BOOK REVIEWS, BOOK LISTS, AND ARTICLES ON CHILDREN'S READING: ARE THEY OF PRACTICAL VALUE TO THE CHILDREN'S LIBRARIAN? (continued 5)

These are, first, the open-shelf system; second, minute classification and alphabetical arrangement in classes, and third, book-card charging systems. Without enlarging upon these points, I would like to suggest them to you as worthy of consideration.

Mr. Hodges described briefly the classification of the scientific books at Harvard. First, the serial publications of the broad learned societies, the societies taking cognizance of all branches of learning, are brought together arranged alphabetically by country and city. Secondly, the general scientific serials and the special scientific serials, however published, are arranged in a group; the general coming first, the others following according to subject, astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural history, zoology, botany, etc. When suggesting the separation of the serials in pure science from the handbooks at the very outset of his work at Harvard, Mr. Hodges urged that the serials constitute a record literature to which the investigator must refer when carrying on original work, while the handbooks are used by the pedagog when preparing for his classwork. The general designation for the learned society group is L. Soc.; for the scientific serials, Sci. The handbooks on physics are in a group designated Phys.; the general treatises by Phys. 357-360. A treatise published in 1892 is marked Phys. 358-92; another of the same year, by Phys. 358.92.3.

Mr. Root said: It may possibly have interest in this connection to note that the catalog of the University of Göttingen, which was established about 1750, has the feature which has been mentioned here as characteristic of the Harvard system. The books are grouped in large classes with an abbreviated heading, with minute sub-classification. Just when this system was introduced I do not know, but I suppose it to have been in use a hundred years or so, which I judge to be a longer life than Mr. Fletcher is willing to allow to the D. C.

Interesting remarks were made by several others, notably Mr. Andrews, Dr. Steiner and Dr. Canfield. It is to be regretted that the revision of their remarks has not been received in time for publication.

Olive Jones, Secretary.

CATALOG SECTION.

The Catalog Section of the American Library Association held two meetings in connection with the Waukesha conference.

FIRST SESSION.

The first session was held in one of the parlors of the Fountain Spring House, on the afternoon of Tuesday, July 9. The chairman, Anderson H. Hopkins, called the meeting to order.

It was Voted, That the section waive the formality of registration of members preliminary to voting.

It was Voted, That the chairman appoint a nominating committee of three, to report at the close of the session. This committee was appointed as follows: Miss Sula Wagner, Mr. Jones, Mr. Roden.

A. H. Hopkins: When the round table session on this subject was held last year its object was, of course, to find out whether there was a demand for a section of this kind. We found it out pretty soon. Now we have the section. Then came the question, when I was asked to assume the chairmanship for one more year, of how it might best be occupied. It seemed to me for a time that perhaps the best plan would be to go to the opposite extreme—from having been informal last year—and have set papers, especially as the Association had decided not to take stenographic reports of the meetings. However, a change came about in my views when the interstate meeting was called at Atlantic City last March. A meeting was held there of the Publishing Board's committee on rules for a printed card catalog. The members of that committee were at that time all of the opinion that no better plan could be followed for this year's meeting of the Catalog Section than to have another discussion similar to that of last year, but confining the talk chiefly to knotty points which they met in the course of their work. That has been done; but there have been added a few questions which have come to your chairman in the course of the year from persons interested in the section.

The Publishing Board, in taking up the task of producing printed cards, found that widely divergent practices must be shaped so that they would work together. To this end they appointed a committee of seven and set them the task of producing harmony among the jarring elements of practice in all the libraries of this country, barring none. The head of the catalog department of the Library of Congress was made chairman of this committee; and, as you know, this great library and its chief, to whom we all turn so gladly, are lending their cordial support to the project, and realization now seems near at hand.

Now what do we want? We want an arrangement whereby any one may be able at a reasonable cost to get accurately made and well printed cards for any book at any time. This and nothing else will do. (Applause.)

The members of the Committee on Rules thought this session could not be better occupied, as I said before, than in a discussion of certain points, met by them in their attempts to produce a workable scheme which would meet adequate support, it having at that time become evident that the enthusiasm so manifest at Montreal had largely evaporated; probably because it had not been made clear that the proposed plan was really a workable scheme. Some of these points the chairman of the committee and myself have selected and graded roughly into three classes, and I will lay some of these before you.

One of the chief troubles is going to lie between the 32 and 33 size cards. Let us hear from you on this subject, if you have anything you wish to say about it.

Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps those present may be interested to know something about the 32 and 33 card from the point of view of the Publishing Board. The Publishing Board has been supplying the 32 or 33 size card as required by subscribers for cards for current books. I cannot speak authoritatively, but I think the board is nearly prepared to say that in future, if these cards are prepared at the Library of Congress and distributed from there, it will be found very much the wisest plan from the beginning to use only the 33 size. It has not been declared impossible at the Library of Congress to print the cards in such shape that enough could be cut off to make the card a 32 card; neither has it been decided by the board that it is not worth while to try earnestly to bring that about; but the present impression, I think, is that the 32 size will have to be left aside in the co-operative work. If there is a strong sentiment here to retain the 32 size card, let us hear of it now.

Mr. Bowker: Couldn't Mr. Hanson, of the Library of Congress, give us a report on the letters they received there in regard to the size of cards used? And let me emphasize this thought, that in coming to a uniform system we must approach as near uniformity as possible. It is impossible to meet all the variances of cards in the several libraries, but we must look towards drawing all the using libraries into as close uniformity as possible. And I think the prevailing practice is shown best by the statistics which I believe Mr. Hanson has with him.

Mr. Hanson: The statistics Mr. Bowker refers to I have not with me. As I recall the figures there are something like 19 out of 100 that use the 32 card.

Mr. Andrews: I have Mr. Putnam's figures. I was astonished to find the percentage that were using the larger card. Out of 185 reporting 138 used the 33 card, 38 used the 32 card and only 19 (true those 19 are the older, better established and larger libraries) used odd sizes.

I will take occasion to ask Mr. Hanson to answer another question on this point. I had an interview in his company last winter with the representative of the Harvard Library, which uses the smaller card. We then came to a satisfactory compromise, and I am surprised to hear Mr. Fletcher say it is all in the air. It was understood that the Library of Congress wanted for its subject headings, and we wanted for our subject headings, a sufficient amount of space, and that they were not willing to print below the punched hole. That leaves exactly the width of the 32 card in the center of the 33. And the proposition agreed to by all of us in this conversation was to print the 33 card with the broad margin above and never go below the hole, so any library that wanted to could buy the cards and cut them down on both top and bottom and have a 32 card. It was understood to be satisfactory to all the 32 users that I consulted, including Harvard, the largest, I believe, of them all. It is that point that I would like to ask Mr. Hanson to report on—whether he now feels that he must go higher or lower than the lines we then indicated.

Mr. Hanson: I don't feel it absolutely necessary; in fact we are following out the measurements laid down by the Publishing Board now. I have in my hand two cards—the title runs over on the second card at considerable waste of space, as you can see. But the printers have their measurements which provide for cutting away the space above and below to accommodate the 32 card. But I believe it is going to be objectionable, in the end, when it runs over on the second card. That is the only objection I can see.

Mr. Fletcher: I should like to have Mr. Andrews state whether this card, if it has to be cut down at the top as well as at the bottom, will allow room for headings?

Miss Browne: Instead of having to print a second card I don't see why we can't print the 33 card; then if the 32 card libraries want it in their catalog why can't they transcribe the extra line or so by hand on a second card and cut off the bottom. In nine cases out of 10 it would not make any difference. In one case in 10 where they would have to transcribe on the second card, is there any reason why it could not be done?

Miss Doren: I am not a user of the 32 card. The only objection I see, if I were to use it, would be that perhaps I should have to pay a little more for my card than those that use the 33 card, and it would make the catalog a little more bulky.

Mr. Andrews: Talking with Miss Crawford it was evident that the Dayton library wanted a broad margin for analyticals and headings above the print in the 33 card. That is exactly what we want. We don't want it as much as they do, but I want to emphasize the necessity for a broad top margin. That is the point which makes it desirable for 33 people as well as for 32.

Miss Doren: I did not understand the question as referring to analytical headings. We do want those above all things, and if we are to use the card at all we need the broad margin at the top. Our use of the card depends upon having a broad margin at the top.

Mr. Bowker: I should like a show of hands on this point. Are those present, whether 33-card or 32-card people, of the opinion that, after dropping the heading so as to leave ample room at the top to permit the 32 card to be cut out from the 33 card, as stated by Mr. Andrews, it would be better to run the type down farther than the hole, if necessary, on either side, and then cut and recopy for the 32 size, or to make a double card both for the 33 and 32 size?

