Part 3

A collection universal in scope will afford opportunity for bibliographic work not equalled elsewhere. Such work centered there might advance the general interest with the least aggregate effort. The adequate interpretation of such a collection will involve the maintenance of a corps of specialists. Suppose these specialists could be available to answer inquiries from all parts of the country as to what material exists on any particular subject, where it is, how it may be had, how most effectively it may be used?

There are special collections already existent in various localities in the United States and likely to come into being through special local advantage or incentive, or the interest of private collectors, or private endowment--which cannot be duplicated at Washington. Suppose there could be at Washington a bibliographic statement of that which is peculiar to each of these collections; in brief, a catalog of the books in the United States--not of every library, not of every copy of every book, but of every _book_ available for an investigator?

There are various bibliographic undertakings which may be co-operative. Suppose there could be at Washington a central bureau--with approved methods, standard forms, adequate editorial capacity, and liberal facilities for publication--which could organize and co-ordinate this work among the libraries of the United States and represent them in such of it as--like the new Royal Society index--is to be international?

There is the exchange of material duplicated in one library, needed by another. Suppose there could be at Washington a bureau which would serve as a clearing house for miscellaneous duplicates as the Bureau of Documents serves for documents? It might accomplish much without handling a single article; it might, like a clearing house proper as it were, set debit against credit, _i. e._, compare the deficiencies in one library with the surplus in another and communicate the results to the institutions interested. It might do this upon slip lists sent in by each--of duplicates and of particular deficiencies--in sets, for instance. One of my associates has been guilty of this very suggestion. It is likely to bring something upon his head. He may have his choice between live coals and the ashes of repentance.

Now those are some of the things which might be asserted as the duty of Washington to the country at large. I have touched them as lightly as possible: but there they are. And we may not be able to avoid them. Nay, we seem to be drifting toward them. To some of them we are apparently already committed.

There is the building: that in itself seems to commit us. There is equipment. There are books. As regards any national service the federal libraries should be one library. They contain nearly two million volumes. The Library of Congress contains net some 700,000 books and a half million other items. It has for increase (1) deposits under the copyright law, (2) documents acquired through distribution of the federal documents placed at its disposal for exchange--formerly 50 copies of each, now 100, (3) books and society publications acquired by the Smithsonian through its exchanges, (4) miscellaneous gifts and exchanges, and, (5) purchases from appropriations. These have increased from $10,000 a year prior to 1897 to $70,000 for the year 1901-2.

Such resources are by no means omnipotent. _No_ resources can make absolutely comprehensive a library starting its deliberate accumulations at the end of the 19th century. Too much material has already been absorbed into collections from which it will never emerge.

But universality in scope does not mean absolute comprehensiveness in detail. With its purchasing funds and other resources the Library of Congress bids fair to become the strongest collection in the United States in bibliography, in Americana (omitting the earliest), in political and social science, public administration, jurisprudence. If any American library can secure the documents which will exhibit completely legislation proposed and legislation enacted it should be able to. As depository of the library of the Smithsonian it will have the most important collection--perhaps in the world--of the transactions and proceedings of learned societies; and, adding its own exchanges and subscriptions, of serials in general. With theology it may not especially concern itself nor with philology to the degree appropriate to a university library. Medicine it will leave as a specialty to the library of the Surgeon-General's office, already pre-eminent, Geology to the library of the Geological Survey. Two extremes it may have to abstain from--so far as deliberate purchase is concerned: (1) the books merely popular, (2) the books merely curious. Of the first many will come to it through copyright; of the second many should come through gift. (Perhaps in time the public spirit of American collectors and donors may turn to it as the public spirit of the British turns to the National Library of Great Britain.) Original sources must come to it, if at all, chiefly by gift. Manuscript material relating to American history it has, however, bought, and will buy.

Otherwise, chiefly printed books. Of these, the useful books; of these again, the books useful rather for the establishment of the fact than for the mere presentation of it--the books for the advancement of learning, rather than those for the mere diffusion of knowledge.

