Section 6

The Board shall submit an annual report of its work in detail, with its

receipts and expenditures, to the tax-levying body.

Upon motion by Mr. Wellman it was voted that the above report be

printed as a tentative report in the Bulletin.

Upon motion of Dr. Bostwick it was unanimously voted that the session

of the Council on Thursday evening, June 26th, at which the topic, "The

Quality of Fiction" is to be discussed, be thrown open to the members

of the Association at large.

The Chairman called attention to the vote of the Council which was

passed at the Asheville meeting in 1907, providing that privilege be

given to members of the Council to reserve hotel rooms at the annual

conferences in advance of the membership at large and stated that

a number of members of the Association considered this action as

undemocratic and as undesirable for the Council to continue.

Upon the motion of Mr. Thomson it was unanimously voted that this

ruling be rescinded.

The following persons were appointed by the Chair as a Committee on

nominations to nominate five members for the Council to be elected by

the Council for a term of five years each: H. G. Wadlin, Josephine A.

Rathbone, M. S. Dudgeon, Edith Tobitt, W. O. Carson.

Mr. Ranck presented a report of progress in behalf of the Committee

on ventilation and lighting of library buildings and recommended that

the Committee be continued, which recommendation, upon motion of Dr.

Putnam, was adopted.

The report here follows:

Report of Committee on Ventilation and Lighting

June, 1913.

To the Council of the A. L. A.:

Your special committee on ventilation and lighting can submit at this

time only another report of progress.

After the meeting at Ottawa the matter of having laboratory and other

tests made in connection with the technical and scientific problems

was taken up with certain industrial organizations with a view to the

possibility of having them, in the interest of scientific knowledge,

make the necessary tests for us, at no expense to the Association.

Objection developed against this line of procedure, inasmuch as it

was feared that less confidence could be placed in such tests when

the organization making them (or if the persons making them were in

the service of such an organization) had a commercial interest in the

results of the tests.

Accordingly the effort was made to have the tests made by the Carnegie

Institution of Washington, and also by the Russell Sage Foundation,

both of which efforts failed. The matter was then taken up with the

Department of Commerce, and we are hopeful that we may be successful in

getting the national government to make these tests for us through the

Bureau of Standards.

In the meantime the committee is continuing its investigations and

experiments so far as the limited resources at its command will

permit. In this further study the committee is strengthened in its

belief reported a year ago to the effect that most of the ventilating

apparatus now in use will have to be discarded as junk and that the

whole art and practice of artificial ventilation will have to be

entirely remodeled on a correct physiological basis, inasmuch as the

present basis appears to be entirely incorrect.

We therefore recommend that the committee be continued for another

year. If deemed advisable the committee could prepare a preliminary

report of its findings for publication in the Bulletin of the

Association. Such a report might be of immediate service to librarians.

As an indication of the committee's difficulties in this matter we may

cite the experience of Prof. Brooks of the University of Illinois who,

after years of study and experience in illumination, feels less willing

today to prescribe a lighting scheme than a few years ago.

Respectfully submitted,

SAMUEL H. RANCK,

C. W. ANDREWS,

W. H. BRETT,

E. H. ANDERSON,

ERNEST D. BURTON,

Committee.

Mr. Ranck made an informal statement regarding the irregular and

unsatisfactory fire insurance rates which he had found many libraries

of the United States were securing and recommended that this subject be

investigated by the Council.

It was voted upon motion by Mr. Thomson that a committee of three be

appointed by the chair to investigate the subject of fire insurance

for libraries. The chair appointed as this committee M. S. Dudgeon,

Chalmers Hadley and S. H. Ranck.

There being no further business the Council adjourned.

Meeting of June 26th

This session of the Council was conducted as an open meeting and was

attended by many of the members of the Association at large. The

president presided.

The nominating committee presented the names of Willis H. Kerr, Mary W.

Plummer, Mary E. Robbins, John Thomson and Samuel H. Ranck for members

of the Council for a term of five years each. Upon motion by Dr.

Bostwick it was voted that the secretary cast a ballot for the election

of these members, which was accordingly done.

The remainder of the session was devoted to a discussion of "The

Quality of fiction," discussion being led by Dr. Horace G. Wadlin and

Dr. Arthur E. Bostwick.

Dr. Wadlin spoke as follows:

The Quality of Fiction--I.

The question set for our discussion is not new. It seems to be always

with us. By itself, I do not think it of much importance. It only

becomes so as related to the much larger question of the general

purpose of the public library--what it is supposed to stand for in

the community. All details of library policy revert to that, and the

fiction question is, after all, a detail.

"The quality of fiction"--if I may paraphrase the words of a celebrated

writer of it whose works still compete with the latest "best seller"--

"The quality of fiction is not strained.

It droppeth like the gentle rain from Heaven.

It is, perhaps, thrice blessed;

It blesseth him that writes, and him that prints and sometimes

him that reads.

'Tis mightiest in the mighty and--"

But I refrain from going farther. Beyond that point we reach debatable

ground and I shall add nothing to the sum of human knowledge in that

direction.

When your President asked me to open this discussion, he was kind

enough to imply that the time had arrived when representatives of

the larger libraries, at least, might speak with conviction on this

question. And I suppose I was selected for the reason that the library

for which I am responsible has, through circumstances not entirely

within its control, acquired a reputation for ultra-conservatism in

respect to purchases of fiction; a reputation for which it is entitled

to little praise, if the result be thought meritorious and for which

it should not be blamed if the results are condemned.

For it is well, always, to choose the good rather than evil in any line

of action; to choose it, that is, because you love it. But, if you

don't love it, it is fortunate that in the general plan of nature the

good so surrounds us and hems us in, to say nothing of the consequences

which follow the choice of evil, that, in any case, we can scarcely

escape the choice of good.

With us in Boston, and I take it the conditions are not dissimilar

elsewhere, the practical considerations of providing shelf-room for

new accessions, of keeping the catalog within reasonable limits, the

adequate provision for new books in other departments of literature,

the constant increase in our fixed charges due to the expansion of our

work--these enforce the restriction of purchases of fiction within

limits that may be deemed conservative, whether we particularly favor

conservatism or not.

Therefore I speak with no pride of opinion based upon the policy of my

own library, nor in criticism of the policy of others, nor with any

hope of establishing a hard and fast rule. Criticism is frequently

caustic and bitter. I would fain be persuasive and kindly. It is indeed

my conviction that no invariable rule is possible on this matter or

on other points of library policy. Certain principles hold, but the

application of them must vary in different libraries, and must proceed

in harmony with local environment. Any other course would result in a

system, hard and mechanical, where it ought to be flexible, sympathetic

and humane.

It is said that in some places it is necessary to placate public

opinion by liberal purchases of light and harmless trifles, "bright

and snappy" stories, "big heart-gripping" tales of the moment in order

that the fountain whereon the library depends for its continued life

may not run dry. If that be so, who am I that I should sit in the seat

of the scornful, or pronounce judgment on my neighbor? Any librarian

whose hand is thus forced has trouble enough without my adding to it

with wild and whirling words. After all, such action is not without

precedent--nay, we may go farther and say not without justification.

Old Isaac Walton was not the first who angled successfully with a

concealed hook, and he has his disciples in other than green pastures

or beside still waters. But, speaking seriously, such bids for the

popular approval that may result in enlarged appropriations have

nothing to do with the quality of fiction, and carry no lesson for

those in more fortunate circumstances, who are able to exercise a sane

and untrammelled judgment.

Let us admit freely, that fiction as a branch of literature, is today

important, not merely as a means of relaxation and amusement but of

inspiration and instruction. Whether or not that admission implies that

a public library ought to provide an undue quantity of it is a question

of logic, and to be logical when sentiment will more effectively carry

your point is today fatal in the discussion of more weighty matters

than the one we are now considering. There is, indeed, a form of

printed matter even more frequently used than the novel for relaxation

and amusement. I allude to that required in the great game of Auction

Bridge, and one may gain instruction, perhaps inspiration from that,

but public libraries so far ignore it. Although it has been suggested

that a moving-picture annex, freely used by some millions to the same

ends, might be profitably taken on, and unquestionably the suggestion

has much to recommend it. At all events, that time may not be wasted

in profitless controversy, I grant, at the outset, all that the most

ardent advocates of fiction claim in its behalf.

And since it is asserted that many persons will read nothing but

fiction, and that such reading is especially adapted to put new life

into the tired shop-girl, to illuminate the social gloom that shrouds

the proletariat, by taking him into worlds as unlike his real world

as it is possible to make them, and to put a little more vitality

into the merchant overwrought by too strenuous pursuit of the elusive

dollar, why question its importance as at once a tonic and a sedative,

a general promoter of bright days and peaceful dreams?

Of course, though many think otherwise, it is not undeniably the

business of a public library to act as a pharmaceutical dispensatory

and to make persons read who might much better get a required physical

stimulus in some other way. Mr. Dana some months ago put the reading of

the classics into the limbo of out-worn tradition--put them perpetually

"on the blink," if I may use language similar to that employed in

fiction by Sewall Ford's popular hero--and Miss Corinne Bacon, in a

brilliant paper which, if you have not read it, I commend to your

attention, keenly reminds Mr. Dana that it is not really necessary for

any of us to read at all.

If, however, we dispute the unqualified benefits of fiction reading,

it is the works of the masters which are used to overwhelm us--the

recognized standard novels, quite modern some of them, for the

production of good fiction did not stop with the death of Scott or

Thackeray or Dickens--as if anybody questioned their influence or

their power!

If I wished, on the other hand, to assume the rôle of Mrs. Partington,

and seek to beat back the on-rushing tide of printed matter, all of

which claims to be imaginative and romantic, I should need no better

broom with which to attempt that forlorn and hopeless task than one

made from the strands which Mr. Booth Tarkington, and others actively

engaged in the production of fiction, supplied in the letters read from

this platform Monday evening.

There is a trinity of things, frequently asserted, which I do not

believe, that is, I do not believe them in my present state of mental

development, though I trust I am still open to conviction.

=First=, I do not believe that everybody is entitled to receive at our

hands the books they want, when they want them! I hear it put this way:

The State or the municipality ought to provide any citizen who wants

a book with the book he wants when he wants it.--A moment's candid

examination will, I think, show that this is impossible, and it being

impossible, we need not spend time in disputing the theory.

=Second=, I do not believe that we should buy the book of the day, and

all the books of the day, irrespective of merit; or, as a critical

journal once put it, "Buy the books the world is talking about--merit

or demerit cast entirely aside."

The talk of the people, about the books of the day is, 99 per cent of

it, if we may apply a quantitive measure to that which is immeasurable,

pure gossip, fostered by more or less interested, or paid notices

in the newspapers, and the reading of books which for the moment are

made the subjects of such gossip is of about as much real value to

the average man or woman as was Mrs. A's inquiry after the health of

Mrs. B's old man. Not that she cared anything about his health but the

inquiry helped conversation. And when the book of the day rises above

the plane of mere gossip its interest or value is frequently momentary.

Two years ago, the cheerful idlers on summer hotel verandas were

lightening the burden of persistent application to what, for want of a

better term, is called "fancy work" by reading "The rosary." Last year,

their affections were centered on "The harvester." This year--well, I

refrain from advertising what is likely to be found there.

But surely most public libraries in these days of expanding

opportunity, find it difficult enough to supply things which have

higher civic promise in them, even in fiction, without stocking up

extensively with that which is as evanescent as the foam on the wave.

=Third=, I do not believe--as some do--that the indiscriminate reading

of fiction, even poor fiction, leads finally to the selection of

better books. Once I thought so, and I know that my distinguished

predecessor, Dr. Winsor, held that opinion. But, after some thirty

years' intimate knowledge of a library (outside of Boston), not too

large to permit the study of the peculiarities of individual readers,

this seems to me delusive. If I wanted to promote good reading, I would

not treat it as a pill to be sugar-coated. Good wine needs no bush.

