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?
Miss CRAWFORD: 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 say _Journal_ or journals?
CHAIRMAN: _Journal_ is the word used. The _Library Journal_ is 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.
Miss BROWNE: 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?
Miss BROWNE: 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_."
Miss WAGNER: 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 printed
they 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.
Miss AMBROSE: 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, not _pro_ and _con_--simply _pro_.
Miss VAN 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.
Miss AMBROSE: Have those cards a distinct purpose, as of assisting the
catalogers aside from the public?
Miss VAN 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.
Miss VAN 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._"
Miss BROWNE: These subject headings are simply suggestive. If any
cataloger has already started with, for example, "Birds" instead of
"Ornithology," he can simply go on as he has begun. The same way with
the D.C. and E.C. numbers. There are certain ones that perhaps are
absolute; others are suggested to go in one place, but would go
perfectly well in three or four other places; you take the one that fits
in with your scheme; if you have no scheme you can use the one that is
suggested.
Mr. FLETCHER: The Committee on Rules has recommended this, and unless
objection is presented here this meeting might endorse this
recommendation.
W. M. SMITH: I don't see how these marks could be put on without
preliminary classifying.
Mr. HANSON: If the work is done at the Library of Congress, of course
the book has to be classified, and it is very easy to translate any
classification mark into either D.C. or E.C. It would be an additional
cost, of course, to print two or three headings at the bottom of the
card, but it has to be done.
CHAIRMAN: In other words, the work has to be done for the Library of
Congress.
Miss KROEGER: The subject headings are the most expensive part of the
catalog. It would be a mistake to leave off the marks.
CHAIRMAN: A show of hands is called for. As many as favor recommendation
of this rule, please rise. 70 persons rose; contrary, none.
Mr. BOWKER: I would like to say a word upon the question which was
raised of printing certain matter in the _Library Journal_. While the
_Library Journal_ is technically the official organ of the A. L. A. it
would seem desirable to send such material to all the library
periodicals, and I should suppose that it would be understood that the
committee might so do.
CHAIRMAN: In the formal report of the committee to the Publishing Board
the same plan of numbering is followed that was followed in the last
issue, or edition, of Cutter's rules, of the A. L. A. rules. A number of
changes, additions, excisions and emendations have been made. I will
read the first.
"1a. Enter books under surnames of authors when ascertained, the
abbreviation _Anon._ being added to the titles of works or editions
published anonymously."
Now the question has been raised since, by a member of the committee,
and it was desired that it be placed before this section for decision,
If the heading of an anonymous book is always bracketed is it necessary
to add the abbreviation "_Anon._" to the end of the title?
Mr. JOSEPHSON: It sometimes happens that an author signs his name at the
end of the preface. In that case the name is not on the title-page, and
should be bracketed on the heading. We have to distinguish those from
the really anonymous books in some way. You have to do one of two
things, either put the abbreviation "Anon." or the full word "Anonymous"
on the top line, or, as we do in The John Crerar Library, put a note at
the bottom.
Miss CRAWFORD: It has been my experience that the word "Anon." at the
end of the line is sometimes confusing to the reader and brings up all
sorts of questions, and is taking space that might be needed for
something else. I do not see its value, and sometimes it is positively
misleading. The bracket expresses all that is of real use, and it
doesn't matter whether the author's name appears in some other place in
the book; at any rate it was not on the title-page. The brackets tell
that, and I don't see the use of the abbreviation.
Miss WAGNER: I don't see that the public are interested in brackets or
in the word "Anon." It is for the public that the card is being made, I
understand.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: When I spoke I went on the supposition that the title
entry would, as is now usual, give the title only and omit the author's
name from the title. But if, as I hope, the Publishing Board will decide
to have the title-page copied exactly, giving the author's name in the
title as it is done on the title-page, then you don't need to
distinguish the anonymous authors from those who have signed in any
other place than the title-page, except that in the former case you put
a bracket around the name. As to the objection that the public is not
concerned with the brackets, that may be true; but the librarian is very
much concerned with knowing whether a book is published anonymously or
not. I should like to have instead of brackets a footnote, telling
"published anonymously" or "signed at the end of title-page" or "signed
at end of the book."
