Part 29

My thought about dispensing with shelf-marks in the card and other catalogs (not really my thought, for I had it from one of our leading librarians, who has not, however, put it in practice himself) is that the great difficulties connected with the changing of shelf-marks in catalogs when books are reclassified may be avoided by placing on the card only the accession number (in case of a set the accession number of the first volume), and then maintaining a key, consisting of a book closely ruled in double columns, where for each book in the library the shelf-mark is written in pencil against the accession number and changed whenever the book is renumbered. Such a scheme could not be satisfactorily applied in a library where the looking-up of the shelf-mark is involved in the calling for books in most cases. I am prepared to favor it only where (as is now the case in our own library) a majority of the calls for books are made orally and answered by the attendant without reference to shelf-mark. In our case these calls amount to seven-eighths of all the calls, and in addition to this it should be said that at least one-half the books drawn under our open-shelf system are drawn without any "call" at all, so that we may say, that if we had the "key" system it would come into play for perhaps one-sixteenth of the books drawn. In libraries of moderate circulation like our college and university libraries, and (for all but certain classes which are most used) even in the large public libraries, it seems to me that the key plan may work well. Of course the key if subjected to constant use would be difficult and expensive to maintain, owing to wear and tear. We should not fail to observe that three separate and distinct features of modern library progress are each and all working against the necessity, _i.e._, tending to minimize the necessity, of shelf-marks in the catalog.

These are, first, the open-shelf system; second, minute classification and alphabetical arrangement in classes, and third, book-card charging systems. Without enlarging upon these points, I would like to suggest them to you as worthy of consideration.

Mr. HODGES described briefly the classification of the scientific books at Harvard. First, the serial publications of the broad learned societies, the societies taking cognizance of all branches of learning, are brought together arranged alphabetically by country and city. Secondly, the general scientific serials and the special scientific serials, however published, are arranged in a group; the general coming first, the others following according to subject, astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural history, zoology, botany, etc. When suggesting the separation of the serials in pure science from the handbooks at the very outset of his work at Harvard, Mr. Hodges urged that the serials constitute a record literature to which the investigator must refer when carrying on original work, while the handbooks are used by the pedagog when preparing for his classwork. The general designation for the learned society group is L. Soc.; for the scientific serials, Sci. The handbooks on physics are in a group designated Phys.; the general treatises by Phys. 357-360. A treatise published in 1892 is marked Phys. 358-92; another of the same year, by Phys. 358.92.3.

Mr. ROOT said: It may possibly have interest in this connection to note that the catalog of the University of Göttingen, which was established about 1750, has the feature which has been mentioned here as characteristic of the Harvard system. The books are grouped in large classes with an abbreviated heading, with minute sub-classification. Just when this system was introduced I do not know, but I suppose it to have been in use a hundred years or so, which I judge to be a longer life than Mr. Fletcher is willing to allow to the D. C.

Interesting remarks were made by several others, notably Mr. Andrews, Dr. Steiner and Dr. Canfield. It is to be regretted that the revision of their remarks has not been received in time for publication. OLIVE JONES, _Secretary_.

CATALOG SECTION.

The Catalog Section of the American Library Association held two meetings in connection with the Waukesha conference.

_FIRST SESSION._

The first session was held in one of the parlors of the Fountain Spring House, on the afternoon of Tuesday, July 9. The chairman, ANDERSON H. HOPKINS, called the meeting to order.

It was _Voted_, That the section waive the formality of registration of members preliminary to voting.

It was _Voted_, That the chairman appoint a nominating committee of three, to report at the close of the session. This committee was appointed as follows: Miss Sula Wagner, Mr. Jones, Mr. Roden.

A. H. HOPKINS: When the round table session on this subject was held last year its object was, of course, to find out whether there was a demand for a section of this kind. We found it out pretty soon. Now we have the section. Then came the question, when I was asked to assume the chairmanship for one more year, of how it might best be occupied. It seemed to me for a time that perhaps the best plan would be to go to the opposite extreme--from having been informal last year--and have set papers, especially as the Association had decided not to take stenographic reports of the meetings. However, a change came about in my views when the interstate meeting was called at Atlantic City last March. A meeting was held there of the Publishing Board's committee on rules for a printed card catalog. The members of that committee were at that time all of the opinion that no better plan could be followed for this year's meeting of the Catalog Section than to have another discussion similar to that of last year, but confining the talk chiefly to knotty points which they met in the course of their work. That has been done; but there have been added a few questions which have come to your chairman in the course of the year from persons interested in the section.

