, therefore, practically with all other departments. The main duplication, however, seems to be in Church History with the Divinity library, in History and Topography with Geography, in Ancient History with Classics and in Education and other subjects with the general library. The Modern Language library duplicates chiefly material in the libraries of History and Geography, besides of course the general library. It is, however, the one department which strongly favors consolidation of books on the same subject, and if the other departments in or connecting with the general library will agree to such consolidation, its duplication, except with Geography and the Classical Department, should cease after the transfer of its books to the general library building. The fact that this library has on its shelves works like Alumni Oxoniensis, Catalogue of the Advocates Library, "Ersch and Gruber," La Grande Encyclopedie, Dante's Dictionnaire biographique et bibliographique des hommes les plus remarquables, Haebler's Typographia Iberica, etc., will therefore prove an advantage. The Classical library presents one of the most vexing problems of our library situation, one not solved by a most liberal duplication. Its collections overlap mainly with those of History, Sociology, Science, Political Science, Economics, Literature, Books on Education have been a source of particular trouble inasmuch as they have been purchased extensively by a number of departmental libraries. Mediaeval literature and the history of the middle ages is again a field which has been developed by the Classical library, Modern Languages, History and the general library. General books on Literature may be found in Philosophy, History, Modern Languages, and the general library, and likely also in the Classical department. Books on Evolution treating the question strictly from the biological standpoint may be in Philosophy and History, but not in Biology. Whether the reverse holds true, I have not as yet been able to verify by an actual examination of the Biology library. Naturally books on Experimental and Physiological Psychology may be found in Philosophy, Psychology, and also in the Biology library. Books on Metallurgy while chiefly in Geology are also represented in the library of Commerce and Administration. This holds true also of Engineering, Shop Management, and Agriculture. The latter subject is freely represented also in Botany, Economics, and in the general library. Geography, which is connected with the departmental library of Geology in a building not to connect with the general library, buys extensively in History, also in Economics, Natural conservation of resources, Soils, Economics, Botany, Plant Industries, etc., etc. Meteorology is represented in Geology, in Physics, Astronomy, and in the general library. Books on Water Supply, Irrigation and the like are in Geology and Geography, Chemistry, Economics, and the general library. Books on Fisheries, Whaling, and related subjects may be found in Geography, Biology, and the general library. Commerce is largely represented in Geography, Economics, the general library, Commerce and Administration, and the Classical library. Canals, Waterways, and Railroads, are mainly in Geography and Economics, but also in the general library. Mining is in Geography and Geology, and also in Economics. Marine Biology will be found in Geography and Geology as well as in Biology. Geology has a considerable number of books on Physics and Chemistry. Books on various industries are found in Economics, in Geology, and in the general library. Commercial Geography is somewhat evenly divided between Geography and Commerce and Administration. Another great difficulty is the separation of volumes of the same work. For instance, there is in no library a complete set of the Statesman's Year Book or the Almanach de Gotha, but partial sets in at least two or three libraries. This holds true also of several bibliographical periodicals and annuals, e.g., Le Soudier's Annuaire de la Librarie franÇaise. The instances here cited consider only the duplicating and overlapping of independent books or monographs treating the same subject, or the same phase of a subject; it does not take note of the duplication common to all libraries because of the inclusion in encyclopedias, general periodicals, and other comprehensive works, of material on a special subject; neither does it refer to the duplication which may be proper in such subjects as Railroads, Waterways, etc., where one department takes up the technical and another the economic phase of a subject. It would be possible to go on citing I have stated that the bringing together of related departmental libraries under one roof and the thorough cataloging of all the books on the campus in the manner indicated above, will not furnish a satisfactory solution of our problems. This I believe can only come about through some exchange of books between departmental libraries which shall bring together, not necessarily all books on the same subject, but at any rate the bulk of the material which deals with a special phase of a subject, and the various volumes of a periodical, annual, or similar work which I trust all are agreed should stand together. It resolves itself then into a question of reclassification or rather relocation of a part of the book resources of the university, and a partial surrender of the right on the part of the departments to determine absolutely the physical location of every book purchased on their recommendation. Personally, I feel rather hopeful that when the cataloging of a number of libraries has been completed and their resources brought together in a common catalog, the members of the various departments will see for themselves the advantage to all concerned of a partial redistribution. In a small way the general library has inaugurated such redistribution by indirect purchase of general bibliographies and reference works from the departmental libraries, a sum equal to the cost of the work at the time of original purchase being transferred from the book appropriation of the general