Adjourned at 12.45 p.m.
(Fountain Spring House, Tuesday afternoon, July 9.)
The meeting was called to order at 2.15 p.m. by PresidentCarr, who announced that the discussion would be continued from the morning session, on the subject
THE RELATIONSHIP OF PUBLISHERS, BOOKSELLERS AND LIBRARIANS.
Melvil Dewey: There seems to be an impression on the part of some that the attitude I have taken in regard to this question is for the sake of starting up discussion. I am quite sincere in what I say and in what I believe in regard to it. In the first place, I think nothing could be more unfortunate than for any of us to get into an attitude of antagonism with the publishers and booksellers. There was something like that twenty-five years ago; their organization and ours began at the same time. There were some who wanted to fight with the booksellers and publishers. I think that is all wrong. I am heartily in sympathy with nearly everything that Mr. Bowker said this morning, and with what has appeared in the columns of thePublishers' Weekly. I read every page of it. I believe so profoundly in the value of the bookman's work that, when formulating definitions of our university studies, as to what a full-fledged university should be, I insisted it should include publishing research and publication, not only the preservation of learning. It is because I have so profound a respect for what may be done by the book trade, as we call it, that I believe in these things. But the discussion this morning seemed to be very much on the line of Ruskin's attack on railroads, which he said always were devices of the devil, and he said it very eloquently. You heard the same talk about the trolley lines—about the whitening bones of the young innocents that had been killed by them. We were assured that bicycles were to destroy the horse trade entirely, yet horses now bring double what they did before. Twenty-five years ago, I remember a very prominent man most earnestly pointing out just what was pointed out this morning—that the A. L. A. and the public libraries were simply devices to injure the interests of publishers and booksellers. And the attitude of men on these things is based on what Mr. Bowker called "an economic and social fallacy." I like the phrase; only he was fitting it to me, and I fit it to him, and it is for you to decide which is right. The question hinges on what we understand the library to be. If the library is like a blacksmith shop, or shoe store, or something of that kind, then he is right. If the library is an essential part in our system of education and a necessity for our civilization, then Iam right. In New York we still have the plank road and the toll-gate, and we are just taking them over for public use—buying them and abolishing the tolls, so that the public's right to use the roads has come back to them. All the arguments we heard this morning would fit the question of abolishing the toll-roads. A great many people keep no horses. Why should they be taxed to maintain the roads? We have the fire department. We do not tax only the people whose houses are on fire. It is a public necessity. We have the best illustration of the case in our schools. The tax-supported high school has killed off a number of private schools, and estimable people who were earning their living that way were thrown out of employment. And the tax-supported high school is in analogy with the public library. It has offered instruction free and has ruined the business of others. It is so with many professional schools. A transition has been going on very rapidly. The last big fight we have been having is over the business colleges, some of which are directed by mere charlatans, and others by those who are giving admirable instruction, doing their work well. But they have outlived their time. The public demanded that certain instruction of this kind should be made available cheaply to all the people.
Now, we have been charged with wanting to abolish the bookseller. I never said anything about abolishing him. It is like saying that because the tadpole is going to be a frog we are abolishing the tadpoles. It is nature that does it; it is a matter of growth. Or it is like saying that the entomologist in pointing out that the moth is going to develop into the butterfly, is abolishing all the moths. So the good booksellers, if they go on with the work of supplying the public with good reading, will do it through the agency of the public library, where they can do it cheaper. When we are sure that a certain thing ought to be done; that it is a good thing;and, secondly, when we are surethat it can be done cheaper than in any other way, we are not inclined to waste a great deal of time theorizing over anybody's philosophy as to whether it is a proper thing to do or not. We want the right things done in the best and cheapest way. I am sorry to see the old-time bookseller, who did good work, crowded out of the field. I do not see any way in which he can save himself, except in the largest cities. I am sorry to see a great many of the old schools, the secondary schools, crowded out of business and entirely replaced by the tax-supported schools. I do not understand that it is our purpose, either in this Association, or in life, to be studying how we are going to feed every man after the system which has fed him up to the present time is abolished. If the man is good for anything, he will earn his wages; and it is utterly fallacious to say a thing is wrong because somebody is going to lose his business. When the railroad was built a great many worthy men who drove stage coaches were driven out of business in just that way. Every modern improvement does that; new machinery of all kinds has the effect of driving people out of employment; but, in the long run, it pays.
I ought to say in the first place that the suggestion that the librarian would sell books for a profit is one of those queer things that crop out in connection with all great movements. I never yet heard of any library that was buying books and distributing them. I believe that the library will order books in connection with other work. My thesis is this: the book owned is a great deal better than the book loaned. I believe it is better for a man to own a book than to borrow it; that it is legitimate, at public expense, to show him that book in the library and hand it to him as his book—just as legitimate an expense, every way, as it is to employ a man to sell people books so that they won't patronize the Booklovers' Library. I think the whole thing hinges there. It is not a matter of theory, but of fact. If that is what we want to accomplish, can we do it best with the book store or with the library? I contend that it is impossible to rehabilitate the old bookseller, any more than the old private school, which could be done only by endless means in endowment. I do not believe we should try, because it can be done better and cheaper in another way; because the library has the books on its shelves. The statistics this morning showed that the bookseller is dying out. I believe it to be entirely impossible to rehabilitate that profession. If in the library itbecomes a recognized principle that the library is supported at public expense for the purpose of lending books. I am confident that the public will demand it to be done in that way. I am confident of another thing. You have only to consult your catalogs to see the remarkable development of the last decade in publishing which is done by endowed universities and colleges and of learned societies. See the great body of technical journals that have been turned over the university presses. Every university that pretends to accomplish much now has a press, and is developing it with great rapidity. It was said this morning that the publisher hinged on the cash; that the bookseller hinged on that. Ladies and gentlemen, the cash profit is not a proper scale in which to weigh the questions in which we are interested. When you take questions of education, or religion, or philanthropy, and put them on a question of cash profit, you are in an absolutely false attitude. I do not mean by that that we must not regard business conditions. We must know how to pay for our coal and our rent, but not a dividend in dollars and cents. And the moment my antagonist says that this question is to be measured by a cash dividend, I say he is ruled out of court in any body of librarians who are giving their lives and their work at salaries not at all commensurate, but who make dividends on a higher plane. There is no occasion for an attitude of hostility; nor, I take it, for me to take issue on this new proposition in regard to prices to libraries. There is not a librarian in this room who has all the money he wants. If prices rise ten per cent., it will diminish the number of books he can buy. I followed the argument this morning. If it is correct, there is only one thing we can do. We, as librarians, are cutting into the revenues of these men, and we ought not only not to ask a discount but librarians ought to pay twenty-five per cent. in addition, because we are cutting into their revenues. We ought to appoint a committee, which without a bit of the spirit of antagonism, should meet the publishers and booksellers and point out all over the United States large consumers who buy for cash. I think it is a practical mistake to try to force up the price, and that we are bound as custodians of this money that is put in our hands, firmly and courteously, but, I am sure, with the most friendly relations on both sides, to see that the prices of our books shall not be cut down.