I suggest that the show of hands be first from those who prefer to have one card furnished for a title when possible, and then to transcribe the lower part, if necessary, for the 32 card; and then from those who prefer to have a second card wherever it is not possible to put the material on the space of the 32 card as printed on the 33 size. Is that clear?

Chairman: I believe so. It includes, however, both the users of the 32 and 33 cards, and instead of a show of hands let us have a rising vote, and give time to count them.

Mr. Bowker: Those who are in favor of printing below the 32-card limit on the 33 card, rather than furnishing two cards to a title, please rise. 56 persons rose.

Mr. Bowker: Those who are in favor of confining the print to the 32 size and having a second overflow card printed for the same title, please rise. 17 persons rose.

Mr. Fletcher: I should like to call for a rising vote to learn how many would like to urge that arrangements be made by which 32-size cards can be furnished. Three persons rose.

Mr. Hanson: I cannot think of any library printing cards that would care to print any lower than the round hole. On the other hand, the library must have three-quarters of an inch at the top of the card for headings. Will that leave sufficient space for taking away from top and bottom?

Mr. Andrews: They accepted it by that first vote.

Mr. Hanson: Then they must punch the hole in the margin.

Chairman: Or lose the part they punch out. If you will excuse me, I will put forth a little argument of my own.

Apropos of another report I had to make some time ago, I had heard that the greatest library in this country, certainly in some respects, was changing its plan to accommodate itself to the 33 card. I wrote to Mr. Whitney, of the Boston Public Library, which as you know uses a card larger than the 33, and it is a fact that with their immense catalog running for so many years, and with so large a number of cards which they cannot now cut down to the 33 size, they have found it advisable so to modify their plan for titles henceforth that the cards may be cut down to the 33 size on reprinting the old titles. Here is the letter, the report from his cataloger. [Mr. Hopkins here read the letter.] If they do not think it likely that ultimately they will use the 33 card why should they take all that trouble? Now, the problem they had to deal with was 10 times more difficult than that which the users of the 32 cards have to deal with. All you have to do with a 32 card to make it a 33 size is to paste it on something big enough and provide space to hold it. With such evidence as this before us why should we fret ourselves to provide a 32 card when the change to the 33 can be so easily and so cheaply made?

Mr. Bowker: May I add a word which Dr. Billings said to me? He said that he preferred a printed catalog card to a written catalog card any time, without reference to any question of uniformity. So he was actually replacing his written catalog cards with the Library of Congress cards or Library Bureau cards. I think that there is growing in the great libraries a desire for some general method which will supply printed catalog cards.

Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this topic? If not we will pass to the next.

Notes and Contents. I read from the official report made by the Committee on Rules to the Publishing Board: "The position of the collation and series note to be on a separate line immediately after the date and preceding other notes." Now we cannot take up the whole question of notes, nor the question of the minority report which Mr. Hopkins was asked to submit; but the question I would submit to you is this: Is not the contents note really, logically, sensibly, a part of the title? Is it not actually, in almost nine cases out of ten, more important than the title itself? If it were not, would it not be nonsense to print the contents note? If it is so, why separate the contents note from the title by other relatively unimportant matter? Has anybody anything to say?

Mr. Hanson: It seems to me it would be well to say here, collation is used for pagination, illustrations, maps, plates, etc., and size. That is the imprint, as we have for convenience's sake called collation; and the idea is that this information is to be paragraphed, on a separate line, so as to set out the date and make the date end the line in twelve point.

Mr. Biscoe: I want to say a word on the other side. It seems to me that it would be unfortunate to put the collation after the contents, particularly where the contents are long. It would throw the collation on the second card. To find out whether you had more than one volume you would have to turn to another card. If you are looking for duplicates you want to see at once not only the author of the book, but also the number of pages, to show whether the edition is the same. And if for all those purposes you have got to turn to a second card, it seems to me it would be unfortunate.

Mr. Jones: I agree strongly with Mr. Biscoe. I think the number of volumes, size, etc., range in properly with the date, while the contents should come afterward and range in with such matter as critical or descriptive notes. Ordinarily you want those parts that I speak of first, then your contents, like any other kind of descriptive or explanatory notes.

Chairman: Mr. Biscoe's position appears at first sight very solid and plausible but there is nothing in it. The reason for this is that there is only a small class of books that will call for a contents note. I deprecate mentioning any institution, particularly The John Crerar Library, but that calls for contents notes probably as often as any, and I should like our cataloger to answer if he knows about how many cases run over on the second card.

Mr. Josephson: We have printed so far about 25,000 cards and the number of titles that run over to second cards is considerably below 1000; it is nearer 500 than 1000.

Mr. Jones: I should like to ask the chairman whether in foreign bibliographies we do not find that the data, as to volumes, size, etc.—called the collation—always come first. Should not we be setting ourselves up in opposition to other catalogers if we put the collation after the contents?

Chairman: Possibly that it so; but if we gain a truth, what then? Tradition is powerful, but it is not all. Sometimes it is very little indeed. And this is one of the cases in which I believe it is very little.

Mr. Fletcher: I hold in my hand one of the sample cards which have been distributed, which has this arrangement. That represents what we now call the old practice, which we are proposing to depart from—Cutter's Rules say that the imprint, strictly, is place, date and form of printing; and then goes on to say that for practical purposes the imprint is considered as being enlarged so as to contain not only place, date and form of printing, but also publisher, number of pages and number of volumes. It seems to have been agreed some time ago by the Committee on Rules and the Publishing Board that it was wise to bring back the imprint to the old idea of giving the place, date and form of printing and publisher. It was also pretty generally agreed that form—or size as we now call it—number of pages and number of volumes, and anything else that might describe the book from an exterior point of view, should be called collation—we have not exactly agreed it should be called that—and that this should be put in a statement by itself in smaller type, after the title and imprint, the imprint being printed in the same type as the title and even completing the line the title ends on. Now the question is whether that line of smaller type should be printed immediately after the title and imprint or whether it should follow contents; that is to say, whether contents (called "contents" and not "contents note") should not be attached immediately to the title—which is Mr. Hopkins's idea, I understand, as he thinks logically it belongs there. The card I have in my hand has contents occupying four lines, because while it is one volume it contains four different lectures. That brings before us the "contents note" and the other notes. Now I understand the new proposition is that the collation should follow the contents note, but precede other notes.

Chairman: The thing I want is that the contents note should follow the title. I called it "contents note" merely because it appeared in the smaller type with the other note.

Mr. Fletcher: I wish to express my preference in accord with Mr. Jones and one or two others, that the collation note should continue to occupy the place it has always occupied, of immediate juxtaposition with the imprint, and other notes should go below.

Chairman: In explanation, permit me to take the floor again——

Mr. Bowker: Has not the officer of The John Crerar Library given the best argument for placing the collation before the contents? Mr. Josephson has told us that probably the number of cards including contents would be less than three per cent. Why should we not follow the old practice and let the cataloger and the public continue to use the usual thing?

Mr. Josephson: I did not say how many cards give contents notes, but how many titles need more than one card.

Chairman: That is the strong point. It is not three per cent. nor anywhere near it. Those cards that ran over were not all contents notes. The actual number of contents notes that run over is very small indeed. And moreover, you have this bibliographical note on every card. You are going to put it between the contents note and the title every time.

Mr. Harris: I would like to ask what proportion of cards have contents notes at all.

Mr. Josephson: I don't think I can answer that. It is between ten and twenty-five per cent.

Mr. Harris: The point I was about to make was that I think it is well to sacrifice something for the sake of uniformity, for the aid of persons who consult the catalog; and as Mr. Josephson says only fifteen to twenty-five per cent. of the cards have contents notes, in seventy-five per cent. the collation would immediately follow the title. And therefore it seems to me it is desirable not to have the contents note follow the title.

A show of hands was called for.

Chairman: Before we have the show of hands, may I say one thing more? I don't believe that most of you that have not been using these cards know how useful the contents note is or what it is for. It is to furnish your analyticals. If you want to analyze a volume of essays, for example, your contents note does it all for you with just a little bit of clerical work when the cards come in. You have fifty items that you would like to represent in your catalog, and the card does it all for you. It is costing you one to three cents instead of fifty or sixty cents.

Mr. L. P. Lane: I have learned a good deal since I have been in the Boston Public Library by observing the practices which that library has departed from. I know the library did in times past print contents and have an entry designed to fit one particular item of contents and then underline that item on the card. That has been found so unsatisfactory that when we now recatalog anything and deem any item of contents worthy a separate entry we catalog that item separately and print a second card.