Passing from the triad of things I do not believe I make one positive

affirmation. Every public library should establish a standard. As

a matter of fact, this is done now. For example, the works of Mr.

Charles Garvice are seldom found on our catalogs nor those of Rev.

Silas K. Hocking. These two among the most popular English novelists

of our day, may be found on the shelves of the circulating libraries,

and with several others almost equally well-known, appear among the

miscellaneous attractions of the railway news counters; but not with

us. Why? They are clean, highly moral, in the accepted use of that

word, and not without a certain literary merit. The answer to my query

implies selection, in accordance with a standard.

I said some years ago on this subject, and have seen no reason to

change my opinion, that while there are those who resent what they

call "censorship" on the part of public libraries, nevertheless,

simply because we are public institutions, we have responsibilities to

the public, toward children, at least, and toward those of unformed

literary taste.

Personally, I am not much afraid of the baleful effect of certain books

usually condemned by moralists. Not every one who reads "The pirate's

own book" will take to piracy on the high seas; and a quiet elderly

lady of my acquaintance who reads rather more erotic French fiction

than some would approve, still preserves, so far as I can see, modesty

of demeanor, and, unless skilfully dissembled, an exemplary private

life. I was myself, in my young days a persistent reader of Beadle's

dime novels, which were of size to be readily concealed between Euclid

and Andrews and Stoddard's Latin Grammar, well out of view of the

censor. Oliver Optic was permitted to corrupt my young mind, and since

I had an eclectic taste, I absorbed liberal doses of Sylvanus Cobb,

Jr., Emerson Bennett, and Mrs. Southworth, writers almost unknown to

the present generation. So far, I have escaped the penitentiary and

the home for feebleminded. But that does not justify the exposure of

Burton's "Arabian nights" on open shelves, for which lapse of judgment

we were once criticised by a reputable Boston paper, or prove that

since life is short and art is long and one can not read everything,

and some books are, from any point of view, better than others,

judicious selection may not prevent lamentable waste of time.

Before selection is attempted, the amount available for expenditure

should be fixed, and this should be determined by the income of the

library and the proper relation which, within that income, purchases of

fiction should bear to other necessary expenses. The percentage will

vary, I should suppose, with different libraries. Speaking for my own,

it has by experience been determined at from 20 to 25 per cent of all

expenditures for books. In a recent lean year, it dropped as low as 12

per cent, but in the last four years has ranged from 23 in 1912 to 25

in 1909. I include expenditures for replacements as well as for new

fiction.

All theory apart, no more could have been spent without impairing

the up-keep of other departments. As I have intimated, we are always

confronted, to use Mr. Cleveland's phrase, by conditions rather

than theories. I need not enlarge upon the character of those other

departments. They are not for the use of the dilettante or the

connoisseur. Contrary to an opinion that seems to prevail in certain

quarters, we do not buy extensively, as one critical commentator put

it, either "musty parchments or rare first editions in which not one

person in 50 has the slightest interest or concern."

No. These departments provide for the scholarly use of a library which

is at the center of a group of educational institutions accommodating

probably 10,000 students. It is unthinkable to suppose that this work

of education, of so much importance to our city, could go on without

the aid derived from the library. And I need only mention the various

special collections which have grown up from the beginning, which

are drawn upon each year by students who come to us from abroad, and

from which, on the interlibrary loan plan, we lend annually to other

libraries in the proportion of 1,200 to the 50 which we receive from

them in return.

These phases of our work must be taken into account, just as similar

considerations must be influential in any library, if a proper balance

is to be kept of expenditures for fiction. And bear in mind that every

dollar spent for fiction beyond the proper limit as set by a candid

consideration of conditions and resources, no matter how insistent the

demand--and it is well known that the demand may be so insistent as to

require, without satisfying it, all the money at your command--every

dollar beyond this limit is a dollar drawn from students, from readers

in courses, from work with the immigrant, if you have that problem,

from work with children, from the artisan or mechanic who comes to you

for the books that will add to his industrial efficiency, from your

business men's branch, if one exists. The library cannot be made a mere

depository for fiction. This should go without saying. It does not

propose to include all good fiction in its purchases. The sum set apart

can not all be used for new fiction, but must cover replacements. The

library must also buy fiction in other languages than English.

As to the work of selection, I pass in rapid review our own methods,

concerning which much nonsense has been written. We examine with care

substantially every book in English that comes from the press, which

any public library is likely to buy. Last year, which is perhaps

typical, 890 different books in fiction were considered, including

fiction for young readers. And every book was not merely examined by

title, but was read and commented upon in our interest by at least 3

persons on the average.

Of course, no such thorough examination could be made by the library

staff alone, and we have the services of a volunteer committee of

readers not officially connected with the library. The committee does

not supersede the critical opinion of the librarian or his selected

staff officers. It does not even control. It merely aids by an analysis

of the books and by such opinions, expressed on blank forms provided

for the purpose, as show an outline of plot and treatment, and merits

or defects as they appear, not to trained literary critics, but to

average readers of some cultivation in different walks of life or on

different social planes.

This committee was one of the excellent inventions of my predecessor,

Dr. Putnam, and, shortly after its establishment, it received wide

attention from the press, for the most part based on complete

misconception of its purpose and character. This resulted in creating

an impression as different as possible from the actual, but which still

persists, as the mother-in-law joke persists, or the young lady who

plays the piano in the parlor while mother washes in the kitchen, or

the stage Irishman and Yankee--stock material of the pseudo-humorists.

The genial "Librarian" of the Boston Transcript, who on Saturday is to

tell you how to discourage reading, still has periodic visions of the

"Censors of the Boston public library," just as more timid souls have

created bogies out of Col. Roosevelt or other historic characters. But

the committee has no power to "censor" anything, and the Boston public

library has no "black list" nor has it in my time ever had to become a

censor. It has to choose, and so far as possible within the exercise of

fallible human judgment to choose wisely. It finds itself unable to buy

some hundreds of as good books, perhaps better books, than it buys, but

it censors nothing, being fortunately relieved of a duty from which I

would myself not shrink in exigency, by the limitations surrounding its

choice.

It is one of the curiosities of journalism, this rise of the legend of

the Boston fiction committee. It started from a half jocose article

wholly inconsequential, one would have thought, in a western paper from

the pen of a little-known Boston space writer. Numerous excellent books

not purchased were said to have been "tabooed," and the list went over

the country like wild fire. None of them had been "tabooed," unless

inability to buy is a taboo. Big head lines with Swinburnian fervor

spoke of the "books banned in Boston." From the little daily papers,

the matter spread to the big ones. The Times Saturday Review pointed

out, after scanning some of the titles, that "in some New England minds

exquisite pleasure was akin to wickedness," because of the supposed

censorship of books not bought. The committee was irreverently alluded

to as the "body of spinster censors who since they were themselves

virtuous had determined there should be no more cakes and ale." A

critical literary journal feared that the committee desired "to form

Boston's literary taste on too precious a model," and that since the

majority of the readers were women, "the sense of power may have led

them into arbitrary decisions." A New York paper, not unwilling to have

a shy at Boston, said: "The committee takes an attitude untenable,

Pharasaic, and what the enemies of Boston call Bostonese."

Harper's Weekly, a journal of civilization, expressed curiosity about

the committee: "That the majority of them are young, we know, because

they are not married. But are they red, white, or blue stockings? Do

they approve of straight fronts? Do hoops still gallop in the East

wind?" Drastic comments were received and appeared in print from other

librarians. Mr. Legler's predecessor, entirely in good faith, fell

with the rest. He said he had been told that in Boston they sent new

novels to club women and received their opinions on slips of paper.

He imagined that a good dinner would have something to do with such

reports.

The St. Louis Globe Democrat had a word of commendation, although

equally misled as to the grounds of praise. It said: "The literary

lines are drawn as sharply and perhaps as arbitrarily as the social

ones. Yet this New England trait of severe selection is a blessing

to the country, and has leavened its crudeness from ocean to ocean.

Puritanism has been more or less a critic of the rest of us, but the

criticism has done good. * * * There is doubtless good reason for the

rejections made." But the New York Sun which still shines for all,

said: "The city was so terribly agitated over the wicked censorship of

fiction at the library that the reading committee is doomed to become

an extinct institution."

All of this is ancient history, and I only recall it as showing, in

little, the growth of a popular myth. The committee as an institution

still lives. It has always been representative. As the Bookman once

said of its lists of best sellers, so, in dealing with the reports,

we are not under the impression that we are pointing solemnly to

stupendous critical opinions. We do not even claim that every

individual report is actually accurate and unbiased. But we do believe

that collected and weighed, they are unbiased and accurate in the bulk.

The committee in its membership is subject to frequent changes. It is,

as I have said, free from library influence. Its members are appointed

by the committee itself and we neither approve nor cancel appointments.

At present there are 27 members, men and women, married and unmarried,

(10 unmarried ladies comprise the spinster element), Protestants and

Catholics, French, German, Spanish, as well as those to whom English is

the mother tongue.

They are all fairly intelligent, not illiterate of course, but not

offensively scholarly. They include artists and teachers, several

literary persons, at least two authors of repute, a business man or

two, two physicians, and so on. This analysis shows the representative

character of the committee; that it is made up with breadth of

selection. Its verdict is not conclusive, and aims to reflect only the

opinion which readers of intelligence would form after careful reading.

Other factors are always taken into account in determining whether or

not a book shall be bought. Necessarily, many current novels approved

by the committee are not bought. Frequently novels are bought which

the committee did not approve. But the experience of several years

has shown that nearly all which for various reasons we have found it

impossible to buy have failed to demonstrate their right to live for

even a few brief months. The demand for some of them was insistent for

a short time. Now, their very names are forgotten. If we had purchased

a considerable number of them, the money, so far as present demand is

concerned, would have been wasted. It may be fairly said, however, that

we have bought meantime, so far as our resources permitted, a fair

representation of the best fiction, that which is likely to remain in

constant request. Our supply of standard English fiction is large,

perhaps 50,000 volumes, and is constantly replaced as the books wear

out. We are liberal in providing good fiction for the young. Were our

funds enlarged, we could undoubtedly use a larger number of copies,

especially in branch and deposit work, but, as I have made clear,

we cannot expend a larger amount of our money in this way without

impairing the growth of the library in other important directions.

Whether or not you approve the method that we find helpful, some plan

of selection must be adopted since choice is imperative.

Of course, it would be possible to buy two copies of 500 different

books, or, as at present, perhaps 10 copies of 100 books; the expense

would be the same in either case. But in the first instance the chances

of a borrower getting a copy of any book selected would be much reduced

in comparison with his chance of getting one under the more limited

range of titles. Of course, also, under the first plan, the library

would be free from the impression that many novels had been "banned,"

but the public advantage is greater under the present system.

I have already taken too long. If you find anything in our plan

helpful, I shall be glad. At any rate, I hope I have done something to

lay the ghost of unreasonable censorship which some of you may imagine

hovers over the Boston public library. We have our faults in Boston,

but not that.

Let me take a moment in summing up. Every librarian must determine

for himself how much money he ought to spend for fiction, under his

own local conditions, within his own resources. He should try to keep

a proper proportion in this expenditure, not as measured in Boston

or elsewhere but in that little corner of the earth where his own

library is placed. This is a personal matter, not one of invariable

mathematical relations.

Having done that, he should establish a standard and select with

reference to it. Not my standard--it may not fit the case--but his

own. And this too, like most library functions, is a personal matter.

It will depend largely on what the librarian is trying to do with his

library. For a library should not be a dead thing. It should have a

vital relation to the particular community in which it is placed, and

fit it as the glove fits the hand. Through the books we circulate we

are directly influencing the men and women we reach; not for their

personal benefit or enjoyment only, or to satisfy only their individual

tastes or desires; but that they may become better fitted for their

civic duties, may become happier, more intelligent, more hopeful in

their human relationships.

