Part 26

§9. The objects of sections which may be established by the Council under the provisions of section 17 of the constitution, shall be discussion, comparison of views, etc., upon subjects of interest to the members. No authority is granted any section to incur expense on the account of the Association or to commit the Association by any declaration of policy. A member of the Association eligible under the rules of the section may become a member thereof by registering his or her name with the secretary of the section.

§10. Provisions shall be made by the executive board for sessions of the various sections at annual meetings of the Association, and the programs for the same shall be prepared by the officers of sections in consultation with the program committee. Sessions of sections shall be open to any member of the Association, but no person may vote in any section unless registered as a member of the same. The registered members of each section shall, at the final session of each annual meeting, choose a chairman and secretary, to serve until the close of the next annual meeting.

Dr. J. K. HOSMER reported for the committee on

MEMORIAL TO JOHN FISKE.

Dr. HOSMER: The committee to whom this matter was referred thought it best to prepare, instead of a formal preamble and resolution, a minute to be entered upon the Proceedings of the convention. That received the approval of the Council. The minute is as follows:

"The news having reached us of the untimely death of John Fiske, once our professional associate, we, the American Library Association, desire to make record of our profound grief at the departure of a writer who was a dominant force in American literature, and to express our sense that in this passing of a great thinker, historian, and spiritual leader, our land and our time have sustained irreparable loss."

President CARR: This minute will be spread upon the record of the Proceedings, having taken the regular course.

CO-OPERATIVE LIST OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS.

C. R. PERRY: At the last session of the Children's Librarians' Section action was taken looking towards a co-operative list of books for children. There were some features connected with it that were of such a general character that we thought it essential that the plan come before the Association in general session, to secure proper authority for us to proceed with the work; furthermore, there was no further session of the Children's Librarians' Section, so if a report was made at all it would have to be made to the A. L. A. in general session. The report is as follows:

_To the American Library Association_:

At the last session of the Children's Librarians' Section a committee was appointed to formulate some plan whereby a co-operative list of children's books may be produced, this committee to report at some general session. We now are ready and beg leave to report progress.

We have interviewed over 50 members of the A. L. A. within the last two days, and find a general desire for such a list. Moreover, the people interviewed have expressed their willingness to subscribe among themselves a sum of money necessary to cover the cost of preparing such list (postage, typewriting, stationery, printing, etc.).

Your committee have found that one or two days are hardly sufficient to enable us to bring our plan into perfection. We desire very strongly to accomplish the results for which we were appointed, and therefore ask for more time. We do respectfully recommend and ask that authority be given to our committee to proceed with the following plan:

(1) Committee on co-operative children's list to appoint six people to collect the subscriptions which have been promised.

(2) Some one experienced and well-known librarian to be appointed by our committee to undertake the preparation of the said list.

(3) When such person has been appointed and has accepted, the money raised to be turned over to that librarian.

(4) Our committee to suggest to the person undertaking this work a plan whereby not only may be secured the approval or disapproval of librarians and teachers as to the books of the tentative list, but also a report as to the manner in which these books have been received by the children in all parts of the nation.

(5) A final and definite report to be submitted at the next conference. This report to include the books generally accepted and those rejected as well. Respectfully submitted,

CHESLEY R. PERRY, _Chairman_, J. C. DANA, ELIZA G. BROWNING.

President CARR: This report comes before you in the nature of a recommendation, and suitable action would be to move that the Association appoint a general committee to carry out the recommendations of the report. That committee might consist of the members of the present committee, who drew this report--Mr. Perry, Mr. Dana and Miss Browning.

R. R. BOWKER: Is not this a matter which should come under the jurisdiction of the Publishing Board? It would then give this proposed committee somewhat the relation to the Publishing Board that is borne by the advisory committee on printed catalog cards. Otherwise we might have a confusion of results.

Mr. PERRY: That matter was discussed, but we felt that we were preparing something which at the next convention might be submitted to the Association, and then referred to the Publishing Board. We are not expecting to prepare a list for general printing and circulation, but a list which may be brought up at the next conference as something definite to be referred to the Publishing Board.

It was _Voted_, That the committee acting for the Children's Librarians' Section be appointed to carry out the work outlined.

