The following resolutions were received from the Government Documents Round Table and were read and adopted by unanimous vote.The following resolutions were passed unanimously at the adjourned meeting of the Documents Round Table, Friday, 12:15 p. m., when the Special Committee on Resolutions, consisting of Miss E. E. Clarke of Syracuse University, Mr. H. J. Carr of Scranton, and Mr. H. O. Brigham of Rhode Island, appointed at the regular meeting on Thursday, reported as follows:WHEREAS, The American Library Association desires to express the appreciation of its members respecting the efficient work that has been and is being done for libraries by the office of the Superintendent of Documents, nevertheless it recognizes the many hampering features that still control the issue and distribution of public documents. Believing that these features can be materially lessened, thereforeBE IT RESOLVED, That this Association approve and urge the early enactment of Senate Bill 825 entitled, "An Act to amend, revise, and codify the laws relating to the public printing and binding and distribution of Government Publications," now pending before the Sixty-third Congress; strongly recommending, however, that the parenthetical exception now included in the first proviso of Section 45 of said bill be stricken out so that the annual reports of departments shall not be treated as Congressional Documents.BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, That this Association repeat its former recommendation urging that the text of all public bills upon which committee reports are made, shall be printed with the report thereon.GEO. S. GODARD,Chairman Documents Committee.
The following resolutions were received from the Government Documents Round Table and were read and adopted by unanimous vote.
The following resolutions were passed unanimously at the adjourned meeting of the Documents Round Table, Friday, 12:15 p. m., when the Special Committee on Resolutions, consisting of Miss E. E. Clarke of Syracuse University, Mr. H. J. Carr of Scranton, and Mr. H. O. Brigham of Rhode Island, appointed at the regular meeting on Thursday, reported as follows:
WHEREAS, The American Library Association desires to express the appreciation of its members respecting the efficient work that has been and is being done for libraries by the office of the Superintendent of Documents, nevertheless it recognizes the many hampering features that still control the issue and distribution of public documents. Believing that these features can be materially lessened, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, That this Association approve and urge the early enactment of Senate Bill 825 entitled, "An Act to amend, revise, and codify the laws relating to the public printing and binding and distribution of Government Publications," now pending before the Sixty-third Congress; strongly recommending, however, that the parenthetical exception now included in the first proviso of Section 45 of said bill be stricken out so that the annual reports of departments shall not be treated as Congressional Documents.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, That this Association repeat its former recommendation urging that the text of all public bills upon which committee reports are made, shall be printed with the report thereon.
GEO. S. GODARD,Chairman Documents Committee.
The following report was made to the Council by Dr. Andrews in behalf of the Committee on affiliation with other than local, state and provincial library associations.
Your Committee on affiliated societies respectfully report that they have proceeded in the way proposed and approved by the Council at its meeting in January. They regret that circumstances have prevented them from presenting a final report but they believe that substantial progress has been made.In May the Committee sent to the presidents of the four affiliated societies the following letter:"The Council of the A. L. A. has appointed a committee to formulate the relations which should exist between the Association and affiliated associations other than state, provincial, etc., in return for the privileges accorded them. The committee understand that this action was taken largely because one or two of the societies had expressed a desire to contribute toward the expenses of the Association. This desire was duly appreciated by the council, who felt that it would be well to take definite and formal action. The committee propose that hereafter these privileges shall not be extended to other than affiliated societies without formal vote of the council, except that the program committee will be authorized to do so for the first meeting of any newly-formed society. They propose to recommend, also, that the present provision shall be continued,—namely, that each affiliated society shall meet with the Association at least once every three years. They also expect to recommend that some contribution towards expenses be required, but wish that the manner and the amount of the assessment be determined after consultation with the societies, and have asked that I secure an expression of your opinion on these points. They would consider the amount suggested by one of the societies,—namely $25.00, as a maximum. The grounds for such a contribution are evident, but it may be well to state them as follows:"1. Participation in the special railway accommodations."2. Provision for rooms and meals at reduced rates."3. Provision of rooms and time for meetings."4. Participation in the activities of the meeting."5. Printing programs, announcements in the Bulletin, and assignment of 15 pages in the Proceedings."The cost of preparing for and holding a convention is about $500.00, that of the Bulletin and Proceedings, including editing and distributing, about $1,500.00. Provision of hotel rooms and travel facilities is not a matter of money, but frequently involves disappointment to individual members who apply too late."As stated already, the committee have not agreed on any amount or method. They have considered a flat amount of $15.00 to $25.00, one dependent on the number of members in the society, who are not members of the Association, and one dependent on the number of such members who attend."Personally, I think the logical method would be a combination of the first and third, and suggest that there be an initial amount of $10.00 or $15.00 and an additional charge of 50 cents or 25 cents for each member attending who is not a member of the Association. Of course, this additional charge will not be asked for official delegates of libraries who are members."Kindly let me have an expression of your opinion on this subject at your earliest convenience and oblige."Yours truly,"(Signed) C. W. ANDREWS."
Your Committee on affiliated societies respectfully report that they have proceeded in the way proposed and approved by the Council at its meeting in January. They regret that circumstances have prevented them from presenting a final report but they believe that substantial progress has been made.
In May the Committee sent to the presidents of the four affiliated societies the following letter:
"The Council of the A. L. A. has appointed a committee to formulate the relations which should exist between the Association and affiliated associations other than state, provincial, etc., in return for the privileges accorded them. The committee understand that this action was taken largely because one or two of the societies had expressed a desire to contribute toward the expenses of the Association. This desire was duly appreciated by the council, who felt that it would be well to take definite and formal action. The committee propose that hereafter these privileges shall not be extended to other than affiliated societies without formal vote of the council, except that the program committee will be authorized to do so for the first meeting of any newly-formed society. They propose to recommend, also, that the present provision shall be continued,—namely, that each affiliated society shall meet with the Association at least once every three years. They also expect to recommend that some contribution towards expenses be required, but wish that the manner and the amount of the assessment be determined after consultation with the societies, and have asked that I secure an expression of your opinion on these points. They would consider the amount suggested by one of the societies,—namely $25.00, as a maximum. The grounds for such a contribution are evident, but it may be well to state them as follows:
"1. Participation in the special railway accommodations.
"2. Provision for rooms and meals at reduced rates.
"3. Provision of rooms and time for meetings.
"4. Participation in the activities of the meeting.
"5. Printing programs, announcements in the Bulletin, and assignment of 15 pages in the Proceedings.
"The cost of preparing for and holding a convention is about $500.00, that of the Bulletin and Proceedings, including editing and distributing, about $1,500.00. Provision of hotel rooms and travel facilities is not a matter of money, but frequently involves disappointment to individual members who apply too late.
"As stated already, the committee have not agreed on any amount or method. They have considered a flat amount of $15.00 to $25.00, one dependent on the number of members in the society, who are not members of the Association, and one dependent on the number of such members who attend.