Mr. FLETCHER: I would like to call attention to one or two things. In
the first place, many popular libraries might like to have extremely
simple cards. They will have to realize that they must take a good deal
of information they do not want if they are to take the cards made for
all libraries. Mr. Josephson's idea is a good one, that technicalities
shall be avoided in favor of good, plain English notes. "Anon." is
obscure to a great many people, while "published anonymously" is pretty
plain English. If such a note follows it is not necessary to use any
brackets.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: I rise to suggest that we should discuss the question of
_size notation_.
Mr. FLETCHER: What we have to consider here is whether this meeting
would favor one method or the other in size notation; and a
consideration of that question might be largely affected by the further
question, Is either of these methods to be followed for the printed
cards? If you should be told that in all probability neither of them
would be followed, it would prevent a good deal of waste of time in
discussing one as against the other. We have two old methods that are
mentioned in the reports. The third method, which finds a great deal of
favor and which may be adopted by the Publishing Board, is that the size
notation shall be represented by a mark giving the absolute measurement
of the book, perhaps in centimeters, perhaps in inches and fractions.
Mr. HANSON: These three questions came before the committee at the
meeting at Atlantic City; one was to give the fold symbol, as is used
all over Europe and in the larger libraries of this country; the other
was to give the letter symbol adopted by the A. L. A. in 1877; the
third, presented by Mr. Hopkins, was to give measurements in centimeters
of the letterpress and of the page--not of the binding. A minority
report was submitted by Mr. Currier, Miss Kroeger and myself urging the
fold symbol. Mrs. Fairchild, Mr. Cutter and Miss Browne are the
majority, because I understood Mr. Hopkins to stand with them.
Miss KROEGER: Mrs. Fairchild was undecided, saying she was inclined to
the exact measurement in centimeters; Miss Browne and Mr. Cutter voted
for the old letter symbol; so there was no majority of the committee.
Mr. Hopkins's vote was for the exact size. It was left with the
Publishing Board to decide.
Mr. HANSON: The report is for the figure, but with a strong predilection
of the members who signed it towards exact measurement, providing that
should be adopted by the Publishing Board. Three of us argued in favor
of the fold symbol. There were too main reasons argued, one that the
great majority of readers in this country were familiar with the figure;
the 4to, 8vo and 12mo gave them the size of the book; and that the
majority of libraries used that rather than the letter. The other was in
favor of uniformity. We found that the fold symbol as a measure of
height, not in the old sense, was advocated by the Prussian, the Italian
and the French university libraries and others. But if the Publishing
Board should decide to adopt size measurement in centimeters I do not
believe there is anyone of the committee who will insist very strongly
on the retention of the one or the other.
Mr. HARRIS: I think that bibliographically it is a mistake to take the
old fold symbol and apply it to size notation. It is not size--it
represents form notation. It is much simpler to give size in inches or
in centimeters, whichever you prefer, rather than to use the symbol
which denotes fold.
L. P. LANE: It was said that the fold symbol was now almost never used
to indicate the fold. In the Boston Public Library we use it to indicate
the fold for foreign books and old books. We also use the same symbol in
the case of American books to indicate size. There is considerable
dissatisfaction with the practice and some of the cataloging staff would
prefer to give the size in inches. How would that apply to books not in
the condition in which they were published? Also I should like to ask
whether it might not be possible where the fold is easily distinguished,
to give both size and fold.
Mr. HANSON: That is really the practice of the Prussian university
libraries.
Miss BROWNE: My thesis for defending the size letter is that 25 years
ago the A. L. A. thrashed this matter all over and decided on the size
symbol. Mr. Bowker has used that letter symbol from that time on. Miss
Kroeger found a very large proportion of the libraries using the letter
symbol; library classes are teaching the letter symbol. My chief
objection to the fold symbol is that we are making one sign serve two
uses, which I think is always bad.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: If the Library Association 25 years ago decided to use
one symbol or another symbol, that is no reason why we should do so now.