PRINTED CATALOG CARDS.

HERBERT PUTNAM: I ask your indulgence, Mr. President, for a few words. The readiness of the Library of Congress to take up the work of supplying printed cards has been stated. For the Library of Congress, I wish to say that we do not repudiate anything of what has been stated as to our readiness; it must be understood, however, that we are justified in entering upon this undertaking only in case it presents a reasonable probability of success. Now, for that probability three elements are essential. First, some body that should represent judgment and experience, in such co-operative work, and be in touch with the interests at large of the Library Association. That body is furnished by the Publishing Board. Second, there was necessary some office that was directly in relation with the publishers of this country. That office is the _Publishers' Weekly_, and the _Publishers' Weekly_ has generously offered to place at our disposal all of its facilities for securing prompt information as to every recent publication. Third, there is a strong probability that during the first year at least there will be some deficit, while the experiment is merely beginning. That danger has been met. Mr. Bowker, personally, has tendered a guaranty amounting, if necessary, to $1000, to meet the possible deficit of the undertaking during the present calendar year. Repudiating nothing of what has been said about the readiness of the Library of Congress to serve in this undertaking, I nevertheless wish this matter to appear in its proper proportions, and we should not be willing to have these other elements overlooked.

In the absence of THORVALD SOLBERG, J. C. HANSON read Mr. Solberg's paper on

BOOK COPYRIGHT.

(_See_ p. 24.)

GEORGE ILES read a paper on

THE TRUSTEESHIP OF LITERATURE.

(_See_ p. 16.)

Mr. ILES: I may add, that when I was in England three years ago and talked about this scheme, one or two asked me, "Who is going to meet your libel suits?" I explained that there was already a very large body of responsible critics who contribute in this country, especially in this field; as, for instance, the critics of the _American Historical Review_, and the notes that I have in mind are very much of the color of the notes one reads in such reviews--not many of them very black, not many of them very white; most of them a whitey brown. I have never heard yet of any libel suits against the editors of the _American Historical Review_, even when their reviews have not been particularly amiable. I do not think we need to dread any litigation. Mr. Larned went to work in organizing his staff of contributors with great caution and good judgment. He did not choose them from any one particular university, but when he heard that at University "A" there was a man who was acknowledged to know the literature of the Columbian period of American history better than anybody else, he sought to enlist that man. And Mr. Larned has been limited, of course, in various ways that you can readily understand, as for instance when sometimes a contributor has given him notes which he has felt obliged to discard. And let me say also that in the main the most important work has been done by the professors of history in the colleges and universities, except for the period of the Civil War, where the late General Cox, who had made a special study of that field, was his contributor. Mr. Larned's idea is simply to find throughout this country in any particular field--the Civil War period, or the pre-Columbian period, or the settlement of the Northwest period, or the war of 1812--the most authoritative and trustworthy man and enlarge his audience to take in all the readers and students in this country, instead of having him speak merely to the students of a particular university or to the readers of a particular review.

Dr. RICHARD T. ELY read a paper on the same subject. (_See_ p. 22.)

Mr. BOWKER: Can't we have a word from Mr. Thwaites on this question?

