A rejoinder to the preceding paper was made by William E.
Foster, of the Providence Public Library, before the
American Library Association at its conference held in San
Francisco, Cal., in 1891. It may be considered as giving the
normal American view as contrasted with the
ultra-conservative attitude of Mr. O'Brien. A sketch of Mr.
Foster appears in Vol. I. of this series.
The rise of the public library system both in this country and Great
Britain, during the past half-century, has been almost coincident with
the very noteworthy reexamination of every phase of social economy now
so powerfully influencing the thought of the world. In this discussion
the contributions of Kaufmann, of Fawcett, of Graham, of Jevons, and
above all, of Herbert Spencer, have been more than influential--they
have been almost epoch-making--and whatever view one may hold in regard
to the social question, in its various phases, one cannot fail to
acknowledge the deep debt which we owe to these profound thinkers.
No book, from Mr. Spencer's point of view, which has appeared within
recent years, is worthy of a wider reading than the volume entitled "A
plea for liberty; an argument against socialism and socialistic
legislation," which appeared about the beginning of the present year. In
it thirteen writers, whose point of view is very nearly identical, have
discussed in successive chapters such topics as postal communications,
electric communication, investment, improvement of workingmen's homes,
free libraries, education, and other subjects, in their relation to the
question, "What action shall the State take in regard to them?" The
underlying purpose of the book is thus expressed in the words of Mr.
Mackay, the editor of the volume:--"If the view set out in this volume
is at all correct, it is very necessary that men should abandon the
policy of indifference, and that they should do something to enlarge the
atmosphere of liberty. This is to be accomplished not by reckless and
revolutionary methods, but rather by a resolute resistance to new
encroachment and by patient and statesmanlike endeavor to remove
wherever practicable the restraints of regulation, and to give full play
over a larger area to the creative forces of liberty, for liberty is the
condition precedent to all solution of human difficulty." Surely this is
a statement of the case which must powerfully appeal to all thinking
men, and lead them to reexamine, at least, the principles on which State
support of the various institutions referred to is based.
In such a spirit, a reexamination of the argument for public support of
public libraries must be regarded as entirely germane to the objects
which the American Library Association has at heart. In such a spirit
the present paper proposes to weigh once more the principles which
underlie our American library system, and the considerations brought
forward by Mr. O'Brien in the chapter devoted to "Free libraries" in the
volume referred to.
The half-century of discussion of "socialism and socialistic
legislation" already referred to has made few things so clear as the
fact that the arguments employed on any subject--social subjects in
particular--are weakened in almost the exact ratio in which they are
allowed to be tinged by passion and excited feeling. It must therefore
be regarded as unfortunate that Mr. O'Brien's chapter suffers most
emphatically from comparison with the generally high level of calm and
unimpassioned argument, characterizing the larger portion of the book.
Whether this is to be explained on the basis of the apocryphal legal
maxim, "When you have no case, abuse your opponent," or whether Mr.
O'Brien entered the lists fresh from some too recent participation in a
personal contest over the question, we do not undertake to inquire. The
fact remains that not only do the writers of the other chapters of the
book appear from a careful reading to state their arguments more
effectively, but that the reader is also impressed with the fact that
they have a case which admits of more effective argument.
Let us glance in succession at the points which Mr. O'Brien has aimed
to make. They may be grouped in general under two heads; first, those
which relate to the injury (in Mr. O'Brien's view) inflicted on the
individual user of a free library from having it aided by public
support, and second, those which relate to the tax-payer's grievance (in
Mr. O'Brien's view) in helping to support it. The former is of course
the side of the question most germane to the general purpose of the
book, and it is therefore an occasion for surprise to notice that in Mr.
O'Brien's enumeration of arguments those coming under the other class
outnumber it in the ratio of six to one. First of all, to use Mr.
O'Brien's own language "the argument that if readers were left to pay
for their own books, not only would books be more valued, but the moral
discipline involved in the small personal sacrifice incurred by saving
for such a purpose would do infinitely more good than any amount of
culture obtained at other people's expense." And he takes occasion to
suggest that "possibly the advocates of literary pauperism will see
little force in" this argument. Possibly; we are not familiar with the
train of reasoning which leads to an advocacy of "literary pauperism."