Mr. Andrews: If the Library of Congress will do this we do not care for many contents notes. I didn't understand the Library of Congress proposed to print analyticals, but rather to print contents notes; that they, and most of the libraries that print cards, found their economy on this point. But it is really the Library of Congress that must be consulted as to the desirability of many contents notes.

Mr. Hanson: That has been one of the perplexing questions with us in printing cards. We do use the contents as analyticals to some extent, underscoring the particular item on the heading given. But where an analytical is what we catalogers call an imprint analytical, that is, with separate title and pagination, we find it more economical to print a separate card for that title. In other cases and where we find it very inconvenient to use the contents card, we print analyticals.

Chairman: My own opinion is that it is best to put the collation at the end. It is easiest found there. The thing I want to see is to have it go below the contents. I want to say one thing more. The reason you think more than one per cent. consult the note is because you are librarians. Take your popular libraries, and they deserve to be considered, how many readers are going to look for that note?

Miss Crawford: I am somewhat undecided in mind between the two standpoints. It seems to me that the contents, from the nature of the case and from the accessibility of the catalog, belongs rather at the top. I believe you are right when you say that ninety per cent. would use the contents first, rather than the bibliographical note. But the critical notes and any other general information should come right next to the contents.

Mr. Jones: I wish to repeat that "collation" is a bibliographical description of the book; if you want to describe a book or to order from a bookseller you turn to that data. Collation, it seems to me, comes naturally after the title, and I still hold that to separate it from the title is not in accord with the general bibliographical practice of the world.

Chairman: As many as are in favor of placing contents note immediately following the title, please rise. Three persons rose.

Chairman: As many as are in favor of placing contents note after collation, please rise. 52 persons rose.

Chairman: The next question is a recommendation from the committee: "That a column be set aside in the Library Journal for notifications to libraries of decisions on doubtful points; e. g., 'Kate Douglass Wiggin should not be changed to Riggs; or, Automobiles should be classified ...'"

In other words, that a kind of department be created, when the Central Bureau is created, for giving librarians throughout the country a notion of how these matters are to be treated. What is the opinion? Is there any discussion? If not we will go on to the next point.

A member: No discussion means that we agree to it, I understand.

Chairman: I suppose so. If it doesn't you should say so quickly.

A member: Does this recommendation say Journal or journals?

Chairman: Journal is the word used. The Library Journal is the official organ of the A. L. A. Probably if the committee had gone beyond that it would have been exceeding its province.

"The committee earnestly recommends that the practice of giving dates of birth and death be used extensively. It is convinced that a very large share of the work has already been done and may be easily obtained for the use of the Central Bureau. Expressions from various members of the committee have shown a great readiness to assist in this."

Mr. Merrill: I would like to inquire whether that means that dates shall be given only to distinguish men of the same name or whether they shall be used in every case.

Chairman: It is not designed that the use of dates be intended only for distinguishing writers, but it is urged that dates be given extensively.

Mr. Bowker: Doesn't that mean that the dates should be used where the authors are not of the same names?

Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Bowker: In the case of living authors, is it intended to give date of birth if possible?

Chairman: Yes.

Miss Browne: At the Boston Athenæum for years they have been giving those dates on their cards, and now they are scratching them off.

Mr. Bowker: Does anybody know why?

Miss Browne: I believe they consider they are not as desirable as a means of distinction as some phrase might be, and so they scratch off the date and give, for instance, "Henry James, Novelist; Emerson, Essayist."

Miss Wagner: How would they classify William Morris?

A member: Or Andrew Lang?

Chairman: The next question is the following recommendation of the committee: "The committee recommends that the Central Bureau prepare a biographical card giving the fullest form of name, dates, official and honorary titles and degrees, membership of academies, etc., and all forms of names and pseudonyms used."

Mr. Fletcher: I suppose the idea is to prepare a biographical card for each author for whom any card is issued. I don't know exactly how it should be worked. I want to call your attention to the fact that the Advocates' Library of Edinburgh tried this in preparing the first two volumes of their catalog; and when they got the two volumes printed they concluded it was too expensive, and gave it up. I wonder how many libraries would advocate that the Library of Congress shall furnish us cards, not only for the books, but whenever an author comes for whom they have not furnished such a card that they shall furnish us a biographical card, which we shall pay for? I do not understand that the Library of Congress is preparing such a card now. It may be worthy of discussion whether we want such a card prepared.

Miss Ambrose: It seems to me a card of that kind would be extremely helpful in smaller libraries that are limited in biographical books.

Mr. Jones: I would suggest that in the case of authors for whom we most need those facts, new authors, the facts would not be available. Could we have a copyright note by which each author should furnish the desired facts?

Chairman: Mr. Hanson could answer that, perhaps.

Mr. Hanson: I have familiarity with copyright authors that many librarians do not meet with, but whom we must have information about to distinguish from other well-known authors of the same name. We have a method of getting at them through the copyright records, and we write them, sending a blank, and occasionally ask them to give information of their other works. That is put on a preliminary card, and before every new author such a biographical card is inserted. I believe this is an old practice, used in many libraries.

Mr. Bowker: The Publishing Board would like a show of hands on how many libraries would like such a biographical card. At first sight this struck me as a most valuable suggestion. It would, of course, cost the extra half cent or cent—whatever it might be—for the card; on the other hand, it might be of great value to the reader. I suggest that we have a show of hands, not pro and con—simply pro.

Miss Van Valkenburgh: I am especially interested in this, because we tried such a card in our library. We thought an information card was going to be a desirable thing. We tried it for about two years, and we found it was very little used indeed for biographical purposes. People wanted more information than we could give on a biographical card. Of course it is very desirable to differentiate authors of the same name.

Miss Ambrose: Have those cards a distinct purpose, as of assisting the catalogers aside from the public?

Miss Van Valkenburgh: From the standpoint of a cataloger who has done it, we didn't find it useful to us. It was more work than help.

Mr. Brett: Wouldn't it be more valuable to the small library than to the larger library? A great many of the smaller libraries haven't time to look up authors. It seems to me it would be of value in our library.

Mr. Andrews: I think those cards would be of use not only to small libraries, but to readers in larger libraries. I do not say, though, that I think it was the purpose to print a card for every author. If the heading used on the Library of Congress card gave all the information desirable, I don't see any use of printing it again. I hope the proposition will be put in three forms: Those who want such a card for every author; those who only want a distinctive card in cases where distinction is desired; and those who do not care for such a card at all.

Chairman: As many as favor such a card for general use, please rise. 16 persons rose.

Chairman: As many as favor such a card for distinctive purposes only, please rise.

Miss Van Valkenburgh: If we are going to have the same material on the other cards we won't need it here.

One person rose.

Chairman: As many as do not care for such a card at all, please rise. None voted.

Chairman: We have still another of these topics: "The committee recommends as strongly as it can the importance of placing the subject headings and classification numbers (D.C. and E.C.) on the bottom of the card."

Miss Browne: These subject headings are simply suggestive. If any cataloger has already started with, for example, "Birds" instead of "Ornithology," he can simply go on as he has begun. The same way with the D.C. and E.C. numbers. There are certain ones that perhaps are absolute; others are suggested to go in one place, but would go perfectly well in three or four other places; you take the one that fits in with your scheme; if you have no scheme you can use the one that is suggested.

Mr. Fletcher: The Committee on Rules has recommended this, and unless objection is presented here this meeting might endorse this recommendation.

W. M. Smith: I don't see how these marks could be put on without preliminary classifying.

Mr. Hanson: If the work is done at the Library of Congress, of course the book has to be classified, and it is very easy to translate any classification mark into either D.C. or E.C. It would be an additional cost, of course, to print two or three headings at the bottom of the card, but it has to be done.

Chairman: In other words, the work has to be done for the Library of Congress.

Miss Kroeger: The subject headings are the most expensive part of the catalog. It would be a mistake to leave off the marks.

Chairman: A show of hands is called for. As many as favor recommendation of this rule, please rise. 70 persons rose; contrary, none.

Mr. Bowker: I would like to say a word upon the question which was raised of printing certain matter in the Library Journal. While the Library Journal is technically the official organ of the A. L. A. it would seem desirable to send such material to all the library periodicals, and I should suppose that it would be understood that the committee might so do.

Chairman: In the formal report of the committee to the Publishing Board the same plan of numbering is followed that was followed in the last issue, or edition, of Cutter's rules, of the A. L. A. rules. A number of changes, additions, excisions and emendations have been made. I will read the first.