I say, therefore, in summing up, after an observation of thirty years, that I am confident that the library of this century is going to assume those educational functions, and that among the most prominent of these is the putting into the hands of the people who wish to make their lives wealthier in arts or trades the books of power and of inspiration. The public library cannot afford not to put into their hands at a minimum price the books they want to read. And, logically we shall be forced in that direction. You will find that this tendency is growing all the while, and we will have to put the library squarely alongside the high school. Indeed the library in its development is following exactly the line of development of the tax-supported high school and for that same reason, that in the high school we now offer instruction free, the library will offer books for sale without profit—there should be no profit in the library—and will lend books freely, and will with regret kill the local book store and supplant it by something that is worth a great deal more.
W. I. Fletcher: I have been so long on the Publishing Board with Mr. Dewey that I have got thoroughly in the habit, when he gets through, of saying something on the other side. It seems to me that a few words might be said to clarify this subject. It is undoubtedly true, as Mr. Dewey has said, that a book store that is worth anything could not be established in every place in the country. There ought to be something of the sort, even if it is a public library. The book stores exist only in places where it is commercially possible, and that number of places is very limited. Now I suppose that if we could ascertain the communities where it is not commercially possible for a book store to be carried on, we should none of us have any objection—it seems to me most of us would favor the idea—that the public library should, to some extent, take the place of the book store in supplying books to the would-be owners in such a community. That leaves the question confined to those places where a book store is commercially impossible, probably to those places where book stores have been, even with difficulty, maintained under pastconditions. I should be willing, for my own part, to do all I could in securing the establishment of a good book store where there is not one, where it is commercially possible to maintain one. Where it is not, it would be a good thing to let the library sell the books. I am greatly impressed with the argument as to the advantages of a book store in a community where it can be maintained. So it seems to me that there is not very much difference of opinion among us, after all, as I dare say those who spoke this morning would not object seriously to the distribution of books for sale through the libraries, where there is no hope of having a local book store. As to the amount of discount under this new arrangement, I am entirely in accord with Mr. Dewey in wishing that the Association might present whatever are the views of the Association. On the subject of the amount of discount that we ought to have, I should hardly feel that the booksellers were treating us right in this country if they should follow the custom of the German publishing trade and refuse any discount at all; and it is a question whether the ten per cent. which they propose to allow under this new system is enough. I have advised our library committee to express a hearty readiness to accede to the proposed arrangement, to take the ten per cent. discount, and we have given our adhesion to it. Perhaps that was somewhat hasty, before the librarians in general had an opportunity to act; but I do not believe anything very different from that will be the attitude of the librarians at large. We might in time, for example, make it fifteen per cent., but I am sure that could not be done at present. I am heartily in sympathy with the movement that will make it possible to have a good book store, which I believe every librarian would like to have in his place.
W. M. Palmer: I wish to say just this: Of course in the lack of time that was accorded me, it is difficult to say all that can be said on the subject, and explain the by-paths, and so forth; but, as I intimated at the introduction of my paper, I simply stated what I said as facts, and while we wish a great many things to be different, we realize that they cannot be reached in a certain direction all at once. In order to bring the bookselling business to a basis which will enable the bookseller to live, some reform had to take place. The publishers have seen fit to institute the reform which has been outlined to-day. When I spoke this morning, for instance, of the fact that some librarians ordered books for friends and others at the discounts which the library and they themselves received from the booksellers, I did not wish to impute any wrong motive to the librarian in doing that. It is a matter within the knowledge of the booksellers, and the booksellers wink at it. I do not think there was any element of dishonesty in it, because the bookseller who sold the book to the librarian knew it was again to be sold to some friend of the librarian.
R. R. Bowker: In offering a resolution, I wish to say just a word or two. I had not expected Mr. Dewey to make an argument in favor of the public library, for certainly there would be no disagreement on that point in this room. Where he went further and suggested that the salaried librarian should become the commercial bookseller, I think and I hope that there are few to follow him to that length of argument. As to the Booklovers' Library, of course that is not at all in analogy with the public library, and I want to take this opportunity to call attention to what seems to me an admirable use of the Booklovers' Library scheme, so long as it can hold out. Mr. Carr has told me that he has looked upon the Booklovers' Library as a very useful overflow or safety-valve for the public library. When thirty-five people come at once and want "Quincy Adams Sawyer," and a librarian sees that the two copies that could be put on the shelves would not meet the demand, he would say to himself "I cannot rightly spend the money for thirty-five copies," and therefore he would say to the thirty-three, "You can go to the Booklovers' Library and get these new books just when you want them." So this library may be a relief to the librarian who is conscientious in the spending of his money.
The resolution which I now ask to move is that the Council be requested to appoint a committee on relations with the book trade, to which this question shall be referred.
The resolution was carried.
The general session was then adjourned, and there followed a Round Table meeting on
THE WORK OF STATE LIBRARY COMMISSIONS.
(Seep. 171.)
(Fountain Spring House, Wednesday morning, July 10.)
PresidentCarrcalled the meeting to order at 10 a.m., and after local announcements by the secretary called upon the tellers to report upon
ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
The result of the balloting was announced by the secretary as follows:
President:John S. Billings, 103.
1st Vice-president:J. K. Hosmer, 103.
2d Vice-president:Electra C. Doren, 104.
Secretary:Frederick W. Faxon, 104.
Treasurer:Gardner M. Jones, 105.
Recorder:Helen E. Haines, 105.
Trustee of Endowment Fund:Charles C. Soule, 81.