It is not the book that you give John Smith for the benefit of John

Smith only, that counts, but the book that makes John Smith of greater

benefit to the community. That sentence, which I quote in spirit if

not in exact words from our colleague, Dr. Richardson, expresses the

reason for being of the public library, the only justification for

the maintenance of such libraries by general taxation. Whatever books

contribute to that end are the books that should be bought.

There is nothing in the book itself as it lies on the shelf. It is

neither moral nor immoral nor of any other intrinsic merit or demerit.

"Three weeks," 12 copies of which a commercial circulating library in a

small city near my home kept in constant circulation for a year, is as

good as another in that inert position. But books in contact with the

soul of humanity are no longer dead things. They have something of that

vital quality which gave them birth, as Milton long ago said.

It is sometimes as much our duty to restrain readers as to stimulate

them, and a large circulation per capita without regard to the

character of the books circulated, is as apt to be a sign of the

inefficiency of a library, as it is a thing to be emulated.

This is not a recital of platitudes nor does the subject call for

beautiful phrases about the ideals of the librarian's profession.

On the contrary, it concerns practical results in return for

the taxpayers' money, which comes hard enough at best. It is no

heart-breaking matter whether you buy and circulate 50, 60 or 70 per

cent of fiction. If you bring your percentage down from 70 to 50,

that of itself may not mean improvement. But it is heart-breaking if

you fail to get the books best adapted to secure the results I assume

you are trying to obtain and which you ought to obtain in your own

community.

It may be that what Mr. Dana once facetiously called the "latest tale

of broken hearthstones" is just the thing to give a fillip to the

dormant sensibilities of your patrons--to make them sit up and take

notice lest cracked hearthstones become fashionable in your vicinity.

I do not know. But this I know. You should settle that point with

your own conscience, and when you have settled it, go on, and do not

apologize. In the long run your sins whether of omission or commission,

will find you out. On the other hand, believe me, virtue in this field

as in others, will bring its own reward, and the reward of virtue is

about the only one any librarian can reasonably expect.

Dr. Bostwick was called upon to continue the discussion and spoke as

follows:

The Quality of Fiction--II.

The two things that it is necessary to take into account in selecting

literature are its form and its content. The former largely determines

the literary value of a composition; the latter its practical

usefulness. Poetry and prose are the two great basic forms into which

all literature is divided. Narrative may be cast in either form and

when that narrative is untrue we call it fiction. In the usage of most

of us the word is restricted to prose. Fiction, therefore, is not

so much a matter of form as of content, or rather of the quality of

content. Of two books telling of the lives of the same kind of persons

in the same way the mere fact that one is true and the other not would

class one as biography and the other as fiction.

Of what importance is the fact that of two bits of narrative, one is

true and the other is untrue? That depends on the purpose for which the

narrative is to be used. If we desire an accurate and orderly statement

of facts, the true narrative is the only one of value. On the other

hand, the facts, not of the narrative but incidental to it, may be

true in the fiction and false in the biography. From the standpoint

of the seeker of recreation, the fiction is generally, although not

always, more interesting. The writer has the advantage of being able

to create the elements of his tale and control their grouping, as

well as regulate their form; and in addition he knows that he must be

interesting to secure readers. Unfortunately, historians, biographers

and travellers have generally too high an opinion of their functions as

purveyors of truth to stoop to make it interesting.

As regards literary value, of course the mere truth or falsity of the

narrative can have little to do with this; yet I believe, as a matter

of fact, that fictitious narrative has literary value oftener than

true narrative; for the reason offered above, that writers of truth

consider it beneath their dignity to garnish it, like those fatuous

dieticians who believe that so long as we take so much proteid and

so much carbohydrate we need not worry over forms and flavors. Now I

am supposed to be telling you about fiction and about the propriety

or impropriety of including much of it in libraries, but I think you

see that I am sidling toward the statement that I think we need not

consider fiction at all, as fiction, in this connection. The reasons

for rejecting fiction, when they exist, have nothing whatever to do

with its being fiction, and would apply to non-fiction as well. If

a biography purporting to relate the events in the life of Oliver

Cromwell is full of errors, that is a reason why it should not stand on

your library shelves. If a novel, purporting to give a correct idea of

life in Chicago, succeeds only in leaving the impression that the city

is peopled with silly and immoral persons, that is equally a reason

for rejection. If a history of the Italian Renaissance is filled

with unsavory details, these might exclude it, just as they might

exclude a novel whose scene was laid in the same period. The story of

a criminal's life, if so written as to make wrong appear right, might

be rejected for this reason whether the criminal really existed or not.

A poor, trashy book of travel should no more be placed on the shelves

than a novel of the same grade. And if our book funds are limited we

can no more buy all the biography or travel or books on chemistry or

philosophy than we can buy all the novels that fall from the press. I

do not deny, of course, that any or all the reasons for rejection that

have been adduced might be overbalanced by others in favor of purchase,

and they might be so overbalanced in the case of fiction as well as in

that of non-fiction.

In other words I should not buy a book because it is fiction, or turn

it down for the same reason, any more than I would buy or fail to buy a

book because it is biography or travel. I say I should not do this any

more in one case than in another; I might want to do it occasionally

in both. But I believe that the more we forget the mere issue of

fiction versus non-fiction and try instead to draw the line between

useful books and harmful ones, wise books and silly ones, books that

help and books that hinder, books that exalt and those that depress,

books that excite high emotions and books that stir up low ones--the

sooner we shall be good librarians.

Following Dr. Bostwick's remarks the subject was thrown open to

discussion by members at large.

The chairman said that at his request some very interesting facts had

been extracted from the annual published statements in Publishers'

Weekly, respecting so-called best books of the year. These statements

showed that many of the books which were leading books of particular

years, ten, fifteen and eighteen years ago, had absolutely disappeared

from the list of books which are now in current favor. Some of these

books were found to be unknown to those who are now engaged in book

selection.

Replying to the question as to the percentage of fiction of books

bought by public libraries in Canada, Mr. W. O. Carson of London, Ont.,

stated that in his library the percentage of fiction ran from twenty to

twenty-five per cent and he thought that was a fair average for other

Canadian libraries. Mr. Carson said that the Ontario government bases

the government grant on the amount of money expended on books and they

give no grant on fiction if it exceed more than forty-five per cent of

the amount expended on other books, so in the majority of the small

libraries, they do not expend more than thirty per cent on fiction for

fear of losing a government grant on anything that exceeds that amount.

Replacements are included in this percentage.

Dr. Steiner said that a number of years ago Mr. Ranck and he prepared

a paper on replacements and their attention was called to the very

large proportion of expenditure for replacements which had to be used

for fiction and that this was particularly noticeable in a library of

some age, as in the case of the Enoch Pratt Free library of Baltimore.

The speaker thought it should be borne in mind in connection with the

purchase, whether the amount expended was mostly for current fiction,

mostly for replacements, whether a new branch was being stocked or

whether a library was being stocked which had not been sufficiently

provided previously with standard works. The exact proportion of

fiction in any one year should be governed by these three factors, if

not by others. Dr. Steiner said that their library last year wore out

in round numbers about 7,000 books, of which at a rough guess at least

six-sevenths were fiction. They replaced about 5,000 books including

most of the non-fiction books, leaving from 1,500 to 2,000 volumes in

fiction which were allowed to expire by limitation. In every case where

a book wears out, the circulation department reports whether that book

is regarded by them as being worthy of replacement and if the book be

not a duplicate but is an original copy the recommendation is always

brought to the librarian, who occasionally overrules the decision of

the circulation department in the case of original copies, but so far

as duplicates are concerned, the opinion of the circulation department

is absolutely accepted.

Dr. Andrews said he had found it very useful in the work of selection

to discriminate between those books the library does not intend to

buy at present and those which it will not accept even as a gift, and

that in fiction it might be especially valuable to have some line of

exclusion. He asked whether the chairman or Miss Bascom could recall

what is the proportion of comparison between the recommendation of the

Boston book committee as read by Mr. Wadlin and that of the A. L. A.

Booklist.

Miss Bascom replied that as she recalled it for 1912 of about 1,000

novels published about 140 were included in the Booklist, adding that

she supposed that the greater number of the entire output were read.

The chairman said that from figures which he had caused to be compiled,

it was found that in this country and Great Britain something like

80,000 titles belonging to the classification of fiction had been

printed since 1882 in this country and 1880 in Great Britain. Mr.

Wadlin said that the A. L. A. Booklist contained titles of fiction

which the Boston public library had not bought simply because they

could not, having bought other things instead. Local conditions govern

their book selection to a considerable extent.

The question being raised whether librarians experienced any

considerable pressure brought to bear upon them to purchase certain

books, the opinion was expressed by Mr. Ranck, Mr. Wadlin and others

that this pressure was not nearly so great as one might think would

be the case, that those demanding the purchase of a certain book were

reminded that the library had a limited income and that the question of

selection always had to be very carefully considered and that books not

purchased were not necessarily excluded for any other reason than lack

of funds.

Representatives of the library schools being asked to what extent the

lectures given in library schools were intended to exert an influence

either for or against the wide purchase of fiction, Miss Hazeltine of

the University of Wisconsin library school, said it was their effort

to teach the students to buy the best books with the money at their

disposal--those of the best literary value--and to buy many duplicates

of the best fiction.

Dr. Bostwick said that those libraries that have pay collections

of duplicates ought to state whether their reports include the pay

collections of duplicates or not and what relation this collection

bears to the original copies. In St. Louis it is the tendency to buy

rather a small number of copies of each work of fiction for regular use

and put these books as far as possible into duplicate collections. The

pay collection of duplicates in St. Louis varies very much. In three

of the branches it has not even been begun, the librarians of these

branches reporting that there is no demand for it. In two branches it

is very popular and in the central library fairly so.

Dr. Hill thought it was not wise to give a smaller number of copies to

the public for free use than to the department where pay is requested.

It seemed to him that the public should have just as many copies of a

book as those who can afford to pay one or two cents a day. In Brooklyn

they give the same number of copies to the free circulating department

as to the duplicate pay department. Dr. Hill said the Brooklyn public

library last year spent for replacement, juvenile and adult, $50,000

out of the $80,000 which was spent for books, or something like 60 per

cent for fiction both new and replacements.

The chairman said he was much interested in a statement printed in

Collier's about two or three years ago in which was enumerated the

result of the publishing activities of the father of the present

publisher, who started the line of inexpensive editions of Dickens,

Scott and others of a similar character. It was noted in that summary

that the firm had sold in this country seven million copies of the

works of Charles Dickens and four or five million copies of Scott's

works, not individual titles, but the complete works of those authors.

This means of course that a surprisingly large number of the best

novels by these writers must be in the homes of the people who use the

public libraries and that these people use the libraries to supplement

their own private collections. Consequently, no particular conclusions

can be drawn as to the actual character of the reading done by these

people from the fact that books they get from the public libraries are

mostly the quality of fiction which is put out at the present time.

Mrs. Sneed said there was one rule for the selection of fiction which

she generally gave to her library school class every year. This was the

rule of Henry van Dyke: A book of fiction is really worthy to be bought

if it has not given an untrue picture of life, if it has not made vice

attractive or separated an act from its consequences. The speaker

thought that if this rule was applied in reading one would not go so

very far astray.

Mr. Bishop said he had been greatly interested in the last five years

in the selections made by the public itself. The Library of Congress

receives, of course, all the copyrighted fiction and places one copy at

least of practically every book of permanent value upon its shelves.

After the temporary agitation of the immediate advertising is over the

public itself goes back to lines that are surprisingly good in every

way.