The Publishing Board, in taking up the task of producing printed cards, found that widely divergent practices must be shaped so that they would work together. To this end they appointed a committee of seven and set them the task of producing harmony among the jarring elements of practice in all the libraries of this country, barring none. The head of the catalog department of the Library of Congress was made chairman of this committee; and, as you know, this great library and its chief, to whom we all turn so gladly, are lending their cordial support to the project, and realization now seems near at hand.

Now what do we want? We want an arrangement whereby any one may be able at a reasonable cost to get accurately made and well printed cards for any book at any time. This and nothing else will do. (Applause.)

The members of the Committee on Rules thought this session could not be better occupied, as I said before, than in a discussion of certain points, met by them in their attempts to produce a workable scheme which would meet adequate support, it having at that time become evident that the enthusiasm so manifest at Montreal had largely evaporated; probably because it had not been made clear that the proposed plan was really a workable scheme. Some of these points the chairman of the committee and myself have selected and graded roughly into three classes, and I will lay some of these before you.

One of the chief troubles is going to lie between the _32 and 33 size cards_. Let us hear from you on this subject, if you have anything you wish to say about it.

Mr. FLETCHER: Perhaps those present may be interested to know something about the 32 and 33 card from the point of view of the Publishing Board. The Publishing Board has been supplying the 32 or 33 size card as required by subscribers for cards for current books. I cannot speak authoritatively, but I think the board is nearly prepared to say that in future, if these cards are prepared at the Library of Congress and distributed from there, it will be found very much the wisest plan from the beginning to use only the 33 size. It has not been declared impossible at the Library of Congress to print the cards in such shape that enough could be cut off to make the card a 32 card; neither has it been decided by the board that it is not worth while to try earnestly to bring that about; but the present impression, I think, is that the 32 size will have to be left aside in the co-operative work. If there is a strong sentiment here to retain the 32 size card, let us hear of it now.

Mr. BOWKER: Couldn't Mr. Hanson, of the Library of Congress, give us a report on the letters they received there in regard to the size of cards used? And let me emphasize this thought, that in coming to a uniform system we must approach as near uniformity as possible. It is impossible to meet all the variances of cards in the several libraries, but we must look towards drawing all the using libraries into as close uniformity as possible. And I think the prevailing practice is shown best by the statistics which I believe Mr. Hanson has with him.

Mr. HANSON: The statistics Mr. Bowker refers to I have not with me. As I recall the figures there are something like 19 out of 100 that use the 32 card.

Mr. ANDREWS: I have Mr. Putnam's figures. I was astonished to find the percentage that were using the larger card. Out of 185 reporting 138 used the 33 card, 38 used the 32 card and only 19 (true those 19 are the older, better established and larger libraries) used odd sizes.

I will take occasion to ask Mr. Hanson to answer another question on this point. I had an interview in his company last winter with the representative of the Harvard Library, which uses the smaller card. We then came to a satisfactory compromise, and I am surprised to hear Mr. Fletcher say it is all in the air. It was understood that the Library of Congress wanted for its subject headings, and we wanted for our subject headings, a sufficient amount of space, and that they were not willing to print below the punched hole. That leaves exactly the width of the 32 card in the center of the 33. And the proposition agreed to by all of us in this conversation was to print the 33 card with the broad margin above and never go below the hole, so any library that wanted to could buy the cards and cut them down on both top and bottom and have a 32 card. It was understood to be satisfactory to all the 32 users that I consulted, including Harvard, the largest, I believe, of them all. It is that point that I would like to ask Mr. Hanson to report on--whether he now feels that he must go higher or lower than the lines we then indicated.

Mr. HANSON: I don't feel it absolutely necessary; in fact we are following out the measurements laid down by the Publishing Board now. I have in my hand two cards--the title runs over on the second card at considerable waste of space, as you can see. But the printers have their measurements which provide for cutting away the space above and below to accommodate the 32 card. But I believe it is going to be objectionable, in the end, when it runs over on the second card. That is the only objection I can see.

Mr. FLETCHER: I should like to have Mr. Andrews state whether this card, if it has to be cut down at the top as well as at the bottom, will allow room for headings?

Miss BROWNE: Instead of having to print a second card I don't see why we can't print the 33 card; then if the 32 card libraries want it in their catalog why can't they transcribe the extra line or so by hand on a second card and cut off the bottom. In nine cases out of 10 it would not make any difference. In one case in 10 where they would have to transcribe on the second card, is there any reason why it could not be done?

