"The reasons which have induced the prohibition of second and varying prints of department publications generally, apply with at least equal force to the annual reports, which are the most distinctively and obviously departmental of all departmental issues. They are so distinctive that it is safe to say they are always known and called for by their departmental designations, never by their congressional numbers. Everybody knows at once what is meant by War Department Report, 1912, but nobody knows offhand what is meant by House Document 929, 62d Congress, 3d session. There is nothing whatever to indicate that these two designations mean the same publication, which is really not a House document at all, but a publication of the executive and not of the legislative branch of the government. And, of course, the same is true of the annual reports of all the executive officials.
"The addition of congressional document numbers to executive reports adds nothing to their value or to their accessibility. The second set of designations is merely confusing and troublesome. To spend money on such a second print is to spend it only to buy harm instead of good.
"The numerous and conclusive considerations which have been sufficient to place in the bill the prohibition of the second and superfluous editions of other departmental publications apply with at least equal if not even greater force to annual reports, and to except them from the general prohibition seems therefore illogical and contradictory and a long step toward defeating the proposed reform and the economies which it is intended to promote.
"If it is not desirable to protect the annual reports from the waste and confusion of double editions, then it is hard to see why any publications should be so protected. The annual reports, so numerous, so important, so certain to be continuously issued for all time to come, are 'the very head and front of the offending' in the double printing abuse, and with them the reform should begin.
"To except the annual reports seems to amount to discrediting if not to virtually abandoning the whole reform—the most vital of all reforms in connection with the public printing, that of permitting but one edition for each publication, by which it may always be known and identified and kept free from confusion with others."
There is no question that the librarians are in sympathy with what we are trying to do, so now is the time to join forces and make every effort to have this bill embody the necessary provisions to correct all existing evils.
The librarians must give the movement impetus, and we believe if sufficient organized effort is directed in the proper channels good results will be bound to follow.
Mr. Wallace's paper was received with enthusiasm because it showed his close and intimate knowledge of matters pertaining to the publication and distribution of documents. A spirited discussion followed the reading of the paper, all through which expressions of appreciation were made concerning the service which had been rendered by the document office in recent years towards prompt and efficient distribution of publications delivered to that office.
Miss Hartwell, informally representing the superintendent of documents, answered many questions relative to the serial numbers on government documents and urged if consistent with the policy of the American Library Association that action be taken suggesting to Congress that annual reports now listed in the congressional set of documents be omitted inasmuch as they are not now in the depository set and such omission would facilitate the publication of the Documentary Index.
The discussion also brought out the consensus of opinion that the libraries would be more satisfactorily served if all publications were sent out under the direction of the superintendent of documents.