(2^ IC 76 U6C8 m ! 1 ilP III m ■n ill . 1 > i' 'i' 'i1 I 'i 1 1 rl 'il S>tatc College of Agriculture ^t Cornell ^Hnihersittp 3ft!)ata, i?. g. Hilirarp Privately printed. SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PRO- POSED CHANGE IN THE POLICY OF THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, SUBMITTED BY THE LIBRARIAN. A question involving a decided change in the policy of the University Library is to come before the Council and Trustees for decision, brought up by the resolution recently adopted by the University Faculty, recommending : 1 . That the privilege of drawing books from the University Library for home use, other than those given to the University by President White, Professor Goldwin Smith, or Professor Willard Fiske, should be extended to undergraduates. 2. That the Library Council be requested to determine what books in their judgment should so circulate. 3.. That the Library Council be requested to set aside annually a sum not to exceed one thousand dollars [$1000) for the purchase of dupli- cates for circulation. It will be observed that certain collections are expressly excepted from circulation, and in passing I merely remark that if it is right and desirable that these collections, b} rea.son of their character, be witheld from general circulation, then the same rule .should be applied to the Anthon, Bopp, May, Sparks, Zarncke and other special collections almost equally rich in rare or valuable books. If however, these col- lections are excepted only out of consideration for the wishes of living donors, are we to understand that it is recom- mended that all the remaining portion of the library be thrown open to general circulation ? Probably not, though that is what has been assumed by many to be the meaning of the resolution. Taking the various clauses together, however, it would seem to be for the Council to decide if it is desirable that any portion of the library shall be thrown open to gen- eral circulation, and, if so, what portion. In order that a decision on this subject be not made without full knowledge of the conditions in the case. I feel in duty bound, as I^ibrarian, to lay before those in- terested in the question some considerations concerning the proposed change of policy ; and in order to prevent any misapprehension I begin by stating my own position. I have always strongly favored and do now favor any policy which will provide greater facilities for reading and study on the part of students, in so far as it does not diminish the usefulness of the library as a working library, and does not conflict with the best interests of the library itself. But I firmly believe that general extension of circulation will seri- ously interfere with the efficiency of the library for the purposes of study and investigation and will be detrimental to its growth and prosperity, for all library experience teaches us that the needs of scholars, students, and investi- gators cannot be satisfactorily served by a circulating library. Research and investigation cannot be carried on successfully without access to large reference libraries. Hence the effort now beiug made, led by scholars like Harnack, to change the Royal L,ibrary in Berlin from a circulating to a reference library ; and there are many who hold, with Gold win Smith, that the extension of cheap printing has greatly diminished the usefulness of lending libraries of any kind, and that even iu our cities what is most clearly wanted is a good reference library for the use of students or persons desirous of infor- mation on particular subjects. It is to recognition of this need and of the admittedly great service which has been rendered by .such libraries as the A.stor and Peabody, that we owe the establishment in recent years of such reference libraries as the Rylands library in Manchester, and the Crerar and Newberry libraries in Chicago. No doubt a circulating library may be a mo.st useful adjunct to a great reference library, but it should be merely an adjunct, and the two should be kept separate and distinct in fact, as they are in character and purpose. In accordance with this view, I have long advocated the formation of a circulating library for .students in order to give greater facilities for general reading and culture, and have endeavored to interest the alumni in the project. In fact a bequest has already been made, which however is not yet available, for the support — 3 — and increase of such a library. In the meantime it is possi- ble to make, with the resources at our command, a fair beginning of such a library, without changing the character of the general library as a reference library. Ill considering the probable consequences of throwing open the University lyibrary to general circulation something may be learned from the experience of other libraries, and in comparing the history of Cambridge University Library which lends its books freely, with the history of the Bodleian, a reference library, we have an opportunity to note the effect upon two similar libraries of these two policies. It is enough to make a Cambridge man envious, said Mr. Bradshaw, the Cambridge librarian, to look through Mr. Macray's Annals of the Bodleian Library, illustrating, more strongly than has ever been shown before, the fact that the library has been, as indeed it should be, the centre of the literary activity of the University, while at Cambridge " any regard for the library, except as a place from which we can carry off the books we want to use, is looked upon by our highest authorities as a matter of merely antiquarian curiosity, and one therefore to be steadily though quietly dis- couraged." Again, " we have often heard of the principal benefactors to the Bodleian haying been induced to bequeath their own libraries to