A. L. A. Council:M. E. Ahern, 101; E. H. Anderson, 104; Johnson Brigham, 104; John Thomson, 104; H. M. Utley, 105.
The president then announced that the Association would be glad to hear from Mr.Putnam, as chairman of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS.
Mr.Putnam: The Committee on Resolutions has suffered the usual embarrassments of committees on resolutions. It has been compelled to abstain from expressions which might seem hyperbole, and from designating by name many services that prefer to remain anonymous.
It is the custom of certain associations to make acknowledgment to those speakers on the program not members of the conference. That is not customary with the A. L. A. Had it been, I should have had a special pleasure in proposing an acknowledgment to Professor Ely for his presence and paper yesterday. It is no slight compliment to the Association when a thinker and writer so eminent as Dr. Ely is willing to lay his views before it. It is, in a sense, a greater compliment when his views prove unfavorable to some undertaking which the Association is inclined to approve. It implies that our action may be important, and therefore our judgment worth convincing. Could the Association convince Dr. Ely, great advantage indeed might result. For should a selected list of books in economics be undertaken with helpful notes—I will not say "evaluations," or "appraisals"—but helpfulnotes,Dr. Ely's aid would be one of those first sought.
The resolutions follow:
REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS.
Resolved,That the American Library Association, in concluding a meeting that has been one of the most largely attended and most successful in its history, desires to express its hearty obligation to the various committees and individuals who have made considerate arrangements for its comfort, and in many an agreeable incident acted as its hosts. In particular:
To the Wisconsin Free Library Commission for its efficient general arrangements for the conference;
To the Citizens' Executive Committee and Women's Clubs of Waukesha, for the attractive drives about the city, for the pleasant evening reception at the Fountain Spring House, and for various attentive courtesies;
To the members of the Methodist Church of Waukesha, for the use of the church for the public meeting on July 4;
To Senator A. M. Jones, for the opportunity to visit Bethesda Park and enjoy there the concert given by him complimentary to the Association;
To the trustees, librarian and staff of the Milwaukee Public Library, for the opportunity to inspect the library under most favorable conditions, and to the junior members of the staff for the appetizing refreshments served in connection with the visit;
To the resident librarians of Madison, the Forty Thousand Club, and various citizens, for the drive through the city and delightful parkways of Madison; to the resident women librarians, the Madison Woman's Club, and the Emily Bishop League, for the luncheon which was provided so substantially for the great company of visitors; and in general to the chairmen and members of the several local committees representing the state, the city, and various institutions and organizations, who contrived so excellently for the accommodation and enjoyment of the Association in its visit to Madison.
The Association deems itself fortunate indeed in having held its meeting within reach of two achievements in library architecture so notable as the library buildings at Madison and at Milwaukee.
The Association would add its appreciation of the endeavor of the management of the Fountain Spring House to convenience in every way the business of the conference; and its obligation for the special provision made by the management for its entertainment on two evenings of the conference.
The Association is aware that in addition to the hospitalities which it has enjoyed, many have been proffered which could not be accepted without injustice to the affairs of business which were the proper purpose of the conference. It desires to record its acknowledgment of these also, and of the kindly consideration of the hosts who in deference to this purpose have been willing to forego inclinations which it would have been a generous pleasure to themselves to have carried into effect.
}
}
}
The report of the committee was unanimously adopted by a rising vote.
PresidentCarr: This report having brought to a conclusion the general business of the Association, I may perhaps be permitted just a word before we dissolve this general session, which is to be followed by a round table meeting in this room. The chair can only say to you that he appreciates more than he can express, even had he more vigorous and full command of language than he possesses, all that has been done by members, officers, chairmen of committees, one and all, to aid in the transaction of business and in the success of this conference. The chair also wishes to congratulate you upon what you yourselves have done to make this meeting a happy one, and trusts that it may long be remembered by us all, and that we may all long continue to work together in the A. L. A.
Adjourned at 10.30 a.m.
The College and Reference Section of the American Library Association was called to order in the parlors of the Fountain Spring House at 2.40 p.m. on July 6, Mr.W. I. Fletcherbeing in the chair.
The program was opened by an address by the chairman on
SOME 20TH CENTURY LIBRARY PROBLEMS.
The 20th century is undoubtedly something of a fad already with public speakers. I should hesitate to speak of 20th century problems in library work were there not a special justification for noting chronologic epochs in connection with the modern library movement. It was almost precisely at the middle of the century that this movement took its rise in the passage of the first public library laws in England and in New England. And again it was at the very middle of the last half century, in the year 1876, that this Association was formed and theLibrary Journalstarted. (I may be excused for merely alluding to the fact, parenthetically, that Melvil Dewey graduated from Amherst College in 1874.) And now at the very beginning of the new century the library movement receives an enormous impetus from the benefactions of Andrew Carnegie, not only in themselves multiplying and increasing libraries, but serving as a great stimulus to towns and cities and states as well as to individuals, so that his indirect contribution to the cause of libraries will probably far outweigh his direct gifts, princely as they are.
The library problems of the 20th century sum themselves up in one, the problem of expansion, and we may perhaps best regard them from the point of view of the obstacles to expansion, these obstacles constituting the problems.
First, we must notice our library buildings, and admit that many of them, and most of the ideas heretofore cherished about the building of libraries, present such an obstacle. When we note that since the plans were drawn on which nearly all of our most recent large library buildings have been erected, three new ideas in library administration have come into general acceptance which must powerfully affect library construction, we can but feel that great foresight and wisdom are needed to erect libraries that shall not very soon be obstacles to proper and necessary expansion. These three new ideas are, first, access of readers to the bookshelves; second, children's rooms, and third, the distribution of books through schools, branches, delivery stations, home libraries, and inter-library loans, this third new idea involvingprovision for business offices, packing rooms, etc., unthought of formerly. To meet not simply these new ideas, but others with which the new century is pregnant, care must be taken that great sums of money, leaving the securing of more for a long time hopeless, are not expended on structures in which instead of provision for expansion we seem to have provision against it.