R. G. THWAITES: I do not suppose I ought to speak on this matter, for I am one of Mr. Larned's contributors. I have done a good deal of annotation, or evaluation, of this sort, upon request; I have a fair acquaintance with reviewers, and have done a good deal of reviewing myself. I know the limitations of reviewers, and there is, I think, a great deal of truth in what Dr. Ely says. I always want to know, when I read a review, who wrote the review; after I know the individual who has written the review, I make up my mind more or less regarding its verdict. Often, in writing annotations for this work of Mr. Larned's I have felt the very serious responsibility which rested upon me as an individual contributor, in seeming to crystallize judgment for generations perhaps--if this book is to be used for generations--and the possible harm that might result from such crystallization. I know that my point of view will be entirely different from another man's point of view. You take four or five men and ask them to write a note on the same book for this annotated list, and you will have four or five different judgments--absolutely, radically different. It is perhaps, a dangerous thing to crystallize these judgments; and yet, after all, I sympathize very greatly with Mr. Iles' position. I think the thing should be done. Librarians are asked for such judgments all the time. All of us who write text-books are continually asked for annotated bibliographies for students to follow, and we are always passing judgments--other people might call them "snap" judgments--upon various books. Great wisdom is necessary in this matter. For instance, the other day Mr. Larned sent a note to two of us who are contributing to this annotated bibliography. It happened through some editorial mistake that two notes, asking for comment on a certain book, were written to different individuals. It was Dr. Davis Dewey, of the Institute of Technology, who happened to cross my path and wrote a note on the same book. Now we had two absolutely different opinions about this book. And yet it was very natural. I had looked at this book as the story of an exploring tour down the Mississippi valley; he had looked at it as a study in sociology from an economic standpoint. It was exceedingly interesting from my standpoint; it was filled with fallacies and whims from the standpoint of an economist and sociologist. Well, I threw up my note and let his stand. What are we going to do about it? Some work of this kind ought to be done, because it is most useful; but after all, I think Dr. Ely's word of warning is one that we should take to heart very thoroughly. Personally I really don't know whether we ought to "evaluate" literature or not; and yet I am doing it all the time.

Mr. ILES: We expect that this bibliography of Mr. Larned's, and any others in the same series which may follow, will appear also in card form, and I very much desire when the central bureau finds that a particular note can be replaced by a better one, in the light of further developments, that that particular note should be withdrawn, and a better and more nearly just note be substituted; all gratuitously to the subscribing libraries.

F. M. CRUNDEN: I realize the force of what Dr. Ely has said, but I still believe that this work is worth doing, because it is exceedingly valuable to us. We have got to have some guide. We cannot all of us read in all lines and so far as the contradictory notes referred to go, it seems to me that all that was necessary was for the editor to apply to those two divergent notes just the remark that Mr. Thwaites made--that one was written from the standpoint of the sociologist and economist, the other from that of the historian and geographer. From one side it was a good book; from the other side a bad book.

Mr. PUTNAM: I speak on such a subject as this with very great reluctance, and yet, as a librarian who has had occasion in times past to select--I do not have so much occasion now, because so much matter comes to us without inspection--I wish to draw a distinction between selection and exclusion. Now, when Dr. Ely speaks of an _index librorum prohibitorum_ or an _index expurgatorius_, the implication is that the libraries of this country, on advice or of their own motion without advice, are deliberately excluding from their collection books of which they disapprove. The librarian, however, approaches the matter in an entirely different way. He has at his disposal, for purchase, a very limited sum of money; a very limited sum of money, no matter how large his library, for the amount of literature put upon the market is practically limitless. Men of science themselves, after contending for liberty of expression, do not always use that liberty with discretion or to the advantage of the community. Now, there must be a selection. That is the point we start from as librarians; that is the duty laid upon us--to get, with the means at our command, the books that will be most useful to our constituents. Now, that means choice. How are we to make a choice? I do not believe there is a librarian in the United States who would set himself up as an arbiter or an expert in every department of literature; who would claim to determine the value of doctrine, either in religion or in economics, the two departments of literature as to which the discrimination must be most difficult and most dangerous; and yet even in those departments we must choose. That means a selection. What is the alternative, in case we have no guide? What would Dr. Ely offer us? Dr. Ely, of course, as any university professor, has his students, who are studying not merely one subject in which they wish to get the best and final opinion, but all opinions, from which they are to draw conclusions. Now, the duty of the librarian is simply to represent all opinions, and not his own opinion, or his notion of the best opinion, or somebody else's notion of the best opinion; but, given a doctrine which is important, which is attracting attention, he assumes that this doctrine must be represented in his collection. It is only a question of what represents this doctrine best--not whether the doctrine is right or wrong. If there is a book regarding which there are two opinions, the appraisal may give the two opinions, as all appraisals should, so far as it can be done. The substance of what I wish to say is this: our duty is not one of exclusion; it is one of selection, and that fact is as little understood as any element in library administration to-day--and I am sorry to say that the misunderstanding is apt to be countenanced by the librarian. Take for instance the case of the Boston Public Library, berated all over the country for excluding certain books from its collection. Now, the Boston Public Library deliberately excludes, to my knowledge, almost no book. Its process is of selection. It receives about seven hundred volumes of recent fiction a year, to consider for purchase. It believes that it is for the best interests of its constituents to buy less than two hundred titles and multiply copies. Now, how is it going to dispose of the other five hundred? They are neither rebuked, disapproved of or placed in an index. They are simply left out, because in the process of selection, the first two hundred seem most useful for the purpose of the library.