"Personally, I think the logical method would be a combination of the first and third, and suggest that there be an initial amount of $10.00 or $15.00 and an additional charge of 50 cents or 25 cents for each member attending who is not a member of the Association. Of course, this additional charge will not be asked for official delegates of libraries who are members.
"Kindly let me have an expression of your opinion on this subject at your earliest convenience and oblige.
"Yours truly,
"(Signed) C. W. ANDREWS."
They have just now received replies from all and formal action has been taken by two. All, though perhaps with varying degrees of cordiality and readiness, recognize the justice of the proposed arrangement. There is quite naturally some variance in their suggestions as to the proper amount of the contribution to be made and the method by which it is to be computed. The committee desire to consider carefully these suggestions and to reconcile their variations as nearly as possible. They would like to discuss them in a personal meeting of the whole committee, as well as by correspondence, and hope that the winter meeting of the council will afford them an opportunity to do so, and to formulate a by-law for the consideration of council.They therefore submit the foregoing as a report of progress.For the Committee,C. W. ANDREWS.
They have just now received replies from all and formal action has been taken by two. All, though perhaps with varying degrees of cordiality and readiness, recognize the justice of the proposed arrangement. There is quite naturally some variance in their suggestions as to the proper amount of the contribution to be made and the method by which it is to be computed. The committee desire to consider carefully these suggestions and to reconcile their variations as nearly as possible. They would like to discuss them in a personal meeting of the whole committee, as well as by correspondence, and hope that the winter meeting of the council will afford them an opportunity to do so, and to formulate a by-law for the consideration of council.
They therefore submit the foregoing as a report of progress.
For the Committee,C. W. ANDREWS.
It was voted that this report be received as a report of progress and further consideration be referred to the mid-winter meeting in January, 1914.
Adjourned.
(Round Table, June 27, 1913, 2:30 p. m.)
Mr. Charles R. Green, librarian of the Massachusetts Agricultural College, was acting chairman of the meeting, which was an informal one without a regular program. Miss Emma B. Hawks, of the U. S. Department of Agriculture library, acted as secretary. The subjects for discussion were (1) Catalog cards for agricultural experiment station publications and (2) The indexing of agricultural periodicals.
Mr. C. H. Hastings first spoke briefly in regard to the printing of cards by the Library of Congress for the publications of the state agricultural experiment stations. Cards have already been issued for the Illinois and Indiana station bulletins, the copy being supplied by the university libraries. Before going on with the work for the other stations, he thought it desirable to consult with the Office of Experiment Stations in regard to a plan of co-operation by which the same card might be used both for the Library of Congress cards and for the "Card index to experiment station literature" issued by the office. It would be much more economical to have only the one card printed, if possible. Miss E. B. Hawks expressed doubt as to whether such an arrangement could be made, inasmuch as the form and purpose of the Office of Experiment Stations card index differ so widely from those of a dictionary catalog. Mr. Hastings thought that it would do no harm to make the attempt and said that he would consult with the librarian of the Department of Agriculture and the director of the Office of Experiment Stations in regard to it. If such an arrangement can not be made he thought the Library of Congress would be willing to print separate cards, having the copy supplied by the station or college libraries, if they are willing and able to do the cataloging.
Mr. H. W. Wilson then spoke in regard to the publication of an index to agricultural periodicals. He stated that he has had a good many demands for such an index and has delayed adding any agricultural titles to the Industrial Arts Index, because it may be better to have a separate one. Those who have written to him about it have almost always expressed a preference for a separate index. Miss Hawks asked whether some titles might not be included in the Industrial Arts Index now, and then removed if a separate agricultural one were begun. Mr. Wilson replied that there was some likelihood of the Agricultural Index being begun next year, in which case it would hardly pay to do anything with the agricultural literature before this. There was some discussion as to the scope of the index. Mr. Wilson said they would wish to include only journals of national standing. Mr. C. R. Green thought that there were not more than about six of these. Mr. H. O. Severance thought there would be many more than this, including papers devoted to special phases, as poultry, bee keeping and stock raising. Dr. C. W. Andrews doubted whether the farm papers were worth indexing. He thought that the matter was rarely original, but that the articles of value are worked up from Station and Department of Agriculture publications. Mr. Wilson said he had had more demands for an Agricultural Index lately than for an index of any other subject.
Inquiry was made as to how many subscriptions would be needed to justify the starting of a separate index. Mr. Wilson could not say definitely. There might be two plans—one, the division of subscriptions among subscribers. The basis for the Industrial Arts Index was 20 cents a title—40 cents for a weekly. The other plan is a sliding scale of charges by which a library having a great many of the periodicals indexed pays a higher price, thus enabling the smaller ones to pay something but not a higher price than they can affordfor the service rendered. Mr. Wilson stated that he was willing to go to the expense of a referendum to find out the wishes of libraries on this subject, with a view either to the starting of a separate index or the incorporation of some agricultural journals in the Industrial Arts Index. If the idea of a separate index is abandoned, he would almost certainly add some titles to the Industrial Arts Index. Mr. Green thought that he might count on active support of the Department of Agriculture library and all the agricultural experiment stations. He was not sure what further support there would be. Mr. Wilson thought the demand would probably be an increasing one.
Meeting adjourned.
The first session of the Catalog Section was held Wednesday afternoon, June 25th, the chairman, Miss Harriet B. Gooch, of the Pratt Institute school of library science, presiding. As the minutes of the last meeting had been published, their reading was omitted.
The report of the committee on the cost and method of cataloging was called for, in response to which Mr. A. G. S. Josephson, Chairman of the committee, stated the present report was but a preliminary one, to be followed by a final report next year. The Catalog Section took no action on the report since the committee was appointed by the Executive Board of the Association, not by the section.[3]
[3]The report and questionnaire is printed in connection with the minutes of the Executive Board.
[3]The report and questionnaire is printed in connection with the minutes of the Executive Board.
Miss Gooch then stated that the discussion for the afternoon was the administration of the catalog department considered first in its relation to the other departments of the library, and second as to its management of its own affairs looking toward simple, inexpensive and rapid methods of work. She explained that the discussion was concerned with library systems consisting of a central library with a number of branch libraries, and was to be treated both from the librarian's and from the cataloger's point of view.
The discussion was opened by Mr. F. F. HOPPER, of the Tacoma public library.
In the reorganization of our libraries, in the adoption of modern progressive and simplified methods, in the effort to develop and improve service to the public, the catalog department has tended to be drawn out of relation to the other departments, to become in a way isolated, and as a result its efficiency has been impaired. The attention of librarians has been given to other phases of library activities and therefore they know less about the catalog department than any other. Undoubtedly the technicalities of the cataloging process make it most difficult for librarians to grapple with, but all the more carefully should we consider ways and means of increasing the efficiency of the process, relating the work more closely to changes in other departments, and studying methods of possible simplification of the routine mechanical work that seems to have largely increased of late.