the University of Oxford from seeing the careful way in which the bequests of their predecessors had been housed and kept together. The coincidence at Cambridge is too striking to be accidental, where we find only three such beque.sts are on record. . . It is probable that by drawing attention to the fact that none of the great collectors of the last two hundred years have thought fit to leave their books to our University library, we may be point- ing to a lesson which our successors n:ay profit by, though we are too indifferent to pay any attention to it ourselves." As another result of this system it was said a few years ago that Cambridge scholars, being unable to count on getting in their own library what they want, find it better in the long run to go up to London to work in the British Museum, The Bodleian Library on the other hand, boasts a long line of benefactors whose great collections draw scholars to — 4 — Oxford from all parts of the world, and its history is both interesting and instructive for us. The Bodleian Library was established as a reference library, though under its statutes it was in the power of the University, by vote of convocation, to make loans of specific books, a power which was rarely exercised. About 1856, however, in a general revision of the University Statutes the prohibition against lending was omitted and the curators of the Bodleian began occasionally to lend books and MSS. ; in 1873 a statute was passed intended formally to authorize the curators to lend books and MSS., and a constantly increa.sing list of privi- leged borrowers was formed, until in 1886 it was said that " every Oxford resident is potentially on the list and may be actually on it when he likes." Attention was then called to the dangers of this practice and its questionable legality. It was then proposed by the advocates of lending to enact a new statute, giving to the curators the power to lend MSS. and to the Librarian the power to " lend books neither rare nor valuable." This brought on a full discussion of the question, and in two pamphlets by Professor Chandler, one of the curators of the Bodleian, the disadvantages of this policy were set forth so clearly and forcibly that I append a summary of his argument, as representing the prevailing view of scholars on the subject. When the question came before convocation in 1888 the final result, after full discus- sion, was the adoption by a large majority of an amendment abolishing all power of lending either printed books or MSS. except in such cases as might be sanctioned by a special vote of convocation. This result which was received with general satisfaction and approval was said to be largely due to the pamphlets of Profe.ssor Chandler. But it may be said we have nothing to learn from European practice. That remains to be proved. However, let us look then at the practice of American university libraries. We are told that of the seventeen university libraries of 75,000 volumes, or more, eleven. Harvard, Yale, Columbia Chicago, Penn.sylvania, Princeton, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Dartmouth, CaUfornia, Amherst, are circulating libraries for undergraduates ; fvhile six, Cornell, Michigan, Lehigh, Georgetown, Minnesota, Stanford are reference libraries for undergraduates. It may be added that, of the Hbraries rapidly approaching the limit of 75,000 volumes, New York, Notre Dame, and Wellesley are also reference libraries for undergraduates. But let us look a little more clo.sely into the practice and tendencies of those libraries which are classed as circulating libraries. At Harvard, taking the figures in the librarian's reports, in 1895 about 20,000 volumes were reserved from circulation, either in the reading room or in special reference libraries ; in 1901 the reserved books in the reading room numbered 27,630 and together with those in various special reference collections there were over 52,000 volumes which were not allowed to circulate. Outside of these strictly reference collections the practice in regard to restricting books from circulation, the librarian writes, is "far from systematic or consistent. Mo.st volumes of historical pamph- lets bound together are so restricted ; almost all books pub- lished in very limitfed editions ; many large illustrated books ; and many rare books which bring large prices at sales (but large numbers of these remain on the ordinary shelves undistinguished from others of little value). Dictionaries and text-books for class use we do not allow to circulate . . We indicate the restriction by a blue star on the catalogue card and on the inside of the front cover." The increa-sing importance of the reference side of the library is even more clearly shown by the Report of the Committee on the future needs of the Library, just submitted, insisting that the library is the laboratory of the literary and historical de- partments ; that the workers in the.se departments have the same right to expect adequate and convenient facilities for carrying on their work in the library that investigators in scientific fields enjoy in their laboratories ; and calling for a building which shall provide main reading rooms with provision for 550 readers and 35,000 volumes of general reference books, and some twenty rooms for special refer- ence libraries, aggregating 98,000 volumes, with seating space for 570 students. At Chicago 175,000 volumes are permanently reserved — 6 — from circulation aniotig students ; and why ? Because ' ' we consider it absolutely essential that there be some place upon the campus where a large proportion of the working books may be consulted at a moment's notice," says the librarian ; and President Harper, in a recent article, says the library " is the centre of the institutional activity. It