The College and Reference Section of the American Library Association was called to order in the parlors of the Fountain Spring House at 2.40 p.m. on July 6, Mr. W. I. Fletcher being in the chair.
The program was opened by an address by the chairman on
SOME 20TH CENTURY LIBRARY PROBLEMS.
The 20th century is undoubtedly something of a fad already with public speakers. I should hesitate to speak of 20th century problems in library work were there not a special justification for noting chronologic epochs in connection with the modern library movement. It was almost precisely at the middle of the century that this movement took its rise in the passage of the first public library laws in England and in New England. And again it was at the very middle of the last half century, in the year 1876, that this Association was formed and the Library Journal started. (I may be excused for merely alluding to the fact, parenthetically, that Melvil Dewey graduated from Amherst College in 1874.) And now at the very beginning of the new century the library movement receives an enormous impetus from the benefactions of Andrew Carnegie, not only in themselves multiplying and increasing libraries, but serving as a great stimulus to towns and cities and states as well as to individuals, so that his indirect contribution to the cause of libraries will probably far outweigh his direct gifts, princely as they are.
The library problems of the 20th century sum themselves up in one, the problem of expansion, and we may perhaps best regard them from the point of view of the obstacles to expansion, these obstacles constituting the problems.
First, we must notice our library buildings, and admit that many of them, and most of the ideas heretofore cherished about the building of libraries, present such an obstacle. When we note that since the plans were drawn on which nearly all of our most recent large library buildings have been erected, three new ideas in library administration have come into general acceptance which must powerfully affect library construction, we can but feel that great foresight and wisdom are needed to erect libraries that shall not very soon be obstacles to proper and necessary expansion. These three new ideas are, first, access of readers to the bookshelves; second, children's rooms, and third, the distribution of books through schools, branches, delivery stations, home libraries, and inter-library loans, this third new idea involving provision for business offices, packing rooms, etc., unthought of formerly. To meet not simply these new ideas, but others with which the new century is pregnant, care must be taken that great sums of money, leaving the securing of more for a long time hopeless, are not expended on structures in which instead of provision for expansion we seem to have provision against it.
Another obstacle to expansion is found in elaborate systems of shelf-marks connected with systematic schemes of classification, representing carefully arranged subordination and co-ordination of the parts. For two things are certain: first, accepted classifications of books rapidly become obsolete, and second, no library will long be content with an out-of-date arrangement. Especially will my successor, or yours, be sure to feel the necessity of signalizing his accession to office by introducing what is in his day the latest classification. And in this he will be right. Now, if we have a fair sense of our duty to our successor, which is merely an extension forward of our duty to the library itself, we shall be unwilling to tie the library by an intricate notation to a present system of classification. I think we must take more pains than is done by either the Decimal or Expansive schemes to provide a somewhat elastic notation. I regard the classification of the University of California Library as the best (available in print) for libraries of our class, because it employs designations which indicate mere sequence of classes. A little thought will, I am sure, show you how this is true. At any rate, a little experience in attempting more or less reclassification with, for example, the Decimal classification, will prepare you to believe that a less highly involved and articulated method of designation would be in the interest of reasonable expansion, and save such expansion from the odium of upsetting the classification. Through the logic of events forcing those considerations to the front more and more, I anticipate that the larger and rapidly growing libraries will increasingly shun all such systems as the "D. C." and the "E. C.," of which the paradox is certainly true, that the better they are made the worse they become. The scheme of numbering classes recently adopted by Princeton University Library points in this direction, while the reclassification of Harvard University Library, which has been slowly carried forward during the last 20 years or more, represents a complete departure from the idea of any correlation between classes, as indicated in the notation, the order of minor divisions being a numerical sequence easily changed or modified, while each main class bears a mark suggesting no relation to another. For example, the military and naval sciences have lately been reclassified and brought under the designation War, which may be called (to represent a certain harmony with other designations) W-a-r. The location of any main class in the library is subject to change at any time, and is known to the attendants by a chart, which may be somewhat altered to-day, and replaced by a new one with large differences to-morrow or next year. Not that such changes would be made except for real occasion, but under this system, when they are necessary they are not deferred or regarded as hopeless as they must be under any highly organized system.
Another obstacle to expansion closely related to elaborate methods of notation is found in the common practice of inserting the call-numbers in catalogs of all kinds, written or printed. When the Boston Public Library was moved into the new building it was naturally supposed that it would be completely rearranged to suit its ampler and entirely different shelf-room, particularly as much fault had already been found with its existing classification, which seemed quite outgrown. But when it is observed how the library was tied to its old numbering by an endless variety of catalogs, printed as well as written, it ceases to seem strange that it was thought best to transfer the old arrangement to the new building, with all its infelicities heightened by its new location and surroundings. And in this respect that library should serve as a warning to others to avoid, by any available means, such an entanglement. If it be asked what means of avoiding it are available, I would say that I am inclined to think that if I were starting with a new library I would try the experiment of putting no shelf-numbers or call-marks in any catalog, but rather have a key by which they could be found by means of the accession numbers which alone would be given in the author-catalog.
I can only refer hastily to one feature of library expansion which is coming in with the new century, and which has to do with the catalog. I mean the introduction of printed cards, and would say that I look to see these work a revolution in library methods. If we can procure at low cost an indefinite number of these cards for each book we shall come to use them in many ways, as, for example, the accession record, the shelf list, bulletins and special lists, and charging cards. For the latter purpose they would have the advantage of absolutely identifying the book.
I am sure I have said enough to set you thinking, and I hope when time is given for discussion you will freely express your thoughts.