In one of Mr. Carlton's reports to his board of trustees, he uses these words: "It has often seemed to me that in library administration the catalog department was much like the police department in municipal administration. It is frequently under investigation; it is constantly being reformed; its defects are felt in many other departments; and its heads are always changing as one after another breaks down or fails to achieve impossible results."
Surely such an unsatisfactory and unwholesome condition is not without remedy.
If I can not presume to submit a definite plan of reformation, perhaps I may at least attempt to suggest possible lines of investigation for each librarian to pursue.
1. The catalog room.
In the modern organization of work, the first care is to provide work-rooms in which the highest efficiency may be maintained. Scientific investigation shows the extravagance of conditions which retard speed and multiply unnecessary motions, which do not provide adequate light and air and proper colors to conserve strength, arrest fatigue and support the energies. In planning buildings we properly endeavor to bring the catalog department into the closest possible relation with the order department, the book stack and the reference department, to save steps which mean time and money. My observation is that frequently there is not the same care exercised in planning the room itself as there is in locating it. Often it is too small, so that work clogs up, books must be shifted too often (an expensive process), too many corners must be turned in getting about the room and the assistants impede one another's progress. On the other hand, a room may be so large that time is wasted in getting about it. To be sure this is a rare fault. I have seen cataloging rooms admirably placed for convenience of access to stack, reference room and order department, and really adequate in size, but so devoid of light and air that even a hardened devotee of our reading rooms would fear to enter such a place. Plenty of windows, if possible on two sides of a room, and ample indirect artificial lighting are just as important for the efficiency of the catalog department as like facilities for the public reading rooms.
2. Relation of catalog department to other departments.
When friction develops between two departments (of course it never does; this is merely a hypothetical case), my observation is that the catalog department is pretty likely to be a party to the affair. Why? Simply because as organization within libraries has developed, the catalog department has been left more and more to its own devices. In the departments working with the public, the tendency has been to complexity of organization, perhaps, but still to elimination of detail, simplification of method, the sacrifice of theory to practicality that the public may have the feeling of freedom and ease and be given the quickest and best service with the least red tape. During this process the catalog department has continued to develop theory unchecked by daily strenuous contact with the busy borrower, to increase routine and mechanical work, still opaque to the searchlight of scientific investigation from outside the department. You need publicity, but all you ever get is pages and pages of blasts against the poor old battle-scarred, but more-or-less-still-in-the-ring accession book, which in nine cases out of ten belongs to another department anyway. The illuminating power of publicity for the devious ways of cataloging and the development of a better spirit of co-operation, are to be obtained perhaps best of all by the establishment of entirely feasible definite relations between the departments. As Miss Winser will develop this topic, I will leave it here, simply remarking that in my experience the opinions of one department about the organization and detail of another department are frequently of the utmost value, but rarely the opinions of other departments about the catalog department, whose problems are not understood.
3. Organization of the department.
(1) General type of organization.
The development of the modern elaborate systems of scientific management in the various forms of industry has for the most part superseded the best type of ordinary management known as the "initiative and incentive system." Under the old system success depends almost entirely upon the initiative of the workmen, whereas, under scientific management, or task management, a complete science for all theoperations is developed, and the managers assume new burdens, new duties and responsibilities. Having developed the science, they scientifically select and then train, teach and develop the workmen. The managers co-operate with the men to insure all the work being done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been developed. The work and responsibility are almost equally divided between the management and the workmen. The combination of the initiative of the workmen and the new types of work done by the management makes scientific management so much more efficient than the old way.
"All the planning which under the old system was done by the workman, as a result of his personal experience, must of necessity under the new system be done by the management in accordance with the laws of the science."[4]One type of man is needed to plan ahead and an entirely different type to execute the work. Perhaps the most prominent single element in modern scientific management is the task idea. The work of each workman is fully planned in advance by the management and the man receives complete written instructions, describing in detail the task he is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in doing the work. And the work planned in advance in this way constitutes a task which is to be solved by the joint effort of the workman and the management. This task specifies not only what is to be done, but how it is to be done and the exact time allowed for doing it.
[4]F. W. Taylor, "Principles of scientific management."
[4]F. W. Taylor, "Principles of scientific management."
It is said that "the most important object of both the workmen and the management should be the training and development of each individual in the establishment, so that he can do (at his fastest pace and with the maximum of efficiency) the highest class of work for which his natural abilities fit him," but it is nevertheless true that to some extent scientific management contemplates the selection of the workman best fitted for one particular
task and keeping him at that task because he can do that better than any other. Within the narrow domain of his special work, he is given every encouragement to suggest improvements both in methods and in implements. In the past the man has been first; under modern methods the system is first.
I have attempted to summarize some of the principles of so-called scientific management, because in the organization of our cataloging work definite principles of any kind of management have rarely been evident throughout, and if we are to observe accurately the system of this department, and study it with a view to possible improvement, we must test its work by some existing scientific standards.
Thescienceof cataloging has been pretty fully developed, and at least its technique is taught in our professional schools. Therefore it may be assumed that we are now reasonably conforming to the first ideals of scientific management when we select with due care for the headship of our catalog departments and for the more important positions, those trained in the principles of the science. I personally believe that the principles of scientific management should be actively employed by the head cataloger in the definite planning of the work of the individual, in the testing of the speed and accuracy of the individual for a special task, and in the insistence that speed for each task shall definitely conform to careful but easily made tests of the amount of time that should be consumed in performing the task. There are plenty of results of experiments in other lines of work which show that the output is increased, the cost lessened, by the constant planning and supervision and co-operation of the head of the department, and consequent abandonment by him of a corresponding amount of special detail work of his own that he heretofore may have done.
But now I must register an emphatic exception to the application of the exact principles of scientific management to a catalog department.
I believe the principles of scientific management as developed for the organization of industry and business, should undergo a distinct change or be abandoned entirely in their application to one most important phase of the organization of a catalog department. Scientific management does consider the health and comfort and freedom from fatigue and efficiency of the individual, but always with a view to the effect upon a particular task and upon increased output at reduced cost. In other words the emphasis is placed on the task, not at all on the broad development of the individual. In library work, human sympathy, a broad point of view, the fullest possible development of personality are of the utmost importance; esprit de corps, the spirit of loyalty and co-operation are of more importance than a particular task. I assume that needs no argument. Scientific management, fully applied, would, it seems to me, defeat this vital purpose of library organization, and would more effectually differentiate and isolate the catalog department than is already the case in many libraries.
This leads to some illustrations of my meaning by
(2) Some practical considerations of the organization.