The objection to using the fold symbol to denote size is, among other
things, as Mr. Lane suggested, that you need it in case of old books to
tell the fold. The only rational designation of size is by centimeters,
or inches, if you prefer. There is of course one difficulty in using
accurate measurement in centimeters, if you have a book that has been
bound and cut down. But that can be overcome, I think, by letting the
measurement mean letterpress and nothing else. In ordinary cases you
know about how wide a margin is if you know the side of the letterpress;
it is always a certain proportion. You don't need the size to tell on
what shelf the book is put, because that is given by the call number. So
in order to find a book you don't need the size notation; you need it to
see what size the page is. It is a purely bibliographical notation.
[Mr. Hanson here read rule for size notation for books "notable for age
or rarity."]
Mr. BOWKER: In the days of our youth, in fact almost as soon as we were
born, this Association, as Miss Browne has indicated, adopted the letter
symbol; and it seems to me that the reasons that operated for the choice
of the letter symbol are stronger now than they were then, because the
symbol has in the meantime come into quite general, if not universal
use. The Association at that time had a phrase to indicate size. The
objections to the old fold symbol still remain, and I think one very
strong one has been stated. It is not only that the numerical system of
8vo, 12mo, etc., has ceased to mean what it originally meant and is
confused with measurement size, but that it is used in England and
America with utterly different meanings; and that difference continues.
That is to say, the English use crown octavo and post octavo and two or
three names for 12mo, in such a way as to cross our use of the word 8vo
and 12mo and make a double confusion. I feel very strongly, for one,
that the method of breaking over from the octavo and duodecimo, etc.,
the figure designation, into a definite and accurate letter designation
was a very ingenious and very useful move. It is difficult to get
general adoption of a modification of that sort, but the adoption has
been quite general, and to me it would seem a very great retrogression
to go back to the old figure symbol; we had better adhere to the A. L.
A. notation of 25 years ago and custom since, and give a symbol which is
in no sense confusing or misleading, following that, if you please, with
the actual size measurement in centimeters.
Mr. RODEN: I understand, of course, that we cannot legislate upon the
subject, and possibly our discussion will not influence the legislature.
At the same time, as a representative of a popular library in the middle
west, I cannot help but regard with apprehension the small but insidious
innovations which these rules seem to display. Mr. Josephson has said
measurement is a bibliographical detail; in popular libraries it is a
gratuitous detail. It could very well, as the chairman suggests, be
placed at the end. In the public I am dealing with I should say the old
fold symbol is most commonly used and means most. It occurs to me that a
combination of fold and letter symbols might be used. I suggest this as
a little concession to the popular library, and it is the first I have
heard this afternoon.
Mr. JONES: An objection to exact measurement is, that so far as the
greater mass of books that we have to deal with are concerned, it is not
very important whether they are a few centimeters larger or smaller, and
such books are often rebound in such a way that if we have an exact
description our copies do not correspond. I agree with Mr. Bowker that
the symbols adopted by the A. L. A. 25 years ago are sufficiently well
known by people who are handling books to be recommended as a system to
be adopted.
Miss KROEGER: I have been teaching in the library school according to A.
L. A. measurements, yet it has always seemed to me somewhat absurd. None
of the publishers have adopted it; I suppose the newer libraries have.
The replies received to the questions sent to the various libraries
last June, except for the newer libraries, indicate that the majority
are using the fold symbol, and they would like to know why, if the
letter symbol is such a good thing, the publishers are still marking
their books 8vo, 12mo and 4to. The fold symbol means more to the mass of
the people than do the letters O or D.
Mr. BOWKER: If I remember correctly the London _Bookseller_ is giving
the exact size and measurement now.
Mr. HARRIS: Many literary and critical journals give the size of all
books recorded in inches.
Mr. BOWKER: The Publishing Board is extremely interested in getting the
feeling of those here on the question. I want to suggest that when it
comes to the rising vote or show of hands, we take a somewhat
complicated vote: those who are in favor of the present A. L. A. letter;
those in favor of returning to the fold (I mean not in the usual sense);
those in favor of exact measurement in centimeters; those in favor of a
combination of letter symbol and centimeter; and those in favor of the
fold symbol and centimeter. The board wants all the information it can
get.
CHAIRMAN: I will ask Mr. Bowker to state the first proposition.
Mr. BOWKER: Those in favor of the letter symbol, the present A. L. A.
method, please rise. Twenty-four rose.
Mr. BOWKER: Those in favor of returning to the fold symbol, the 8vo,
12mo and 4to please rise. Ten rose.