For ourselves, we have been accustomed, long before the appearance of
Mr. O'Brien's chapter, to attach exceptional importance to the principle
which he has here indicated, somewhat awkwardly, to be sure. There can
be no doubt that the appreciation of any object is in almost the exact
ratio of the effort expended to procure it. This is why teachers and
librarians--in American communities, at least--have so often had
occasion to rejoice at seeing a taste not only for reading, but for
owning books inspired in a young man or woman by access to a noble
collection of books for the use of the public. For "owning books," we
say; but the limits of a collection so owned are too soon reached in the
case of even the best-endowed pockets of individual readers. Were the
intelligent teacher who takes an interest in the reading and
intellectual growth of the pupils, from the various walks in life
represented in our schools, to find a pupil whose interest in pursuing
further some lines of thought therein suggested, extended no further
than to the books at home on his own book-shelf, we cannot doubt that it
would give occasion to question the efficacy of the teaching imparted.
Mr. O'Brien's objection to the enjoyment of these reservoirs of
enlightenment, by a portion of the community, where the community as a
whole is responsible for their support, is as if a man should be told
that he would do well not to walk abroad at night by the light of the
public street lamps, but rather enjoy the light kindled in his own
house. The latter is certainly important, but not even Mr. O'Brien's
reasoning is likely to persuade us that it precludes the former. Mr.
O'Brien, in the second place, deeply feels for the reader who, in being
brought in contact with the benefits of the library, is, he thinks,
subjected to a wrong system of education. To quote his language: "Just
at the time when a child is beginning to form his tastes, just at the
period when the daily habituation to the simple duties of farm life
would lay the foundation both of sound health and practical knowledge,
he is taken out of the parent's control, and subjected to a
mind-destroying, cramming process, which excludes practical knowledge
and creates a dislike for all serious study." One is compelled on
reading this extraordinary deliverance to cast one's eye to the heading
at the top of the page, "Free Libraries," and ask what this formidable
indictment--not one count in which has any bearing on libraries--can
mean in this connection. The only conclusion possible is that it was
written with a view to appearing in some other chapter of the book.
But Mr. O'Brien's concern is manifested also for the taxpayer, who
unites in the public support of the library. If we understand him
correctly, his contention is that the enormity of this tax consists
largely in the reprehensible nature--as represented in his pages--of the
institution itself. For from this short chapter one gradually frames a
picture of the free library as a place which tramps frequent for
sleeping off the effects of dissipation; as a place used by commercial
travellers for exhibiting their samples; as a place from which in one
instance "a respectable thief took away £20 worth of books"; as a place
used in an almost exclusive degree for reading fiction; as a place where
the time prescribed for keeping books makes 'serious study' impossible;"
and, more serious than all the rest, as a place which, he says, "favors
one special section of the community at the expense of all the rest."
Let us do Mr. O'Brien the justice to add that for the first three of
these counts he gives "chapter and verse" for his charges, quoting,
namely, from various (English) library reports. No one will therefore
wish to dispute his well-fortified statement that in such and such an
instance an unseemly incident occurred. But even a child can assuredly
see the difference between a statement of an isolated occurrence and an
inference that it is a necessarily characteristic and inherent quality
of the institution in question. Were this latter true, then we might
well cry out for abolishing our churches, sidewalks, and railway
stations, for in them these very same three things respectively are
known at some time to have been done. In the last three of these counts,
however, we have only Mr. O'Brien's assertions as the basis, and we are
obliged to add also that even these are found to be conflicting. On one
page his language shows that he is pained that a certain percentage of
readers in the libraries named should prefer to call for works of
fiction. Can it be that he has forgotten this, when on another page he
cites it as a grievance that "it is a frequent occurrence for a reader
to wait for months before he can get the novel he wants"! On page 333,
after quoting, from the annual report of one of the English libraries,
the statement as to the use of works of fiction, nothing but a resort to
italics can sufficiently emphasize his lamentation that "the more
instructive books in the other classes circulate only once during the
same period." Mr. O'Brien is not the only observer who has failed always
to observe, when commenting upon percentages of fiction, that "any book
requiring serious study cannot be galloped through, like a novel, in the
week or fourteen days allowed for use," yet who would have believed that
"out of his own mouth" would he be so completely answered, for this
remark, as well as the one which it answers, is found in his decidedly
interesting chapter (p. 348). But here it is evident that the bearing of
the two upon each other was not in his mind in writing it, for his
purpose in the sentence last quoted was plainly to make it appear that
the customary regulations of public libraries were such as to render
"serious study" impossible.
