Mr. C. H. Gould, chairman of the committee on co-ordination, stated that the subject just presented had a close relation to several matters before his committee, and gave a résumé of their report submitted in print to a general session of the conference.

Dr. Andrews, as a member of the Committee, added that in his opinion photographic reproductions might prove a satisfactory substitute for many inter-library loans. The installation of a cameragraph in the John Crerar library had proved of much more use than had been anticipated, not only in regard to the number of copies made, but also in regard to the scope of the material thus copied. It had been found in many cases that these photographic reproductions could be furnished for less than the cost of transportation of the volume, and that besides they gave a permanent record to the borrower. The only obvious limitation was the impossibility of reproducing copyright material.

After further discussion, the chairman asked Dr. W. K. Jewett, librarian of the University of Nebraska, to serve as chairman of the nominating committee and to select two others to serve with him. The session then adjourned.

SECOND SESSION

(Monday, July 1, 2:30 p. m.)

The second session was held Monday afternoon, July 1, in the ballroom. The first paper was by Mr. J. C. M. HANSON, associate director of libraries, University of Chicago, and was read in his absence by Mr. M. G. Wyer, librarian of the State University of Iowa. The paper follows.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE DEPARTMENTAL LIBRARY PROBLEM IN UNIVERSITIES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

The pros and cons of the departmental system have been summarized in several of the articles mentioned above. In his annual report as librarian of Harvard college for 1898 Mr. Lane calls attention, on the one hand to the more convenient use of books in a small collection, and in case of scientific subjects, the possibility of having the books in or near the laboratory. On the other hand he emphasizes the increased difficulty of consultation on the part of persons not immediately connected with the department, less careful supervision, increase in expense of administration, less security from fire, lack of that reinforcement which every department of a general library receives from all related departments, tendency to narrowness, and growth of special collections beyond a convenient size.

On September 28, 1900, Professor E. D. Burton, the present director of the libraries of the University of Chicago, and Professor H. P. Judson, now president of the university, presented before the faculty briefs for and against the following proposition: That a limit should be placed in the near future to the development of the departmental library system. The affirmative urged that it was for the advantage of the departments whose interests and relationships are widespread, notably of philosophy, history, political economy, political science, and sociology, that all the library resources of the university should be gathered in one building and brought under one administration and catalog system. The convenience of scholars coming from a distance demanded concentration also facilitated the practical administration of the libraries. As departments grew and the number of books increased, the departmental library system became unwieldy.