I do entirely believe in a distinct and complete organization of a catalog department, not in the system some libraries use in having a department head, but without assistants definitely and wholly assigned to the one department. It is my observation that to insure quick, accurate, consecutive and thoroughly efficient work, not only must the department head devote practically her whole time to the one job, but at least enough assistants also, to insure continuity of work. I am not in favor of the head of the department being part of the time assistant in the children's room or even in the reference room. Such a plan is altogether too extravagant. The manager of a department needs to give undivided attention to the supervision of the work of the department. The head of the department is constantly brought directly in touch with the general administration of the library and with other department heads, and a possible tendency to narrowed point of view is thus checked to some extent. There are also some assistants who are naturally fitted to the work of the catalog department and not at all to meeting the public. If we secure an assistant evidently suited for catalog work, but for no other, we should bend all our energies to making her the most efficient possible cataloger, and not deprive the catalog department of her constant services in order to make a vain attempt to develop other sides of her personality and give the public poor service in the process. In my judgment, in a library cataloging from 25,000 to 35,000 volumes a year, a head cataloger, a first assistant, and probably at least two other assistants should give their whole time to the department and so form the backbone of the organization. To this part of it the principles of scientific management may be thoroughly applied.
My idea of the necessity for divergence from those principles comes when we consider the need for the development of some members of the cataloging staff by other sides of library experience, and also when we consider the importance of mutual understanding and co-operation between the departments. All librarians experience difficulty in obtaining assistant catalogers because a candidate is very often reluctant to devote herself wholly to the routine operations of the catalog department. In many such cases, it would be possible to secure an excellent part-time assistant for the catalog department, if we would offer work for part of the day in a department dealing with the public. In this way we would achieve a double purpose. The experience of all librarians, I am confident, will indicate the inestimable advantage to the point of view of the catalog department and to the catalog itself if some one of considerable importance in the department gives a part of each day to reference work, and another assistant a part of each day to the loan department. I think it isnot so important that a cataloger devote some time to work with children, and it is also true that such an arrangement is rarely of value to the children's department, where special qualities and training are all-important. On the other hand, it is desirable that someone with the training and experience of a children's librarian, give to the catalog department time for the assignment of subject headings for the children's catalog. The work of the catalog and order departments is most closely related and yet it is my experience that misunderstanding between those departments is not infrequent. An assistant whose time is divided between the two should and does work to the advantage of both departments. With the exception of the one representative from the children's department, I do not believe that the possible advantage gained by having assistants from the departments which deal with the public give part time to cataloging, by any means equals the loss of efficiency attending the change from one manager to another or the loss in the work itself, for it is unusual that one assistant should do equally high-class work in two such distinct fields. I know that some say that the majority of really good desk assistants possess the education, the clear and discriminating mind, the accuracy and resourcefulness of the good cataloger and are of value in the catalog department. Also it is true that the suitability of each assistant for each department would of course be considered when interchanges are arranged. Nevertheless it is my observation that excellent desk assistants ordinarily can do well only the merest clerical work in a catalog department, and usually they do not appreciate the accuracy and minute care required in cataloging work. Certainly it is extravagant to use a part of the time of a presumably fairly-well-paid, good desk or reference assistant for merely mechanical work in the catalog department, which otherwise would be done by a cheaper grade of service than the better grade of catalog assistants. Also the special care and extra time wasted by head catalogers in revising the work of such assistants is an expense worth consideration.
4. Cost of cataloging.
Many complaints are heard from librarians of the seemingly excessive cost of cataloging. Few practical suggestions seem to have been made for reducing costs, except in the elimination of some details, such as accession books. Since I understand a committee is investigating this whole question, I have not attempted to obtain any statistical information. In the few fairly large libraries whose estimates of the cost of the process have come to my attention, the estimated cost of purchasing, accessioning, and cataloging a book, including labelling, gilding, card filing, and everything necessary to secure a book and prepare it for use, ranges from 30 cents to about 65 cents. These cost estimates vary, not only because of differences in the elaboration or simplicity of the processes, but also because of the difference in the character of the books added, large numbers of duplicates for schools, branches, etc., being more easily and cheaply handled than separate new titles.
There can be little question that scientific management, properly used, will reduce the costs of cataloging work. Adequate planning and supervision of all processes by the head cataloger, the classifier and others in charge of divisions of the work, can make for speed. I am convinced that we do not really know the maximum length of time which an assistant should be allowed to keep at one certain task. An assistant typewriting shelf-list cards should do rapid work for perhaps three hours. After that a measure of fatigue makes change of occupation advisable for the individual, and economical for the department. Slight fatigue from typewriting will not, however, impair efficiency in a different sort of work. A point worth considering here is, that the change in the occupation of a higher-grade assistant in order not to impair efficiency, should not mean time given to a lower or more mechanical grade of work. That isextravagance. Impending mental fatigue does not mean that mental processes are to be abandoned. Just as much rest is obtained, and efficiency is really increased, by simple change of the mental groove. Here the advocate of the general exchange of assistants between departments might say that the advisable thing to do is to send the assistant to another department. In most cases I believe that such a change is a mistake, because a change from one department to another means too great a break in the continuity of management in two departments. One manager can plan more effectively for the entire working time of an individual than two managers can plan for the two halves.
The development of library schemes of service, branches, stations, children's rooms, work with schools, has all added enormously to the routine and mechanical processes of cataloging. More shelf-lists, more catalogs, and all sorts of differentiation in the processes suitable to the special need have multiplied details faster than most librarians realize. It is this tremendous complexity which has worn out head catalogers, increased costs, and made administrators clamor for the elimination of unnecessary detail, without having a real understanding of what the detail is and is for.
Deterioration in the cataloging process will injure other departments, but undoubtedly most libraries have superfluous refinements that could well be omitted with economy in cataloging, and no loss to the chief end of all our work.
It is a temptation to consider carefully the methods which might save expenses in the cataloging process, but I can take time only to make brief reference to some of them, most of these having been frequently discussed at length before.
(a) Careful planning of catalog room for convenience, to save all unnecessary motions.
(b) Scientific supervision of tasks to produce greatest speed without undue fatigue.
(c) Stopping the publication of many monthly bulletins. Some bulletins of the larger and certain particular libraries are of inestimable value to other libraries. Most of these bulletins are printed from the linotype slugs used in printing their own catalog cards, and consequently the labor is minimized. The bulletins of most libraries, I firmly believe, are of no possible use to other libraries, and the material in them would be much more read by the public if published in the newspapers, as it should be in any case, and if the special lists, which are the most useful part of many bulletins, were printed on a multigraph, instead of being buried in forbidding bulletins that no able-bodied ordinary man in his senses could be driven to read.
(d) Use of Library of Congress cards. Some people say they do not save time. I recommend those people to recatalog a library without them, also to attempt to get along without them for a while for current additions. To the best of my knowledge they do save money, and I know they save wear and tear on typewriter machines and ribbons, and they save temper, which is nervous energy and worth while saving. If you don't believe that last read Goldmark on "Fatigue and efficiency" and then you will. Besides, Library of Congress cards look better than typewritten cards and have more durability, since typewritten cards rub and fade and have to be rewritten too frequently.