The limitation of "a week or fourteen days" for a book of the kind
which he here indicates--he instances by name Kant's "Critique of pure
reason" and Smith's "Wealth of nations"--is practically unknown in
American public libraries. In most of those known to the present writer
a book of this kind can be charged in the first instance for fourteen
days and then renewed, making twenty-eight days in all, and in still
others for a longer period. It can then, after being returned to the
library--to give any other reader who may need it a chance at it--be
taken out again after remaining on the shelves twenty-four hours, for
another twenty-eight days' use by the same reader. The annual report of
an American library which lies before us contains a case in point.
Speaking of Bryce's "American Commonwealth," it states: "Of this, seven
copies were added in succession." It names 101 as the total of the
issues of this work during the year; but considering the truth expressed
in Mr. O'Brien's own very just words, that "any book requiring serious
study cannot be galloped through, like a novel," the statement is added
that "such a record, for a book like this, constantly in the hands of
readers, may be contrasted with the more than ten times greater number
of times that some work of fiction might be read through, returned and
taken out again, requiring but a part of a day's attention." In fact,
101 is very likely to be the total number of issues possible in the case
of seven copies of this book, while 700 would probably fall far short of
the total possible issues of the same number of copies of a story like
"The Wreck of the Grosvenor." Again, Mr. O'Brien not only tells us that
"a free library favors one special section of the community" at the
expense of all the rest, but throughout his chapter recurs again and
again to the case of the "workingman." On page 330, for instance, we are
solemnly told: "If the workingman cannot come by his books honestly, let
him wait until he can." This is indeed somewhat summary, particularly
when, being interpreted, it is found to mean, Let there be no free
libraries supported by the public. And yet, on page 344, with no less
certainty, we are assured that "there is little doubt that at least
forty-nine out of every fifty workingmen have no interest whatever in
these institutions."
Where the deliverances from one and the same source are so
contradictory, the impartial inquirer will doubtless feel like looking
for some other source of information. From the materials accessible to
the present writer in regard to American libraries--and the new edition
of Mr. Greenwood's "Public libraries" appears to tell the same tale in
regard to Great Britain--the interest of workingmen in the opportunities
afforded by public libraries is everywhere emphatically shown; but he
who sets out with the purpose of showing that there is any one exclusive
class to whom the public library is of service and to no other--be that
class workingmen, or students, or manufacturers, or scientists--will
find the facts singularly obstinate and unresponsive to his purpose. The
truth is--Mr. O'Brien's confident assertion to the contrary--that there
is no more "universal" and non-partisan institution than a public
library. This is undoubtedly the highest among its several claims to
public support. Few among the objects to which the public funds have
been appropriated, in American cities, have met with so hearty and
unquestioning approval as the public parks, and it is right that it
should be so. Yet there are whole classes in every community who not
only never do enjoy the public parks, but never care to enjoy them. Even
the public schools are for a certain fraction of the population
only--the younger portion. In contrast with both of these, the public
library extends its resources to the children and the adults alike.
Perhaps, however, the fundamentally important question of universality,
in the sense of non-partisanship, is one which is seldom appreciated in
its full force, as applied to a public library. An independent position,
one entirely free from bias, a non-partisan attitude, in fact, is an
ideal repeatedly set before the conductors of a school or a newspaper.
In both these cases, however, there is too often an element of practical
difficulty in carrying these praiseworthy intentions into practice,
which is almost completely wanting in the case of a public library. The
policy of the latter, is, in its very essence, catholic. It places on
its shelves the volumes which represent, not one side, but both, or
rather all sides of any subject on which the sentiment of the public
divides; and thus, whether the user be Democrat or Republican,
protectionist or freetrader, Catholic or Protestant, the aspect which
this collection of books presents to him is no less free and
uncircumscribed than the illimitable aid.