"1a. Enter books under surnames of authors when ascertained, the abbreviation Anon. being added to the titles of works or editions published anonymously."

Now the question has been raised since, by a member of the committee, and it was desired that it be placed before this section for decision, If the heading of an anonymous book is always bracketed is it necessary to add the abbreviation "Anon." to the end of the title?

Mr. Josephson: It sometimes happens that an author signs his name at the end of the preface. In that case the name is not on the title-page, and should be bracketed on the heading. We have to distinguish those from the really anonymous books in some way. You have to do one of two things, either put the abbreviation "Anon." or the full word "Anonymous" on the top line, or, as we do in The John Crerar Library, put a note at the bottom.

Miss Crawford: It has been my experience that the word "Anon." at the end of the line is sometimes confusing to the reader and brings up all sorts of questions, and is taking space that might be needed for something else. I do not see its value, and sometimes it is positively misleading. The bracket expresses all that is of real use, and it doesn't matter whether the author's name appears in some other place in the book; at any rate it was not on the title-page. The brackets tell that, and I don't see the use of the abbreviation.

Miss Wagner: I don't see that the public are interested in brackets or in the word "Anon." It is for the public that the card is being made, I understand.

Mr. Josephson: When I spoke I went on the supposition that the title entry would, as is now usual, give the title only and omit the author's name from the title. But if, as I hope, the Publishing Board will decide to have the title-page copied exactly, giving the author's name in the title as it is done on the title-page, then you don't need to distinguish the anonymous authors from those who have signed in any other place than the title-page, except that in the former case you put a bracket around the name. As to the objection that the public is not concerned with the brackets, that may be true; but the librarian is very much concerned with knowing whether a book is published anonymously or not. I should like to have instead of brackets a footnote, telling "published anonymously" or "signed at the end of title-page" or "signed at end of the book."

Mr. Fletcher: I would like to call attention to one or two things. In the first place, many popular libraries might like to have extremely simple cards. They will have to realize that they must take a good deal of information they do not want if they are to take the cards made for all libraries. Mr. Josephson's idea is a good one, that technicalities shall be avoided in favor of good, plain English notes. "Anon." is obscure to a great many people, while "published anonymously" is pretty plain English. If such a note follows it is not necessary to use any brackets.

Mr. Josephson: I rise to suggest that we should discuss the question of size notation.

Mr. Fletcher: What we have to consider here is whether this meeting would favor one method or the other in size notation; and a consideration of that question might be largely affected by the further question, Is either of these methods to be followed for the printed cards? If you should be told that in all probability neither of them would be followed, it would prevent a good deal of waste of time in discussing one as against the other. We have two old methods that are mentioned in the reports. The third method, which finds a great deal of favor and which may be adopted by the Publishing Board, is that the size notation shall be represented by a mark giving the absolute measurement of the book, perhaps in centimeters, perhaps in inches and fractions.

Mr. Hanson: These three questions came before the committee at the meeting at Atlantic City; one was to give the fold symbol, as is used all over Europe and in the larger libraries of this country; the other was to give the letter symbol adopted by the A. L. A. in 1877; the third, presented by Mr. Hopkins, was to give measurements in centimeters of the letterpress and of the page—not of the binding. A minority report was submitted by Mr. Currier, Miss Kroeger and myself urging the fold symbol. Mrs. Fairchild, Mr. Cutter and Miss Browne are the majority, because I understood Mr. Hopkins to stand with them.

Miss Kroeger: Mrs. Fairchild was undecided, saying she was inclined to the exact measurement in centimeters; Miss Browne and Mr. Cutter voted for the old letter symbol; so there was no majority of the committee. Mr. Hopkins's vote was for the exact size. It was left with the Publishing Board to decide.

Mr. Hanson: The report is for the figure, but with a strong predilection of the members who signed it towards exact measurement, providing that should be adopted by the Publishing Board. Three of us argued in favor of the fold symbol. There were too main reasons argued, one that the great majority of readers in this country were familiar with the figure; the 4to, 8vo and 12mo gave them the size of the book; and that the majority of libraries used that rather than the letter. The other was in favor of uniformity. We found that the fold symbol as a measure of height, not in the old sense, was advocated by the Prussian, the Italian and the French university libraries and others. But if the Publishing Board should decide to adopt size measurement in centimeters I do not believe there is anyone of the committee who will insist very strongly on the retention of the one or the other.

Mr. Harris: I think that bibliographically it is a mistake to take the old fold symbol and apply it to size notation. It is not size—it represents form notation. It is much simpler to give size in inches or in centimeters, whichever you prefer, rather than to use the symbol which denotes fold.

L. P. Lane: It was said that the fold symbol was now almost never used to indicate the fold. In the Boston Public Library we use it to indicate the fold for foreign books and old books. We also use the same symbol in the case of American books to indicate size. There is considerable dissatisfaction with the practice and some of the cataloging staff would prefer to give the size in inches. How would that apply to books not in the condition in which they were published? Also I should like to ask whether it might not be possible where the fold is easily distinguished, to give both size and fold.

Mr. Hanson: That is really the practice of the Prussian university libraries.

Miss Browne: My thesis for defending the size letter is that 25 years ago the A. L. A. thrashed this matter all over and decided on the size symbol. Mr. Bowker has used that letter symbol from that time on. Miss Kroeger found a very large proportion of the libraries using the letter symbol; library classes are teaching the letter symbol. My chief objection to the fold symbol is that we are making one sign serve two uses, which I think is always bad.

Mr. Josephson: If the Library Association 25 years ago decided to use one symbol or another symbol, that is no reason why we should do so now. The objection to using the fold symbol to denote size is, among other things, as Mr. Lane suggested, that you need it in case of old books to tell the fold. The only rational designation of size is by centimeters, or inches, if you prefer. There is of course one difficulty in using accurate measurement in centimeters, if you have a book that has been bound and cut down. But that can be overcome, I think, by letting the measurement mean letterpress and nothing else. In ordinary cases you know about how wide a margin is if you know the side of the letterpress; it is always a certain proportion. You don't need the size to tell on what shelf the book is put, because that is given by the call number. So in order to find a book you don't need the size notation; you need it to see what size the page is. It is a purely bibliographical notation.

[Mr. Hanson here read rule for size notation for books "notable for age or rarity."]

Mr. Bowker: In the days of our youth, in fact almost as soon as we were born, this Association, as Miss Browne has indicated, adopted the letter symbol; and it seems to me that the reasons that operated for the choice of the letter symbol are stronger now than they were then, because the symbol has in the meantime come into quite general, if not universal use. The Association at that time had a phrase to indicate size. The objections to the old fold symbol still remain, and I think one very strong one has been stated. It is not only that the numerical system of 8vo, 12mo, etc., has ceased to mean what it originally meant and is confused with measurement size, but that it is used in England and America with utterly different meanings; and that difference continues. That is to say, the English use crown octavo and post octavo and two or three names for 12mo, in such a way as to cross our use of the word 8vo and 12mo and make a double confusion. I feel very strongly, for one, that the method of breaking over from the octavo and duodecimo, etc., the figure designation, into a definite and accurate letter designation was a very ingenious and very useful move. It is difficult to get general adoption of a modification of that sort, but the adoption has been quite general, and to me it would seem a very great retrogression to go back to the old figure symbol; we had better adhere to the A. L. A. notation of 25 years ago and custom since, and give a symbol which is in no sense confusing or misleading, following that, if you please, with the actual size measurement in centimeters.

Mr. Roden: I understand, of course, that we cannot legislate upon the subject, and possibly our discussion will not influence the legislature. At the same time, as a representative of a popular library in the middle west, I cannot help but regard with apprehension the small but insidious innovations which these rules seem to display. Mr. Josephson has said measurement is a bibliographical detail; in popular libraries it is a gratuitous detail. It could very well, as the chairman suggests, be placed at the end. In the public I am dealing with I should say the old fold symbol is most commonly used and means most. It occurs to me that a combination of fold and letter symbols might be used. I suggest this as a little concession to the popular library, and it is the first I have heard this afternoon.

Mr. Jones: An objection to exact measurement is, that so far as the greater mass of books that we have to deal with are concerned, it is not very important whether they are a few centimeters larger or smaller, and such books are often rebound in such a way that if we have an exact description our copies do not correspond. I agree with Mr. Bowker that the symbols adopted by the A. L. A. 25 years ago are sufficiently well known by people who are handling books to be recommended as a system to be adopted.