library to that of the department. Some of the departments have been most willing to agree to such transfers. If it can be put into effect in the libraries which are now to be brought under the same roof, i.e., the Humanities with the exception of Classics and Geography, it will go far toward the establishment of what it is hoped may prove a fairly efficient central library. The centralization of catalogs and reference books alone would in time make it desirable for the departments more and more to consult the general library. A real consolidation of the resources of the Historical Group, Modern Languages and Literatures, Religion and Theology with the present general library will, it is hoped, prove to be even more effective. I have already stated that Geography would remain outside of this consolidation and probably also the Classical department, in spite of the fact that the latter is soon to occupy a building connecting with the general library. It is hoped that in both cases arrangements can in time be devised which, while satisfactory to the departments, shall prove effective in checking the almost unrestricted duplication of material in other libraries which now obtains. It is true that ten years ago other departments of the Humanities also held that while related libraries might to good advantage be brought under one roof, there should be no merging of their possessions. Considering, however, the lack of co-ordination in the development of the same libraries, the overlapping and intertwining of their respective fields, it is difficult to believe that this view can prevail for any length of time. I have endeavored in the above notes to show that the departmental problem is practically the same in various countries. In Italy, Germany, and Austria as well as in America the development of departmental collections to a point where they have become a perplexing and troublesome problem to government and university authorities is due primarily to the inability of the general university library Possibly Mr. L. N. Wilson of Clark university may have pointed out a partial solution to some of our perplexities. He states that at Clark university not only is the drafting of the classification schedules attended to by the professors, but also the actual classification of the books. Where the faculty is willing to undertake these duties the librarian is naturally relieved of a great and difficult responsibility. While the plan has evidently worked out in a satisfactory manner at Clark, it would seem a difficult or even impossible expedient for certain other universities, particularly the largest ones. There would be difficulty in securing the necessary volunteer service. Then the librarian would no doubt have to exercise infinite tact in his efforts to co-ordinate and harmonize the work of so many volunteer classifiers. That some coordinating influence would be required we may take for granted. Personally, I see little relief in the direction here indicated. As for the University of Chicago, I imagine that we are, in common with most university libraries destined to have the departmental problem with us in some form or other as long as there are collections of books to be administered in connection with departments and courses of instruction. We shall watch with great interest the development of the plans of sister universities, a number of which are said to contemplate the strengthening and extension of at least a part of their departmental collections. I may say in conclusion that judging by observations at Chicago I should be disposed to agree entirely with Dr. Gerhard of Halle, and others of our German colleagues, when they state that there can be no objection to the building up of strong departmental libraries, provided this can be achieved without crippling the general library. But where the departmental libraries are developed at the expense of the general library, and where willingness to co-operate, or to observe the most necessary restrictions as regards the fields to be covered is lacking, there the interest of the great majority both of faculty and students are made to suffer for the convenience of the few, a convenience which is, besides, in many cases only imaginary, and based on a lack of knowledge and appreciation of the possibilities of a general library, and no doubt also of the limitations of departmental libraries. As previously stated, the general library is the one department common to the whole university, the department which should have no ax to grind, and which under normal conditions might, therefore, be trusted to preserve an impartial attitude and to safeguard the interests of all departments alike without fear or favor. In closing this paper it is difficult to refrain from expressing the opinion that whatever the policy adopted with reference to its library system, a university owes it to its constituency to see that a strong and well balanced general library constitutes an integral part of the scheme. The establishment of the latter should, when possible, take precedence over that of large departmental collections. When it becomes necessary to organize the latter, they should be considered distinctly a part of the general library and be placed under its control. A partial or nominal control on the part of the general library is not likely to prove effective or to furnish the best possible service for the greatest possible number. Dr. W. K. JEWETT then presented a paper on THE PROPORTION OF UNIVERSITY LIBRARY INCOME WHICH SHOULD BE SPENT ON ADMINISTRATION The college librarian, like every other department head in the institution, is Six of the 25 libraries were in the first group, spending not to exceed $5,000. In all of these the expenditure for library administration exceeded that for books, in some cases by more than 100%. By amount spent for library administration I mean the amount spent for salaries and wages of persons employed in library work. In other words I mean to include student assistants and to exclude janitors. Twelve of the 25 libraries were in the second group, spending more than $5,000 and less than $20,000 for books. Ten of these spent less for administration than for books, one spent more and the remaining library spent the same for administration as for books. Two libraries in the group receive gifts of considerable sums each year for the purchase of books, the buying of which is done through the library so that for all purposes of comparison it is as though their book funds were increased just so much. I have regarded the gift money as equivalent to part of the book fund, although the actual payment is made by the giver without its passing through the hands of the college treasurer. Aside from these two, only one library in the second group receives any great number of volumes by gift. The average number of volumes received by gift is about one-third of the number received by purchase. The proportion of income used for salaries ranges from 35% to 45% leaving out the two libraries above mentioned which spent 50% and 52% for salaries. Seven libraries made up the third group composed of those spending $20,000 or more for books. I omitted to obtain any figures from Harvard, Yale or Chicago as they are known to be making extraordinary expenditures at present in reorganizing or recataloging. Of the seven, two spent less for salaries than for books, two spent the same for each and two spent more for salaries than for books. The seventh library like two of those in the preceding group has considerable sums placed at its disposal each year for book buying but the disbursement is made by the donor and not by the university treasurer so that exact figures for calculating percentages are not available in its case. The proportion of income employed for salaries by the other six ranges from 40% to 60%. From this brief comparison of data it is possible to draw the conclusion that with the smaller libraries a certain minimum of administration cost is necessary in order to operate the library at all and that this does not necessarily increase with the growth of the book fund. Where the book fund is less than $5,000, it is no reflection on the capacity of the librarian if his salary expense exceeds that amount although it is evidently his duty to devote his principal efforts to securing increased book appropriations. After the book fund has passed the $5,000 mark, the librarian should be prepared to give most excellent reasons for letting his salary roll exceed or even equal the book fund in case his governing board should begin to make If on the other hand his salary roll represents less than 45% of total income, the librarian may well resist the suggestions of professors to call for more book money and instead devote his annual appeals to securing additional needed assistance and more adequate compensation for the members of his present staff. With the libraries of the great universities the case is different. An institution that can spend upwards of $20,000 a year for books has more complex needs and more varied activities than the smaller colleges and universities. The quality of service demanded of the library is higher and much less is forgiven by the ambitious holders of highly paid chairs. The pressure of research work demands greater facilities for the prompt purchase and cataloging of "rush" books. More accomplished reference librarians must be had to meet the needs of clients in a great institution with a large number of graduate students. Catalogers of special qualifications must be provided to handle the books in oriental and other languages not commonly encountered in the ordinary college library. In the work of a large cataloging department there is more opportunity for lack of uniformity to creep in, and the need of accuracy in an enormous catalog is more vital than in a small one. Therefore the work of the revisers has to be more painstaking and time consuming than in a smaller collection where everything is simpler. Reclassification of whole sections of books whose classification is now out of date, must be undertaken. Bibliographies have to be compiled for professors. The preparation of publications, like the catalog of a special collection, is called for while the smaller library may never print anything more extensive than a list of its Poole sets. The duties of the shelf department in a great library are more complicated than many persons dream of and in all the departments fuller and more accurate records are needed. More extended routine in the order department is required in order to prevent unintentional duplication. Messenger service for the delivery of books in response to telephone calls from other buildings may be furnished. The maintenance of an efficient exchange bureau is needed in order to conduct the exchange of university publications with the innumerable minor learned societies all over the world. These publications are often called for in the great universities, although one could not reasonably expect to find them in the lesser institutions. In fact for many reasons the proportion of income required for administration in libraries of the first rank increases with the size of the collection itself. It is a fair inference therefore that a university library with a book fund of more than $20,000 a year is justified in maintaining a pay roll in excess of that sum without fear of criticism. The committee on nominations, reporting through Dr. W. K. Jewett, chairman, recommended that the by-laws of the Section be so amended that, instead of electing a chairman and a secretary each year as heretofore, a committee on arrangements consisting of three members be elected, the one first named by the committee this year to serve for one year, the second to serve two years, and the third to serve three years; one member to retire each year hereafter and his successor to be then elected for a three year term. On motion the recommendation was approved unanimously. The committee then recommended that the following persons be elected as the committee on arrangements: Mr. Andrew Keogh, Mr. N. L. Goodrich, and Miss Sarah B. Askew. On motion the recommendation was adopted and the three declared elected. The session then adjourned. |
|