Mr. Gould said that Mr. Dutton, the publisher of Everyman's Library,

recently told him that he had now sold over one and a half million

copies of the books in Everyman's Library, which was a good indication

of the market found for standard works.

Mr. Jast, the English delegate, being called upon by the chair,

contributed also to the general discussion, after which the session

adjourned.

Meeting of June 28th

A meeting of the Council was called to order by President Anderson

immediately after adjournment of the conference.

The following resolutions were received from the Government

Documents Round Table and were read and adopted by unanimous

vote.

The following resolutions were passed unanimously at the

adjourned meeting of the Documents Round Table, Friday, 12:15

p. m., when the Special Committee on Resolutions, consisting of

Miss E. E. Clarke of Syracuse University, Mr. H. J. Carr of

Scranton, and Mr. H. O. Brigham of Rhode Island, appointed at

the regular meeting on Thursday, reported as follows:

WHEREAS, The American Library Association desires to express

the appreciation of its members respecting the efficient work

that has been and is being done for libraries by the office of

the Superintendent of Documents, nevertheless it recognizes

the many hampering features that still control the issue and

distribution of public documents. Believing that these features

can be materially lessened, therefore

BE IT RESOLVED, That this Association approve and urge the

early enactment of Senate Bill 825 entitled, "An Act to amend,

revise, and codify the laws relating to the public printing

and binding and distribution of Government Publications," now

pending before the Sixty-third Congress; strongly recommending,

however, that the parenthetical exception now included in the

first proviso of Section 45 of said bill be stricken out so

that the annual reports of departments shall not be treated as

Congressional Documents.

BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, That this Association repeat its former

recommendation urging that the text of all public bills upon

which committee reports are made, shall be printed with the

report thereon.

GEO. S. GODARD,

Chairman Documents Committee.

The following report was made to the Council by Dr. Andrews in behalf

of the Committee on affiliation with other than local, state and

provincial library associations.

Your Committee on affiliated societies respectfully report

that they have proceeded in the way proposed and approved

by the Council at its meeting in January. They regret that

circumstances have prevented them from presenting a final

report but they believe that substantial progress has been made.

In May the Committee sent to the presidents of the four

affiliated societies the following letter:

"The Council of the A. L. A. has appointed a committee to

formulate the relations which should exist between the

Association and affiliated associations other than state,

provincial, etc., in return for the privileges accorded them.

The committee understand that this action was taken largely

because one or two of the societies had expressed a desire to

contribute toward the expenses of the Association. This desire

was duly appreciated by the council, who felt that it would be

well to take definite and formal action. The committee propose

that hereafter these privileges shall not be extended to other

than affiliated societies without formal vote of the council,

except that the program committee will be authorized to do

so for the first meeting of any newly-formed society. They

propose to recommend, also, that the present provision shall

be continued,--namely, that each affiliated society shall meet

with the Association at least once every three years. They also

expect to recommend that some contribution towards expenses

be required, but wish that the manner and the amount of the

assessment be determined after consultation with the societies,

and have asked that I secure an expression of your opinion on

these points. They would consider the amount suggested by one

of the societies,--namely $25.00, as a maximum. The grounds for

such a contribution are evident, but it may be well to state

them as follows:

"1. Participation in the special railway accommodations.

"2. Provision for rooms and meals at reduced rates.

"3. Provision of rooms and time for meetings.

"4. Participation in the activities of the meeting.

"5. Printing programs, announcements in the Bulletin, and

assignment of 15 pages in the Proceedings.

"The cost of preparing for and holding a convention is about

$500.00, that of the Bulletin and Proceedings, including

editing and distributing, about $1,500.00. Provision of hotel

rooms and travel facilities is not a matter of money, but

frequently involves disappointment to individual members who

apply too late.

"As stated already, the committee have not agreed on any amount

or method. They have considered a flat amount of $15.00 to

$25.00, one dependent on the number of members in the society,

who are not members of the Association, and one dependent on

the number of such members who attend.

"Personally, I think the logical method would be a combination

of the first and third, and suggest that there be an initial

amount of $10.00 or $15.00 and an additional charge of 50 cents

or 25 cents for each member attending who is not a member of

the Association. Of course, this additional charge will not be

asked for official delegates of libraries who are members.

"Kindly let me have an expression of your opinion on this

subject at your earliest convenience and oblige.

"Yours truly,

"(Signed) C. W. ANDREWS."

They have just now received replies from all and formal action

has been taken by two. All, though perhaps with varying degrees

of cordiality and readiness, recognize the justice of the

proposed arrangement. There is quite naturally some variance in

their suggestions as to the proper amount of the contribution

to be made and the method by which it is to be computed. The

committee desire to consider carefully these suggestions and

to reconcile their variations as nearly as possible. They

would like to discuss them in a personal meeting of the whole

committee, as well as by correspondence, and hope that the

winter meeting of the council will afford them an opportunity

to do so, and to formulate a by-law for the consideration of

council.

They therefore submit the foregoing as a report of progress.

For the Committee,

C. W. ANDREWS.

It was voted that this report be received as a report of progress and

further consideration be referred to the mid-winter meeting in January,

1914.

Adjourned.

AGRICULTURAL LIBRARIES SECTION

(Round Table, June 27, 1913, 2:30 p. m.)

Mr. Charles R. Green, librarian of the Massachusetts Agricultural

College, was acting chairman of the meeting, which was an informal one

without a regular program. Miss Emma B. Hawks, of the U. S. Department

of Agriculture library, acted as secretary. The subjects for discussion

were (1) Catalog cards for agricultural experiment station publications

and (2) The indexing of agricultural periodicals.

Mr. C. H. Hastings first spoke briefly in regard to the printing of

cards by the Library of Congress for the publications of the state

agricultural experiment stations. Cards have already been issued for

the Illinois and Indiana station bulletins, the copy being supplied

by the university libraries. Before going on with the work for the

other stations, he thought it desirable to consult with the Office of

Experiment Stations in regard to a plan of co-operation by which the

same card might be used both for the Library of Congress cards and for

the "Card index to experiment station literature" issued by the office.

It would be much more economical to have only the one card printed,

if possible. Miss E. B. Hawks expressed doubt as to whether such an

arrangement could be made, inasmuch as the form and purpose of the

Office of Experiment Stations card index differ so widely from those

of a dictionary catalog. Mr. Hastings thought that it would do no harm

to make the attempt and said that he would consult with the librarian

of the Department of Agriculture and the director of the Office of

Experiment Stations in regard to it. If such an arrangement can not

be made he thought the Library of Congress would be willing to print

separate cards, having the copy supplied by the station or college

libraries, if they are willing and able to do the cataloging.

Mr. H. W. Wilson then spoke in regard to the publication of an index

to agricultural periodicals. He stated that he has had a good many

demands for such an index and has delayed adding any agricultural

titles to the Industrial Arts Index, because it may be better to have a

separate one. Those who have written to him about it have almost always

expressed a preference for a separate index. Miss Hawks asked whether

some titles might not be included in the Industrial Arts Index now,

and then removed if a separate agricultural one were begun. Mr. Wilson

replied that there was some likelihood of the Agricultural Index being

begun next year, in which case it would hardly pay to do anything with

the agricultural literature before this. There was some discussion as

to the scope of the index. Mr. Wilson said they would wish to include

only journals of national standing. Mr. C. R. Green thought that there

were not more than about six of these. Mr. H. O. Severance thought

there would be many more than this, including papers devoted to special

phases, as poultry, bee keeping and stock raising. Dr. C. W. Andrews

doubted whether the farm papers were worth indexing. He thought that

the matter was rarely original, but that the articles of value are

worked up from Station and Department of Agriculture publications. Mr.

Wilson said he had had more demands for an Agricultural Index lately

than for an index of any other subject.

Inquiry was made as to how many subscriptions would be needed to

justify the starting of a separate index. Mr. Wilson could not

say definitely. There might be two plans--one, the division of

subscriptions among subscribers. The basis for the Industrial Arts

Index was 20 cents a title--40 cents for a weekly. The other plan is

a sliding scale of charges by which a library having a great many of

the periodicals indexed pays a higher price, thus enabling the smaller

ones to pay something but not a higher price than they can afford for

the service rendered. Mr. Wilson stated that he was willing to go to

the expense of a referendum to find out the wishes of libraries on

this subject, with a view either to the starting of a separate index

or the incorporation of some agricultural journals in the Industrial

Arts Index. If the idea of a separate index is abandoned, he would

almost certainly add some titles to the Industrial Arts Index. Mr.

Green thought that he might count on active support of the Department

of Agriculture library and all the agricultural experiment stations. He

was not sure what further support there would be. Mr. Wilson thought

the demand would probably be an increasing one.

Meeting adjourned.

CATALOG SECTION

FIRST SESSION

The first session of the Catalog Section was held Wednesday afternoon,

June 25th, the chairman, Miss Harriet B. Gooch, of the Pratt Institute

school of library science, presiding. As the minutes of the last

meeting had been published, their reading was omitted.

The report of the committee on the cost and method of cataloging was

called for, in response to which Mr. A. G. S. Josephson, Chairman of

the committee, stated the present report was but a preliminary one, to

be followed by a final report next year. The Catalog Section took no

action on the report since the committee was appointed by the Executive

Board of the Association, not by the section.[3]

[3] The report and questionnaire is printed in connection with the

minutes of the Executive Board.

Miss Gooch then stated that the discussion for the afternoon was the

administration of the catalog department considered first in its

relation to the other departments of the library, and second as to its

management of its own affairs looking toward simple, inexpensive and

rapid methods of work. She explained that the discussion was concerned

with library systems consisting of a central library with a number of

branch libraries, and was to be treated both from the librarian's and

from the cataloger's point of view.

The discussion was opened by Mr. F. F. HOPPER, of the Tacoma public

library.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CATALOG DEPARTMENT FROM A LIBRARIAN'S POINT OF

VIEW

In the reorganization of our libraries, in the adoption of modern

progressive and simplified methods, in the effort to develop and

improve service to the public, the catalog department has tended to

be drawn out of relation to the other departments, to become in a

way isolated, and as a result its efficiency has been impaired. The

attention of librarians has been given to other phases of library

activities and therefore they know less about the catalog department

than any other. Undoubtedly the technicalities of the cataloging

process make it most difficult for librarians to grapple with, but all

the more carefully should we consider ways and means of increasing the

efficiency of the process, relating the work more closely to changes

in other departments, and studying methods of possible simplification

of the routine mechanical work that seems to have largely increased of

late.

In one of Mr. Carlton's reports to his board of trustees, he uses these

words: "It has often seemed to me that in library administration the

catalog department was much like the police department in municipal

administration. It is frequently under investigation; it is constantly

being reformed; its defects are felt in many other departments; and its

heads are always changing as one after another breaks down or fails to

achieve impossible results."

Surely such an unsatisfactory and unwholesome condition is not without

remedy.

If I can not presume to submit a definite plan of reformation, perhaps

I may at least attempt to suggest possible lines of investigation for

each librarian to pursue.

1. The catalog room.

In the modern organization of work, the first care is to provide

work-rooms in which the highest efficiency may be maintained.

Scientific investigation shows the extravagance of conditions which

retard speed and multiply unnecessary motions, which do not provide

adequate light and air and proper colors to conserve strength, arrest

fatigue and support the energies. In planning buildings we properly

endeavor to bring the catalog department into the closest possible

relation with the order department, the book stack and the reference

department, to save steps which mean time and money. My observation

is that frequently there is not the same care exercised in planning

the room itself as there is in locating it. Often it is too small, so

that work clogs up, books must be shifted too often (an expensive

process), too many corners must be turned in getting about the room and

the assistants impede one another's progress. On the other hand, a room

may be so large that time is wasted in getting about it. To be sure

this is a rare fault. I have seen cataloging rooms admirably placed for

convenience of access to stack, reference room and order department,

and really adequate in size, but so devoid of light and air that even

a hardened devotee of our reading rooms would fear to enter such a

place. Plenty of windows, if possible on two sides of a room, and ample

indirect artificial lighting are just as important for the efficiency

of the catalog department as like facilities for the public reading

rooms.

