The system of departmental control is very sure to create a feeling of departmental ownership, a feeling that the books, bought out of the moneys appropriated to a particular library, should remain permanently in that library, and that any one from outside who wishes to use the books is more or less of an intruder. Pin any one of these men down, and they will admit that the books are for the use of all, but the feeling exists, notwithstanding, and is the cause of constant friction.
The departmental library renders the books difficult of access. If the library is large enough to warrant the setting apart of a separate room for its use, this room can seldom be open for as large a portion of the day as the central library, and when it is open the books cannot be obtained as readily by the great body of the students as if they were in a central building. Most students are working in several lines at once. They are compelled, by this system, to go from one room to another, and to accommodate themselves to differing hours of opening and to varying rules for the use of the books. Then, too, it frequently happens in the case of small libraries that the books are kept in the office of the head of the department, and can only be consulted when he is in his office and at liberty. The difficulty is here greatly increased. I know of cases where even the instructors in the same department have found difficulty in getting at the books, and the library was, in effect, a private library for the head professor, supported out of university funds. If instructors cannot use the books, how can the student be expected to do so?
There is a sentiment, false, perhaps, but nevertheless existing in the minds of many students, that any attempt to use the books under these circumstances is an endeavor to curry favor with the professor. This feeling does not exist in connection with the use of the books at a central library.
If a book in a departmental library is needed by a student in another department, he must either go to the department and put the custodian to the inconvenience of looking it up for him, or he must wait at the central library while a messenger goes for the book. His need of the book must be very pressing before he will do either.
If the different fields of knowledge were sharply defined, the departmental system might be a practicable one, but such is not the case. The psychologist needs books bearing on philosophy, sociology, zoology and physics, the sociologist gathers his data from almost the whole field of human knowledge, the economist must use books on history and the historian books on economics. The system hampers him exceedingly in the selection and use of his material, or it compels the university to purchase a large body of duplicate material, and restricts, by so much, the growth of the real resources of the library.
The system, it seems to me, induces narrowness of vision and a sort of specialization which is anything but scientific. Trending in the same direction is the separation of the books, in any given field, into two categories. The undergraduate may need some such selection, but any student who has gone beyond the elements of his subject should have at his command the entire resources of the library. The needs of the elementary student can be met by direct reference to certain books, or by setting aside the volumes required as special reference books and allowing free access to them.
A large amount of our most valuable material is found in the publications of scientific and literary societies and in periodicals. In many cases these must be kept at the central library. They will be much more frequently read if the readers are using the central library and availing themselves of the information given in the catalog.
From the administrative point of view, there is nothing impossible in the organization of the departmental system, provided that finances of the library admit of the increased expenditure. As Mr. Bishop has pointed out in a recent number of the Library Journal, the element of cost seems to have been utterly left out of consideration in the recent discussions at the University of Chicago. It is possible that, with the immense resources of that institution, they may be able to ignore that factor, but most of us are compelled to reduce administrative expenditures to the lowest point consistent with good work.
Aside from the cost of the duplication of books already noted, necessitated by the division of the books among the different departments, there are the items of space and labor to be considered. It needs no argument to show that there is a great economy of space gained by the consolidation of all libraries, with the exceptions previously referred to, into one central building. An entire room is frequently given up to a departmental library of three or four hundred volumes, when a few extra shelves and possibly a slight increase in the seating capacity of the reading room would accommodate it in the central library. The cost of maintenance, of heating and of lighting is also undoubtedly greater under the departmental arrangement.
The greatest increase in expense is, however, in the item of service. In order properly to control a branch of this sort, an employe of the library must be in constant attendance. The duties and responsibilities of such a position are so small that only the lowest paid grade of service can be employed with economy. The amount necessary to pay the salaries of such persons could, with much greater advantage to the whole institution, be used for the employment of a few specialists, highly trained in different lines, who would act as reference librarians in their respective fields. Our American libraries are, as a class, compared with those of foreign universities, singularly deficient in this quality of assistance. Sooner or later we must supply this lack, and every move which tends in another direction must be examined with care.