The assistance which the library can render must, of course, be very largely financial. Only by releasing funds from present uses, or by increasing these funds, can we hope to buy material of the kind referred to.
I am convinced, in the first place, that we can save money in the purchase of books, and this not through better discounts, or any choice of agents, but through more care in the selection of the books themselves. In other words, submit all lists of proposed purchases to a more rigid scrutiny. Make all titles answer such questions as "Is this book going to be of real value to this library?" "Is its usefulness to be more or less permanent, or merely temporary?" "Could not our need for it be met by borrowing from another library?"
In our own case, at least, I fear a number of books are recommended by professors or others, and bought by the library, which could not survive any such test. This naturally applies not so much to department books as to those of a general nature, for in the last analysis the teacher must be the judge of what he needs to help him in his work.
Secondly, we ought to save money—I think a considerable sum—on our periodicals. And here the saving effected by dropping some from the list is a double one; not only the subscription price, but the cost of binding. I realize that I am treading on dangerous ground in this matter, and that most professors would say to drop all the books if necessary, but none of the periodicals. And I could wish for enough space to elaborate my side of the question at some length, instead of touching on it only briefly. For I believe it to be of real importance—a thing that every college library must face and decide at some time or other. Here at Amherst we spent last year over 40 per cent of the income from our book funds on periodicals and their binding—a proportion which I cannot believe to be justified. Is there not such a thing as a "periodical" habit, into which all of us, librarians and professors alike, are apt to fall? We keep periodicals on our lists because they have always been there—were there before we came—although on reflection we are sure that no one ever uses them—not even the professor at whose instance they were ordered. In the first place, of course, he expects to use them, sometime if not now. Or he is sure that he ought to—that they would give him just the impetus he needs in his work. Or perhaps (and I should whisper this) he likes to have it known that the department is taking these things "couldn't get along without them." Now the periodical that cannot prove its right—in terms of usefulness—to be on the shelves of a college library has no place there. And the significance of this for us is the fact that in being there it is keeping something else out! What we spend for it, and for others like it, would enable us to make at least a beginning on the acquisition of our synthetic research material.
These are two of the ways in which it seems to me a librarian in sympathy with this movement could further it. Another, possibly worth mentioning, is to refrain from binding miscellaneous pamphlets and other unbound material, mostly presented to the library, and which we are apt to think may some day serve a purpose. Part of it may—most of it can well be thrown away and the binding money saved.
"But," you say, "even in the aggregate these things do not mean very much; perhaps one or two hundred dollars at the outside—one or two or three research collections a year for your library." No, they do not mean very much, by themselves, or in the purchasing power of money they are instrumental in saving. But they stand for something definite and logical; they are indicative of a determination on the part of an institution to get men of a certain type for its faculty, and to provide them with facilities for doing the broadest and biggest work possible. I may be mistaken, but I am inclined to think such an institution could find more money as it needed more. And the librarian skillful in discovering ways and means would not be contented with his yearly appropriations, but would succeed in interesting trustees and friends of the college to a point where interest would be translated into deeds.
Now there is, of course, another side to all this, and we should be short-sighted indeed not to recognize it. The college library which spent any considerable share of its funds for research material which really belongs only in the university library would have no means whatever of justifying itself—would be worse off than an institution which had no research material whatever. How may we guard against this danger? I must take it for granted that the sort of teacher I have been considering would choose his research material wisely and with the right perspective. In case he failed to do this I should expect the librarian to tell him so. And back of the librarian should be a real library committee; so constituted as to represent the different departments as fairly as possible; having charge of the allotment of book funds; advising and helping the librarian in the shaping of the library's policy; the court of last resort when an expensive and somewhat doubtful set was being considered—I can conceive of such a committee as being one of the greatest factors in the success of this whole undertaking. Let at least two types of teachers be selected for it. The one a man whose chief interest centers in the personal and human side of his students; who puts them first to the extent that his work is with them rather than with books or scholarly endeavor. The other the man I have defined as the synthetic research worker, broad in his sympathies toward his students, but a man who realizes both the need of the age for culture, and his own ability to contribute to it something worth while. By a fusion of such types as these the rights of all would be conserved—the needs of all met so far as possible.
Just a word more by way of summary and I shall be through.
I believe the book collection of the average college library is much below what it might be in point of quality. A possible way of changing this situation for the better is to encourage members of the faculty to do research work. This would also result in a higher standard of teaching—or so at least all the teachers with whom I have talked assure me. It is not necessary to assume that research is essential to scholarship, but merely that it adds something to a man's efficiency and power that can be gotten in no other way. The college librarian, if he cares to, can play an important part in bringing these things about.
You will doubtless find this scheme—represented here only in outline—rather idealistic, but so, I take it, are all educational schemes. I can only hope that you will find also some soundness in its theory—some small addition to the constructive criticism of a condition which I believe to be fundamentally wrong.