Another obstacle to expansion is found in elaborate systems of shelf-marks connected with systematic schemes of classification, representing carefully arranged subordination and co-ordination of the parts. For two things are certain: first, accepted classifications of books rapidly become obsolete, and second, no library will long be content with an out-of-date arrangement. Especially will my successor, or yours, be sure to feel the necessity of signalizing his accession to office by introducing what is in his day the latest classification. And in this he will be right. Now, if we have a fair sense of our duty to our successor, which is merely an extension forward of our duty to the library itself, we shall be unwilling to tie the library by an intricate notation to a present system of classification. I think we must take more pains than is done by either the Decimal or Expansive schemes to provide a somewhat elastic notation. I regard the classification of the University of California Library as the best (available in print) for libraries of our class, because it employs designations which indicate mere sequence of classes. A little thought will, I am sure, show you how this is true. At any rate, a little experience in attempting more or less reclassification with, for example, the Decimal classification, will prepare you to believe that a less highly involved and articulated method of designation would be in the interest of reasonable expansion, and save such expansion from the odium of upsetting the classification. Through the logic of events forcing those considerations to the front more and more, I anticipate that the larger and rapidly growing libraries will increasingly shun all such systems as the "D. C." and the "E. C.," of which the paradox is certainly true, that the better they are made the worse they become. The scheme of numbering classes recently adopted by Princeton University Library points in this direction, while the reclassification of Harvard University Library, which has been slowly carried forward during the last 20 years or more, represents a complete departure from the idea of any correlation between classes, as indicated in the notation, the order of minor divisions being a numerical sequence easily changed or modified, while each main class bears a mark suggesting no relation to another. For example, the military and naval sciences have lately been reclassified and brought under the designation War, which may be called (to represent a certain harmony with other designations) W-a-r. The location of any main class in the library is subject to change at any time, and is known to the attendants by a chart, which may be somewhat altered to-day, and replaced by a new one with large differences to-morrow or next year. Not that such changes would be made except for real occasion, but under this system, when they are necessary they are not deferred or regarded as hopeless as they must be under any highly organized system.
Another obstacle to expansion closely related to elaborate methods of notation is found in the common practice of inserting the call-numbers in catalogs of all kinds, written or printed. When the Boston Public Library was moved into the new building it was naturally supposed that it would be completely rearranged to suit its ampler and entirely different shelf-room, particularly as much fault had already been found with its existing classification, which seemed quite outgrown. But when it is observed how the library was tied to its old numbering by an endless variety of catalogs, printed as well as written, it ceases to seem strange that it was thought best to transfer the old arrangement to the new building, with all its infelicities heightened by its new location and surroundings. And in this respect that library should serve as a warning to others to avoid, by any available means, such an entanglement. If it be asked what means of avoiding it are available, I would say that I am inclined to think that if I were starting with a new library I would try the experiment of putting no shelf-numbers or call-marks in any catalog, but rather have a key by which they could be found bymeans of the accession numbers which alone would be given in the author-catalog.
I can only refer hastily to one feature of library expansion which is coming in with the new century, and which has to do with the catalog. I mean the introduction of printed cards, and would say that I look to see these work a revolution in library methods. If we can procure at low cost an indefinite number of these cards for each book we shall come to use them in many ways, as, for example, the accession record, the shelf list, bulletins and special lists, and charging cards. For the latter purpose they would have the advantage of absolutely identifying the book.
I am sure I have said enough to set you thinking, and I hope when time is given for discussion you will freely express your thoughts.
J. T. Gerouldread a paper on
DEPARTMENTAL LIBRARIES.
(Seep. 46.)
W. P. Cutterread a letter fromR. C. Davison the
RECLASSIFICATION OF THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.
I am conscious that this report of our adoption of the Decimal classification is, as far as I am concerned, premature. I look upon the work in its present state as just from the broad-axe or the saw-mill. There is planing to be done and sand-papering. Except to discuss now and then some fundamental principle in classification, I have had little to do with the work. Other duties, which I must necessarily perform, have occupied every hour of my time. I am hoping that now the rough part of this work is off our hands, I can make a readjustment of the work in general that will give me time next year to participate in the finishing process. The history of the matter is very brief. Our old fixed location had become impossible, and a point was reached where it was necessary to begin at once with whatever movable method we might adopt. I had been at work for some time on a substitution of relative markings for fixed ones, which would, without any change of classification, set our books free. This was interrupted by sickness at the critical time, and it was determined to adopt the Decimal classification as the most generally used and the most susceptible of modification. Also, my assistants, on whom the work would fall, were familiar with this method, and had experience in working it. The changes that had been made were made largely in deference to the desires of heads of departments. It was not always easy to act on these suggestions inasmuch as a general adoption of them would be fatal to uniformity. In consequence some of the changes are in the nature of a compromise, and are tentative. The change now so nearly accomplished has been made economically and, considering all things, expeditiously. The credit of this is due to my assistants. They have been untiring in their industry and their management of the differences of opinion that they have encountered has been wise and tactful. Mr. Jordan, my cataloger, has made a brief catalog of the changes, which I enclose. You can make such use of this matter as you may desire at your meeting, but I would prefer that nothing go upon record. By next year we shall have the matter better digested, and I hope some of us may be present at the meeting to discuss it. It is a subject which has a perennial interest.
In the absence ofW. W. Bishop,J. I. Wyerread Mr.Bishop'spaper on
SUGGESTIONS FOR AN ANNUAL LIST OF AMERICAN THESES FOR THE PH.D. DEGREE.
(Seep. 50.)
After the reading of Mr. Bishop's paper there was some discussion in regard to the great desirability of having published each year a list of the dissertations presented to American universities. On the motion of Dr. B. C. Steiner it was resolved that a committee of three be appointed by the chair to consider the question of the section taking steps to secure such an annual list. Mr. Fletcher appointed Dr. B. C. Steiner, W. M. Smith and C. W. Andrews to form the committee.
Mr.A. G. S. Josephsonwished that a complete bibliographyof university theses could be made.
The chairman announced that the election of officers for the next year would take place, and called for nominations.
Mr. Josephson nominated Mr. A. S. Root for chairman. Mr. Root was elected. Dr. Canfield nominated for secretary Mr. W. M.Smith, and Mr. Smith nominated Miss Emma A. Hawley. Mr. Smith was elected.
After the election there followed a general discussion of the topics presented during the afternoon, those receiving special notice being classification, notation, the use of call numbers, department libraries and university theses.
