Need for Co-Operation on the Part of the Librarians to Improve the Publication and Distribution Methods of Government Publications
The most striking example of the need for co-operation is that we are today fighting for certain reforms in the methods of publication that were asked for sixteen years ago.
The first superintendent of documents had hardly entered upon the duties of the office before he recognized the faulty methods of publication and distribution which he well knew served only to prevent the public document from occupying the position its general standard of efficiency warranted.
It is hard to understand why the untiring efforts of those interested in promoting the use of the public document have been practically ignored when you stop to think of the annual cost in compilation, printing, and distribution.
We all know that every conceivable subject is treated in the public documents, and when we think of their value to the historian, student, and public in general, it is hard to understand why any obstacles should be put in the way of making them readily accessible and encouraging the librarians to give them the proper place on their shelves.
Now, as to the faulty methods which obtain in the publication of the public documents, very little has been accomplished in the way of reform. That the present methods cause needless expense in mechanical production and needless difficulties in their use, there is no question. Chief of these faulty methods is that of reprinting the same book several times under different numbers and titles. I do not mention this as a new discovery, because every superintendent of documents has endeavored to have the law changed to eliminate from the congressional series those publications of which a departmental edition is printed.
One edition for one book is the only logical manner of issuing government publications, and the Smoot bill which has again been introduced goes a long way towards correcting the present evil.
Section 45 provides that all publications of which there is a department edition printed, except the annual reports of the executive departments, shall not be numbered in the congressional series, and section 65 provides that all copies additional to the original order of the department should be identical with those ordered by the department.
We are seriously opposed to the exception of the annual reports, and with the hopes of eliminating any exceptions we have just written the Senate committee on printing as follows:
"No reason is known to this office why the annual reports of the executive departments and independent offices should be excepted from the operation of the salutary provision that departmental publications shall not be printed a second time with changes to indicate (erroneously) that they are documents emanating from Congress.