2. Relation of catalog department to other departments.

When friction develops between two departments (of course it never

does; this is merely a hypothetical case), my observation is that the

catalog department is pretty likely to be a party to the affair. Why?

Simply because as organization within libraries has developed, the

catalog department has been left more and more to its own devices.

In the departments working with the public, the tendency has been

to complexity of organization, perhaps, but still to elimination

of detail, simplification of method, the sacrifice of theory to

practicality that the public may have the feeling of freedom and ease

and be given the quickest and best service with the least red tape.

During this process the catalog department has continued to develop

theory unchecked by daily strenuous contact with the busy borrower, to

increase routine and mechanical work, still opaque to the searchlight

of scientific investigation from outside the department. You need

publicity, but all you ever get is pages and pages of blasts against

the poor old battle-scarred, but more-or-less-still-in-the-ring

accession book, which in nine cases out of ten belongs to another

department anyway. The illuminating power of publicity for the

devious ways of cataloging and the development of a better spirit

of co-operation, are to be obtained perhaps best of all by the

establishment of entirely feasible definite relations between the

departments. As Miss Winser will develop this topic, I will leave

it here, simply remarking that in my experience the opinions of one

department about the organization and detail of another department

are frequently of the utmost value, but rarely the opinions of other

departments about the catalog department, whose problems are not

understood.

3. Organization of the department.

(1) General type of organization.

The development of the modern elaborate systems of scientific

management in the various forms of industry has for the most part

superseded the best type of ordinary management known as the

"initiative and incentive system." Under the old system success

depends almost entirely upon the initiative of the workmen, whereas,

under scientific management, or task management, a complete science

for all the operations is developed, and the managers assume new

burdens, new duties and responsibilities. Having developed the science,

they scientifically select and then train, teach and develop the

workmen. The managers co-operate with the men to insure all the work

being done in accordance with the principles of the science which

has been developed. The work and responsibility are almost equally

divided between the management and the workmen. The combination of

the initiative of the workmen and the new types of work done by the

management makes scientific management so much more efficient than the

old way.

"All the planning which under the old system was done by the workman,

as a result of his personal experience, must of necessity under the new

system be done by the management in accordance with the laws of the

science."[4] One type of man is needed to plan ahead and an entirely

different type to execute the work. Perhaps the most prominent single

element in modern scientific management is the task idea. The work of

each workman is fully planned in advance by the management and the man

receives complete written instructions, describing in detail the task

he is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in doing the work.

And the work planned in advance in this way constitutes a task which

is to be solved by the joint effort of the workman and the management.

This task specifies not only what is to be done, but how it is to be

done and the exact time allowed for doing it.

[4] F. W. Taylor, "Principles of scientific management."

It is said that "the most important object of both the workmen and the

management should be the training and development of each individual in

the establishment, so that he can do (at his fastest pace and with the

maximum of efficiency) the highest class of work for which his natural

abilities fit him," but it is nevertheless true that to some extent

scientific management contemplates the selection of the workman best

fitted for one particular task and keeping him at that task because

he can do that better than any other. Within the narrow domain of his

special work, he is given every encouragement to suggest improvements

both in methods and in implements. In the past the man has been first;

under modern methods the system is first.

I have attempted to summarize some of the principles of so-called

scientific management, because in the organization of our cataloging

work definite principles of any kind of management have rarely been

evident throughout, and if we are to observe accurately the system of

this department, and study it with a view to possible improvement, we

must test its work by some existing scientific standards.

The =science= of cataloging has been pretty fully developed, and at

least its technique is taught in our professional schools. Therefore

it may be assumed that we are now reasonably conforming to the first

ideals of scientific management when we select with due care for

the headship of our catalog departments and for the more important

positions, those trained in the principles of the science. I personally

believe that the principles of scientific management should be actively

employed by the head cataloger in the definite planning of the work

of the individual, in the testing of the speed and accuracy of the

individual for a special task, and in the insistence that speed for

each task shall definitely conform to careful but easily made tests

of the amount of time that should be consumed in performing the task.

There are plenty of results of experiments in other lines of work

which show that the output is increased, the cost lessened, by the

constant planning and supervision and co-operation of the head of the

department, and consequent abandonment by him of a corresponding amount

of special detail work of his own that he heretofore may have done.

But now I must register an emphatic exception to the application of the

exact principles of scientific management to a catalog department.

I believe the principles of scientific management as developed for

the organization of industry and business, should undergo a distinct

change or be abandoned entirely in their application to one most

important phase of the organization of a catalog department. Scientific

management does consider the health and comfort and freedom from

fatigue and efficiency of the individual, but always with a view to the

effect upon a particular task and upon increased output at reduced

cost. In other words the emphasis is placed on the task, not at all

on the broad development of the individual. In library work, human

sympathy, a broad point of view, the fullest possible development of

personality are of the utmost importance; esprit de corps, the spirit

of loyalty and co-operation are of more importance than a particular

task. I assume that needs no argument. Scientific management, fully

applied, would, it seems to me, defeat this vital purpose of library

organization, and would more effectually differentiate and isolate the

catalog department than is already the case in many libraries.

This leads to some illustrations of my meaning by

(2) Some practical considerations of the organization.

I do entirely believe in a distinct and complete organization of a

catalog department, not in the system some libraries use in having a

department head, but without assistants definitely and wholly assigned

to the one department. It is my observation that to insure quick,

accurate, consecutive and thoroughly efficient work, not only must the

department head devote practically her whole time to the one job,

but at least enough assistants also, to insure continuity of work. I

am not in favor of the head of the department being part of the time

assistant in the children's room or even in the reference room. Such a

plan is altogether too extravagant. The manager of a department needs

to give undivided attention to the supervision of the work of the

department. The head of the department is constantly brought directly

in touch with the general administration of the library and with other

department heads, and a possible tendency to narrowed point of view

is thus checked to some extent. There are also some assistants who

are naturally fitted to the work of the catalog department and not at

all to meeting the public. If we secure an assistant evidently suited

for catalog work, but for no other, we should bend all our energies

to making her the most efficient possible cataloger, and not deprive

the catalog department of her constant services in order to make a

vain attempt to develop other sides of her personality and give the

public poor service in the process. In my judgment, in a library

cataloging from 25,000 to 35,000 volumes a year, a head cataloger, a

first assistant, and probably at least two other assistants should

give their whole time to the department and so form the backbone of

the organization. To this part of it the principles of scientific

management may be thoroughly applied.

My idea of the necessity for divergence from those principles comes

when we consider the need for the development of some members of the

cataloging staff by other sides of library experience, and also when

we consider the importance of mutual understanding and co-operation

between the departments. All librarians experience difficulty in

obtaining assistant catalogers because a candidate is very often

reluctant to devote herself wholly to the routine operations of the

catalog department. In many such cases, it would be possible to

secure an excellent part-time assistant for the catalog department,

if we would offer work for part of the day in a department dealing

with the public. In this way we would achieve a double purpose. The

experience of all librarians, I am confident, will indicate the

inestimable advantage to the point of view of the catalog department

and to the catalog itself if some one of considerable importance in

the department gives a part of each day to reference work, and another

assistant a part of each day to the loan department. I think it is not

so important that a cataloger devote some time to work with children,

and it is also true that such an arrangement is rarely of value to

the children's department, where special qualities and training are

all-important. On the other hand, it is desirable that someone with

the training and experience of a children's librarian, give to the

catalog department time for the assignment of subject headings for the

children's catalog. The work of the catalog and order departments is

most closely related and yet it is my experience that misunderstanding

between those departments is not infrequent. An assistant whose time

is divided between the two should and does work to the advantage of

both departments. With the exception of the one representative from the

children's department, I do not believe that the possible advantage

gained by having assistants from the departments which deal with the

public give part time to cataloging, by any means equals the loss of

efficiency attending the change from one manager to another or the

loss in the work itself, for it is unusual that one assistant should

do equally high-class work in two such distinct fields. I know that

some say that the majority of really good desk assistants possess

the education, the clear and discriminating mind, the accuracy and

resourcefulness of the good cataloger and are of value in the catalog

department. Also it is true that the suitability of each assistant

for each department would of course be considered when interchanges

are arranged. Nevertheless it is my observation that excellent desk

assistants ordinarily can do well only the merest clerical work in a

catalog department, and usually they do not appreciate the accuracy and

minute care required in cataloging work. Certainly it is extravagant

to use a part of the time of a presumably fairly-well-paid, good desk

or reference assistant for merely mechanical work in the catalog

department, which otherwise would be done by a cheaper grade of service

than the better grade of catalog assistants. Also the special care

and extra time wasted by head catalogers in revising the work of such

assistants is an expense worth consideration.

4. Cost of cataloging.

Many complaints are heard from librarians of the seemingly excessive

cost of cataloging. Few practical suggestions seem to have been made

for reducing costs, except in the elimination of some details, such

as accession books. Since I understand a committee is investigating

this whole question, I have not attempted to obtain any statistical

information. In the few fairly large libraries whose estimates of the

cost of the process have come to my attention, the estimated cost of

purchasing, accessioning, and cataloging a book, including labelling,

gilding, card filing, and everything necessary to secure a book and

prepare it for use, ranges from 30 cents to about 65 cents. These cost

estimates vary, not only because of differences in the elaboration or

simplicity of the processes, but also because of the difference in the

character of the books added, large numbers of duplicates for schools,

branches, etc., being more easily and cheaply handled than separate new

titles.

There can be little question that scientific management, properly

used, will reduce the costs of cataloging work. Adequate planning and

supervision of all processes by the head cataloger, the classifier

and others in charge of divisions of the work, can make for speed. I

am convinced that we do not really know the maximum length of time

which an assistant should be allowed to keep at one certain task.

An assistant typewriting shelf-list cards should do rapid work for

perhaps three hours. After that a measure of fatigue makes change

of occupation advisable for the individual, and economical for the

department. Slight fatigue from typewriting will not, however, impair

efficiency in a different sort of work. A point worth considering here

is, that the change in the occupation of a higher-grade assistant in

order not to impair efficiency, should not mean time given to a lower

or more mechanical grade of work. That is extravagance. Impending

mental fatigue does not mean that mental processes are to be abandoned.

Just as much rest is obtained, and efficiency is really increased, by

simple change of the mental groove. Here the advocate of the general

exchange of assistants between departments might say that the advisable

thing to do is to send the assistant to another department. In most

cases I believe that such a change is a mistake, because a change from

one department to another means too great a break in the continuity of

management in two departments. One manager can plan more effectively

for the entire working time of an individual than two managers can plan

for the two halves.

The development of library schemes of service, branches, stations,

children's rooms, work with schools, has all added enormously to the

routine and mechanical processes of cataloging. More shelf-lists, more

catalogs, and all sorts of differentiation in the processes suitable to

the special need have multiplied details faster than most librarians

realize. It is this tremendous complexity which has worn out head

catalogers, increased costs, and made administrators clamor for the

elimination of unnecessary detail, without having a real understanding

of what the detail is and is for.

Deterioration in the cataloging process will injure other departments,

but undoubtedly most libraries have superfluous refinements that could

well be omitted with economy in cataloging, and no loss to the chief

end of all our work.

It is a temptation to consider carefully the methods which might save

expenses in the cataloging process, but I can take time only to make

brief reference to some of them, most of these having been frequently

discussed at length before.

(a) Careful planning of catalog room for convenience, to save all

unnecessary motions.

(b) Scientific supervision of tasks to produce greatest speed without

undue fatigue.