Miss Kroeger: I have been teaching in the library school according to A. L. A. measurements, yet it has always seemed to me somewhat absurd. None of the publishers have adopted it; I suppose the newer libraries have. The replies received to the questions sent to the various libraries last June, except for the newer libraries, indicate that the majority are using the fold symbol, and they would like to know why, if the letter symbol is such a good thing, the publishers are still marking their books 8vo, 12mo and 4to. The fold symbol means more to the mass of the people than do the letters O or D.

Mr. Bowker: If I remember correctly the London Bookseller is giving the exact size and measurement now.

Mr. Harris: Many literary and critical journals give the size of all books recorded in inches.

Mr. Bowker: The Publishing Board is extremely interested in getting the feeling of those here on the question. I want to suggest that when it comes to the rising vote or show of hands, we take a somewhat complicated vote: those who are in favor of the present A. L. A. letter; those in favor of returning to the fold (I mean not in the usual sense); those in favor of exact measurement in centimeters; those in favor of a combination of letter symbol and centimeter; and those in favor of the fold symbol and centimeter. The board wants all the information it can get.

Chairman: I will ask Mr. Bowker to state the first proposition.

Mr. Bowker: Those in favor of the letter symbol, the present A. L. A. method, please rise. Twenty-four rose.

Mr. Bowker: Those in favor of returning to the fold symbol, the 8vo, 12mo and 4to please rise. Ten rose.

Mr. Bowker: Those who prefer a designation of actual measurement, please rise—with the understanding that those voting for this will then vote their preference as to either inches or centimeters. Seventeen rose.

Chairman: Your next proposition, Mr. Bowker.

Mr. Bowker: Those who would prefer centimeters if exact measurement should be adopted, please rise. Thirty-two rose.

Mr. Bowker: Now those who would prefer inches if an exact measurement were adopted. Three rose.

Chairman: As many as are in favor of the exact measurement coupled with the A. L. A. symbol, in case there is to be a combination—letter and exact size—please rise. Thirty-two rose.

Chairman: Now those who would prefer the combination of exact size with figure symbol. Sixteen rose.

Mr. Josephson: We might have another vote on whether the size should mean letterpress or book.

Chairman: Before this is done I want to call attention to the effect of binding after cataloging. If this scheme is going to take in foreign books, and you are going to get cards promptly, a large share of the books will be cataloged before they are bound. If a good binder does his work conscientiously and as it should be done, if you give the page you will have a more satisfactory measurement.

Mr. Hanson: I have looked into this question recently, and I find, where libraries do measure in centimeters they measure the paper. If the book is bound they measure the outside cover, for the reason that when the unbound book is trimmed down for binding what is lost is regained in the binding. I have found no instance yet where the practice that is advocated by yourself, the measurement of the letterpress, is followed in actual work.

Mr. Josephson: Let all those who want an exact measurement of the letterpress please rise. Two rose.

Mr. Josephson: Now those who want size to mean the outside of the book. Fifty-five rose.

Mr. Bowker: I think it might clarify things if we take the vote of those who favor the use of the symbol alone as against those who favor the use of the symbol and exact measurement in centimeters.

Chairman: Those who favor the use of the symbol alone as against the combination of symbol with measurement please rise. Twenty-three rose.

Mr. Bowker: Those who favor combination of symbol with exact measurement, please rise. Fifteen rose.

Mr. Bowker: If there is no other business I wish to move the very cordial appreciation of the Catalog Section of the admirable report which has been presented in such detail by the advisory committee of the Publishing Board. Voted.

Mr. Bowker: Mr. Hanson, as chairman of the committee, I have great pleasure in conveying to you and to your associates this appreciation, which I know is most thorough on the part of all here.

I would also like to move a vote of thanks to the chairman for his admirable presiding during the session. Voted.

L. P. Lane: I move that the program committee be requested to assign a time before the end of the conference when there may be a continued meeting of this section; and if such a time be found, that when we adjourn we adjourn to that time. Voted.

Chairman: Let me announce again that at the close of this session the secretary, Miss Van Valkenburgh, will be ready to begin the registry of persons who express themselves as willing to become members of this section.

Mr. Andrews: I would call attention to the fact that under the by-laws, if the section wants to, it can adopt rules restricting membership; if it doesn't adopt rules any member of the Association may be a member of this section. It is a question whether we wish to confine this section to catalogers.

Chairman: It is an important point or might easily become an important point. For the ordinary run of affairs it would be a matter of no consequence, but it may be that this section will sometime wish to promulgate some proposition and a little logrolling might vote it down. What does the section wish to do in this matter?

Mr. Windsor: I think we can safely leave it open to all who are interested in the subject of cataloging. I don't see that there is anything gained by leaving out anybody who is interested in the work.

Mr. Josephson: I move that a vote on this question be postponed. Voted.

Mr. Hanson: In the points that were outlined last year for discussion at this meeting there were a great many details; we have not reached a fifth of them. May I ask catalogers to get copies of the rules recommended by the Committee on Rules and look them over and communicate with any one of the members of the committee—Mr. Hopkins, Miss Kroeger, Miss Brown or myself. It would be of the greatest assistance to us.

[Miss Kroeger objected to giving out copies of the rules, because they were incomplete.]

Chairman: I think we have no right to make a general distribution yet, to do so would perhaps exceed the province of the committee; but we might lend copies to those who want to look them over.

I will now call for the report of the Committee on Nominations.

[The committee reported the names of Mr. Hanson, of the Library of Congress, for chairman, and Miss Mary E. Hawley, Chicago Public Library, for secretary.]

Mr. Hanson: I am the chairman of the advisory committee and we have a great deal of hard work before us. I would ask the section to accept my resignation. I really do not feel I can give the time necessary to make this section a success at the next meeting.

Chairman: There are no rules governing us, Mr. Hanson, but I beg that you do not insist on this, or if you feel you must resign that you do so between now and the next session.

The names submitted were unanimously elected, and adjournment was taken subject to call of chair.

SECOND SESSION.

The second session of the Catalog Section was called to order on Wednesday, July 10, Anderson H. Hopkins presiding.

Chairman: The matters that were of first importance to be brought before the section were discussed yesterday. At the same time there are other things that I am sure would be interesting; and perhaps you would prefer to bring up your own topics, and each present something you would like to talk about.

Miss Wagner: Is the Y. M. C. A. question proper for discussion?

Chairman: I believe that question was received; please read it, Mr. Hanson.

Mr. Hanson (reading): Young Men's Christian Associations, mercantile library associations and the like are to be entered under place. That is 1 i 21 of the rules suggested.

Miss Wagner: It is our practice to put the Y. M. C. A. under Y. M. C. A.; Y. M. C. A., Boston; Y. M. C. A., New York; instead of putting it under place. There is a separate association which has a distinctive being and the local associations are branches. It seems this is much more logical, and where the public would expect to find reports of the Y. M. C. A.

Mr. Hanson: I wish to state in support of Miss Wagner's contention that Mr. Cutter in his new edition, which is now in manuscript, was rather in favor of changing his rule, which reads as this one does. He has always advised entering under the place; but he was now inclined to enter under Young Men's Christian Association, not only for the general association of the United States, but for the associations of the various states. A majority of the committee, however, seemed inclined to enter the local Y. M. C. A. under the place, on the ground that 99 per cent. would look for Chicago Y. M. C. A. under Chicago, Philadelphia Y. M. C. A. under Philadelphia, rather than under Y. M. C. A.; and that the same was true of the mercantile library associations.

Miss Crawford: Was any argument brought forth to substantiate that statement that nine-tenths of the people would look under the local name?

Mr. Hanson: No contention, except that it seemed to be the general experience.

Miss Crawford: It seems to me if the committee would correspond with public libraries there might be some change of opinion on the matter.

Miss Wagner: I find that Chicago enters Y. M. C. A. under Y. M. C. A., as the St. Louis Public Library does.

Miss Crawford: The logical thing has always seemed the fair thing in this matter—to ask one's self the question, Has the organization a national existence? And if so, to enter it under the generic name. The Y. M. C. A. has a national existence, which is more important as a governing body than any one of the local associations. And the same is true of other organizations. If they have no national organization, then I enter them under the local name; but if there is a national association, then I enter under the generic name.

Miss Ambrose: Would you follow the same reasoning for entries under Methodist Episcopal church, or would you put them under the place? It seems to me the same reasoning would apply.

Miss Crawford: I shouldn't wish this logical process to supersede the better rule of entering under the best known form. And I think in the case Miss Ambrose mentions the best known form would be the locality.