Miss DOREN: I am not a user of the 32 card. The only objection I see, if I were to use it, would be that perhaps I should have to pay a little more for my card than those that use the 33 card, and it would make the catalog a little more bulky.

Mr. ANDREWS: Talking with Miss Crawford it was evident that the Dayton library wanted a broad margin for analyticals and headings above the print in the 33 card. That is exactly what we want. We don't want it as much as they do, but I want to emphasize the necessity for a broad top margin. That is the point which makes it desirable for 33 people as well as for 32.

Miss DOREN: I did not understand the question as referring to analytical headings. We do want those above all things, and if we are to use the card at all we need the broad margin at the top. Our use of the card depends upon having a broad margin at the top.

Mr. BOWKER: I should like a show of hands on this point. Are those present, whether 33-card or 32-card people, of the opinion that, after dropping the heading so as to leave ample room at the top to permit the 32 card to be cut out from the 33 card, as stated by Mr. Andrews, it would be better to run the type down farther than the hole, if necessary, on either side, and then cut and recopy for the 32 size, or to make a double card both for the 33 and 32 size?

I suggest that the show of hands be first from those who prefer to have one card furnished for a title when possible, and then to transcribe the lower part, if necessary, for the 32 card; and then from those who prefer to have a second card wherever it is not possible to put the material on the space of the 32 card as printed on the 33 size. Is that clear?

CHAIRMAN: I believe so. It includes, however, both the users of the 32 and 33 cards, and instead of a show of hands let us have a rising vote, and give time to count them.

Mr. BOWKER: Those who are in favor of printing below the 32-card limit on the 33 card, rather than furnishing two cards to a title, please rise. 56 persons rose.

Mr. BOWKER: Those who are in favor of confining the print to the 32 size and having a second overflow card printed for the same title, please rise. 17 persons rose.

Mr. FLETCHER: I should like to call for a rising vote to learn how many would like to urge that arrangements be made by which 32-size cards can be furnished. Three persons rose.

Mr. HANSON: I cannot think of any library printing cards that would care to print any lower than the round hole. On the other hand, the library must have three-quarters of an inch at the top of the card for headings. Will that leave sufficient space for taking away from top and bottom?

Mr. ANDREWS: They accepted it by that first vote.

Mr. HANSON: Then they must punch the hole in the margin.

CHAIRMAN: Or lose the part they punch out. If you will excuse me, I will put forth a little argument of my own.

Apropos of another report I had to make some time ago, I had heard that the greatest library in this country, certainly in some respects, was changing its plan to accommodate itself to the 33 card. I wrote to Mr. Whitney, of the Boston Public Library, which as you know uses a card larger than the 33, and it is a fact that with their immense catalog running for so many years, and with so large a number of cards which they cannot now cut down to the 33 size, they have found it advisable so to modify their plan for titles henceforth that the cards may be cut down to the 33 size on reprinting the old titles. Here is the letter, the report from his cataloger. [Mr. Hopkins here read the letter.] If they do not think it likely that ultimately they will use the 33 card why should they take all that trouble? Now, the problem they had to deal with was 10 times more difficult than that which the users of the 32 cards have to deal with. All you have to do with a 32 card to make it a 33 size is to paste it on something big enough and provide space to hold it. With such evidence as this before us why should we fret ourselves to provide a 32 card when the change to the 33 can be so easily and so cheaply made?

Mr. BOWKER: May I add a word which Dr. Billings said to me? He said that he preferred a printed catalog card to a written catalog card any time, without reference to any question of uniformity. So he was actually replacing his written catalog cards with the Library of Congress cards or Library Bureau cards. I think that there is growing in the great libraries a desire for some general method which will supply printed catalog cards.

CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on this topic? If not we will pass to the next.

_Notes and Contents._ I read from the official report made by the Committee on Rules to the Publishing Board: "The position of the collation and series note to be on a separate line immediately after the date and preceding other notes." Now we cannot take up the whole question of notes, nor the question of the minority report which Mr. Hopkins was asked to submit; but the question I would submit to you is this: Is not the contents note really, logically, sensibly, a part of the title? Is it not actually, in almost nine cases out of ten, more important than the title itself? If it were not, would it not be nonsense to print the contents note? If it is so, why separate the contents note from the title by other relatively unimportant matter? Has anybody anything to say?

Mr. HANSON: It seems to me it would be well to say here, collation is used for pagination, illustrations, maps, plates, etc., and size. That is the imprint, as we have for convenience's sake called collation; and the idea is that this information is to be paragraphed, on a separate line, so as to set out the date and make the date end the line in twelve point.

