I have stated that the bringing together of related departmental libraries under one roof and the thorough cataloging of all the books on the campus in the manner indicated above, will not furnish a satisfactory solution of our problems. This I believe can only come about through some exchange of books between departmental libraries which shall bring together, not necessarily all books on the same subject, but at any rate the bulk of the material which deals with a special phase of a subject, and the various volumes of a periodical, annual, or similar work which I trust all are agreed should stand together.
It resolves itself then into a question of reclassification or rather relocation of a part of the book resources of the university, and a partial surrender of the right on the part of the departments to determine absolutely the physical location of every book purchased on their recommendation. Personally, I feel rather hopeful that when the cataloging of a number of libraries has been completed and their resources brought together in a common catalog, the members of the various departments will see for themselves the advantage to all concerned of a partial redistribution.
In a small way the general library has inaugurated such redistribution by indirect purchase of general bibliographies and reference works from the departmental libraries, a sum equal to the cost of the work at the time of original purchase being transferred from the book appropriation of the general library to that of the department. Some of the departments have been most willing to agree to such transfers. If it can be put into effect in the libraries which are now to be brought under the same roof, i.e., the Humanities with the exception of Classics and Geography, it will go far toward the establishment of what it is hoped may prove a fairly efficient central library. The centralization of catalogs and reference books alone would in time make it desirable for the departments more and more to consult the general library. A real consolidation of the resources of the Historical Group, Modern Languages and Literatures, Religion and Theology with the present general library will, it is hoped, prove to be even more effective.
I have already stated that Geography would remain outside of this consolidation and probably also the Classical department, in spite of the fact that the latter is soon to occupy a building connecting with the general library. It is hoped that in both cases arrangements can in time be devised which, while satisfactory to the departments, shall prove effective in checking the almost unrestricted duplication of material in other libraries which now obtains.
It is true that ten years ago other departments of the Humanities also held that while related libraries might to good advantage be brought under one roof, there should be no merging of their possessions. Considering, however, the lack of co-ordination in the development of the same libraries, the overlapping and intertwining of their respective fields, it is difficult to believe that this view can prevail for any length of time.
I have endeavored in the above notes to show that the departmental problem is practically the same in various countries. In Italy, Germany, and Austria as well as in America the development of departmental collections to a point where they have become a perplexing and troublesome problem to government and university authorities is due primarily to the inability of the general university library to provide books and conveniences desired by the departments. Neither a union catalog nor the most exhaustive duplication of books, service, and equipment has so far served to offset the weakening of the central library which has been an inevitable result of the rapid growth of departmental collections.
Possibly Mr. L. N. Wilson of Clark university may have pointed out a partial solution to some of our perplexities. He states that at Clark university not only is the drafting of the classification schedules attended to by the professors, but also the actual classification of the books. Where the faculty is willing to undertake these duties the librarian is naturally relieved of a great and difficult responsibility. While the plan has evidently worked out in a satisfactory manner at Clark, it would seem a difficult or even impossible expedient for certain other universities, particularly the largest ones. There would be difficulty in securing the necessary volunteer service. Then the librarian would no doubt have to exercise infinite tact in his efforts to co-ordinate and harmonize the work of so many volunteer classifiers. That some coordinating influence would be required we may take for granted. Personally, I see little relief in the direction here indicated. As for the University of Chicago, I imagine that we are, in common with most university libraries destined to have the departmental problem with us in some form or other as long as there are collections of books to be administered in connection with departments and courses of instruction. We shall watch with great interest the development of the plans of sister universities, a number of which are said to contemplate the strengthening and extension of at least a part of their departmental collections.
I may say in conclusion that judging by observations at Chicago I should be disposed to agree entirely with Dr. Gerhard of Halle, and others of our German colleagues, when they state that there can be no objection to the building up of strong departmental libraries, provided this can be achieved without crippling the general library. But where the departmental libraries are developed at the expense of the general library, and where willingness to co-operate, or to observe the most necessary restrictions as regards the fields to be covered is lacking, there the interest of the great majority both of faculty and students are made to suffer for the convenience of the few, a convenience which is, besides, in many cases only imaginary, and based on a lack of knowledge and appreciation of the possibilities of a general library, and no doubt also of the limitations of departmental libraries. As previously stated, the general library is the one department common to the whole university, the department which should have no ax to grind, and which under normal conditions might, therefore, be trusted to preserve an impartial attitude and to safeguard the interests of all departments alike without fear or favor.
In closing this paper it is difficult to refrain from expressing the opinion that whatever the policy adopted with reference to its library system, a university owes it to its constituency to see that a strong and well balanced general library constitutes an integral part of the scheme. The establishment of the latter should, when possible, take precedence over that of large departmental collections. When it becomes necessary to organize the latter, they should be considered distinctly a part of the general library and be placed under its control. A partial or nominal control on the part of the general library is not likely to prove effective or to furnish the best possible service for the greatest possible number.
Dr. W. K. JEWETT then presented a paper on