Lastly there is an organization. Instead of 42 persons, for all manner of service, there are now 261, irrespective of printers, binders, and the force attending to the care of the building itself.

The copyright work is set off and interferes no longer with the energies of the library proper. There is a separate division having to do with the acquisition of material, another--of 67 persons--to classify and catalog it. There are 42 persons attending to the ordinary service of the reading room as supplied from the stacks, and there are eight special divisions handling severally the current newspapers and periodicals, the documents, manuscripts, maps, music, prints, the scientific publications forming the Smithsonian deposit, and the books for the blind. There is a Division of Bibliography whose function is to assist in research too elaborate for the routine service of the reading room, to edit the library publications, and to represent the library in co-operative bibliographic undertakings. There is now within the building, besides a bindery, with a force of 45 employees, a printing office, with a force of 21. The allotment for printing and binding, in 1896 only $15,000, is for the coming year $90,000.

The immediate duty of this organization is near at hand. There is a huge arrear of work upon the existing collection--necessary for its effective use, and its intelligent growth. It must be newly classified throughout; and shelf listed. The old author slip catalog must be revised and reduced to print. There must be compiled a subject catalog, of which none now exists. Innumerable gaps--that which is crooked can be made straight, but that which is wanting cannot be numbered--innumerable gaps are to be ascertained and filled. A collection of reference books must be placed back at the Capitol, with suitable apparatus, to bring the library once more into touch with Congress and enable it to render the service to Congress which is its first duty. The other libraries of the District must be brought into association--not by gathering their collections into the Library of Congress, but by co-ordinating processes and service. The Library of Congress as the center of the system can aid in this. It can strengthen each departmental library by relieving it of material not necessary to its special work. It can aid toward specialization in these departmental libraries by exhibiting present unnecessary duplication. (It is just issuing a union list of serials currently taken by the libraries of the District which has this very purpose.) It can very likely print the catalog cards for all the government libraries--incidentally securing uniformity, and a copy for its own use of each card--which in time will result in a complete statement within its own walls of the resources of every departmental library in Washington. It will supply to each such library a copy of every card which it prints of a book in its own collections relating to the work of the bureau which such library serves.

To reduce to order the present collection, incorporating the current accessions, to fill the most inconvenient gaps, to supply the most necessary apparatus in catalogs and to bring about a relation among the libraries of Washington which shall form them into an organic _system_: this work will of itself be a huge one. I have spoken of the equipment of the Library of Congress as elaborate, the force as large, and the appropriations as generous. All are so in contrast to antecedent conditions. In proportion to the work to be done, however, they are not merely not excessive, but in some respects far short of the need. To proceed beyond those immediate undertakings to projects of general service will require certain equipment, service, and funds not yet secured, and which can be secured only by a general effort. But the question is not what can be done, but what _may_ be done--in due time, eventually.

A general distribution of the printed cards: That has been suggested. It was suggested a half century ago by the Federal Government through the Smithsonian Institution. Professor Jewett's proposal then was a central bureau to compile, print and distribute cards which might serve to local libraries as a catalog of their own collections. Such a project is now before this Association. It may not be feasible: that is, it might not result in the economy which it suggests. It assumes a large number of books to be acquired, in the same editions, by many libraries, at the same time. In fact, the enthusiasm for the proposal at the Montreal meeting last year has resulted in but sixty subscriptions to the actual project.

It may not be feasible. But if such a scheme can be operated at all it may perhaps be operated most effectively through the library which for its own uses is cataloging and printing a card for every book currently copyrighted in the United States, and for a larger number of others than any other single institution. Such must be confessed of the Library of Congress. It is printing a card for every book currently copyrighted, for every other book currently added--for every book reached in re-classification--and thus in the end for every book in its collection. It is now printing, at the rate of over 200 titles a day--60,000 titles a year. The entry is an author entry, in form and type accepted by the committee on cataloging of the A. L. A. The cards are of the standard size--3 × 5 inches--of the best linen ledger stock. From 15 to 100 copies of each are now printed. It would be uncandid to say that such a number is necessary for the use of the library itself, or of the combined libraries at Washington. The usefulness of copies of them to any other library for incorporation in its catalogs must depend upon local conditions: the style, form, and size of its own cards, the number of books which it adds yearly, the proportion of these which are current, and other related matters. On these points we have sought statistics from 254 libraries. We have them from 202. With them we have samples of the cards in use by each, with a complete author entry. Having them we are in a position really to estimate the chances. I will not enter into details. Summarily, it appears that our cards might effect a great saving to certain libraries and some saving to others, and would entail a mere expense without benefit to the remainder--all of which is as might have been guessed.