In the discussion Mr.Fletchersaid:
My thought about dispensing with shelf-marks in the card and other catalogs (not really my thought, for I had it from one of our leading librarians, who has not, however, put it in practice himself) is that the great difficulties connected with the changing of shelf-marks in catalogs when books are reclassified may be avoided by placing on the card only the accession number (in case of a set the accession number of the first volume), and then maintaining a key, consisting of a book closely ruled in double columns, where for each book in the library the shelf-mark is written in pencil against the accession number and changed whenever the book is renumbered. Such a scheme could not be satisfactorily applied in a library where the looking-up of the shelf-mark is involved in the calling for books in most cases. I am prepared to favor it only where (as is now the case in our own library) a majority of the calls for books are made orally and answered by the attendant without reference to shelf-mark. In our case these calls amount to seven-eighths of all the calls, and in addition to this it should be said that at least one-half the books drawn under our open-shelf system are drawn without any "call" at all, so that we may say, that if we had the "key" system it would come into play for perhaps one-sixteenth of the books drawn. In libraries of moderate circulation like our college and university libraries, and (for all but certain classes which are most used) even in the large public libraries, it seems to me that the key plan may work well. Of course the key if subjected to constant use would be difficult and expensive to maintain, owing to wear and tear. We should not fail to observe that three separate and distinct features of modern library progress are each and all working against the necessity,i.e.,tending to minimize the necessity, of shelf-marks in the catalog.
These are, first, the open-shelf system; second, minute classification and alphabetical arrangement in classes, and third, book-card charging systems. Without enlarging upon these points, I would like to suggest them to you as worthy of consideration.
Mr.Hodgesdescribed briefly the classification of the scientific books at Harvard. First, the serial publications of the broad learned societies, the societies taking cognizance of all branches of learning, are brought together arranged alphabetically by country and city. Secondly, the general scientific serials and the special scientific serials, however published, are arranged in a group; the general coming first, the others following according to subject, astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural history, zoology, botany, etc. When suggesting the separation of the serials in pure science from the handbooks at the very outset of his work at Harvard, Mr. Hodges urged that the serials constitute a record literature to which the investigator must refer when carrying on original work, while the handbooks are used by the pedagog when preparing for his classwork. The general designation for the learned society group is L. Soc.; for the scientific serials, Sci. The handbooks on physics are in a group designated Phys.; the general treatises by Phys. 357-360. A treatise published in 1892 is marked Phys. 358-92; another of the same year, by Phys. 358.92.3.
Mr.Rootsaid: It may possibly have interest in this connection to note that the catalog of the University of Göttingen, which was established about 1750, has the feature which has been mentioned here as characteristic of the Harvard system. The books are grouped in large classes with an abbreviated heading, with minute sub-classification. Just when this system was introduced I do not know, but I suppose it to have been in use a hundred years or so, which I judge to be a longer life than Mr. Fletcher is willing to allow to the D. C.
Interesting remarks were made by several others, notably Mr. Andrews, Dr. Steiner and Dr. Canfield. It is to be regretted that the revision of their remarks has not been received in time for publication.
Olive Jones,Secretary.
The Catalog Section of the American Library Association held two meetings in connection with the Waukesha conference.
FIRST SESSION.
The first session was held in one of the parlors of the Fountain Spring House, on the afternoon of Tuesday, July 9. The chairman,Anderson H. Hopkins, called the meeting to order.
It wasVoted,That the section waive the formality of registration of members preliminary to voting.
It wasVoted,That the chairman appoint a nominating committee of three, to report at the close of the session. This committee was appointed as follows: Miss Sula Wagner, Mr. Jones, Mr. Roden.
A. H. Hopkins: When the round table session on this subject was held last year its object was, of course, to find out whether there was a demand for a section of this kind. We found it out pretty soon. Now we have the section. Then came the question, when I was asked to assume the chairmanship for one more year, of how it might best be occupied. It seemed to me for a time that perhaps the best plan would be to go to the opposite extreme—from having been informal last year—and have set papers, especially as the Association had decided not to take stenographic reports of the meetings. However, a change came about in my views when the interstate meeting was called at Atlantic City last March. A meeting was held there of the Publishing Board's committee on rules for a printed card catalog. The members of that committee were at that time all of the opinion that no better plan could be followed for this year's meeting of the Catalog Section than to have another discussion similar to that of last year, but confining the talk chiefly to knotty points which they met in the course of their work. That has been done; but there have been added a few questions which have come to your chairman in the course of the year from persons interested in the section.
The Publishing Board, in taking up the task of producing printed cards, found that widely divergent practices must be shaped so that they would work together. To this end they appointed a committee of seven and set them the task of producing harmony among the jarring elements of practice in all the libraries of this country, barring none. The head of the catalog department of the Library of Congress was made chairman of this committee; and, as you know, this great library and its chief, to whom we all turn so gladly, are lending their cordial support to the project, and realization now seems near at hand.
Now what do we want? We want an arrangement whereby any one may be able at a reasonable cost to get accurately made and well printed cards for any book at any time. This and nothing else will do. (Applause.)
The members of the Committee on Rules thought this session could not be better occupied, as I said before, than in a discussion of certain points, met by them in their attempts to produce a workable scheme which would meet adequate support, it having at that time become evident that the enthusiasm so manifest at Montreal had largely evaporated; probably because it had not been made clear that the proposed plan was really a workable scheme. Some of these points the chairman of the committee and myself have selected and graded roughly into three classes, and I will lay some of these before you.
One of the chief troubles is going to lie between the32 and 33 size cards. Let us hear from you on this subject, if you have anything you wish to say about it.
Mr.Fletcher: Perhaps those present may be interested to know something about the 32 and 33 card from the point of view of the Publishing Board. The Publishing Board has been supplying the 32 or 33 size card as required by subscribers for cards for current books. I cannot speak authoritatively, but I think the board is nearly prepared to say that in future, if these cards are prepared at the Library of Congress and distributed from there, it will be found very much the wisest plan from the beginning to use only the 33 size. It has not been declared impossible at the Library of Congress to print the cards insuch shape that enough could be cut off to make the card a 32 card; neither has it been decided by the board that it is not worth while to try earnestly to bring that about; but the present impression, I think, is that the 32 size will have to be left aside in the co-operative work. If there is a strong sentiment here to retain the 32 size card, let us hear of it now.