Mr. BOWKER: Those who prefer a designation of actual measurement, please
rise--with the understanding that those voting for this will then vote
their preference as to either inches or centimeters. Seventeen rose.
CHAIRMAN: Your next proposition, Mr. Bowker.
Mr. BOWKER: Those who would prefer centimeters if exact measurement
should be adopted, please rise. Thirty-two rose.
Mr. BOWKER: Now those who would prefer inches if an exact measurement
were adopted. Three rose.
CHAIRMAN: As many as are in favor of the exact measurement coupled with
the A. L. A. symbol, in case there is to be a combination--letter and
exact size--please rise. Thirty-two rose.
CHAIRMAN: Now those who would prefer the combination of exact size with
figure symbol. Sixteen rose.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: We might have another vote on whether the size should
mean letterpress or book.
CHAIRMAN: Before this is done I want to call attention to the effect of
binding after cataloging. If this scheme is going to take in foreign
books, and you are going to get cards promptly, a large share of the
books will be cataloged before they are bound. If a good binder does his
work conscientiously and as it should be done, if you give the page you
will have a more satisfactory measurement.
Mr. HANSON: I have looked into this question recently, and I find, where
libraries do measure in centimeters they measure the paper. If the book
is bound they measure the outside cover, for the reason that when the
unbound book is trimmed down for binding what is lost is regained in the
binding. I have found no instance yet where the practice that is
advocated by yourself, the measurement of the letterpress, is followed
in actual work.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: Let all those who want an exact measurement of the
letterpress please rise. Two rose.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: Now those who want size to mean the outside of the book.
Fifty-five rose.
Mr. BOWKER: I think it might clarify things if we take the vote of those
who favor the use of the symbol alone as against those who favor the use
of the symbol and exact measurement in centimeters.
CHAIRMAN: Those who favor the use of the symbol alone as against the
combination of symbol with measurement please rise. Twenty-three rose.
Mr. BOWKER: Those who favor combination of symbol with exact
measurement, please rise. Fifteen rose.
Mr. BOWKER: If there is no other business I wish to move the very
cordial appreciation of the Catalog Section of the admirable report
which has been presented in such detail by the advisory committee of the
Publishing Board. _Voted._
Mr. BOWKER: Mr. Hanson, as chairman of the committee, I have great
pleasure in conveying to you and to your associates this appreciation,
which I know is most thorough on the part of all here.
I would also like to move a vote of thanks to the chairman for his
admirable presiding during the session. _Voted._
L. P. LANE: I move that the program committee be requested to assign a
time before the end of the conference when there may be a continued
meeting of this section; and if such a time be found, that when we
adjourn we adjourn to that time. _Voted._
CHAIRMAN: Let me announce again that at the close of this session the
secretary, Miss Van Valkenburgh, will be ready to begin the registry of
persons who express themselves as willing to become members of this
section.
Mr. ANDREWS: I would call attention to the fact that under the by-laws,
if the section wants to, it can adopt rules restricting membership; if
it doesn't adopt rules any member of the Association may be a member of
this section. It is a question whether we wish to confine this section
to catalogers.
CHAIRMAN: It is an important point or might easily become an important
point. For the ordinary run of affairs it would be a matter of no
consequence, but it may be that this section will sometime wish to
promulgate some proposition and a little logrolling might vote it down.
What does the section wish to do in this matter?
Mr. WINDSOR: I think we can safely leave it open to all who are
interested in the subject of cataloging. I don't see that there is
anything gained by leaving out anybody who is interested in the work.
Mr. JOSEPHSON: I move that a vote on this question be postponed.
_Voted._
Mr. HANSON: In the points that were outlined last year for discussion at
this meeting there were a great many details; we have not reached a
fifth of them. May I ask catalogers to get copies of the rules
recommended by the Committee on Rules and look them over and communicate
with any one of the members of the committee--Mr. Hopkins, Miss Kroeger,
Miss Brown or myself. It would be of the greatest assistance to us.
[Miss Kroeger objected to giving out copies of the rules, because they
were incomplete.]
CHAIRMAN: I think we have no right to make a general distribution yet,
to do so would perhaps exceed the province of the committee; but we
might lend copies to those who want to look them over.