Again, it is important that the relation of a public library to the
question of entertainment should be clearly understood. Entertainment is
not an element totally foreign to the purposes of a public library--the
same kind of public benefit accrues in this case as in the case of
public parks--but in the light of the infinitely more important
functions which it renders, this must of necessity occupy a subordinate
place. The primary function of a library is to render a service, to
supply a need, to respond to a demand. In this respect its value to the
community is of the same description as the postal system, the bank at
which one may cash a check, or the reservoir from which one may "turn
on" a supply of water.
One of the points which Mr. O'Brien aims to make, and which proceeds
from a manifest confusion of thought, can be appropriately noticed here.
His contention is that a public library is for the "class" who may be
designated "book-readers," that these form but a small percentage of any
community, and that therefore it is obviously wrong that the library
should receive public support. This is ingenious, as is also his
eloquent, though somewhat contemptuous setting of their supposed special
needs over against those of others. "Are theatre-goers, lovers of
cricket, bicyclists, amateurs of music, and others to have their
earnings confiscated," merely that the "book-reader" may gratify his
peculiar craving? Like many other ingenious theories, however, it leaves
out of account certain fundamentally important bearings of the subject.
There can be no doubt that in any community "the book-reader" is not
synonymous with the entire population. Some of the population are
children in arms; some have never learned to read; the sight of some who
have learned has failed; others again are too fully occupied to find
time for it; others find their inclination drawn more strongly in other
directions; others still have more or less to do with reading, yet are
not, in the strict sense, "book-readers." Yet we shall err very widely
if we lose sight of the fact that even those who do not personally
perform the role of the "book-reader" do nevertheless benefit by the
existence of the library, by proxy. The young child is read to, by his
mother; or is cared for by her, by methods learned through her use of
books. The busy "captain of industry," whose large profits are due to a
skillful application of scientific principles, may find his own time so
closely occupied by details of administration that, personally, he
seldom opens the treatises which bear upon the subject, but he expects
to keep abreast of the ever unfolding science, by the consultation not
only of such works as private ownership may provide, but the more nearly
complete collection in a great public library.
This principle of "community of interest" and interdependence has an
even wider bearing; for it applies not only to the family and the
business firm, but to the community as a whole. A public library
report now before the writer contains several instances of this kind.
Speaking of the systematic efforts made to build up an approximately
complete collection of works on industrial and decorative subjects,
the report states that in this way "the library is gradually becoming
the possessor of a scientifically selected set of volumes and plates
which cannot fail to leave a distinct impress on the character of the
work done in the various industries of the city." Another portion of
the same report illustrates the direct service rendered by such an
institution to the interests of the municipality. To quote the
language there used, "Instances of the last named, both striking and
tangible, are of by no means exceptional occurrence, sometimes an
application of this kind being presented from more than one city
official on the same day," the foregoing having reference to the city
in question. "A well-authenticated instance," it continues, "in one of
the largest cities of the country, of the saving of a sum of many
thousand dollars, in the matter of a contract, due to the opportunity
for consulting the requisite data comprised in works of authority in
the public library of that city, is but an indication of the
possibilities of a public library."
It is fitting that where funds are to be appropriated, collected by
taxes levied on the tax-paying population, there should be possible so
tangible a presentation as the above, of the direct relation of the
institution supported, to the question of "profit and loss," as
affecting those who are taxed. And yet it is well to remember that it is
as true now as twenty centuries ago, that "man does not live by bread
alone;" and that the public support of the institutions referred to can
be justified by other arguments than that of the material interests just
cited.