Mr. BISCOE: I want to say a word on the other side. It seems to me that it would be unfortunate to put the collation after the contents, particularly where the contents are long. It would throw the collation on the second card. To find out whether you had more than one volume you would have to turn to another card. If you are looking for duplicates you want to see at once not only the author of the book, but also the number of pages, to show whether the edition is the same. And if for all those purposes you have got to turn to a second card, it seems to me it would be unfortunate.

Mr. JONES: I agree strongly with Mr. Biscoe. I think the number of volumes, size, etc., range in properly with the date, while the contents should come afterward and range in with such matter as critical or descriptive notes. Ordinarily you want those parts that I speak of first, then your contents, like any other kind of descriptive or explanatory notes.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Biscoe's position appears at first sight very solid and plausible but there is nothing in it. The reason for this is that there is only a small class of books that will call for a contents note. I deprecate mentioning any institution, particularly The John Crerar Library, but that calls for contents notes probably as often as any, and I should like our cataloger to answer if he knows about how many cases run over on the second card.

Mr. JOSEPHSON: We have printed so far about 25,000 cards and the number of titles that run over to second cards is considerably below 1000; it is nearer 500 than 1000.

Mr. JONES: I should like to ask the chairman whether in foreign bibliographies we do not find that the data, as to volumes, size, etc.--called the collation--always come first. Should not we be setting ourselves up in opposition to other catalogers if we put the collation after the contents?

CHAIRMAN: Possibly that it so; but if we gain a truth, what then? Tradition is powerful, but it is not all. Sometimes it is very little indeed. And this is one of the cases in which I believe it is very little.

Mr. FLETCHER: I hold in my hand one of the sample cards which have been distributed, which has this arrangement. That represents what we now call the old practice, which we are proposing to depart from--Cutter's Rules say that the imprint, strictly, is place, date and form of printing; and then goes on to say that for practical purposes the imprint is considered as being enlarged so as to contain not only place, date and form of printing, but also publisher, number of pages and number of volumes. It seems to have been agreed some time ago by the Committee on Rules and the Publishing Board that it was wise to bring back the imprint to the old idea of giving the place, date and form of printing and publisher. It was also pretty generally agreed that form--or size as we now call it--number of pages and number of volumes, and anything else that might describe the book from an exterior point of view, should be called collation--we have not exactly agreed it should be called that--and that this should be put in a statement by itself in smaller type, after the title and imprint, the imprint being printed in the same type as the title and even completing the line the title ends on. Now the question is whether that line of smaller type should be printed immediately after the title and imprint or whether it should follow contents; that is to say, whether contents (called "contents" and not "contents note") should not be attached immediately to the title--which is Mr. Hopkins's idea, I understand, as he thinks logically it belongs there. The card I have in my hand has contents occupying four lines, because while it is one volume it contains four different lectures. That brings before us the "contents note" and the other notes. Now I understand the new proposition is that the collation should follow the contents note, but precede other notes.

CHAIRMAN: The thing I want is that the contents note should follow the title. I called it "contents note" merely because it appeared in the smaller type with the other note.

Mr. FLETCHER: I wish to express my preference in accord with Mr. Jones and one or two others, that the collation note should continue to occupy the place it has always occupied, of immediate juxtaposition with the imprint, and other notes should go below.

CHAIRMAN: In explanation, permit me to take the floor again----

Mr. BOWKER: Has not the officer of The John Crerar Library given the best argument for placing the collation before the contents? Mr. Josephson has told us that probably the number of cards including contents would be less than three per cent. Why should we not follow the old practice and let the cataloger and the public continue to use the usual thing?

Mr. JOSEPHSON: I did not say how many cards give contents notes, but how many titles need more than one card.

CHAIRMAN: That is the strong point. It is not three per cent. nor anywhere near it. Those cards that ran over were not all contents notes. The actual number of contents notes that run over is very small indeed. And moreover, you have this bibliographical note on every card. You are going to put it between the contents note and the title every time.

Mr. HARRIS: I would like to ask what proportion of cards have contents notes at all.

Mr. JOSEPHSON: I don't think I can answer that. It is between ten and twenty-five per cent.

Mr. HARRIS: The point I was about to make was that I think it is well to sacrifice something for the sake of uniformity, for the aid of persons who consult the catalog; and as Mr. Josephson says only fifteen to twenty-five per cent. of the cards have contents notes, in seventy-five per cent. the collation would immediately follow the title. And therefore it seems to me it is desirable not to have the contents note follow the title.

A show of hands was called for.