The radical measures recommended by Dr. Gerhard and others were not approved by Dr. Naetebus, especially on account of the ability of departmental libraries to secure gifts and exchanges not within the reach of the university library.
Since this discussion took place I understand that the book funds of the Prussian university libraries have been materially increased, thus somewhat relieving the situation. After this brief survey of the conditions existing in certain European universities it may be of interest to turn to one of the two American universities in which the building up of departmental collections has preceded the development of a strong general library.
Departmental Libraries at the University of Chicago
The extraordinary development of the departmental library system at the University of Chicago is due largely to a number of causes and conditions, many of them accidental and peculiar to the university. The main reason was probably the lack of a general library worthy of the name; also the fact that some of the strongest men on the faculty favored the departmental system.
In the president's report (Decennial Publications, first series, 1903, vol. 1, p. 266-290) is found an "Outline history of the legislation of university bodies on the question of departmental libraries and their relation to the general library." The first sentence reads: "The system of departmental libraries for research work, supplementing the general library of the university, dates from the organization of the university itself." This would indicate that the departmental libraries were considered supplementary to the general library. However this may have been at the outset, later developments show that the general library has been so entirely outstripped and overshadowed by the departmental collections that in 1910, at any rate, when the writer had his first opportunity to observe conditions at close hand, the general library was found to consist of some 75,000 volumes of odds and ends, a mere conglomerate which would have been of little service, except for the fact that it was the only collection on the campus from which books could be drawn somewhat freely and to which undergraduates had general access. Appropriations for books amounted to $25,265, of which the general library had only $1550; the departmental libraries, $23,715. (See above, Dr. Gerhart's complaint about the situation at Halle, 31,000 marks for the general library, 31,000 for the departments).
While the original plan had no doubt intended that departments should abstain from ordering books of interest to several departments, that books of general interest therefore should be purchased only by the general library, the latter was unfortunately prevented by lack of funds and equipment from meeting these demands, the inevitable result being that the departments soon ceased to look to the general library and ordered for their own use any book to which a professor might have occasion to refer in his courses, regardless of whether it was in the general library or in another departmental library. Whether in placing orders he was intruding on the domains of a related department may or may not have been considered. At any rate books on exactly the same subject are now found in a number of departmental libraries, editions of the same book are separated and there is duplication of copies to an extent hitherto unheard of, as far as I know, in any university library.
That the president and faculty have been aware of the situation and have tried to find a solution, of that there is evidence enough.
Mr. Bishop in his articles in the Library journal, vol. 28, has given a survey of the discussion which took place at the University of Chicago in 1898-1901. A full report is found in the Decennial Publications, first series vol. 1 quoted above, and in the University record vol. 5. It has been referred to also by Mr. Henry E. Bliss in his recent article in the Educational review, April 1912.
The solution attempted, perhaps the only one possible at the time, consisted in a grouping of related departmental collections. The following group libraries were formally approved by the library board in 1899: Classical, Modern Languages, and Historical. In 1900 the university senate approved the general plan that all departments having laboratories should retain their libraries in the same building with the laboratory, those not having laboratories should as a rule be transferred to the general library building when one was erected. I have already referred to the briefs presented by Dr. Burton and Dr. Judson in October, 1900, on the proposition that a limit should be put in the near future to the development of the departmental library system. The University Congress after discussing them adopted two resolutions: (1) That it is the judgment of this body that the departmental library system should be retained. (2) That a committee of three for each of the several groups of departments recognized by the Board of libraries, laboratories and museums be appointed, the committee to consider and to recommend, respecting the group represented, what is best for it and the university in general. The report of this committee appeared in the University record Nov. 9 and 16, 1900. These reports from the different groups and departments are of interest in showing the sentiment in the various departments of the teaching body. They were briefly as follows: Of the Classical Department five favored the departmental system, two a general library. The Modern Language group was unanimous in favor of centralization. The Haskell group (Divinity School, Semitics, and Comparative Religion) proposed the maintenance of branch libraries of books likely to be in constant use by students in connection with the ordinary class work to be kept in the lecture hall building, that no books should be permanently assigned to these branch libraries of which there was not another copy in the general library. The Historical group held to the departmental library system, but was not so particular about the control of the libraries. Like the Divinity School, it preferred locating the departmental collection in one building with the general library and related departmental libraries. The Philosophical group recognized the great value of location of related departments in the same building, but held strongly to departmental control of the library and free access of students to books in which they are interested. If these two things could be granted, they would advocate a single building for all departments. The Mathematical group was non-committal, it emphasized however that Astronomy and Mathematics must be kept together and that books in these libraries are used almost exclusively by students of the two departments named.[11] The Biology group recommended that upon erection of a suitable library building a separate room be assigned to the Biology library. That arrangements be made for telephone communication and speedy transfer of books to laboratories, that special books and periodicals needed by the department for constant use be kept in each laboratory building as a branch of the departmental library, that books in such branch libraries be rendered easily accessible at all hours, and that provision for adequate supervision of these branch libraries be considered an indispensable preliminary to their establishment. The Chemical group wished the Chemical library to be retained in Kent Chemical Laboratory, but preferred to see the proceedings of academies and journals of general scientific interest kept in the general library, also that a reference shelf containing books of interest to those who are taking undergraduate work in chemistry be maintained in the general reading room of the general library, and that special books needed for consultation in connection with laboratory work be kept in the laboratory. Physics considered the departmental library as indispensable to the department. The Geology group reported most unqualifiedly in favor of departmental or group libraries that should embrace essentially all the literature pertaining to the group so far as practical considerations would permit. The full statement of this group deserves to be read. It is a most emphatic defense of the departmental system. The statement of the Modern Language group and of Professor Hendrickson of the Classical group contain the strongest statements on the other side of the question.
[11] NOTE—Later on Mathematics decided that their library must be kept in the Mathematical building.