(e) What real objection can there be to simplifying the cards you write yourselves? It does not matter if they are not consistent with Library of Congress cards. No living borrower would know whether they were consistent or not, and no dead one would matter. Besides if variety is the spice of life, consistency is the vice of it. Nobody but a librarian ever worried about being consistent. I regret I can't even except the clergy.
(f) Omitting book numbers for fiction saves a vast amount of time and sacrifices little. They do not add beauty, and they cause endless trouble and expense without due compensation.
(g) As to the accession book: I mention this because everyone does, and therefore, lack the courage to pass it without remark. Some library reports say that they save the time of one assistant by doing away with it. The fact that practically all of them say it, no matter what size the library in question is, makes one suspicious. I think they are just copying each other's reports, which is not fair. If, however, the accession book is abandoned, and the bill-date, source and cost for each copy of a book are added to a shelf-list card which contains author, title, publisher and perhaps date of publication, much writing is saved and all necessary information is preserved. In the Minneapolis public library, which makes the closest estimate I have seen, four hours per 150 books are said to be saved by such a method. No small matter! It is my personal opinion that the accession book is superfluous in a library which is completely cataloged and shelf-listed.
(h) An interesting change due to the study of motions is recommended in the procedure for shelf-listing by the Minneapolis public library: "Formerly one person marked the call number on the back of the title page, and assigned the copy letter, then the book was taken by another assistant who marked the book slip, the pocket and the label. This meant two people handling the book, the second doing only the mechanical work of copying; hence the work must be revised by someone else, or many mistakes occurred in the work of even our best markers. Now, the shelf-lister, who knows the meaning of the number and has it already in her mind, marks all books as she lists them, and the work goes through faster and more accurately."
(i) Trying to save money by omitting the yearly inventory, particularly for open shelves, is a mistake, I believe. One does not save money by gaining discredit for failing to keep track of his wares.
(j) It is doubtless superfluous to recommend throwing away antiques, like withdrawal books.
(k) The use of the multigraph for writing catalog and shelf-list cards is certainly economy if the number of catalogs is large enough to require pretty large duplication. The shifting of much mechanical work to a less highly-paid class of assistant and the saving in revision of all but the first copy of a card, are distinct gains.
(l) There are doubtless many mechanical devices which will be adopted to advantage in cataloging in the next few years. Many machines of different sorts have greatly changed bookkeeping methods, making the bookkeeper an initiative force in administration of business houses, and certainly similar economy systems will be developed for the cataloger.
5. Efficiency of the individual in the department.
The routine work of cataloging brings fatigue sooner than an occupation involving more variety, although the effects of this form of fatigue may not cumulate so rapidly. It is consequently of special importance that the executive pay particular attention to the application of the principles of scientific management to the efficiency of the individual. The utmost care must be taken that energy shall be carefully directed and not be over-expended. Unduly prolonged attention to a particular kind of work resulting in the long run in nervous exhaustion is a familiar phenomenon of cataloging. Dr. Richardson says that for correction and verification work, two hours a day is the maximum for highest efficiency. My observation is that continuous work at the typewriter should not exceed three hours. Although filing is largely mechanical work, it is also very wearying because of the decided monotony of it, and there is a marked tendency to tire quickly. Since errors rapidly increase with fatigue, the service is directly injured, as well as indirectly through the ultimate effect on the health of the individual.
In general the carefully trained assistant not only knows how to go about his work with more dispatch, with less needfor supervision, with more real efficiency, but also with less wear and tear on his nervous energy. An added argument for the economy of paying higher salaries to obtain adequately trained assistants! I have had excellent opportunity to observe the effect of the graded salary on the efficiency of a cataloging staff. The increased interest, the new energy, and the altered spirit are marked when a graded service is installed, particularly when it is realized that efficiency, as well as length of service, is considered.
It is not necessary to discuss recreation in the library, as the subject relates to the catalog department no differently than it does to the others. The same may be said about vacations, but in passing I should like to say that I agree entirely with Dr. Bostwick's idea of them as assignments to special work. It seems to me that assistants should be required to obtain the approval of the executive to the plans for their vacations. I have taken vacations myself which were certain to do me no good, and consequently do my work harm, and it does seem that I ought not to expect pay for such a misuse of the library's time. The change in the hours of service in the circulation department of the New York public library from 42½ hours a week to 40 hours has caused widespread approval. I wonder if anyone has called attention to the fact that slight changes in climate affect the ability of the individual to work a certain number of hours. For instance, I know from experience that it is possible to work longer without discomfort in an even climate, not subject to extremes of either heat or cold, than it is in the climate of New York. There are certain parts of the country where it takes less energy to work 42 hours per week throughout the year than it does to work 40 hours correspondingly in New York.
With more attention to light, air, attractive appearance and convenient arrangement of room, avoidance of fatigue in spite of rapid work or monotony, sensible hours, some degree of variety in work, sane vacations, some outdoor exercise during each day, decent pay on a graded basis, the efficiency record of the cataloging staff in many a library should be raised, their organization held intact, and their humor and good-humor have some chance to appear.
The subject was continued by Dr. ARTHUR E. BOSTWICK, of the St. Louis public library, who spoke as follows:
From the administrative standpoint the library life of a book is divided very distinctly into two periods, that before it is placed on the shelves and that after it is so placed. The first period, embracing selection, order, receipt, classification, cataloging and mechanical preparation, is strictly preliminary to the second and would have no reason for being except for the second. The public recognizes the second chiefly and knows of the first vaguely and inadequately. To the library, and especially to that part of the staff engaged in the operations proper to it, it bulks large.
The librarian of a large library often finds himself obliged to act, in a measure, as the public's representative, taking the point of view of the thousands of readers, rather than of those who operate the machinery directly under his own control. To one who is actually handling the levers and pulleys, the machine often seems to be the thing. The general administrator, somewhat removed from this direct contact, is better able to see it as it is—a means to an end.
Hence to the chief librarian, this period of preparation must always be a cause of anxiety. Its cost and its duration especially worry him. While his training and experience do not permit him to minimize its importance, he would like to make it as cheap and as short as possible. The reader wants his book, and he wants it now—as soon as he sees the notice of it in the paper. The departments of the library that have to do with its preparation are anxious only that this preparation shall be thorough, realizing that on it depends the usefulness of the book in the second, or public, period of its life. Theimpatient reader sees no reason for any delay. The co-operating departments see every reason. The librarian sees the reasons, too, but it is his business, to a certain extent, to take the reader's part, and insist that the book's preparation shall not be so thorough that by the time of its completion two-thirds of the necessity for any preparation at all shall have passed, never to return.
