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.