Mr. Hanson: Miss Wagner's question has launched us into the center of the most difficult problem of all—that is, corporate entry, entry of societies and institutions. There is an underlying principle which governs our distinctions, I believe. There is a distinction to be made between societies, and to some extent institutions; societies, including royal academies, which are societies, to be entered under the first word not an article; on the other hand, institutions, galleries, museums, libraries, etc., which generally have buildings and are affiliated closely with the place, to be entered under place, unless they have other distinctive names—that is to say, names from persons or geographical locations. That principle would to some extent affect the Young Men's Christian Associations and mercantile libraries.

Miss Crawford: Would that override the other rule of entering under the best known form? Would the institution entry override the principle of entering under best known form?

Mr. Hanson: That rule we have not formulated. We have not considered as broad a rule as that—entry under best known form. We have tried to lay down some rule that should govern entry under place and entry under name; and what we are really trying to get at is best known form.

Miss Crawford: I appreciate that, and there ought to be some ground on which to make exceptions. I think your distinction between institutions and societies is a good one. Is not the Y. M. C. A. a good case to make an exception?

Mr. Hanson: Yes, that is the 21st exception, is it not, under the rule? The general rule is, "Enter societies under the first word not an article or serial number, of its corporate name." Then there are 22 exceptions, and we began with the 21st.

L. P. Lane: I don't know whether the practice of the Boston Public Library is of interest, but personally I incline to the views Miss Crawford has expressed. The Boston Public Library strives to use the corporate name where there is a corporate name, carrying that practice, I think, to an extreme degree, so that they enter Chamber of Commerce under Chamber of Commerce, so and so. I understand under this rule Chamber of Commerce would be entered under the name of the place.

Mr. Hanson: Yes. We propose to enter all boards of trade, all chambers of commerce under the name of the city or state.

Miss Kroeger: That comes under rule 1 i 9: If a body's name begins with such words as "board," "corporation," "trustees," enter that part of the name by which they are usually known.

Mr. Hanson: This will be very helpful to the committee, because it shows that in the case of exception 21 there is a strong sentiment of entering it under name instead of under place.

Miss Crawford: Would you make that same application to mercantile libraries? It seems to me in that case the place is what people would look for, just as they would for a public library.

Mr. Hanson: Yes, personally I should feel disposed to give in on the Y. M. C. A. question, but not on the mercantile library.

Miss Wagner: The mercantile library has no general organization. If you enter the local Y. M. C. A. under the city you are forcing the people to look in perhaps 30 or 40 places.

Mr. Biscoe: Is it the purpose of the author arrangement to show what the library has on Y. M. C. A.?

Miss Wagner: It is the purpose to show what the library owns under the authorship of the Y. M. C. A. And to find that you force the person to look into as many different places as there are Y. M. C. A.'s represented in your catalog. The person who comes to your catalog wanting to know what Y. M. C. A. publications you have has a right to find them in one place.

Mr. Hanson: He could always find it by cross-reference under the general Y. M. C. A. to every local Y. M. C. A. represented in the catalog. The contention at the meeting of the committee was that in a great majority of cases a man is interested in a particular Y. M. C. A. If he comes to study all Y. M. C. A.'s the catalog must make provision to help him.

Chairman: I am one who maintains the thesis that no one has a right to expect to find everything pertaining to Y. M. C. A. under Y. M. C. A. in the author catalog.

Miss Wagner: It seems to me in the author catalog you have a right to expect to find what the author has written, therefore you have a right to find what the Y. M. C. A. is responsible for.

Mr. Biscoe: Why isn't it the same thing to expect to find out everything about the Episcopal church under "Episcopal church"? Isn't every branch of the Episcopal church a part of the general Episcopal church?

Miss Wagner: The answer in our library would be that nobody asks for that information, as they do for the Y. M. C. A.

Chairman: Are you sure the reason they ask for the Y. M. C. A. in that way is not because you catalog it that way, and they have learned to look for it there?

Miss Wagner: My answer is that for the last seven years we entered Y. M. C. A. under place. The change was made in agreement with the demand at the issue desk.

Chairman: That is just the kind of thing we want to find out.

Miss Crawford: Under 1 i 12 what would you advise regarding the Carnegie libraries which in large numbers have assumed the name Carnegie since the endowment of the building? Would you give them all as Carnegie libraries of so-and-so, or would you still preserve the form showing the library was supported by the city in which it was? For example, Pittsburgh Carnegie Library and Atlanta Carnegie Library—introducing the word Carnegie right after the city? Or would you advise putting the word Carnegie for all of these libraries?

Mr. Hanson: I have not had to deal with that question. I should think they would be entered under the name of the city, and then if you want to bring the entire Carnegie record together you can make a second entry.

Chairman: This raises the question whether or not the designation "Carnegie library" is an official one. If it is not, then it is a name which has come up by common consent, and it seems to me that nothing but time would enable us to determine exactly how it should be treated; the conservative thing would be to use the name of the place.

Miss Ambrose: I would like to hear an expression of opinion—it is the same principle in three different places, 1 i 4, 1 i 5 and 1 i 16—as to entering professional schools, libraries and observatories separately if they have distinctive names separate from the corporations that they belong to.

Mr. Hanson: I think it would be better to enter the colleges of American universities under the name of the university. It is an easy rule to follow and a rule that has been followed in American libraries. On the other hand we have peculiar cases—the medical schools, for instance, which have distinctive names and are often situated a hundred miles from the mother school. "College libraries and local college societies under the name of the college, but the Bodleian library may be put under Bodleian. Intercollegiate societies and Greek letter fraternities under the name." I think all will agree with that. 1 i 16, "Observatories under the name of the place, except that those having distinctive names are to be entered under that name. Refer for university observatories from the university." I personally think that is unfortunate; I would prefer to see university and observatories under university. For instance, for Washburn observatory I would say, "Wisconsin university, Washburn observatory."

Miss Crawford: Under 1 h 1, "Enter Government bureaus or offices subordinate to a department directly under the country not as sub-heading under departments." Is it proposed to invert the name of the bureau or office so as to bring the distinctive name to the fore or let it read in its natural way?

Mr. Hanson: The practice of inverting has been followed, I think, in the majority of American catalogs. We have not as yet inverted our headings. We are printing them in the order in which they read, as "Bureau of Education"; but that does not mean we may not arrange entries under United States, Education.

L. P. Lane: It seems to me it would be most desirable to harmonize the practice of the Superintendent of Documents with the Library of Congress in this matter. In the "Comprehensive catalogue" there is this inversion, and it seems to me it has been very judiciously done. In the present practice of the Boston Public Library, however, it is not done.

Miss Ambrose: I should like a definition of the word "local" in 1 i 20.

Mr. Hanson: 1 i 20: "Purely local benevolent or moral or similar societies under the place."

Mr. Cutter said that he had more trouble with this rule than with any other. He had, in fact, I believe decided to enter under name, not under place, but it seems during the discussion he changed back to the old rule.

Miss Kroeger: That was in deference to the majority vote. Mr. Cutter's opinion favored entry under name.

Mr. Hanson: His reason seemed to be that those referring to these local societies were the citizens of the place where they were situated and they sought the name of the society. If the people in other states, using other catalogs, were looking for the societies, they would not remember the name. In fact, the only thing that remains in one's memory is the name of the place, and one naturally would look under the place for it.

Chairman: As I understand Miss Ambrose she raises the question how large a locality might be meant—whether it should go to the limits of a county or a state. I should have supposed it meant a narrower locality and would apply to a city or town—a vicinage.

Mr. Josephson: Perhaps it might be well to let the word "local" mean here what it means in "local geography"—anything belonging to the state—not taking in towns.

I should like to bring up 1 k: "Enter commentaries accompanied by the full text of the work under the name of the author." And then exceptions only when the text is not to be readily distinguished from the commentary. We have a good many cases where the text is particularly short—a text of from four or five or ten pages—and then comes a commentary of several hundred pages. It seems absurd to catalog a text of five or ten pages accompanied by a commentary of five or six hundred pages under the name of the author of the text.

Miss Kroeger: That is provided for in the rule. "Except when the text is distributed through the commentary in such a manner as not to be readily recognized or is insignificant as compared with the commentary." That is designed to fit just such cases.

Mr. Hanson: There is another rule, on laws, 1 h 3: "Laws on one or more particular subjects, whether digested or merely collected, to be entered under the collector or digester, with added entry under country."

I think that is a departure from the present practice, which has been to enter New York laws on state taxation under New York, State Legislature, and secondly under compiler or collector.

Miss Ambrose: If you had a compilation of road laws of Illinois, you would put that under the compiler first and secondly under Illinois State Legislature?

Mr. Hanson: Yes.