It therefore becomes an important part of his duty to hurry up the work of preparation, and it is my experience that this duty becomes difficult of performance, wellnigh impossible, when the work and responsibility of preparation devolves upon two or more departments. It has sometimes seemed to me that a majority of my working hours were occupied in settling disputes between the order and catalog departments, in futile endeavors to fit the responsibility for delays upon one or the other and to decide which of them, and when, was telling the truth about the other. It was thus with a feeling of relief, although somewhat of surprise, that I found myself four years ago at the head of a library where the preparatory stage of the book's life is entirely in charge of one department, a plan involving of course the consolidation of the order and catalog work.
My four years' experience has convinced me that in many cases this plan may be the solution of some of the librarian's problems. It does not do away with delay: it does not make the library staff assume the reader's point of view, or even the librarian's; but it does reduce the number of department heads with whom the librarian has to deal in his "hurry-up" campaign, and it does unify a responsibility whose division continually causes him trouble and vexation. That we so seldom see the combination of this work arises from the fact that the various stages of the book's preparation are rarely looked upon as parts of a whole. The ordering of books is regarded as a business in itself, requiring its own kind of expert knowledge and completed when the book has been delivered and the bills checked off. The cataloger, again, is proud of the degree of technical perfection to which he has brought the multiplicity of detail in his work. He has a high sense of its necessity in the library's scheme. Few see that both these processes, together with mechanical operations of pasting, labelling and lettering on which everyone looks down, are simply stages in the work of preparation, through which a book must pass before it becomes an integral part of a modern library. These are not separate departments of work, one completed before the next is begun; they are interwoven and interdependent in all sorts of ways. Books can not be ordered properly without a catalog. Books can not be cataloged properly without information necessary in the operation of ordering. It becomes a question of library policy, then, whether these operations may not be combined, and the considerations adduced above form at least a strong argument for such combination.
I have purposely dwelt on this matter from the standpoint of a general administrator and have therefore not gone into details, which it will be easy for you to obtain if you desire them.
In closing, let me say that I believe catalogers to have in a high degree that devotion to their task and that skill and interest in working out its details, that have made the American public library what it is. What they need to guard against is the aloofness arising from the separate and technical character of that work. Many of them realize, and all of them should do so, the fact that the catalog is made for the reader; not the reader for the catalog. We may try to train our readers to use our catalogs, but to the end of time we shall still have to deal with the unintelligent, the careless and the captious, and we must try to adapt our catalogs more or less to them. The cataloger may have to break cherished rules, to throw tradition overboard, to act in many ways that will scandalize his profession. Contact with as many other departments of the library as possible—realization of hisposition as a cog wheel in contact with other cogs, will help on the good work.
The following paper written by Miss BEATRICE WINSER, of the Newark free public library, was read in her absence by Miss Agnes Van Valkenburgh, of the library school of the New York public library:
The subject assigned to me is the relation of the catalog department to other departments in a library. There is a feeling abroad that it is the tendency of librarians to consider their catalog departments as things apart, the details of whose management, long ago settled by experts, should be modified only as those experts may suggest.
Probably chief librarians do not have the habit of refraining from giving frequent and careful examinations in the catalog departments, or have less interest in the improvement of those departments than in others; but, because it has been possible for experts to formulate rules, as it has not been possible for anyone to do for other branches of the work, the chief librarians have quite naturally allowed themselves to pay less and less attention to the details of these departments, which have thus lost the stimulus which the chief librarians give to the departments with which they largely concern themselves.
This, naturally, as I have already said, tends to make of the cataloging department a thing apart and much efficiency is lost to the library as a whole because of it.
For the purposes of this paper I propose to include in the scope of the cataloging department much of the work on books from their selection to their placing on the shelf.
It must be borne in mind that I am speaking of public libraries and not of college, historical, scientific or special libraries of any kind, and that I am making suggestions only.
The selection of books instead of being a difficult and complicated matter calling for hours of study and conference, is really quite simple. Every librarian should expect his more intelligent assistants to make suggestions and help to keep his or her own collection up to date, but final decisions as to purchase should rest in the hands of two or three only. An attempt to let a dozen or more people discuss at meetings the value of any book or books and the propriety of adding this or that to the library costs enormously in time and money, and serves no useful purpose.
It improves the quality of the books selected but little, it tends to develop undue caution and to make the choice too literary and, if it helps to educate the assistants, it does so at too great a cost. The desire is often expressed that a library should contain "a well-rounded, well-balanced collection of books." This phrase sounds well and perhaps impresses the trustees or the town, but what does it really mean? Were we to follow it to its logical conclusion we would all buy in certain fixed proportions, all kinds of books and while we might then lay claim that we had a well-balanced collection, we would be far from filling well the special needs of any special community in which we might be placed. In point of fact every library buys what it thinks it needs most, in most cases it will be found that the books selected are the best books for that library. Most books buy themselves, others cry out to be selected. The clientele is waiting for them. The small remnant of specially chosen books call for no elaborate conferences. Why have any system of recording the fact that you did not buy certain books at this time, since next month or next year the book not bought has been displaced by another? Besides, you can always discover from your bibliographical aids the books you have been compelled to miss, so why duplicate the work already done for you?
Now let us look at the purely clerical side of book ordering. Do we fill out an elaborate order slip with all sorts of bibliographical data needed for comparatively few books only? All that is really needed by bookseller and library is the author, title and publisher of a book, and the latter even could be omitted in most cases.
Do we economize time and labor by writing our orders so that with the aid of carbon paper, we have an order slip to file, one to send to the bookdealer and another to the Library of Congress for the purchase of cards?
When a consignment of books arrives do we have some elaborate system of checking it off the bill? Do we use cabalistic signs in our books so that the public may not by any chance discover the price of them? Or do we simply write in plain sight the price, source and date of the bill in each book, check the book on the bill and pass it on?
Have we ever tried the experiment with say the Fiction Class of not giving either price, source and date of bill in the books?
Suppose we buy all our novels from one bookseller, as most libraries do, and announce to the staff generally and also drop a card into the official catalog and the shelf-list to the effect, that after such or such a date, neither the source nor price will be found in any novel, as everyone knows that all novels are bought from John Smith and cost $1.00. Think of the time saved! I am willing to wager that no library could report any ill effects from this change.
As to the few novels which sell at net prices, the money lost in charging the usual rate of $1.00 is negligible compared with the time saved in making these unnecessary entries. To comfort the super-conscientious librarian the loss would actually be covered in many cases, because the reprints of novels often cost less than $1.00.
Now let us go on to the accession book and ask how many use the regular or the condensed book and why?
Do you cling to the theory that it is the one complete record of every book in your library and would be most useful in case of adjustment of fire losses? I can't deny that it is a complete record of every book, but of what use is that to the library?
