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 was _Voted_, That the section waive the formality of registration of
members preliminary to voting.
It was _Voted_, 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 the _32 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 in such 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?
Miss BROWNE: 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?
Miss DOREN: 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.
Miss DOREN: 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 broad margin 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
the title? 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 I understand 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.