Mr.Bowker: Couldn't Mr. Hanson, of the Library of Congress, give us a report on the letters they received there in regard to the size of cards used? And let me emphasize this thought, that in coming to a uniform system we must approach as near uniformity as possible. It is impossible to meet all the variances of cards in the several libraries, but we must look towards drawing all the using libraries into as close uniformity as possible. And I think the prevailing practice is shown best by the statistics which I believe Mr. Hanson has with him.
Mr.Hanson: The statistics Mr. Bowker refers to I have not with me. As I recall the figures there are something like 19 out of 100 that use the 32 card.
Mr.Andrews: I have Mr. Putnam's figures. I was astonished to find the percentage that were using the larger card. Out of 185 reporting 138 used the 33 card, 38 used the 32 card and only 19 (true those 19 are the older, better established and larger libraries) used odd sizes.
I will take occasion to ask Mr. Hanson to answer another question on this point. I had an interview in his company last winter with the representative of the Harvard Library, which uses the smaller card. We then came to a satisfactory compromise, and I am surprised to hear Mr. Fletcher say it is all in the air. It was understood that the Library of Congress wanted for its subject headings, and we wanted for our subject headings, a sufficient amount of space, and that they were not willing to print below the punched hole. That leaves exactly the width of the 32 card in the center of the 33. And the proposition agreed to by all of us in this conversation was to print the 33 card with the broad margin above and never go below the hole, so any library that wanted to could buy the cards and cut them down on both top and bottom and have a 32 card. It was understood to be satisfactory to all the 32 users that I consulted, including Harvard, the largest, I believe, of them all. It is that point that I would like to ask Mr. Hanson to report on—whether he now feels that he must go higher or lower than the lines we then indicated.
Mr.Hanson: I don't feel it absolutely necessary; in fact we are following out the measurements laid down by the Publishing Board now. I have in my hand two cards—the title runs over on the second card at considerable waste of space, as you can see. But the printers have their measurements which provide for cutting away the space above and below to accommodate the 32 card. But I believe it is going to be objectionable, in the end, when it runs over on the second card. That is the only objection I can see.
Mr.Fletcher: I should like to have Mr. Andrews state whether this card, if it has to be cut down at the top as well as at the bottom, will allow room for headings?
MissBrowne: Instead of having to print a second card I don't see why we can't print the 33 card; then if the 32 card libraries want it in their catalog why can't they transcribe the extra line or so by hand on a second card and cut off the bottom. In nine cases out of 10 it would not make any difference. In one case in 10 where they would have to transcribe on the second card, is there any reason why it could not be done?
MissDoren: I am not a user of the 32 card. The only objection I see, if I were to use it, would be that perhaps I should have to pay a little more for my card than those that use the 33 card, and it would make the catalog a little more bulky.
Mr.Andrews: Talking with Miss Crawford it was evident that the Dayton library wanted a broad margin for analyticals and headings above the print in the 33 card. That is exactly what we want. We don't want it as much as they do, but I want to emphasize the necessity for a broad top margin. That is the point which makes it desirable for 33 people as well as for 32.
MissDoren: I did not understand the question as referring to analytical headings. We do want those above all things, and if we are to use the card at all we need the broadmargin at the top. Our use of the card depends upon having a broad margin at the top.
Mr.Bowker: I should like a show of hands on this point. Are those present, whether 33-card or 32-card people, of the opinion that, after dropping the heading so as to leave ample room at the top to permit the 32 card to be cut out from the 33 card, as stated by Mr. Andrews, it would be better to run the type down farther than the hole, if necessary, on either side, and then cut and recopy for the 32 size, or to make a double card both for the 33 and 32 size?
I suggest that the show of hands be first from those who prefer to have one card furnished for a title when possible, and then to transcribe the lower part, if necessary, for the 32 card; and then from those who prefer to have a second card wherever it is not possible to put the material on the space of the 32 card as printed on the 33 size. Is that clear?
Chairman: I believe so. It includes, however, both the users of the 32 and 33 cards, and instead of a show of hands let us have a rising vote, and give time to count them.
Mr.Bowker: Those who are in favor of printing below the 32-card limit on the 33 card, rather than furnishing two cards to a title, please rise. 56 persons rose.
Mr.Bowker: Those who are in favor of confining the print to the 32 size and having a second overflow card printed for the same title, please rise. 17 persons rose.
Mr.Fletcher: I should like to call for a rising vote to learn how many would like to urge that arrangements be made by which 32-size cards can be furnished. Three persons rose.
Mr.Hanson: I cannot think of any library printing cards that would care to print any lower than the round hole. On the other hand, the library must have three-quarters of an inch at the top of the card for headings. Will that leave sufficient space for taking away from top and bottom?
Mr.Andrews: They accepted it by that first vote.
Mr.Hanson: Then they must punch the hole in the margin.
Chairman: Or lose the part they punch out. If you will excuse me, I will put forth a little argument of my own.
Apropos of another report I had to make some time ago, I had heard that the greatest library in this country, certainly in some respects, was changing its plan to accommodate itself to the 33 card. I wrote to Mr. Whitney, of the Boston Public Library, which as you know uses a card larger than the 33, and it is a fact that with their immense catalog running for so many years, and with so large a number of cards which they cannot now cut down to the 33 size, they have found it advisable so to modify their plan for titles henceforth that the cards may be cut down to the 33 size on reprinting the old titles. Here is the letter, the report from his cataloger. [Mr. Hopkins here read the letter.] If they do not think it likely that ultimately they will use the 33 card why should they take all that trouble? Now, the problem they had to deal with was 10 times more difficult than that which the users of the 32 cards have to deal with. All you have to do with a 32 card to make it a 33 size is to paste it on something big enough and provide space to hold it. With such evidence as this before us why should we fret ourselves to provide a 32 card when the change to the 33 can be so easily and so cheaply made?
Mr.Bowker: May I add a word which Dr. Billings said to me? He said that he preferred a printed catalog card to a written catalog card any time, without reference to any question of uniformity. So he was actually replacing his written catalog cards with the Library of Congress cards or Library Bureau cards. I think that there is growing in the great libraries a desire for some general method which will supply printed catalog cards.
Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this topic? If not we will pass to the next.
Notes and Contents.I read from the official report made by the Committee on Rules to the Publishing Board: "The position of the collation and series note to be on a separate line immediately after the date and preceding other notes." Now we cannot take up the whole question of notes, nor the question of the minority report which Mr. Hopkins was asked to submit; but the question I would submit to you is this: Is not the contents note really, logically, sensibly, a part of thetitle? Is it not actually, in almost nine cases out of ten, more important than the title itself? If it were not, would it not be nonsense to print the contents note? If it is so, why separate the contents note from the title by other relatively unimportant matter? Has anybody anything to say?