L. P. Lane: Under 1 h and 1 q I would like to ask whether a proclamation by the king of England would be put under England, or Great Britain, King, or under Edward VII.?

Mr. Hanson: We enter such publications in two places; the official proclamations or edicts under the name of the country with a subdivision for king or sovereign, and then their private publications under their names.

Miss Crawford: 1 j: "Enter a periodical under the first word, not an article or serial number, of its title."

What is the judgment of the committee upon newspapers? Should they always be entered under the first word of their title, or would it be better to enter under the name of the place?

Miss Kroeger: We consulted Mr. Fletcher about the rules, and he suggested this very point, bringing up the question of newspapers. And we have a rough draft of a rule to enter newspapers under the name of the place, putting the name of the place in brackets and not in the title. 1 j also brings up the question as to whether it is to be under the first word of the current title or of the original title.

Miss Graham: 1 i 15: "Exhibitions under the name of the place where they are held."

It would seem to me that in the case of the Pan-American Exposition, that should be first, rather than Buffalo. Also the Columbian Exposition.

Mr. Hanson: I think a majority of the expositions in this country have specific names. In the discussion of the committee I think Mr. Cutter proposed the rule as follows: "Enter under the name of the place in case of expositions, always making a cross-reference from the special name of the exposition, if it has one." In all cases it would be necessary that the cross-reference should be made from the special name by which it is known—as the Cotton States, Pan-American, World's Columbian.

Chairman: Is there anything more to say on this subject? If not, Miss Graham, you might bring up that question you spoke to me about this morning.

Miss Graham: The matter Mr. Hopkins refers to was regarding the revision of the "A. L. A. catalog" of the 5000 best books. We feel the need in small libraries, and I think the need is felt where libraries are trying to organize, for a revision of that catalog. We all use that in small libraries when making out lists of standard works. There are many of them out of print. If we could have a revision of that catalog on printed cards it seems to me it would be a great help in the work of library extension as well as to smaller libraries which have little cataloging force—where the librarian has to be cataloger.

Chairman: I thought perhaps enough would be interested in this to raise the question in such a way that the Publishing Board would take it up. It may be cards are in existence that might be reprinted for this work.

Miss Ambrose: There is a supplement to this catalog just about ready to come out. Would that include new editions or simply new books?

Mr. Fletcher: The matter has been put off to such a large extent that the State Library at Albany has undertaken to publish this supplement; but it has been delayed. They intend to print it for their own state use, but allow the Publishing Board to distribute it to other places. As to a revision, I do not know whether it has been undertaken. I think that the original edition was not electrotyped, and that there are no plates existing to reprint it from.

Chairman: I will read a question from the Hartford Public Library on the arrangement of author, editor and translator in a card catalog—whether to be put in one alphabet or arranged separately?

Miss Crawford: That hits upon a very practical experience which we had in Dayton. We arranged the works of an author under the author's own works; then the author as editor; and then author as joint author; and then the author as translator; alphabeting by the word which happened to follow the name of the author at the top of the line. We tried that for three or four years, and at the end of that time we ourselves in our own use of the catalog were so continually running up against our own arrangement as a thing which we never used and which was a constant blunder to us that last year we set about rearranging all the authors so as to bring them in one alphabeting order by the first word of the title, regardless of whether it was as author, editor or compiler. Of course when translator or editor of a specific person's work, that entry was placed after the others.

Mr. Fletcher: That is our practice, after having used the other for some time. We now undertake to put all the works of an author in a general series, whether he is author, or editor, or collector, or whatever it be, if the work is significant as his work. We put those all in one alphabet, as if there was no such addition after his name, and then we put at the end the two notes which are in the nature of cross-reference. If a man is translator of somebody else's work we cannot very well put those in as his works. Everything else we put in one series.

Mr. Perley: In the library of the Institute of Technology, of Boston, we arranged the authors, joint authors, translators and editors all in one common alphabet. It seems to me in a library of this kind such an arrangement is especially good, because the public patrons of the library never seem to take very kindly to distinctions, however interesting they may be to the librarians; and it happens very often that the American translator is a good deal more important to the American reader than the original author from whom it was translated. And in the same way a joint author may take equal rank with the author in the main entry.

Miss Crawford: 1 o: "Enter under highest title unless family name or lower title is decidedly better known." Will you keep the title in the vernacular in all cases? For example, will you always say "Fürst von" instead of the English form, and "Graf von," etc.?

Mr. Hanson: There is a varying practice as to that. I will say for the Library of Congress, where they are purely titles of honor or minor noblemen, we use the vernacular; but we have found it advisable for kings, in fact for sovereigns, to use the designation king, emperor, pope, etc., in English.

Miss Kroeger: Has anything been said about entering sovereigns and popes in the vernacular or English form? The rule says, "May be given in the English form."

Mr. Fletcher: I think we should generally feel, as Mr. Cutter expresses it in his rule, that this is a matter of progress; and before long our library committees will not tolerate "Henry" instead of "Henri" for king of France, or "Lewis" instead of "Louis." We are in a transition stage, and this "May be" means that it is considered allowable while we are in the transition stage to use the English form instead of the vernacular. But give names of sovereigns in the vernacular. The same thing is true of names of cities. Some librarians are leading us a little and giving Wien for Vienna.

Mr. Perley: It seems to me the use of the English form would largely depend upon the length of the custom. I think for the names of the Italian cities which have been given common English names since the Middle Ages we are justified in using the English forms, and the names of persons in the same way.

Adjourned without day.

SECTION FOR CHILDREN'S LIBRARIANS.[G]

The A. L. A. Section for Children's Librarians held two sessions during the Waukesha conference. In the absence of Miss Annie Carroll Moore, chairman of the section, the chair was occupied by Miss L. E. Stearns, who presided as honorary chairman.

FIRST SESSION.

The first session of the section was called to order at 2.15 p.m., Friday, July 5.

The secretary read a communication from the chairman, Miss Moore, who extended her cordial greeting to the Children's Librarians' Section, and expressed regret that she was unable to be present. She also expressed her satisfaction that the meetings should be conducted by one whose contributions to the work of children's librarians, both by the pen and the power of her magnetic personality, have been so far-reaching in their influence. Miss Stearns' paper given at the Lake Placid conference, 1894, she believed to be one of the most important contributions to the development of work with children, as it set people thinking and talking, and stimulated activity along the lines indicated. In regard to the establishment of a separate section of the A. L. A., Miss Moore said: "It is most encouraging and gratifying to feel that we have the support of those whose interest in library work for children precedes our own, and whose wise counsel may be counted upon in considering the problems which have arisen out of a practical experience.

"It has been the chief object in the construction of this first program to define certain phases of our work in order that we may proceed with a clearer vision of its significance and with a better idea of how we are to accomplish the results at which we seem to be aiming. It is hoped that succeeding meetings may be rich in profitable discussions of practical problems, but let us plan our programs with the utmost care, that we may gather a body of matter which shall prove valuable for the future as well as enlightening in the present.

"Most hearty thanks are due to all who have assisted in the making of the program, and to those who have volunteered to carry it to a successful issue.

"We feel especially grateful to the librarians at large who have so generously responded by the preparation of papers, or by participating in the discussions, to this special claim of ours upon their time and thought."

The secretary read a statement regarding

THE CLUB OF CHILDREN'S LIBRARIANS.

At the A. L. A. conference in Montreal in 1900 an informal meeting was held for the purpose of personal acquaintance and co-operation among those actively engaged in library work with children.

As a result of this meeting an organization was formed, to be known as the Club of Children's Librarians, of which Miss A. C. Moore was made chairman, and Miss M. E. Dousman secretary. In order to facilitate the work of the club it was decided to divide the work into departments, each department to be in charge of a chairman appointed by the chair.

The secretary of the club was instructed to inform the secretary of the American Library Association of the formation of the club and to offer its services in the making of the program for future sessions on library work with children, if so desired.

The result of this proposition was that at a meeting of the executive board of the A. L. A. it was voted that a section for library work with children be established, providing such section be acceptable to the officers of the Club of Children's Librarians. The section was accepted, and the program for the same was submitted by the officers of the club to the program committee of the A. L. A.

The establishment of a section devoted to work with children, as a result of the efforts of the club, is a matter of congratulation for all those interested in this branch of library work. Special thanks are due the chairman, Miss Moore, for her unremitting efforts in making the program for the sessions helpful

and inspiring. Thanks are also due chairmen of committees for their zeal in collecting valuable material and for the presentation of practical and suggestive reports.