is in fact, a laboratory, for here now the students, likewise the profes.sors who cannot purchase for themselves the books they must have, spend the larger portion of their lives. A greater change from the old order can hardly be conceived. . . The student of the future will do little of his work in his .study ; he must be in the midst of books. No ordinary .student can afford to own one book in a hundred of those which he may wish at any moment to consult." A reference library of 175,000 volumes, with a circulating department attached, in which class does Chicago stand ? At Columbia it is stated that from forty to forty-five per cent, of the books are not regularly lent, and the tendency at Columbia is clearly shown by these quotations from a recent article by the Librarian of Columbia: "The new thought of the library and the place given it in educational economy comes almost wholly with and from the rise and general acceptance of .scientific methods, laboratory methods in all instruction. . . This has made the library the very heart of university life. It is simply and always the scholar's laboratory." The chief concern is to see that those who use the books, he continues, "get the books surely and quickly, that for the use of the volumes they have light, air, a comfortable temperature, room and every convenience for writing and note-taking, with as much quiet and isolation as is possible." Again, " to get books surely demands either restriction in circulation, or the purchase of large numbers of duplicates, or something of both. Re- striction in circulation is unquestionably the method which must be used by the greater number of the colleges and univer,sities of to-day. A volume that is in even reasonable demand loses a great part of its effective value when it is withdrawn from the library no matter who has it ; for, with rare exception.s, the holder uses it but a small part of each day, and the rest of the time it is out of reach. . . When the new dormitories are built and occupied, and other op- portunities for living near the university have been mul- tiplied, we must surely put an end to even the possibility of having volumes stand idle on some remote shelves, or lie forgotten in some out-of-the-way closet while eager students are clamoring for them." At California a policy of " limited circulation" is practiced. Books not in current demand are lent out for periods of one day to fourteen days, but the period is always made as short as possible, and the time of loans is at the discretion of the reference librarian. The librarian writes that they "were forced to this arrangement by the fact that so very large a proportion of our students lived away from the college town and could not use the books in the evening zw situ." Johns Hopkins, the librarian writes, " has never been a strictly reference library " ; but Johns Hopkins really .stands in a class by itself, being made up of a series of departmental libraries in which details of management are decided by the departments. The practice no doubt varies in different de- partments, but in the only one of which I have positive knowledge the rule is that students can take books out over night, or for a longer time if approved by the head of the department, and the professor in charge says ' ' during the past year we did not loan a .single book or journal." If it is not evident from these facts that the tendency of modern American practice is in the direction of restriction, rather than extension of circulation, then surely facts have no meaning. Again, if we consider the libraries that have been named, it will be seen that the circulating libraries, with very few exceptions, are the older libraries still in bondage to old customs which have survived the .state of things which gave them birth, and from which these libraries are struggling to escape in various ways in order to meet the demands of the present day and develop the refer- ence side of the library. The.se customs grew up in the time when the college library was open only two or three hours a week (.so late as 1868 the Princeton library was open only one hour a day, one day in the week, and it is — 8 — said that an hour a day was not far from the average open- ing period of that time), and if the books were to be used at all they must be used out of the library. On the other hand the libraries which are reference libraries are for the most part, the libraries of the modern universities which had the experience of the older I'braries before them, and were free to choose the best methods, and those most likely to promote the usefulness of the library for university pur- poses. And it is worth noting that two of these younger libraries, Minnesota and Indiana, which began as circulating libraries, have been changed, within a few years, to refer- ence libraries for undergraduates, and we are told that there is no question as to the change being for the best good of the students themselves. I do not wish to boast of the value or efBciency of our library but I may be permitted to quote the opinion of a competent and unprejudiced judge. The I,ibrarian of Princeton University in a recent address on university libraries said " the order by size now is (i) Harvard, (2) Chicago, (3) Columbia, (4) Yale, (5) Cornell followed by Pennsylvania, Princeton, Ann Arbor. The order of real ef&ciency for university use would probably vary something from this, and might quite possibly be Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Yale, Chicago, etc. ; and Cornell by reason of its peculiarly fine quality might possibly even rank higher than Columbia." This would place Cornell second only to Har- vard in efficiency for university work, and this efficiency is due in no small degree to the fact that this, is a reference