As to the adjustment of fire losses, are the books in your library arranged in accession order so that in case of fire you could show the insurance adjusters which books were burned by referring to your accession books?
Do you claim that the accession number is still necessary so that you may know the number of books added and to help distinguish one copy of a book from another? Why not use the Bates numbering stamp as an automatically accurate recording device, and save time and money? Do you use the accession book for securing each month the number of books added in any one class, which of course the Bates numbering stamp can not give?
To get this one record we employ the time of a person in making other useless records, when all we need is a blank book in which we enter in a few minutes all books under date and class number. In the same book we enter in another place the books subdivided under heads of purchase, binding, periodicals and gifts. Thus at tremendous saving we can answer at once the question of how many books are added during any month and in what class.
Do you perhaps keep an accession book, so that you may secure the price and source of a book reported lost by a borrower? How much lost motion, to say nothing of time and money, is expended annually in libraries where assistants turn from their shelf-list to their accession book for these facts which should be given on the shelf-list card!
Have you ever thought how much it costs your library to have it classified by a college and library school bred person? I am using these terms as synonymous with an educated person. Have you ever noticed how much time she spends in getting a book into what to her is the exact class and place?
Now I am not arguing for less educated people in our public libraries, far from it, but I wish to call your attention to the amount of time and money expended by you in too minute and particular classification. Have you ever thought that quite a coarse classification is just as good for your library as the rather particular one which causes your head cataloger to spend half an hour over a book which might just as well be made ready in five minutes?
Often, after much time has been spent in debating this point or that, about some special feature of a book, and it has at last been placed in a certain division, it will be found more useful with its fellows in a coarser or broader division.
I am only suggesting that time could be saved here without impairing the usefulness of the library.
This is that division of library work which one must approach as the holy of holies, leaving one's shoes on the mat outside.
Please do not assume that I do not appreciate what it has meant to the public library to have experts formulate a set of rules which any library can use. I am not objecting to the rules, but to the application of the rules. We spend hours, days, months, and years in giving paging, illustrations, size, publishers and place of publication on our catalog cards and all for what purpose pray?
What does the average user of a public library want to know? He wants to know whether you have a book by a certain author, by a certain title or on a certain subject. Ninety-five per cent of the borrowers of books want nothing more than that, and I am excluding fiction entirely. Consequently for the possible five per cent, and that is a high percentage, you spend much time in giving gratuitous information. The man who knows his subject goes to the bibliographies of the subject and does not depend upon your card catalog for bibliographical information. Let us look into these valuable items, aside from the very necessary author and title, supplied on catalog cards.
Paging. Did your reference people ever report any need of it in serving the public? I never heard of such need.
Place of publication and publisher. Both these items are occasionally asked for, but why spend time in putting them on all your cards for the sake of the few who wish to know, since you can immediately refer to Books in Print for current books and for all others to the many aids published for the librarian.
The date. Well, I might grant that it serves a better purpose than the other items, but I doubt its great usefulness.
Do you in addition to the very necessary shelf-list for all the books in the library, have a special shelf-list for Branches? Have you ever thought of the time given to keep the record of all the books at your Branches?
What purpose does it serve, since your Branches have their own record of the books they have?
I know of one library which kept such a record and finally decided to give it up, since it cost a great deal of money, and seemed after careful consideration to be of little value. Not the least harm has resulted from the change and the cataloging department has almost forgotten that it was ever done.
Does the head cataloger work at least one day a week in the lending or reference department for the sake of getting away from her own point of view and to imbibe something of the real needs of public and assistants? Try it, even if you think you can't afford it and I venture to prognosticate that your cataloging department from being the seat of the learned and superior will become a really valuable aid to all the other departments.
Within the limits of my paper I have been able to cite only a few examples of the changes which might be made in the method of putting books on the shelf in most of our public libraries, but I hope that the very obvious things I have said may serve to help in simplifying the workof a profession already much overburdened with technique.
The fourth paper in the discussion by Miss LAURA SMITH, of the Cincinnati public library, was entitled:
The ideal of the modern library is service to the community, but the tendency has been to estimate this service by statistics as printed in library reports. Columns of figures, showing the number of books cataloged and the cards made, represent but a small part of what can be done and should not be taken as a measure of value of the cataloging department to the library patrons. The old idea of the library was the omniscient librarian who served all the readers from his store of knowledge, but the development of the modern library movement, bringing an increased patronage, made it necessary to delegate some of this work, and libraries were set off into departments. Gradually mechanical appliances were introduced and personal aid was limited to the favored few while the average reader was helpless in the face of machinery whose workings were a mystery to him. It reminds one of the story of the fine hospital donated by a philanthropic citizen to a thriving town of the middle west. The building was a model of hospital architecture, the furnishings were the most modern obtainable and the institution was ideal in every respect, adjudged by experts the latest thing in hospitals. A poor citizen, foreign by birth, took his wife to this hospital for treatment. The next day he went to inquire for her and was told that she was too ill to see him, but the attendant offered to take him through the building and show him all the modern improvements. The man was interested and followed his guide through the various wards, listening attentively to his lecture on the advantages of the latest improvements in hospital service. The second day he returned to learn the progress of his wife's case, but she was still too ill to see him, so the attendant showed him some more improvements, which he had not seen the day before. The man was greatly impressed. The third day he returned and was told that his wife had died. When asked by a friend what disease had ended her life, he replied, "I don't know, unless it was the improvements." So the library has adopted progressive methods and among other improvements it has walled a room with the latest model of catalog trays filled with cards as silent guides to the collection of books. Printed signs, which no one reads, give intricate directions as to the use of this monster; a human assistant is rarely in sight. Has the library the right to expect the public to know how to use a catalog? A trained assistant should be stationed here, and who are better qualified for this service than the members of the cataloging staff? At this point is one of the opportunities for the cataloger's most efficient service to the community.
The chief requisite of a well-organized catalog department is a corps of intelligent, educated, trained assistants who have had several years' experience. The raw recruit from the library school is an expense to the service because library school graduates find difficulty in adapting themselves to the existing methods of most libraries. This fault is sometimes individual but more often it is due to the different methods of cataloging taught in the various schools. There should be uniformity of method on this point, full cataloging should be taught in all the schools because it is far easier for the cataloger to learn omissions than to acquire a knowledge of full cataloging when the short form only has been taught in the school. Subject-heading work can be taught only in a general way. Years of experience are needed before an assistant is competent to assign subject headings, therefore a constantly changing staff is an item of expense worthy of serious consideration. Subject headings might be in the hands of a few assistants but there is advantage in having the views of manyminds under the supervision of one reviser.