(c) Stopping the publication of many monthly bulletins. Some bulletins

of the larger and certain particular libraries are of inestimable

value to other libraries. Most of these bulletins are printed from

the linotype slugs used in printing their own catalog cards, and

consequently the labor is minimized. The bulletins of most libraries,

I firmly believe, are of no possible use to other libraries, and the

material in them would be much more read by the public if published in

the newspapers, as it should be in any case, and if the special lists,

which are the most useful part of many bulletins, were printed on a

multigraph, instead of being buried in forbidding bulletins that no

able-bodied ordinary man in his senses could be driven to read.

(d) Use of Library of Congress cards. Some people say they do not save

time. I recommend those people to recatalog a library without them,

also to attempt to get along without them for a while for current

additions. To the best of my knowledge they do save money, and I know

they save wear and tear on typewriter machines and ribbons, and they

save temper, which is nervous energy and worth while saving. If you

don't believe that last read Goldmark on "Fatigue and efficiency" and

then you will. Besides, Library of Congress cards look better than

typewritten cards and have more durability, since typewritten cards rub

and fade and have to be rewritten too frequently.

(e) What real objection can there be to simplifying the cards you write

yourselves? It does not matter if they are not consistent with Library

of Congress cards. No living borrower would know whether they were

consistent or not, and no dead one would matter. Besides if variety

is the spice of life, consistency is the vice of it. Nobody but a

librarian ever worried about being consistent. I regret I can't even

except the clergy.

(f) Omitting book numbers for fiction saves a vast amount of time and

sacrifices little. They do not add beauty, and they cause endless

trouble and expense without due compensation.

(g) As to the accession book: I mention this because everyone does,

and therefore, lack the courage to pass it without remark. Some

library reports say that they save the time of one assistant by doing

away with it. The fact that practically all of them say it, no matter

what size the library in question is, makes one suspicious. I think

they are just copying each other's reports, which is not fair. If,

however, the accession book is abandoned, and the bill-date, source

and cost for each copy of a book are added to a shelf-list card which

contains author, title, publisher and perhaps date of publication, much

writing is saved and all necessary information is preserved. In the

Minneapolis public library, which makes the closest estimate I have

seen, four hours per 150 books are said to be saved by such a method.

No small matter! It is my personal opinion that the accession book is

superfluous in a library which is completely cataloged and shelf-listed.

(h) An interesting change due to the study of motions is recommended

in the procedure for shelf-listing by the Minneapolis public library:

"Formerly one person marked the call number on the back of the title

page, and assigned the copy letter, then the book was taken by

another assistant who marked the book slip, the pocket and the label.

This meant two people handling the book, the second doing only the

mechanical work of copying; hence the work must be revised by someone

else, or many mistakes occurred in the work of even our best markers.

Now, the shelf-lister, who knows the meaning of the number and has it

already in her mind, marks all books as she lists them, and the work

goes through faster and more accurately."

(i) Trying to save money by omitting the yearly inventory, particularly

for open shelves, is a mistake, I believe. One does not save money by

gaining discredit for failing to keep track of his wares.

(j) It is doubtless superfluous to recommend throwing away antiques,

like withdrawal books.

(k) The use of the multigraph for writing catalog and shelf-list cards

is certainly economy if the number of catalogs is large enough to

require pretty large duplication. The shifting of much mechanical work

to a less highly-paid class of assistant and the saving in revision of

all but the first copy of a card, are distinct gains.

(l) There are doubtless many mechanical devices which will be adopted

to advantage in cataloging in the next few years. Many machines of

different sorts have greatly changed bookkeeping methods, making the

bookkeeper an initiative force in administration of business houses,

and certainly similar economy systems will be developed for the

cataloger.

5. Efficiency of the individual in the department.

The routine work of cataloging brings fatigue sooner than an occupation

involving more variety, although the effects of this form of fatigue

may not cumulate so rapidly. It is consequently of special importance

that the executive pay particular attention to the application of

the principles of scientific management to the efficiency of the

individual. The utmost care must be taken that energy shall be

carefully directed and not be over-expended. Unduly prolonged attention

to a particular kind of work resulting in the long run in nervous

exhaustion is a familiar phenomenon of cataloging. Dr. Richardson

says that for correction and verification work, two hours a day is

the maximum for highest efficiency. My observation is that continuous

work at the typewriter should not exceed three hours. Although filing

is largely mechanical work, it is also very wearying because of the

decided monotony of it, and there is a marked tendency to tire quickly.

Since errors rapidly increase with fatigue, the service is directly

injured, as well as indirectly through the ultimate effect on the

health of the individual.

In general the carefully trained assistant not only knows how to go

about his work with more dispatch, with less need for supervision, with

more real efficiency, but also with less wear and tear on his nervous

energy. An added argument for the economy of paying higher salaries to

obtain adequately trained assistants! I have had excellent opportunity

to observe the effect of the graded salary on the efficiency of

a cataloging staff. The increased interest, the new energy, and

the altered spirit are marked when a graded service is installed,

particularly when it is realized that efficiency, as well as length of

service, is considered.

It is not necessary to discuss recreation in the library, as the

subject relates to the catalog department no differently than it does

to the others. The same may be said about vacations, but in passing I

should like to say that I agree entirely with Dr. Bostwick's idea of

them as assignments to special work. It seems to me that assistants

should be required to obtain the approval of the executive to the plans

for their vacations. I have taken vacations myself which were certain

to do me no good, and consequently do my work harm, and it does seem

that I ought not to expect pay for such a misuse of the library's

time. The change in the hours of service in the circulation department

of the New York public library from 42-1/2 hours a week to 40 hours has

caused widespread approval. I wonder if anyone has called attention

to the fact that slight changes in climate affect the ability of the

individual to work a certain number of hours. For instance, I know from

experience that it is possible to work longer without discomfort in an

even climate, not subject to extremes of either heat or cold, than it

is in the climate of New York. There are certain parts of the country

where it takes less energy to work 42 hours per week throughout the

year than it does to work 40 hours correspondingly in New York.

With more attention to light, air, attractive appearance and convenient

arrangement of room, avoidance of fatigue in spite of rapid work

or monotony, sensible hours, some degree of variety in work, sane

vacations, some outdoor exercise during each day, decent pay on a

graded basis, the efficiency record of the cataloging staff in many a

library should be raised, their organization held intact, and their

humor and good-humor have some chance to appear.

The subject was continued by Dr. ARTHUR E. BOSTWICK, of the St. Louis

public library, who spoke as follows:

From the administrative standpoint the library life of a book is

divided very distinctly into two periods, that before it is placed on

the shelves and that after it is so placed. The first period, embracing

selection, order, receipt, classification, cataloging and mechanical

preparation, is strictly preliminary to the second and would have no

reason for being except for the second. The public recognizes the

second chiefly and knows of the first vaguely and inadequately. To

the library, and especially to that part of the staff engaged in the

operations proper to it, it bulks large.

The librarian of a large library often finds himself obliged to act,

in a measure, as the public's representative, taking the point of

view of the thousands of readers, rather than of those who operate

the machinery directly under his own control. To one who is actually

handling the levers and pulleys, the machine often seems to be the

thing. The general administrator, somewhat removed from this direct

contact, is better able to see it as it is--a means to an end.

Hence to the chief librarian, this period of preparation must always

be a cause of anxiety. Its cost and its duration especially worry him.

While his training and experience do not permit him to minimize its

importance, he would like to make it as cheap and as short as possible.

The reader wants his book, and he wants it now--as soon as he sees the

notice of it in the paper. The departments of the library that have to

do with its preparation are anxious only that this preparation shall

be thorough, realizing that on it depends the usefulness of the book

in the second, or public, period of its life. The impatient reader

sees no reason for any delay. The co-operating departments see every

reason. The librarian sees the reasons, too, but it is his business, to

a certain extent, to take the reader's part, and insist that the book's

preparation shall not be so thorough that by the time of its completion

two-thirds of the necessity for any preparation at all shall have

passed, never to return.

It therefore becomes an important part of his duty to hurry up the

work of preparation, and it is my experience that this duty becomes

difficult of performance, wellnigh impossible, when the work and

responsibility of preparation devolves upon two or more departments.

It has sometimes seemed to me that a majority of my working hours

were occupied in settling disputes between the order and catalog

departments, in futile endeavors to fit the responsibility for delays

upon one or the other and to decide which of them, and when, was

telling the truth about the other. It was thus with a feeling of

relief, although somewhat of surprise, that I found myself four years

ago at the head of a library where the preparatory stage of the book's

life is entirely in charge of one department, a plan involving of

course the consolidation of the order and catalog work.

My four years' experience has convinced me that in many cases this

plan may be the solution of some of the librarian's problems. It does

not do away with delay: it does not make the library staff assume the

reader's point of view, or even the librarian's; but it does reduce

the number of department heads with whom the librarian has to deal

in his "hurry-up" campaign, and it does unify a responsibility whose

division continually causes him trouble and vexation. That we so

seldom see the combination of this work arises from the fact that the

various stages of the book's preparation are rarely looked upon as

parts of a whole. The ordering of books is regarded as a business in

itself, requiring its own kind of expert knowledge and completed when

the book has been delivered and the bills checked off. The cataloger,

again, is proud of the degree of technical perfection to which he has

brought the multiplicity of detail in his work. He has a high sense

of its necessity in the library's scheme. Few see that both these

processes, together with mechanical operations of pasting, labelling

and lettering on which everyone looks down, are simply stages in

the work of preparation, through which a book must pass before it

becomes an integral part of a modern library. These are not separate

departments of work, one completed before the next is begun; they are

interwoven and interdependent in all sorts of ways. Books can not be

ordered properly without a catalog. Books can not be cataloged properly

without information necessary in the operation of ordering. It becomes

a question of library policy, then, whether these operations may not be

combined, and the considerations adduced above form at least a strong

argument for such combination.

I have purposely dwelt on this matter from the standpoint of a general

administrator and have therefore not gone into details, which it will

be easy for you to obtain if you desire them.

In closing, let me say that I believe catalogers to have in a high

degree that devotion to their task and that skill and interest in

working out its details, that have made the American public library

what it is. What they need to guard against is the aloofness arising

from the separate and technical character of that work. Many of them

realize, and all of them should do so, the fact that the catalog

is made for the reader; not the reader for the catalog. We may try

to train our readers to use our catalogs, but to the end of time we

shall still have to deal with the unintelligent, the careless and

the captious, and we must try to adapt our catalogs more or less

to them. The cataloger may have to break cherished rules, to throw

tradition overboard, to act in many ways that will scandalize his

profession. Contact with as many other departments of the library as

possible--realization of his position as a cog wheel in contact with

other cogs, will help on the good work.

The following paper written by Miss BEATRICE WINSER, of the Newark free

public library, was read in her absence by Miss Agnes Van Valkenburgh,

of the library school of the New York public library:

THE RELATION OF THE CATALOG DEPARTMENT TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE

LIBRARY

The subject assigned to me is the relation of the catalog department

to other departments in a library. There is a feeling abroad that it

is the tendency of librarians to consider their catalog departments as

things apart, the details of whose management, long ago settled by

experts, should be modified only as those experts may suggest.

Probably chief librarians do not have the habit of refraining from

giving frequent and careful examinations in the catalog departments,

or have less interest in the improvement of those departments

than in others; but, because it has been possible for experts to

formulate rules, as it has not been possible for anyone to do for

other branches of the work, the chief librarians have quite naturally

allowed themselves to pay less and less attention to the details of

these departments, which have thus lost the stimulus which the chief

librarians give to the departments with which they largely concern

themselves.

This, naturally, as I have already said, tends to make of the

cataloging department a thing apart and much efficiency is lost to the

library as a whole because of it.

For the purposes of this paper I propose to include in the scope of the

cataloging department much of the work on books from their selection to

their placing on the shelf.