The distribution suggested by Professor Jewett and proposed by the A. L. A. had in view a saving to the recipient library of cataloging and printing on its own account. It assumed a subscription by each recipient to cover the cost of the extra stock and presswork. There is conceivable a distribution more limited in range, having another purpose. The national library wishes to get into touch with the local libraries which are centers for important research. It wishes the fullest information as to their contents; it may justifiably supply them with the fullest information as to its own contents. Suppose it should supply them with a copy of every card which it prints, getting in return a copy of every card which they print? I am obliged to disclose this suggestion: for such an exchange has already been begun. A copy of every card printed by the Library of Congress goes out to the New York Public Library: a copy of every card printed by the New York Public Library comes to the Library of Congress. In the new building of the New York Public Library there will be a section of the public card catalog designated The Catalog of the Library of Congress. It will contain at least every title in the Library of Congress not to be found in any library of the metropolis. In the Library of Congress a section of the great card catalog of American libraries outside the District will be a catalog of the New York Public Library.

I have here a letter from the librarian of Cornell University forwarding a resolution of the Library Council (composed in part of faculty members) which requests for the university library a set of these cards. Mr. Harris states that the purpose would be to fit up cases of drawers in the catalog room, which is freely accessible to any one desiring to consult bibliographical aids, and arrange the cards in alphabetical order by authors, thus making an author catalog of the set. He adds "The whole question has been rather carefully considered and the unanimous sense of the council was that the usefulness of the catalog to us would be well worth the cost of the cases, the space they would occupy, and the time it would take to arrange and keep in order the cards."

There is a limit to such a distribution. But I suspect that it will not stop with New York and Ithaca.

There is some expense attendant on it. There is the extra stock, the presswork, the labor of sorting and despatching. No postage, however, for the Library of Congress has the franking privilege, in and out. The results however: one cannot deny them to be attractive. At Washington a statement of at least the distinctive contents of every great local collection. At each local center of research a statement of the distinctive contents of the national collection. An inquirer in Wisconsin writes to Washington: is such a book to be had in the United States; must he come to Washington for it, or to New York?--No, he will find it in Chicago at the Newberry or the Crerar.

If there can be such a thing as a bibliographic bureau for the United States, the Library of Congress is in a way to become one; to a degree, in fact, a bureau of information for the United States. Besides routine workers efficient as a body, it has already some expert bibliographers and within certain lines specialists. It has not a complete corps of these. It cannot have until Congress can be made to understand the need of them. Besides its own employees, however, it has within reach by telephone a multitude of experts. They are maintained by the very government which maintains it. They are learned men, efficient men, specially trained, willing to give freely of their special knowledge. They enter the government employ and remain there, not for the pecuniary compensation, which is shamefully meagre, but for the love of the work itself and for the opportunity for public service which it affords. Of these men, in the scientific bureaus at Washington, the National Library can take counsel: it can secure their aid to develop its collections and to answer inquiries of moment. This will be within the field of the natural and physical sciences. Meantime within its walls it possesses already excellent capacity for miscellaneous research, and special capacity for meeting inquiries in history and topography, in general literature, and in the special literature of economics, mathematics and physics. It has still Ainsworth Spofford and the other men, who with him, under extraordinary disadvantages, for thirty-five years made the library useful at the Capitol.

The library is already issuing publications in book form. In part these are catalogs of its own contents; in part an exhibit of the more important material in existence on some subject of current interest, particularly, of course, in connection with national affairs. Even during the period of organization fifteen such lists have already been issued. They are distributed freely to libraries and even to individual inquirers.