An understanding of the community and of existing conditions within the library, added to a thoroughly assimilated knowledge of cataloging methods, increases the value of an assistant. Changes are usually due to small salaries, and to better financial conditions elsewhere, but adding a reasonable amount to the salary of a competent assistant is a good investment. To be sure, it foots up on the pay roll as a larger outlay than the substitution of a less experienced assistant at the same or a smaller salary. What the pay roll tells, however, is not borne out by the facts because on it there is no financial accounting for the time of the administrator of the department which is consumed in breaking in a new cataloger while the more important things wait, or go by default. Positions in the cataloging department should yield a financial return sufficient to make their incumbency more or less permanent for it is possible to accomplish more with a smaller staff of experienced assistants than with a larger number of those new to the business.
When the library has gathered together the best staff of catalogers it can afford it should not put them, like a collection of expensive bric-a-brac, behind closed doors with only the regulation catalogers' tools as guides, and expect them to yield the best return on the investment. The best cataloger needs the stimulus of personal contact with the public as an aid to the most intelligent work. When the cataloging department has a sufficient number of well-trained, experienced assistants, a schedule of work which permits direct contact with the public for at least one-third of the time and a system of co-operation between departments with freedom from unnecessary interruptions to the routine as planned, the catalog is a labor saving tool reducing the net cost of production by the time saved to the circulating and reference departments.
The cataloging for a large library system should be done at the central library for several reasons. The main cataloging offices are there with the collection of reference books and the official files showing what headings and entries have been used. The expert catalogers and revisers are better fitted for the responsibility of the cataloging than the assistants at the branches, distracted by other work. The enormous number of cards necessary for the various catalogs are more economically duplicated by writer press, or multigraph, than by hand or typewriter because time is saved in this way in the actual making of the cards, in numbering and putting titles on printed cards and in proof reading, or revising, for in revising typewritten cards, each card must be carefully scrutinized, while from the writer press only the first copy needs revision. When copies of the same title are to be purchased for several branches, the cost of cataloging is greatly reduced if all the copies reach the cataloging department together as time is thus saved in all the processes of preparing the books for circulation, from the accessioning to the pasting of the labels. In the case of fiction this is always possible but with other classes, while it is not always expedient to purchase for the main library and the branches simultaneously, the branch librarians and order department can simplify the process by prompt decision as to the number of branches to which titles are to be added, so that all cards may be ordered or made at the same time. By this means one order for printed cards and one setting up of copy for writer press or multigraph is sufficient. When books come to the catalog department singly and at odd times the labor of verifying author entries and subject headings is the same as for new titles, and the making of cards becomes a mechanical process only when they are to be made in large quantities. Every branch added to the library system increases the work of the cataloging department, a fact often lost sight of by the chief administrators of a library. There seems to be a popular delusion that each new addition to the library family means only a duplication ofcards while the fact remains that most of the processes in the routine practically consume as much time and thought as if the title in hand were new in the library. In the case of shelf-listing it is obviously easier and takes less time to make a brand new shelf-list card for a book than it does to withdraw the card from the shelf-list, make an addition to it and refile the card.
If the main building is so arranged that one card catalog can be used conveniently by all departments much expense will be saved. But if there must be department catalogs, author and subject entries should be uniform so that the individual catalogs may be simply duplicates of certain divisions of the general catalog. Subject headings in the public library should be simple enough to be within the comprehension of the average reader. To simplify headings for children is a useless expense and an insult to the child who is often more intelligent than many adult readers. The public library being "an integral part of public education" should not be guilty of senseless simplification even though the kindergartners may accuse us of "taking away the joy of childhood." If the so-called simplified headings are used they can not be filed with other headings, therefore two separate catalogs in each branch must be maintained at extra expense.
All non-essentials should be eliminated from the mechanical processes of preparing books for the shelves. The time of high-priced service should be used for the scholarly work, duplication of cards and routine clerical work do not require a college education nor library school training. Printed cards should be purchased whenever possible. It is not necessary to become hysterical over the superfluity of information on some of the Library of Congress cards because the average user of a catalog in a public library does not read beyond the first line of the title, and therefore is not confused by bibliographical details. On the other hand, this same detail is valuable to the few readers who need it. Another groundless objection to the use of these cards is the statement that books must be held until the cards are received. If there is co-operation between the order and the cataloging departments, books and cards may be ordered and will come to the cataloger about the same time. When they do not the books should be sent through on temporary slips. This adds slightly to the cost of handling, but saves the reputation of the library in the circulating department. The printed card should be accepted when it agrees with the title page, but when the card requires changes which mar its appearance it should be rejected. When the cards must be made by the individual library the extra bibliographical detail should be omitted for purposes of economy, and the catalogs would still be uniform and accurate in essentials. Entries must be accurate, uniform and as consistent as possible that the catalog may save the time of the reference librarians, since effective reference work can be done only when the library is well classified and cataloged and quick service is possible only under these conditions.
The plan to combine the catalog and reference departments, the assistants working one-third of their time in reference work, brings excellent results. In the first place the assistants come in direct contact with the public for part of every day. The knowledge of books gained by examination for full cataloging can be made directly useful to the public. On the other hand, the demands of the reader, his peculiarities of expression and his general attitude toward the library give inspiration to the work in the cataloging department as to subject headings and analyticals to be made. The change of work is restful and enables the assistants to accomplish much in a day without becoming weary of either line of work. The efficiency of the assistants depends upon their ability to bring the book and the reader together and as the cataloger has the advantage of studying the books she should therefore bring this knowledge to the public through personal contact.
Emphasis is put on the increased usefulness of the staff by reason of the ability to appreciate the relation between the library and the public and to bring into the daily life of the community the increased knowledge of books.
What has been said is not intended as a criticism of any method of administering a cataloging department, but is an effort rather to present a plan which from practical experience has proved successful.
The discussion was then thrown open to the floor, with the suggestion from the chairman that it take the following lines:
1. Is the catalog department too confined in its organization and too distinctly separated from other departments?
2. How much mechanical work should be done by expert catalogers? Who should do the mechanical work and where should it be done?
3. What should be the relations between the catalog and the shipping departments?
Mr. Hodges, of the Cincinnati public library, said that each library had to use a system suited to its individual needs, that in Cincinnati there was no head of the order department, that he considered the use of catalogers in the reference department during rush hours a good plan as they were usually well fitted for the work, that in his library there was a single head of the catalog and reference departments.
Miss Hitchler, superintendent of cataloging of the Brooklyn public library, said that co-operation could be effected between departments without interchange of assistants.
Mr. Hopper said that the obstacle to combining the heads of the catalog and order departments in one person was that a knowledge of cataloging and a knowledge of the book trade were seldom combined in one person.
During the discussion of the second point—that of scientific management within the department—Miss Van Valkenburgh raised a laugh by inquiring where we are to draw the line in keeping track of our efficiency.
Mr. Martel, of the Library of Congress, in answer to the charge made against catalogers of over-elaboration, as for example in the matter of periodical records, said that under-elaboration often proved quite as expensive as over-elaboration.