No aspect of the library's operation is more full of interest than
that which takes account of its uplifting influence. The analogy between
its service and that of the postal system has been noticed; but it has a
no less real analogy to the work of the school, the pulpit, or the
press--yet without the propagandist principle which so often attaches to
these latter--namely, in the principle of growth or advance. In the
earlier portion of this paper a little space was devoted to showing that
in the nature of the case the number of copies of any work of fiction
used in the course of a year would immensely out-number those which
could possibly be read in the more solid departments of reading. Even
were the constituency of the library confined to a selected few, to
whose minds the higher class of reading was congenial, this would be the
case. Nor should we forget that the ground of distinction between a
"public" library and any other, as the library of a scientific society,
a debating society, a theological school or a teachers' club, is that
its constituency _is_ not thus limited to a selected class but is broad
as humanity itself, with all its enormous inequalities of condition,
taste, and mental growth. Like a mirror, therefore, the recorded
classified circulation reflects this variety. Even with this apparently
almost unmanageable unevenness, appreciable improvement in standards of
reading is by no means an unknown experience. There lies before the
writer, for instance, a library report which is able to make such a
statement as this: "The fiction percentages of the seven successive
years, beginning with 1883 and ending with 1889, show an uninterrupted
decline, as follows: 70+, 66+, 62+, 61+, 58+, 56+." But it must be
remembered also that figures such as these, though they may tell a part,
and a very gratifying part, of the advances which individual readers
have been helped to make, fall very far short of expressing the whole.
It would be entirely possible for individual after individual thus to
advance from good to better, and from better to best, and yet the
figures which express the aggregate use of the year remain stationary
(or even retrograde), because the constituency of a public library
(particularly in a large city) is all the time being reenforced by new
readers. And these new readers comprise both those who are children in
age and those who are children in mental growth, who begin at the foot.
When, therefore, there is anything more than a preserving of a uniform
level--as in the noteworthy figures above quoted--it stands for a very
striking advance indeed, on the part of a very large portion of the
community. Probably every librarian in charge of a public library in a
large city has had an opportunity of observing these advances in
innumerable individual instances. And this class of results, while
distinctly following the "order of nature," does not by any means come
about through a view of library administration which regards either
books, readers, or librarian as inert masses. Much of it is the result
of individual interest expressed by the librarian in some reader, whose
mind receives an awakening impulse.
More than one well authenticated instance exists of an individual
beginning life as a newsboy or an elevator-boy, and through his use of a
public library finding his intellectual powers unfolding until he has
entered one of the learned professions. The relation of the library
system to the school system opens an almost boundless field of thought,
and it is a fact of deep significance that the profound principle
involved in it, after having engaged the attention of English and
American libraries for years, has been recognized in the educational
steps recently taken by the government of Japan, where the two systems
are placed on a plane of equality. In the experience of one of the
American libraries already referred to, almost the chief hope of the
library for the future is placed upon "a class of readers," every year
largely increasing in numbers, who comprise the "graduates from the
various institutions of learning" in the city, and whose "lines of study
and reading" "may be characterized as a carrying forward of those
impulses in the direction of right reading which were received in school
and college." The library has a no less direct relation to the needs and
ambitions of those who have received the invaluable training of "the
practical duties of the world," to use Mr. O'Brien's phrase, and it
responds with equal readiness to these. There is concentrated in the
contemptuous phrase, "book-learning," a popular judgment of condemnation
which is for the most part just, on the spurious variety of knowledge
which knows the expression of certain principles in books, but knows
nothing of their practical embodiment in the life and work of this
world. We are glad to observe that Mr. O'Brien's antipathy to this
pseudo-knowledge is almost as profound as our own, but his expression of
it seems singularly out of place in a philippic against public
libraries; for one will seek far before finding an institution more
perfectly suited to be a corrective of such a tendency than the modern
public library. Does any one claim that the public school system
sometimes has an unfortunate tendency to repress individuality and turn
out a set of pupils of uniform mould? If so, the public library supplies
a means of supplementing and complementing this uniformity by its
infinite variety and universality, and it is continually doing this,
indeed. Does any one regret that the school system at its best reaches
but a fraction of the population and that fraction for but a few short
years of their life, and that in too many instances there is a tendency
on the part of even these few, educated in the schools, to conceive of
their education as "finished," and allow the fabric to become hopelessly
ravelled? If so, the public library stands to these members of the
community in an almost ideal relation, not only fulfilling very
perfectly Mr. Carlyle's characterization of a "collection of books" as
"the people's university," but in the peculiarly wide range shown in the
demands made upon it, almost as properly rendering it the people's
workshop, or laboratory.
The same library report which has several times been cited printed
several years since a record of the inquiries made on specific subjects
during a single month, which throws significant light upon this subject.
Another report of the same library declares that "few can adequately
conceive to what extent the inquiries made at the library have become
specialized, and require trained facility and research" on the part of
the library staff. The library thus becomes a laboratory, in which the
reader gains not only the specific information, but the method.