But there may be something further. The distribution of cards which exhibit its own contents or save duplication of expense elsewhere, the publication of bibliographies which aid to research, expert service which in answer to inquiry points out the best sources and the most effective methods of research: all these may have their use. But how about the books themselves? Must the use of this great collection be limited to Washington? How many of the students who need some book in the Library of Congress--perhaps there alone--can come to Washington to consult it at the moment of need? A case is conceivable: a university professor at Madison or Berkeley or San Antonio, in connection with research important to scholarship, requires some volume in an unusual set. The set is not in the university library. It is too costly for that library to acquire for the infrequent need. The volume is in the National Library. It is not at the moment in use at Washington. The university library requests the loan of it. If the National Library is to _be_ the national library----?

There might result some inconvenience. There would be also the peril of transit. Some volumes might be lost to posterity. But after all we are ourselves a posterity. Some respect is due to the ancestors who have saved for _our_ use. And if one copy of a book possessed by the federal government and within reasonable limits subject to call by different institutions, might suffice for the entire United States--what does logic seem to require--and expediency--and the good of the greater number?

The Library of Congress is now primarily a reference library. But if there be any citizen who thinks that it should never lend a book--to another library--in aid of the higher research--when the book can be spared from Washington and is not a book within the proper duty of the local library to supply--if there be any citizen who thinks that for the National Library to lend under these circumstances would be a misuse of its resources and, therefore, an abuse of trust--he had better speak quickly, or he may be too late. Precedents may be created which it would be awkward to ignore.

Really I have been speaking of the Library of Congress as if it were the only activity of the federal government of interest to libraries. That, however, is the fault of the topic. It was not what might be done for science, for literature, for the advance of learning, for the diffusion of knowledge. It was merely what might be done for _libraries_; as it were, not for the glory of God, but for the advancement of the church. We have confidence in the mission of libraries and consider anything in aid of it as good in itself.

Their most stimulating, most fruitful service must be the direct service. The service of the national authority must in large part be merely indirect. It can meet the reader at large only through the local authority. It can serve the great body of readers chiefly through the local libraries which meet them face to face, know their needs, supply their most ordinary needs. Its natural agent--we librarians at least must think this--is its own library--the library which if there is to be a national library not merely of, but _for_ the United States--must be that library.

_Must become_ such, I should have said. For we are not yet arrived. We cannot arrive until much preliminary work has been done, and much additional resource secured from Congress. We shall arrive the sooner in proportion as you who have in charge the municipal and collegiate libraries of the United States will urge upon Congress the advantage to the interests you represent, of undertakings such as I have described. To this point we have not asked your aid. In the equipment of the library, in the reconstruction of its service, in the addition of more expert service, in the improvement of immediate facilities, our appeal to Congress has been based on the work to be done near at hand. I have admitted to you the possibility of these other undertakings of more general concern. If they commend themselves to you as proper and useful--the appeal for them must be primarily your appeal.

THE TRUSTEESHIP OF LITERATURE--I.

BY GEORGE ILES, _New York City_.

Six months ago the curtain descended upon what is likely to be accounted the most memorable century in the annals of mankind. So salient are three of its characteristics that they challenge the eye of the most casual retrospection. First of all, we see that knowledge was increased at a pace beyond precedent, to be diffused throughout the world with a new thoroughness and fidelity. Next we must observe how republican government passed from the slender ties spun in the times of Washington, Jefferson and Adams, to the intimate and pervasive cords of to-day, when, as never before, the good of the bee is bound up with the welfare of the hive. Parallel with this political union of each and all there was a growth of free organization which, in every phase of life, has secured uncounted benefits which only joined hands may receive. Fresh torches of light fraternally borne from the centers of civilization to its circumference have tended to bring the arts and ideals of life everywhere to the level of the best. These distinctive features of the nineteenth century were in little evidence at its dawn, but they became more and more manifest with each succeeding decade. In American librarianship, as in many another sphere of labor, more was accomplished in the last quarter of the century than in the seventy-five preceding years.