In the negative the following advantages of the departmental system were emphasized: The importance of close connection with the classrooms, especially the seminar rooms. For the departments which have laboratories the retention of the libraries in connection with the laboratories was indispensable. Granting the importance of serving the convenience of visiting investigators, their convenience must always be subordinated to that of the large number of students and professors of the university. Practically all the valuable results of concentration could be secured by a catalog of all the departments in the general library and a system of underground book railways and telephone communication.
The latest summary which has come to my attention is one by Mr. Hicks in the Columbia university quarterly for March, 1911.
There is little that can be added to the arguments presented in these statements. Perhaps the following points in favor of the departmental system might be emphasized:
(1) Books in the same room with the reader and free access to them is a great inducement to study. It increases the use of books, makes it easier for the investigator to consult books in use by others, and also to consult with colleagues in regard to questions which arise during the investigation. The student feels more at home, less subject to inspection and observation by officials. This adds to the pleasure which he may take in his work and to the feeling of personal responsibility for the collection of books with which he is working.
(2) The ability of a departmental library to make collections of minor publications in the line of its special investigation to an extent difficult or even impossible for the general library may also be conceded.
Against the system more emphasis should be placed on the following:
(1) As Mr. Lane points out segregation of books in departments tends to narrowness. While seminary methods of instruction should lead the student to avail himself of the entire resources of the university library, the departmental system as carried out in many universities tempts him to limit his investigations to the departmental library. The narrowing influence of this must be obvious to those who have observed how various subjects and classes overlap and intertwine, how material of importance is found in unexpected places, in general collections, transactions and proceedings of societies and institutions, government reports, and encyclopedic works, not in the departmental library, the loss therefore of that reinforcement which each department should receive from all other related departments.
(2) The use of the departmental library is often limited to students of a particular department. It becomes difficult therefore for others to gain access. If admitted, they are hampered by special rules and arrangements unfamiliar to them. Books are as a rule not allowed to circulate and their withdrawal for use in connection with other related works becomes difficult.
(3) Many valuable books of reference which cannot well be duplicated are placed beyond the reach of the majority of students and professors.
(4) It increases the liability to loss, because when there are many departmental libraries open many hours a day it becomes practically impossible to provide in all of them adequate supervision at all times.