library for students ; for, so far as I have been able to learn, it has been the experience of students who have gone from here to universities in which the books circulate among un- dergraduates, that they have found themselves hampered in their work by not being able to get access to the books of the library, and that the conditions at Cornell were much more satisfactory for all purposes of research. It may be said that books needed for use in the library can be recalled on short notice, and that the inconveniences which, it is ad- mitted, frequently arise from delay in returning books can be prevented by a system of fines. But the reports of cir- — 9 — dilating libraries show clearly that a system of fines is not sufficient. Nor is it the custom, so far as I know, in any library to recall a book from a user unless it is needed for class use or for reference by a number of readers. Again, it must be remembered that libraries differ, not only in size or quantity, but in quality and value. An ordinary circu- lating library might lose half or two-thirds of its books, and they could be replaced, at least to the satisfaction of the users of such a library, without very great trouble. But the Cornell library is composed, to a greater extent than most university libraries, of special libraries, collected by scholars and specialists, and largely made up of books which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to replace for pur- poses of investigation and research. At the opening of tliis University it was deliberately de- cided, after full consideration, by men of wide and varied experience, that the University Library should be, primarily and mainly, a reference library, and that it should not be a circulating library for students. Under this policy it has won an enviable reputation for efficiency in university work and has received numerous gifts of valuable collections, .some of which, to say the least, we may be pretty certain would never have come to us had the library been a circulating library. In fact I know that the agitation of this question a few years ago very nearly deprived the library of valuable and unique collection which has since come to us by bequest. It may be said that the owners of collections may, if they wish, attach such conditions to their beque.sts as they see fit, and prescribe how these shall be used. No doubt they may, and the University may also decline to receive the bequ&st on the conditions imposed. No man is likely to expose a valuable collection to such chances ; many men dislike to encumber their gifts with conditions which imply a lack of confidence in the capacity or willingness of the cu.stodians of these gifts to take proper care of them, and most men are likely to choose, as a depository of their valuable collections, an institution in which they feel assured these collections will, as a matter of course, be properly cared for and pro- tected from misuse while being made accessible for all schol- . — lO — arly purposes. As to the opinions and wishes of some of our benefactors we are in no doubt. No one is better qual- ified to speak for the collector as well as for the scholar than ex-President White, the donor of that great series of special collections, the President White Historical Ivibrary, and on this question he writes to me as follows : " I note by the Ithaca papers that it is proposed to make the Uni- versity Library a loan library to students, allowing them to take the volumes to their rooms. No one is more anxious to have students profit by the library than myself. Of this I think you and others will allow that I have given special proofs, but I confess that the above proposal strikes me as likely to prove very injurious to the best interests of the University. In fact I should think it likely to dis- courage givers of really important collections of works which they have collected with great expense and care and which are likely to be lent out and left around in the rooms of students and exposed to many dangers. I remember that the late Dr. Francis Lieber used to say that " as regards books men are communists " and that " not one man in hundreds appreciates the real worth of a good book to a collection — the danger of destroying the value of a great set of books by the loss of one number of it." In my old days as a student at Yale College there might have been some reason for this new proposal At that time no fire was allowed in the library building for the reason that it was not fire proof, and there was no reading room connected with it, hence under very care- ful restrictions and on special payments of deposit or caution money etc. , students were allowed to take out books and carry them to their rooms ; but at Cornell University there is no such reason for the policy. The Library is fire proof ; it is better warmed, better lighted, and better provided for in every way than are the rooms of most students. At large expense it is kept open through day and evening on purpose to enable students to have every advantage in it. Moreover it is a question whether a student cannot read any book to better advantage in the library than in his own rooms for the reason that if he is really making careful studies he frequently needs to refer to some other book or books in the Library in connection with the main one in which he is engagad. This in the Library building is easy and the reference can be made at once as any point of importance arises. This is not at all the case in a student's bed-room in some remote part of the town. More than this the loaning of books from a University Library as proposed seems to me unfair to the student body itself. It constantly happens that many students are interested in the same work. If one student takes it, carries it to his