An observation of popular movements in their relation to political or
economic principles reveals few facts so plainly as that an almost
insuperable narrowness of view is, in much the greater number of
instances, the barrier to advance in those questions decided mainly by
the popular voice. Why then should any one wish to perpetuate the
conditions which make this possible? In Mr. O'Brien's view the
workingman,--and we ought not to forget how large a percentage of the
community this word "workingman" represents, both in England and
America,--will be a fortunate man when the contents of free libraries
are no longer rendered everywhere accessible to him by public support,
for then the workingmen "for one 'penny' can buy their favorite
newspaper, which can be carried in the pocket and read at any time"! It
is well nigh incredible that an ideal such as this should be looked
forward to by thinking men. Whatever may be the fact in regard to the
workingmen of Great Britain,--and Mr. O'Brien of course knows them
better than we do,--it may confidently be asserted that the American
workingman would strike no such false note. Mr. Lowell in one of his
admirable orations quotes from a Wallachian legend of a peasant who was
"taken up into heaven" and offered his choice among the objects to be
seen there. He chose a half worn-out bagpipe, and with this returned to
the earth. "With an infinite possibility within his reach, with the
choice of wisdom, of power, of beauty, at his tongue's end, he asked
according to his kind, and his sordid wish is answered with a gift as
sordid." The newspaper is well enough in its way,--even a "penny
newspaper,"--but to condemn whole masses of the population to limit
themselves to this, is to incur the condemnation of Mr. Lowell's fine
scorn when, in another portion of the oration just referred to, he says:
"It is we who, while we might each in his humble way be helping our
fellows into the right path, or adding one block to the climbing spire
of a fine soul, are willing to become mere sponges saturated from the
stagnant goose-pond of village gossip." It is more. It is to help
develop a community from whom in the end every spark of uplifting
influence shall have vanished. Does any one say that this is a result
impossible of attainment by any people? The scientifically true, yet
brutally summary record given by the distinguished European savant,
Elisée Reclus, of a certain European stock which has found and occupied
virgin soil in the South of Africa, is a sufficient answer. "In
general," he says, "the Boers despise everything that does not
contribute directly to the material prosperity of the family group. They
ignore music, the arts, literature, all refining influence, and find
little pleasure in anything," except solid amassing of wealth.
A few additional points remain to be noted. It is an entirely pertinent
question whether every public library in England and America improves
its high privilege, uses to the full the peculiar opportunities open to
it, places itself in close communication with the public school system,
with the university extension movement, and with the influences
continually at work in industrial and artistic development. And we need
not hesitate to answer in the negative. Yet the significant fact is,
that everywhere the tendency is in this direction with a stronger and
stronger momentum. The advance made in this country, within the last
decade even, in this direction, is among the most striking phenomena of
the time; and no less striking is the almost overwhelming percentage of
the body of librarians in this country whose entrance upon the work from
a deep-seated love for it, rather than as furnishing a means of
livelihood, supplies one of the strongest guarantees against the
invasion of the perfunctory spirit in the future. Again, it is equally
pertinent to ask whether, granted that the benefits of such an
institution as the public library are unquestioned, dependence may not
be placed on funds entirely unconnected with those of the public, for
its support. It would ill become the citizen of a country where private
munificence has accomplished so much in channels of public spirit, to
overlook these noble memorials of enlightened private action. Yet it
remains true, nevertheless, that were dependence to be placed on these
alone, a map of the country on which public libraries should be dotted
down would show as partial and inadequate a supply furnished to the
community, as the very instructive "annual rainfall map" published by
the government shows in the matter of rain. What we are accustomed, in
the eastern portion of this country, to consider the rain--in its
universal beneficent service and in its indispensableness--that also is
to be associated with the "reservoirs" comprised in these public
collections of books. For, after all, valuable as are the books
themselves, even in their material aspect, as pieces of handiwork, still
more in the specific items of information and admonition contained in
them, yet in the deeper view these are but symbols of their real
significance and service. To place one's self in communication with them
as contained in these libraries, is to bring ourselves in contact with
the stored-up thought of the world thus far. We have just adverted to
the fundamental bearing which this has upon the deeper or spiritual side
of man's life. But the two-sided character of these collections of books
follows us even here, for their indispensableness in the material point
of view is almost as striking, and this, not only whether we consider
the statesman planning measures of public weal, while neglecting to
inform himself of the recorded conditions which necessarily must
determine such measures; or whether it be the inventor spending long
years of his too brief life in perfecting a machine which his
consultation of the recorded patent would have shown him some one else
had anticipated him in thinking out; or whether it be the day laborer
submitting without an effort to violations of his rights, which a single
glance at the recorded statutes would have shown him he had a remedy
for.