It must be borne in mind that I am speaking of public libraries and not

of college, historical, scientific or special libraries of any kind,

and that I am making suggestions only.

Book Selection

The selection of books instead of being a difficult and complicated

matter calling for hours of study and conference, is really quite

simple. Every librarian should expect his more intelligent assistants

to make suggestions and help to keep his or her own collection up to

date, but final decisions as to purchase should rest in the hands of

two or three only. An attempt to let a dozen or more people discuss at

meetings the value of any book or books and the propriety of adding

this or that to the library costs enormously in time and money, and

serves no useful purpose.

It improves the quality of the books selected but little, it tends

to develop undue caution and to make the choice too literary and,

if it helps to educate the assistants, it does so at too great a

cost. The desire is often expressed that a library should contain "a

well-rounded, well-balanced collection of books." This phrase sounds

well and perhaps impresses the trustees or the town, but what does it

really mean? Were we to follow it to its logical conclusion we would

all buy in certain fixed proportions, all kinds of books and while we

might then lay claim that we had a well-balanced collection, we would

be far from filling well the special needs of any special community

in which we might be placed. In point of fact every library buys what

it thinks it needs most, in most cases it will be found that the

books selected are the best books for that library. Most books buy

themselves, others cry out to be selected. The clientele is waiting for

them. The small remnant of specially chosen books call for no elaborate

conferences. Why have any system of recording the fact that you did

not buy certain books at this time, since next month or next year

the book not bought has been displaced by another? Besides, you can

always discover from your bibliographical aids the books you have been

compelled to miss, so why duplicate the work already done for you?

Now let us look at the purely clerical side of book ordering. Do we

fill out an elaborate order slip with all sorts of bibliographical data

needed for comparatively few books only? All that is really needed by

bookseller and library is the author, title and publisher of a book,

and the latter even could be omitted in most cases.

Do we economize time and labor by writing our orders so that with the

aid of carbon paper, we have an order slip to file, one to send to the

bookdealer and another to the Library of Congress for the purchase of

cards?

When a consignment of books arrives do we have some elaborate system of

checking it off the bill? Do we use cabalistic signs in our books so

that the public may not by any chance discover the price of them? Or do

we simply write in plain sight the price, source and date of the bill

in each book, check the book on the bill and pass it on?

Have we ever tried the experiment with say the Fiction Class of not

giving either price, source and date of bill in the books?

Suppose we buy all our novels from one bookseller, as most libraries

do, and announce to the staff generally and also drop a card into the

official catalog and the shelf-list to the effect, that after such or

such a date, neither the source nor price will be found in any novel,

as everyone knows that all novels are bought from John Smith and cost

$1.00. Think of the time saved! I am willing to wager that no library

could report any ill effects from this change.

As to the few novels which sell at net prices, the money lost in

charging the usual rate of $1.00 is negligible compared with the

time saved in making these unnecessary entries. To comfort the

super-conscientious librarian the loss would actually be covered in

many cases, because the reprints of novels often cost less than $1.00.

Accession Record

Now let us go on to the accession book and ask how many use the regular

or the condensed book and why?

Do you cling to the theory that it is the one complete record of every

book in your library and would be most useful in case of adjustment of

fire losses? I can't deny that it is a complete record of every book,

but of what use is that to the library?

As to the adjustment of fire losses, are the books in your library

arranged in accession order so that in case of fire you could show

the insurance adjusters which books were burned by referring to your

accession books?

Do you claim that the accession number is still necessary so that you

may know the number of books added and to help distinguish one copy

of a book from another? Why not use the Bates numbering stamp as an

automatically accurate recording device, and save time and money? Do

you use the accession book for securing each month the number of books

added in any one class, which of course the Bates numbering stamp can

not give?

To get this one record we employ the time of a person in making other

useless records, when all we need is a blank book in which we enter in

a few minutes all books under date and class number. In the same book

we enter in another place the books subdivided under heads of purchase,

binding, periodicals and gifts. Thus at tremendous saving we can answer

at once the question of how many books are added during any month and

in what class.

Do you perhaps keep an accession book, so that you may secure the price

and source of a book reported lost by a borrower? How much lost motion,

to say nothing of time and money, is expended annually in libraries

where assistants turn from their shelf-list to their accession book

for these facts which should be given on the shelf-list card!

Classification

Have you ever thought how much it costs your library to have it

classified by a college and library school bred person? I am using

these terms as synonymous with an educated person. Have you ever

noticed how much time she spends in getting a book into what to her is

the exact class and place?

Now I am not arguing for less educated people in our public libraries,

far from it, but I wish to call your attention to the amount of time

and money expended by you in too minute and particular classification.

Have you ever thought that quite a coarse classification is just as

good for your library as the rather particular one which causes your

head cataloger to spend half an hour over a book which might just as

well be made ready in five minutes?

Often, after much time has been spent in debating this point or that,

about some special feature of a book, and it has at last been placed in

a certain division, it will be found more useful with its fellows in a

coarser or broader division.

I am only suggesting that time could be saved here without impairing

the usefulness of the library.

Cataloging

This is that division of library work which one must approach as the

holy of holies, leaving one's shoes on the mat outside.

Please do not assume that I do not appreciate what it has meant to

the public library to have experts formulate a set of rules which

any library can use. I am not objecting to the rules, but to the

application of the rules. We spend hours, days, months, and years in

giving paging, illustrations, size, publishers and place of publication

on our catalog cards and all for what purpose pray?

What does the average user of a public library want to know? He wants

to know whether you have a book by a certain author, by a certain title

or on a certain subject. Ninety-five per cent of the borrowers of books

want nothing more than that, and I am excluding fiction entirely.

Consequently for the possible five per cent, and that is a high

percentage, you spend much time in giving gratuitous information. The

man who knows his subject goes to the bibliographies of the subject and

does not depend upon your card catalog for bibliographical information.

Let us look into these valuable items, aside from the very necessary

author and title, supplied on catalog cards.

Paging. Did your reference people ever report any need of it in serving

the public? I never heard of such need.

Place of publication and publisher. Both these items are occasionally

asked for, but why spend time in putting them on all your cards for

the sake of the few who wish to know, since you can immediately refer

to Books in Print for current books and for all others to the many aids

published for the librarian.

The date. Well, I might grant that it serves a better purpose than the

other items, but I doubt its great usefulness.

Do you in addition to the very necessary shelf-list for all the books

in the library, have a special shelf-list for Branches? Have you ever

thought of the time given to keep the record of all the books at your

Branches?

What purpose does it serve, since your Branches have their own record

of the books they have?

I know of one library which kept such a record and finally decided

to give it up, since it cost a great deal of money, and seemed after

careful consideration to be of little value. Not the least harm has

resulted from the change and the cataloging department has almost

forgotten that it was ever done.

Does the head cataloger work at least one day a week in the lending

or reference department for the sake of getting away from her own

point of view and to imbibe something of the real needs of public and

assistants? Try it, even if you think you can't afford it and I venture

to prognosticate that your cataloging department from being the seat of

the learned and superior will become a really valuable aid to all the

other departments.

Within the limits of my paper I have been able to cite only a few

examples of the changes which might be made in the method of putting

books on the shelf in most of our public libraries, but I hope that the

very obvious things I have said may serve to help in simplifying the

work of a profession already much overburdened with technique.

The fourth paper in the discussion by Miss LAURA SMITH, of the

Cincinnati public library, was entitled:

ADMINISTRATION OF A CATALOG DEPARTMENT FROM A CATALOGER'S POINT OF VIEW

The ideal of the modern library is service to the community, but the

tendency has been to estimate this service by statistics as printed

in library reports. Columns of figures, showing the number of books

cataloged and the cards made, represent but a small part of what can be

done and should not be taken as a measure of value of the cataloging

department to the library patrons. The old idea of the library was

the omniscient librarian who served all the readers from his store of

knowledge, but the development of the modern library movement, bringing

an increased patronage, made it necessary to delegate some of this

work, and libraries were set off into departments. Gradually mechanical

appliances were introduced and personal aid was limited to the favored

few while the average reader was helpless in the face of machinery

whose workings were a mystery to him. It reminds one of the story of

the fine hospital donated by a philanthropic citizen to a thriving town

of the middle west. The building was a model of hospital architecture,

the furnishings were the most modern obtainable and the institution

was ideal in every respect, adjudged by experts the latest thing in

hospitals. A poor citizen, foreign by birth, took his wife to this

hospital for treatment. The next day he went to inquire for her and was

told that she was too ill to see him, but the attendant offered to take

him through the building and show him all the modern improvements. The

man was interested and followed his guide through the various wards,

listening attentively to his lecture on the advantages of the latest

improvements in hospital service. The second day he returned to learn

the progress of his wife's case, but she was still too ill to see him,

so the attendant showed him some more improvements, which he had not

seen the day before. The man was greatly impressed. The third day he

returned and was told that his wife had died. When asked by a friend

what disease had ended her life, he replied, "I don't know, unless it

was the improvements." So the library has adopted progressive methods

and among other improvements it has walled a room with the latest model

of catalog trays filled with cards as silent guides to the collection

of books. Printed signs, which no one reads, give intricate directions

as to the use of this monster; a human assistant is rarely in sight.

Has the library the right to expect the public to know how to use a

catalog? A trained assistant should be stationed here, and who are

better qualified for this service than the members of the cataloging

staff? At this point is one of the opportunities for the cataloger's

most efficient service to the community.

The chief requisite of a well-organized catalog department is a corps

of intelligent, educated, trained assistants who have had several

years' experience. The raw recruit from the library school is an

expense to the service because library school graduates find difficulty

in adapting themselves to the existing methods of most libraries.

This fault is sometimes individual but more often it is due to the

different methods of cataloging taught in the various schools. There

should be uniformity of method on this point, full cataloging should be

taught in all the schools because it is far easier for the cataloger

to learn omissions than to acquire a knowledge of full cataloging when

the short form only has been taught in the school. Subject-heading

work can be taught only in a general way. Years of experience are

needed before an assistant is competent to assign subject headings,

therefore a constantly changing staff is an item of expense worthy of

serious consideration. Subject headings might be in the hands of a few

assistants but there is advantage in having the views of many minds

under the supervision of one reviser.

An understanding of the community and of existing conditions within

the library, added to a thoroughly assimilated knowledge of cataloging

methods, increases the value of an assistant. Changes are usually due

to small salaries, and to better financial conditions elsewhere, but

adding a reasonable amount to the salary of a competent assistant is a

good investment. To be sure, it foots up on the pay roll as a larger

outlay than the substitution of a less experienced assistant at the

same or a smaller salary. What the pay roll tells, however, is not

borne out by the facts because on it there is no financial accounting

for the time of the administrator of the department which is consumed

in breaking in a new cataloger while the more important things wait,

or go by default. Positions in the cataloging department should yield

a financial return sufficient to make their incumbency more or less

permanent for it is possible to accomplish more with a smaller staff of

experienced assistants than with a larger number of those new to the

business.

When the library has gathered together the best staff of catalogers

it can afford it should not put them, like a collection of expensive

bric-a-brac, behind closed doors with only the regulation catalogers'

tools as guides, and expect them to yield the best return on the

investment. The best cataloger needs the stimulus of personal contact

with the public as an aid to the most intelligent work. When the

cataloging department has a sufficient number of well-trained,

experienced assistants, a schedule of work which permits direct contact

with the public for at least one-third of the time and a system of

co-operation between departments with freedom from unnecessary

interruptions to the routine as planned, the catalog is a labor saving

tool reducing the net cost of production by the time saved to the

circulating and reference departments.