Mr.Hanson: It seems to me it would be well to say here, collation is used for pagination, illustrations, maps, plates, etc., and size. That is the imprint, as we have for convenience's sake called collation; and the idea is that this information is to be paragraphed, on a separate line, so as to set out the date and make the date end the line in twelve point.
Mr.Biscoe: I want to say a word on the other side. It seems to me that it would be unfortunate to put the collation after the contents, particularly where the contents are long. It would throw the collation on the second card. To find out whether you had more than one volume you would have to turn to another card. If you are looking for duplicates you want to see at once not only the author of the book, but also the number of pages, to show whether the edition is the same. And if for all those purposes you have got to turn to a second card, it seems to me it would be unfortunate.
Mr.Jones: I agree strongly with Mr. Biscoe. I think the number of volumes, size, etc., range in properly with the date, while the contents should come afterward and range in with such matter as critical or descriptive notes. Ordinarily you want those parts that I speak of first, then your contents, like any other kind of descriptive or explanatory notes.
Chairman: Mr. Biscoe's position appears at first sight very solid and plausible but there is nothing in it. The reason for this is that there is only a small class of books that will call for a contents note. I deprecate mentioning any institution, particularly The John Crerar Library, but that calls for contents notes probably as often as any, and I should like our cataloger to answer if he knows about how many cases run over on the second card.
Mr.Josephson: We have printed so far about 25,000 cards and the number of titles that run over to second cards is considerably below 1000; it is nearer 500 than 1000.
Mr.Jones: I should like to ask the chairman whether in foreign bibliographies we do not find that the data, as to volumes, size, etc.—called the collation—always come first. Should not we be setting ourselves up in opposition to other catalogers if we put the collation after the contents?
Chairman: Possibly that it so; but if we gain a truth, what then? Tradition is powerful, but it is not all. Sometimes it is very little indeed. And this is one of the cases in which I believe it is very little.
Mr.Fletcher: I hold in my hand one of the sample cards which have been distributed, which has this arrangement. That represents what we now call the old practice, which we are proposing to depart from—Cutter's Rules say that the imprint, strictly, is place, date and form of printing; and then goes on to say that for practical purposes the imprint is considered as being enlarged so as to contain not only place, date and form of printing, but also publisher, number of pages and number of volumes. It seems to have been agreed some time ago by the Committee on Rules and the Publishing Board that it was wise to bring back the imprint to the old idea of giving the place, date and form of printing and publisher. It was also pretty generally agreed that form—or size as we now call it—number of pages and number of volumes, and anything else that might describe the book from an exterior point of view, should be called collation—we have not exactly agreed it should be called that—and that this should be put in a statement by itself in smaller type, after the title and imprint, the imprint being printed in the same type as the title and even completing the line the title ends on. Now the question is whether that line of smaller type should be printed immediately after the title and imprint or whether it should follow contents; that is to say, whether contents (called "contents" and not "contents note") should not be attached immediately to the title—which is Mr. Hopkins's idea, I understand, as he thinks logically it belongs there. The card I have in my hand has contents occupying four lines, because while it is one volume it contains four different lectures. That brings before us the "contents note" and the other notes. Now Iunderstand the new proposition is that the collation should follow the contents note, but precede other notes.
Chairman: The thing I want is that the contents note should follow the title. I called it "contents note" merely because it appeared in the smaller type with the other note.
Mr.Fletcher: I wish to express my preference in accord with Mr. Jones and one or two others, that the collation note should continue to occupy the place it has always occupied, of immediate juxtaposition with the imprint, and other notes should go below.
Chairman: In explanation, permit me to take the floor again——
Mr.Bowker: Has not the officer of The John Crerar Library given the best argument for placing the collation before the contents? Mr. Josephson has told us that probably the number of cards including contents would be less than three per cent. Why should we not follow the old practice and let the cataloger and the public continue to use the usual thing?
Mr.Josephson: I did not say how many cards give contents notes, but how many titles need more than one card.
Chairman: That is the strong point. It is not three per cent. nor anywhere near it. Those cards that ran over were not all contents notes. The actual number of contents notes that run over is very small indeed. And moreover, you have this bibliographical note on every card. You are going to put it between the contents note and the title every time.
Mr.Harris: I would like to ask what proportion of cards have contents notes at all.
Mr.Josephson: I don't think I can answer that. It is between ten and twenty-five per cent.
Mr.Harris: The point I was about to make was that I think it is well to sacrifice something for the sake of uniformity, for the aid of persons who consult the catalog; and as Mr. Josephson says only fifteen to twenty-five per cent. of the cards have contents notes, in seventy-five per cent. the collation would immediately follow the title. And therefore it seems to me it is desirable not to have the contents note follow the title.
A show of hands was called for.
Chairman: Before we have the show of hands, may I say one thing more? I don't believe that most of you that have not been using these cards know how useful the contents note is or what it is for. It is to furnish your analyticals. If you want to analyze a volume of essays, for example, your contents note does it all for you with just a little bit of clerical work when the cards come in. You have fifty items that you would like to represent in your catalog, and the card does it all for you. It is costing you one to three cents instead of fifty or sixty cents.
Mr.L. P. Lane: I have learned a good deal since I have been in the Boston Public Library by observing the practices which that library has departed from. I know the library did in times past print contents and have an entry designed to fit one particular item of contents and then underline that item on the card. That has been found so unsatisfactory that when we now recatalog anything and deem any item of contents worthy a separate entry we catalog that item separately and print a second card.
Mr.Andrews: If the Library of Congress will do this we do not care for many contents notes. I didn't understand the Library of Congress proposed to print analyticals, but rather to print contents notes; that they, and most of the libraries that print cards, found their economy on this point. But it is really the Library of Congress that must be consulted as to the desirability of many contents notes.
Mr.Hanson: That has been one of the perplexing questions with us in printing cards. We do use the contents as analyticals to some extent, underscoring the particular item on the heading given. But where an analytical is what we catalogers call an imprint analytical, that is, with separate title and pagination, we find it more economical to print a separate card for that title. In other cases and where we find it very inconvenient to use the contents card, we print analyticals.