How like all this is to the supposed state of things which one of the
most suggestive writers of our day has thus expressed: "Our early
voyagers are dead: not a plank remains of the old ships that first
essayed unknown waters; the sea retains no track; and were it not for
the history of these voyages contained in charts, in chronicles, in
hoarded lore of all kinds, each voyager, though he were to start with
all the aids of advanced civilization," would be in the helpless
position of the earliest voyager.
Once more, each reader of the strongly written book which we have been
considering should ask the question for himself, whether all of the
various propositions maintained therein necessarily stand or fall
together. Because the compiler has chosen to bracket together two such
headings as "Free libraries" and "The state and electrical
distribution," it certainly does not follow that the argument which
carries conviction in the one case must in the other also. We shall not
be suspected of having our judgment in this regard swayed by the natural
weakness with which, to use Mr. O'Brien's illustration, the shoemaker is
inclined to think that "there is nothing like leather," if we suggest,
what the public at large in this country is very plainly persuaded of,
that, for one person who has appreciated the need for public action in
the latter case there are thousands in the former. The writer lives in a
city in which for more than eleven years the public library was
administered by funds not in the least degree derived from municipal
appropriations. Yet the character of its service to the public had so
widely impressed itself upon the community that, largely from sources
outside of the library board, a movement arose for recognizing the
closeness of the relation, by public support. A report by a committee of
the city government, recommending this course, significantly declares:
"Your committee are unanimously of the opinion that this public library,
already existing in the city, is a useful and a necessary adjunct to the
educational system sustained by the city in its public schools, and
properly appeals to the treasury for an appropriation towards its
support." After eleven years' opportunity for observation and
comparison, such a judgment as this has the merit of deliberation and
conviction.
It is true that by far the greater part of the considerations which
lead the present writer to find Mr. O'Brien's view untenable are drawn
from observation and experience of conditions existing in this country.
Yet it is to be noted that his position is also contested, so far as
Great Britain is concerned, by an article in the March number of The
Library (of London), which shows, not only that our English cousins are
fully able to take care of themselves, but also that on many of the
questions of fact, about which his arguments turn, he is painfully wide
of the mark. Few students of social conditions have left so noteworthy
an impress on contemporary thought as the late William Stanley Jevons.
Of the free public library he held a view radically opposed to that of
Mr. O'Brien, believing it to be "an engine for operating upon" the
community, in ways at once protective and ennobling. As to the
universality of its beneficent service, he was equally convinced,
declaring not only that "free libraries are engines for creating the
habit and power of enjoying high-class literature, and thus carrying
forward the work of civilization which is commenced in the primary
school," but also that they are "classed with town halls, police courts,
prisons, and poor-houses, as necessary adjuncts of our stage of
civilization." The experience of one community or one nation is
repeatedly serviceable to another; but, after all, it is the local
conditions which must finally determine in any case. Even if a different
conclusion were to be reached in this matter in Great Britain, it would
still remain true that for us in America it is one of the highest duties
of self-preservation to keep alive the uplifting influences represented
in the public support of these institutions. The future of this country,
even more than its past, will be irrevocably committed to the democratic
principle in government. As is the people--in the widest sense of the
word--so will be the national life and character. In the future, even
more than in the past, crudity, narrowness, well-meaning ignorance, and
low standards of taste and ethics will, unless met with corrective
tendencies, color our national life. The public school and the public
library--"instruments equal in power to the Dionysiac theatre, and
vastly greater in their range of power," to quote the language of one of
the most thoughtful of our men of letters--will stand more and more, in
our American communities, as such corrective tendencies.