room, he enjoys a monopoly of it until he returns it, whereas if it remains in the Library several students — II — can make use of it by a proper division of their times of study. This, it seems to me, is the most important argument in the case, affecting directly the interests of the student body. One possible, indeed probable form which this monopoly is liable to take is the following : It frequently happens that some subject, historical, philosophical, or other is given out for a prize. Under the proposed system the competitor who first gets hold of two or three of the most iqiportant books in the discussion is thereby given an enormous advantage over his competitors, in fact the competition is thereby rendered futile. There is no service for the delivery of the books to and fro. They must therefore be carried by the students themselves in all weathers, and are sure to deteriorate rapidly. I earnestly hope that you will present the matter in the proper quarter and put it in the proper light. You are at liberty to use this letter as you may see fit. I end by saying that I cannot conceive of any measure likely on the whole to be in the long run more injurious to the interests of the students themselves in the libraries than this, since it enables a single student to monopolize and keep out of use a book which might serve a large number, and just at the time when they need it most." That the donors of the Goldwin Smith collection and of the Dante and Rhaeto-ronianic collections hold similar views on this subject is well known to many here. The donor of our library building, and of our library fund, attached no conditions to his gift. But he certainly fully approved the present policy of the library, and I know that on one occa- sion, when it was sugge.sted to him that there was a desire on the part of some members of the University to allow un- dergraduates to take books from the library for home use, he was ver}' emphatic in the expression of his opinion that the books of the University l,ibrary should not be allowed to circulate among students, pointing out that, with the great facilities provided for the use of the books in the building, it was not only better for the books, but in the interest of the students themselves that the library should be a refer- ence library, and that it would be far more useful in this way than as a circulating library. We may hold that a man may do what he likes with his own property ; he may injure it or destroy it, and we can only lament his folly. But the case is different with prop- erty held in trust. The library is not ours to do with it as we will. It is simply intrusted to our care and keeping. — 12 — We are in duty bound to use our best efforts to make it of the greatest usefulness to the greatest number, to preserve its valuable collections intact, and to add to its treasures by all means in our power. Have we a right to commit our- selves to a policy which, if the teachings of experience and the opinions of those well qualified to judge can be trusted, will certainly diminish the usefulness of the library as a working library for scholarly purposes, will certainly expose its treasures to greatly increased risks of loss and destruc- tion, and will in all probability retard its growth and pros- perity, in order that the greater convenience of the few may be favored at the expense of the many, and that greater op- portunities may be given to students for general reading ? That greater opportunities for general reading should be afforded to students is indeed desirable ; but when this end can be attained equally well in another way, why should we jeopardize the future of the University Library? The simple and obvious way of attaining this end without interfering with the usefulness of the University Library as a working library is by the formation of a separate circu- lating library, provided the funds for doing so can be ob- tained. And even if no funds are available for establishing at once a large circulating library, we may make a fair be- ginning by setting aside from the general library the dupli- cates, or practical duplicates, of general and standard works, and also a large number of such books, not duplicates, as are evidently not needed in the direct work of instruction, and of such a character as to be easily replaced in case of loss. These would make a good foundation for a circulating department and could be placed in a separate room, on open shelves, to which the students may go and make their own selection of books for general reading and culture. A collection of several thousand volumes could be thus brought together at once, and the annual expenditure of one thousand dollars, recommended by the faculty for the purchase of duplicates for circulation, would soon build up an excellent circulating library without destroying the character of the general library as a reference library, or interfering with its usefulness for university purposes. So far as the cost of administration is — 13 — concerned this plan would be less expensive and much safer than an attempt to make the general library a circulating library and to indicate in any satisfactory way what books in it should not be allowed to circulate. Of course any ex- tension of circulation, in whatever way it is managed, means additional expense, not only in administration, but, as a consequence of the inevitably greater wear and tear of books which circulate, also in rebinding and replacement of injured and worn-out books, but it may be fairly assumed that the benefits to be conferred upon students by giving them greater opportunities for general reading will be well worth the additional cost, when this can be done without impairing the usefulness of the library for scholarly purposes. G. W. HARRIS. CoRNEi