Chairman: My own opinion is that it is best to put the collation at the end. It is easiest found there. The thing I want to see is to have it go below the contents. I want to say one thing more. The reason you think more than one per cent. consult the note is because you are librarians. Take your popular libraries, and they deserve to be considered, how many readers are going to look for that note?
MissCrawford: I am somewhat undecided in mind between the two standpoints. It seems to me that the contents, from the nature of the case and from the accessibility of the catalog, belongs rather at the top. I believe you are right when you say that ninety per cent. would use the contents first, rather than the bibliographical note. But the critical notes and any other general information should come right next to the contents.
Mr.Jones: I wish to repeat that "collation" is a bibliographical description of the book; if you want to describe a book or to order from a bookseller you turn to that data. Collation, it seems to me, comes naturally after the title, and I still hold that to separate it from the title is not in accord with the general bibliographical practice of the world.
Chairman: As many as are in favor of placing contents note immediately following the title, please rise. Three persons rose.
Chairman: As many as are in favor of placing contents note after collation, please rise. 52 persons rose.
Chairman: The next question is a recommendation from the committee: "That a column be set aside in the Library Journal for notifications to libraries of decisions on doubtful points; e. g., 'Kate Douglass Wiggin should not be changed to Riggs; or, Automobiles should be classified ...'"
In other words, that a kind of department be created, when the Central Bureau is created, for giving librarians throughout the country a notion of how these matters are to be treated. What is the opinion? Is there any discussion? If not we will go on to the next point.
A member: No discussion means that we agree to it, I understand.
Chairman: I suppose so. If it doesn't you should say so quickly.
A member: Does this recommendation sayJournalor journals?
Chairman:Journalis the word used. TheLibrary Journalis the official organ of the A. L. A. Probably if the committee had gone beyond that it would have been exceeding its province.
"The committee earnestly recommends that the practice of giving dates of birth and death be used extensively. It is convinced that a very large share of the work has already been done and may be easily obtained for the use of the Central Bureau. Expressions from various members of the committee have shown a great readiness to assist in this."
Mr.Merrill: I would like to inquire whether that means that dates shall be given only to distinguish men of the same name or whether they shall be used in every case.
Chairman: It is not designed that the use of dates be intended only for distinguishing writers, but it is urged that dates be given extensively.
Mr.Bowker: Doesn't that mean that the dates should be used where the authors are not of the same names?
Chairman: Yes.
Mr.Bowker: In the case of living authors, is it intended to give date of birth if possible?
Chairman: Yes.
MissBrowne: At the Boston Athenæum for years they have been giving those dates on their cards, and now they are scratching them off.
Mr.Bowker: Does anybody know why?
MissBrowne: I believe they consider they are not as desirable as a means of distinction as some phrase might be, and so they scratch off the date and give, for instance, "Henry James,Novelist;Emerson,Essayist."
MissWagner: How would they classify William Morris?
A member: Or Andrew Lang?
Chairman: The next question is the following recommendation of the committee: "The committee recommends that the Central Bureau prepare a biographical card giving the fullest form of name, dates, official and honorary titles and degrees, membership of academies, etc., and all forms of names and pseudonyms used."
Mr.Fletcher: I suppose the idea is to prepare a biographical card for each author for whom any card is issued. I don't know exactly how it should be worked. I want to call your attention to the fact that the Advocates' Library of Edinburgh tried this in preparing the first two volumes of their catalog; and when they got the two volumes printedthey concluded it was too expensive, and gave it up. I wonder how many libraries would advocate that the Library of Congress shall furnish us cards, not only for the books, but whenever an author comes for whom they have not furnished such a card that they shall furnish us a biographical card, which we shall pay for? I do not understand that the Library of Congress is preparing such a card now. It may be worthy of discussion whether we want such a card prepared.
MissAmbrose: It seems to me a card of that kind would be extremely helpful in smaller libraries that are limited in biographical books.
Mr.Jones: I would suggest that in the case of authors for whom we most need those facts, new authors, the facts would not be available. Could we have a copyright note by which each author should furnish the desired facts?
Chairman: Mr. Hanson could answer that, perhaps.
Mr.Hanson: I have familiarity with copyright authors that many librarians do not meet with, but whom we must have information about to distinguish from other well-known authors of the same name. We have a method of getting at them through the copyright records, and we write them, sending a blank, and occasionally ask them to give information of their other works. That is put on a preliminary card, and before every new author such a biographical card is inserted. I believe this is an old practice, used in many libraries.
Mr.Bowker: The Publishing Board would like a show of hands on how many libraries would like such a biographical card. At first sight this struck me as a most valuable suggestion. It would, of course, cost the extra half cent or cent—whatever it might be—for the card; on the other hand, it might be of great value to the reader. I suggest that we have a show of hands, notproandcon—simplypro.
MissVan Valkenburgh: I am especially interested in this, because we tried such a card in our library. We thought an information card was going to be a desirable thing. We tried it for about two years, and we found it was very little used indeed for biographical purposes. People wanted more information than we could give on a biographical card. Of course it is very desirable to differentiate authors of the same name.
MissAmbrose: Have those cards a distinct purpose, as of assisting the catalogers aside from the public?
MissVan Valkenburgh: From the standpoint of a cataloger who has done it, we didn't find it useful to us. It was more work than help.
Mr.Brett: Wouldn't it be more valuable to the small library than to the larger library? A great many of the smaller libraries haven't time to look up authors. It seems to me it would be of value in our library.
Mr.Andrews: I think those cards would be of use not only to small libraries, but to readers in larger libraries. I do not say, though, that I think it was the purpose to print a card for every author. If the heading used on the Library of Congress card gave all the information desirable, I don't see any use of printing it again. I hope the proposition will be put in three forms: Those who want such a card for every author; those who only want a distinctive card in cases where distinction is desired; and those who do not care for such a card at all.
Chairman: As many as favor such a card for general use, please rise. 16 persons rose.
Chairman: As many as favor such a card for distinctive purposes only, please rise.
MissVan Valkenburgh: If we are going to have the same material on the other cards we won't need it here.
One person rose.
Chairman: As many as do not care for such a card at all, please rise. None voted.
Chairman: We have still another of these topics: "The committee recommends as strongly as it can the importance of placing the subject headings and classification numbers (D.C. and E.C.) on the bottom of the card."