The cataloging for a large library system should be done at the central

library for several reasons. The main cataloging offices are there

with the collection of reference books and the official files showing

what headings and entries have been used. The expert catalogers and

revisers are better fitted for the responsibility of the cataloging

than the assistants at the branches, distracted by other work. The

enormous number of cards necessary for the various catalogs are more

economically duplicated by writer press, or multigraph, than by hand

or typewriter because time is saved in this way in the actual making

of the cards, in numbering and putting titles on printed cards and in

proof reading, or revising, for in revising typewritten cards, each

card must be carefully scrutinized, while from the writer press only

the first copy needs revision. When copies of the same title are to

be purchased for several branches, the cost of cataloging is greatly

reduced if all the copies reach the cataloging department together as

time is thus saved in all the processes of preparing the books for

circulation, from the accessioning to the pasting of the labels. In

the case of fiction this is always possible but with other classes,

while it is not always expedient to purchase for the main library

and the branches simultaneously, the branch librarians and order

department can simplify the process by prompt decision as to the number

of branches to which titles are to be added, so that all cards may be

ordered or made at the same time. By this means one order for printed

cards and one setting up of copy for writer press or multigraph is

sufficient. When books come to the catalog department singly and at odd

times the labor of verifying author entries and subject headings is the

same as for new titles, and the making of cards becomes a mechanical

process only when they are to be made in large quantities. Every branch

added to the library system increases the work of the cataloging

department, a fact often lost sight of by the chief administrators of

a library. There seems to be a popular delusion that each new addition

to the library family means only a duplication of cards while the fact

remains that most of the processes in the routine practically consume

as much time and thought as if the title in hand were new in the

library. In the case of shelf-listing it is obviously easier and takes

less time to make a brand new shelf-list card for a book than it does

to withdraw the card from the shelf-list, make an addition to it and

refile the card.

If the main building is so arranged that one card catalog can be used

conveniently by all departments much expense will be saved. But if

there must be department catalogs, author and subject entries should

be uniform so that the individual catalogs may be simply duplicates

of certain divisions of the general catalog. Subject headings in the

public library should be simple enough to be within the comprehension

of the average reader. To simplify headings for children is a useless

expense and an insult to the child who is often more intelligent than

many adult readers. The public library being "an integral part of

public education" should not be guilty of senseless simplification even

though the kindergartners may accuse us of "taking away the joy of

childhood." If the so-called simplified headings are used they can not

be filed with other headings, therefore two separate catalogs in each

branch must be maintained at extra expense.

All non-essentials should be eliminated from the mechanical processes

of preparing books for the shelves. The time of high-priced service

should be used for the scholarly work, duplication of cards and routine

clerical work do not require a college education nor library school

training. Printed cards should be purchased whenever possible. It is

not necessary to become hysterical over the superfluity of information

on some of the Library of Congress cards because the average user of

a catalog in a public library does not read beyond the first line of

the title, and therefore is not confused by bibliographical details.

On the other hand, this same detail is valuable to the few readers who

need it. Another groundless objection to the use of these cards is the

statement that books must be held until the cards are received. If

there is co-operation between the order and the cataloging departments,

books and cards may be ordered and will come to the cataloger about

the same time. When they do not the books should be sent through on

temporary slips. This adds slightly to the cost of handling, but

saves the reputation of the library in the circulating department. The

printed card should be accepted when it agrees with the title page,

but when the card requires changes which mar its appearance it should

be rejected. When the cards must be made by the individual library the

extra bibliographical detail should be omitted for purposes of economy,

and the catalogs would still be uniform and accurate in essentials.

Entries must be accurate, uniform and as consistent as possible that

the catalog may save the time of the reference librarians, since

effective reference work can be done only when the library is well

classified and cataloged and quick service is possible only under these

conditions.

The plan to combine the catalog and reference departments, the

assistants working one-third of their time in reference work, brings

excellent results. In the first place the assistants come in direct

contact with the public for part of every day. The knowledge of books

gained by examination for full cataloging can be made directly useful

to the public. On the other hand, the demands of the reader, his

peculiarities of expression and his general attitude toward the library

give inspiration to the work in the cataloging department as to subject

headings and analyticals to be made. The change of work is restful and

enables the assistants to accomplish much in a day without becoming

weary of either line of work. The efficiency of the assistants depends

upon their ability to bring the book and the reader together and as the

cataloger has the advantage of studying the books she should therefore

bring this knowledge to the public through personal contact.

Emphasis is put on the increased usefulness of the staff by reason of

the ability to appreciate the relation between the library and the

public and to bring into the daily life of the community the increased

knowledge of books.

What has been said is not intended as a criticism of any method of

administering a cataloging department, but is an effort rather to

present a plan which from practical experience has proved successful.

The discussion was then thrown open to the floor, with the suggestion

from the chairman that it take the following lines:

1. Is the catalog department too confined in its organization and too

distinctly separated from other departments?

2. How much mechanical work should be done by expert catalogers? Who

should do the mechanical work and where should it be done?

3. What should be the relations between the catalog and the shipping

departments?

Mr. Hodges, of the Cincinnati public library, said that each library

had to use a system suited to its individual needs, that in Cincinnati

there was no head of the order department, that he considered the use

of catalogers in the reference department during rush hours a good plan

as they were usually well fitted for the work, that in his library

there was a single head of the catalog and reference departments.

Miss Hitchler, superintendent of cataloging of the Brooklyn public

library, said that co-operation could be effected between departments

without interchange of assistants.

Mr. Hopper said that the obstacle to combining the heads of the catalog

and order departments in one person was that a knowledge of cataloging

and a knowledge of the book trade were seldom combined in one person.

During the discussion of the second point--that of scientific

management within the department--Miss Van Valkenburgh raised a laugh

by inquiring where we are to draw the line in keeping track of our

efficiency.

Mr. Martel, of the Library of Congress, in answer to the charge made

against catalogers of over-elaboration, as for example in the matter of

periodical records, said that under-elaboration often proved quite as

expensive as over-elaboration.

SECOND SESSION

Friday, June 29.

The second session of the Catalog Section was held on Friday afternoon,

June 29, Miss Gooch presiding.

Miss Van Valkenburgh, Miss Hiss, and Miss Dame, were appointed as

nominating committee by the Chairman.

The session took the form of an informal discussion on simplified

forms of typewritten catalog cards, and was held at the desire of the

committee of the Professional Training Section on uniformity of forms

of catalog cards. This committee was appointed in January, 1912, and

consists of Helen Turvill, Chairman, Agnes Van Valkenburgh, Harriet B.

Gooch.

The Chairman directed the discussion by taking up point by point the

form of card recommended by the committee for the practice work of

the library schools. Typewritten cards for a public library of about

50,000 volumes, to be filed with L. C. cards, were taken as a basis of

discussion.

Among the details considered were the following, with the decisions

which seemed most generally favored by those present:

=Brackets.= Omit brackets for material inserted in heading but use in

title and imprint.

=Initial article.= Use initial article, unless including it would

entail repeating author's name in the title.

=Initial possessive.= Omit author's name in the possessive case at the

beginning of a title, and cancel it when used on L. C. cards.

=Editor, etc.= In the title use the name of the editor, translator,

etc., in the form given on the title page.

=Imprint.= Include place, publisher and date of publication together

with inclusive copyright dates if they differ from the date of

publication.

=Collation.= Give main paging, illus., ports., maps. Give size only if

unusual.

=Position of items.= Begin collation on a new line and indent.

=Secondary cards.= Give author and title only on secondary cards. (Main

subject cards are not considered secondary cards.)

Other details discussed were use of points of omission, form of series

note, tracing cards, headings in joint-author entries, the place for

paging in an analytical note, entry under pseudonym versus real name,

entry for adapter.

At the close of the foregoing discussion, the matter of having a

permanent A. L. A. committee on cataloging was brought forward, and

upon Miss Van Valkenburgh's motion, it was determined to request

the Executive Board of the A. L. A. to appoint a permanent catalog

committee to which questions in cataloging may be referred for

recommendation.

Miss Sutliff then suggested that an A. L. A. code of alphabetizing

would also be welcome. Mr. Martel, in response to a question by the

Chairman, said that the Library of Congress followed the Cutter Rules,

but had working notes that might be helpful.

A motion put by Mr. Keogh was then passed that the Executive Board of

the A. L. A. be asked to send a request to the Librarian of Congress to

furnish the code of alphabetizing used in the Library of Congress for

publication.

An amendment to the foregoing to include the words "with changes for

small libraries" failed of passage.

The nominating committee then submitted its ticket: Chairman, Charles

Martel, Chief of the Catalog Division, Library of Congress; Secretary,

Edith P. Bucknam, Chief of the Cataloging Department, Queens Borough

public library.

After the election, the meeting adjourned.

SECTION ON LIBRARY WORK WITH CHILDREN

FIRST SESSION

The first session of the Section on Library Work with Children was held

in the ballroom of the Hotel Kaaterskill, at 2:30 p. m., June 24th,

with the Chairman, Miss Power, in the chair. In the absence of Miss

Lawrence, Miss Ida Duff acted as secretary.

Two papers on the subject of "Values in library work with children"

were read; the first by Miss CLARA W. HUNT, superintendent of the

children's department, Brooklyn public library.

VALUES IN LIBRARY WORK WITH CHILDREN--I

You are probably familiar with the story of the man who, being asked

by his host which part of the chicken he liked best replied that "he'd

never had a chance to find out; that when he was a boy it was the

fashion to give the grown people first choice, and by the time he'd

grown up the children had the pick, so he'd never tasted anything but

the drumstick."

It will doubtless be looked upon as heresy for a children's librarian

to own that she has a deal of sympathy for the down-trodden adult of

the present; that there have been moments when she has even gone

so far as to say an "amen"--under her breath--to the librarian who,

after a day of vexations at the hands of the exasperating young person

represented in our current social writings as a much-sinned-against

innocent, wrathfully exploded, "Children ought to be put in a barrel

and fed through the bung till they are twenty-one years old!"

During the scant quarter century which has seen the birth and marvelous

growth of modern library work with children, the "new education" has

been putting its stamp upon the youth of America and upon the ideas of

their parents regarding the upbringing of children. And it has come to

pass that one must be very bold to venture to brush off the dust of

disuse from certain old saws and educational truisms, such as "All play

and no work make Jack a mere toy," "No gains without pains," "We learn

to do by doing," "Train up a child in the way he should go," and so on.

Our kindergartens, our playground agitators, our juvenile courts, our

child welfare exhibits are so persistently--and rightly--showing the

wrongdoing child as the helpless victim of heredity and environment

that hasty thinkers are jumping to the conclusion that, since a child

is not to blame for his thieving tendencies, it is our duty, rather

than punish, to let him go on stealing; since it is a natural instinct

for a boy to like the sound of crashing glass and the exercise of skill

needed to hit a mark, we must not reprove him for throwing stones at

windows; because a child does not like to work, we should let him

play--play all the time.

The painless methods of the new education, which tend to make life too

soft for children, and to lead parents to believe that everything a

child craves he must have, these tendencies have had their effect upon

the production and distribution of juvenile books, and have added to

the librarian's task the necessity not only of fighting against the

worst reading, but against the third rate lest it crowd out the best.

It is the importance of this latter warfare which I wish mainly to

discuss.

We children's librarians, in the past fifteen or twenty years, have had

to take a good many knocks, more or less facetious, from spectators

of the sterner sex who are worried about the "feminization of the

library," and who declare that no woman, certainly no spinster, can

possibly understand the nature of the boy. Perhaps sometimes we are

inclined to droop apologetic heads, because we know that some women

are sentimental, that they don't all "look at things in the large," as

men invariably do. In view, however, of the record of this youthful

movement of ours, we have a right rather to swagger than to apologize.

The influence of the children's libraries upon the ideals, the tastes,

the occupations, the amusements, the language, the manners, the home

standards, the choice of careers, upon the whole life, in fact, of

thousands upon thousands of boys and girls has been beyond all count as

a civic force in America.