Dr. ELY: I was not thinking about the librarians in my remarks. They must, of course, make their selections of books, but what I had in mind was the bringing, especially in the form of a card catalog, these judgments and these appraisals before the reading public all over the entire country, and so possibly forming opinion, along one line. Formerly librarians have had a great many facilities to aid them in making this selection of which Mr. Putnam has spoken. They have had the various periodicals with their reviews; they could read these and base their selections upon these. I had especially in mind the objections to crystallizing opinion and bringing a one-sided opinion, or one kind of an opinion, before the entire United States, instead of having opinions of one sort in one place and opinions of another sort in another place. Also, it is the impartial nature, or the apparently impartial nature, of the proposed "evaluations" which seems to me especially objectionable. Of course, in our college classrooms, we give our estimates of books, but Professor A will give one estimate, and then the students go to Professor B's class-room, and they hear another estimate, so that they soon learn the personal inclinations and preferences of the various professors, and can soon offer some explanation of the conditions and the circumstances under which these estimates are formed. And the views expressed in one university are criticised very largely by another university. Not so I take it with the person who ordinarily consults the card catalog of a public library.

R. R. BOWKER: May I take a moment from my own paper to say just a word on this subject? Questions are asked of the librarians, and they must be answered. To answer them in the fullest light instead of the scantiest is, as I understand, the purpose of what Mr. Iles calls "evaluation." If Miss Smith--I think there are six of her, so that my remarks are not personal--comes from the library school, or after the library school training, to a public library desk, she is sure to be asked questions, we will say, in American history. There may be an information clerk to refer them to, or there may not; but, as I understand, this work of Mr. Iles is intended, not to exclude other sources of information, but to give Miss Smith opportunity to inquire and obtain the best and widest available information as to the character of a particular book, or as to its rating. If this book were to be the sole and exclusive authority, then of course we might have a censorship in literature, but I do not understand that in the minds of the promotors of this plan there is any such design to make an exclusive and solely authoritative work.

W. MILLARD PALMER read a paper on

THE RELATIONSHIP OF PUBLISHERS, BOOKSELLERS, AND LIBRARIANS.

(_See_ p. 31.)

R. R. BOWKER: There is, or should be, I take it, a large purpose common to all who have to deal with books, as intermediaries between the author and the reader, whether from the altruistic side, as the librarian, or from the commercial side, as the publisher and bookseller. We are familiar with one expression of that purpose, to get "the best reading for the largest number at the least cost"; and I, for one, am firmly of the opinion that that function is properly shared by the two classes of whom I have spoken, that they are not in competition but in co-operation; I mean the librarian and the bookseller. It is a narrow view, it would seem, which puts the two in opposition, or even in the position of competitors. And just as it seems that the bookseller is wrong in feeling that the librarian is interfering with his business, so I think it is wrong for the librarian to feel that the bookseller should in any way be limited or hampered or belittled in his kind of work of getting books to the people. It seems to me a truism, indeed, that there is one thing better than a book loaned, and that is a book owned. The ideal library community is, after all, one in which the people are so well supplied with books in their own homes that the function of the library is not so much a great circulation, however fine that may look in the statistics, but rather that of guide and helper to readers in the selection, and, if you please, in the "evaluation" of books. The board of health in a city or in a state is, perhaps, a fair illustration of the final function of the librarian; a health board, in its ideal, is a body to promote sanitation, to warn people against errors, to get rid of the mistake that tuberculosis is a hereditary disease from which people have to suffer, instead of one which is communicated and which can be avoided; rather than a body to furnish free medical attendance like a dispensary. So I start with the proposition, that it is desirable for librarians, for public librarians, as such, to encourage most of all the formation and owning of private libraries throughout their bailiwicks.