In view of the establishment of the Section for Children's Librarians, which makes possible the thorough treatment of children's library work, it seems desirable that the Club of Children's Librarians be no longer continued, its special purpose being accomplished; at the present meeting of the section it is hoped to perfect its organization and outline its plans for the coming year.

The first paper of the session was by Miss Caroline M. Hewins, and in her absence was read by Miss Helen E. Haines. It dealt with

BOOK REVIEWS, LISTS AND ARTICLES ON CHILDREN'S READING: ARE THEY OF PRACTICAL VALUE TO THE CHILDREN'S LIBRARIAN?

(See p. 57.)

The subject was discussed by Miss Haines, who said:

Miss Hewins' criticisms and deductions are so sound that there is little to add to what she has said, except in the way of assent. The children's librarian who relies only upon what she can find in print to tell her what she ought to think about children's literature, leans upon a broken reed. In general, reviews in this field are valueless, owing to lack of discrimination and of good taste, and to indifference. The reason for this is the unimportance of the subject, from the standpoint of the average reviewer or literary editor. Miss Hewins has stated with entire fairness the conditions that control reviews of children's books. Christmas time—the "rush season"—is practically the only time when they are given attention, and then owing to the great mass of review copies to be handled, notices are most inadequate. Indeed, most of these notices are evolved from material supplied by the publisher with the book—the trail of the publisher is over them all.

There is not yet among children's librarians a sufficient "body of doctrine"—critical judgment, knowledge of books—to produce satisfactory library lists. Such lists are too often made up from hearsay, or through selection from other lists, which is almost always unsatisfactory. The most prevalent and serious defect in these annotated library lists is the use of too many words which mean nothing. In this work especially "the adjective is the enemy of the substantive." Even the Carnegie list, excellent as a whole and probably the best of the kind yet published, is crude in some respects, and would stand pruning. There is too frequent use of such phrases as "a wholesome book," "a cheery tale," "a children's classic," and there is too great a preponderance of American books, of commonplace "series," of books in what may be called the public-school rut. As an example of "what not to do" in book annotation, extracts may be given from a recent annotated list of children's books, which included the following:

Warner, S. The wide, wide world.

Miss Warner is one of the best friends a young girl can have as chaperone into the delightful kingdom of romance.

Weyman, S. The house of the wolf.

A modern English version of a curious French memoir written about 1620.

Church. Three Greek children.

Mr. Church is an accomplished restorer of the antique, and has a keen discrimination for points appealing to child-like magnetism.

Cooper. The spy.

A story founded upon fact. The same adventitious causes which gave birth to the book determined its scenes and its general character.

It will be seen that not one of these annotations conveys an idea of subject, quality, or treatment, while in two of them at least it is evident that the annotator knew nothing at all about the book.

Articles on children's reading are in general either sentimental or prejudiced, and they are not of direct practical use to the children's librarian. Reading such articles, however, is interesting and often suggestive. Their best feature is the hints they now and then give of some book or class of books that has pleased children, and that the librarian does not know or had not thought of.

Turning to specific points in Miss Hewins' paper, one is inclined to question the stringent criticisms of the "Pansy" books, the "Prudy" books, "Editha's burglar," and the like stories, that certainly do delight many children, though they may not be of a high literary plane. Nor do I believe in children's books carefully "written down" to their audience and never rising above their comprehension. "Words-in-one-syllable" books are obnoxious to a right-minded child. It is a good thing to be given now and then what is above our comprehension. What we don't quite understand holds a strong fascination. Nor do I believe that the "horrors" of the old fairy stories are particularly harmful—the thrills they impart have a subtle charm, and most children delight in "horrors." The difficulty is to steer between what is vulgar and coarse or trashily sentimental on the one hand, and the limiting of a children's collection only to "pretty-pretty" stories, innocuous but utterly without character or variety, on the other. Such a collection should be made as broad, as varied, as catholic as it can be, including old books, English books—Miss Yonge, Miss Shaw, Miss Strickland—not just current and American books.

In conclusion, the most important thing is to know the books themselves. This could not be possible for the librarian of a general collection, but it is possible, and ought to be indispensable, for the librarian of a special class of literature. A children's librarian can make herself familiar with the literature suitable for children, and should do so. Personal familiarity is better than all "evaluations" by other people. There should be a constant interchange of criticism and experience among those working in this field—it is as yet small enough to permit this. This should be largely personal and individual—not brought out as a public expression—until there is developed a better basis for critical and literary discernment in this subject than now exists. The most important thing to do is not to rush hastily into print—to "educate ourselves in public"—but to set to work to know our books, and through such knowledge to establish a fund of critical judgment and experience that will later make it possible for the utterances of children's librarians to carry weight in their own field of literature.

There followed a "collective paper," in three parts, each part being treated by a special writer. It dealt with

THE BOOKS THEMSELVES.

In the absence of Miss Winifred Taylor Miss Edna Lyman read Miss Taylor's consideration of

I. FICTION.

(See p. 63.)

Miss Lyman also read the second paper by Miss Abby Sargent, on

II. FAIRY TALES.

(See p. 66.)

The third paper, in the absence of its author, Miss Ella Holmes, was read by Miss Bertha M. Brown. It reviewed

III. SCIENCE FOR CHILDREN.

(See p. 69.)

The general subject was opened for discussion by F. M. Crunden, who said that he thought it was unwise to make a distinction between the reading of boys and girls, as it tended to differentiate the sexes.

He also believed in the reading and rereading of the classics and standard literature to children as a means of checking the craving for new books which is a characteristic evil of the American adult. The best means of judging the quality of a new book was to set it in comparison with an old one that had stood the test of time, so that familiarity with, and an ample supply of, the best literature was one of the most effective ways of raising the standard of taste as regards current books. He also said that the well-brought-up child will usually choose the best himself, though wise direction is necessary, for the books he reads influence his whole life. Reading aloud to children is of great value in bringing them to love books, and too strict a grading of books by age suitability is inadvisable, as many very young children enjoy books that at first thought seem beyond them. The boy who reads the best books will not choose the worst companions.

The program of the meeting was shortened, owing to arrangements of the local entertainment committee, so that the conclusion of the discussion on this subject was carried over to the next session. Before adjournment a nominating committee was appointed, made up of Miss Linda A. Eastman, Miss Edna Lyman and Mrs. Menzies.

SECOND SESSION.

The second session of the section was held on the afternoon of Saturday, July 6. The meeting was called to order at 2.30, when discussion was resumed of the subject

THE BOOKS THEMSELVES.

Miss W. W. Plummer said:

I should much like to see tried Miss Sargent's plan for the story-hour, i. e., the argument of the story being given first in the attendant's own words, followed by a reading from some good version of the original, with judicious skipping. If this has been tried anywhere, we should be glad to know of it. We have given as a problem to our class of children's librarians the selection of one or two books of Homer, of the Odyssey preferably, to cut and edit for reading by or to children, and have always found that what was left made an exceedingly interesting story, that it seemed might be read just as it was. But, of course, such an exercise would require an unusually good and very intelligent reader to be a success.

Fairy tales.

Belief, on the part of the author, at least while writing, is necessary if one would preserve the true atmosphere of the fairy story and communicate the right enjoyment to the child-readers. The fairy book in which the author tries to be "smart" and is continually thrusting in his own personality, is a failure. He must forget himself, leave the present century, and for the time be as credulous as the child himself.

Fiction.

The vulgarization of the child is one of the dangers we must avoid. What if the boy's father does read the New York Journal and the girl's mother, when she reads anything, Laura Jean Libbey? It is our business, as librarians for children, to see that by the time the child reaches the same age he shall like something different and better. And how can this be brought about if we let him steep himself in the smart, sensational, vulgar and up-to-date children's books that naturally lead to just such tastes in the adult?

We must also guard against false reasoning. Some authors whom we have probably never questioned will have to go, if thus examined. I am thinking, for instance, of a writer for girls who has been generally accepted. I examined her last book, the story of a little girl and her grandmother, apparently plain people, who moved into a summer village alongside of a family of fashionable city people. The question with the children of the fashionable family and their friends was whether they should or should not make a friend of the new girl—she was nice, but evidently not rich, not fashionable, not one of their kind. The counsel of the minority prevailed, and the children, boys and girls of 15 or 16, kindly admitted her to their circle, though not considering her their equal. How they held their breath at thought of their nearness to a great mistake when they found she belonged to a fine old family of another city, and had great expectations from the quiet grandmother! "See how it paid to be polite!" is the tacit morality of the book, which is full of the spirit of snobbery while professing to teach the opposite. It behooves us, therefore, to dip into books before purchasing or recommending. Nothing will take the place of knowing the books we handle and having our own opinion of them.