for a purpose and thoroughly interested. The special efforts which had been made in our behalf by those in authority had been appreciated. As never before this meeting proved to be our opportunity to hear and be heard.

Among those who participated in the discussions was Alton P. Tisdel, Asst. Superintendent of Documents, who represented the Superintendent of Documents, General Josiah H. Brinker, who being unable to be present, had sent his best wishes for the success of the meeting and its members. Mr. Tisdel expressed his surprise and pleasure at the great interest which he found so many librarians had in public documents. "The talks I have had with you librarians," said Mr. Tisdel, "have been a revelation, enabling me to see the growth and influence in public documents. I know it will serve to increase the activities of the Superintendent of Documents along the line of doing for the libraries all he can."

Mr. Ranck, librarian of the Grand Rapids public library, inquired concerning the use of franked envelopes which at first glance seemed threatened.

Dr. Andrews, of The John Crerar Library, expressed his appreciation of the action of the Printing committee in proposing a bill which does so much.

Mr. Carr of Scranton, Penn., expressed his appreciation of the great helpfulness of the Monthly Catalogue.

Nathan B. Williams, a special representative of the House Judiciary Committee, called attention to some of the special publications printed by that Committee under its own authority and immediate direction, each in an edition limited to one thousand copies. He also called attention to the great lack of reliable translations of foreign laws, and the great difficulties which always accompany such legal translations. "I do not care how accurate a translator may be, he must at least have his translation revised by one who is familiar with the terminology of the subject

which he attempts to translate," said Mr. Williams.

Miss Hasse of the New York public 11brary made a plea for the small library and urged the creation of a graded list of depository libraries.

Mr. Bowker, editor of the Library Journal, expressed his pleasure in seeing in this meeting parties to all sides of the public document question in earnest, helpful and hopeful conference. He recalled his earlier experiences in Washington while attempting to learn from the departments what they had published. He contrasted that lack of information with the present Monthly Catalogue of public documents which is serving a very great purpose. Mr. Bowker supported Miss Hasse's plea for the smaller libraries and was inclined to advocate sending to such libraries only such documents as might be selected by competent government authorities, as being of service in such libraries, but always granting to the libraries the privilege of asking for other documents so far as they can be supplied.

Mr. Daniels of California called attention to the large use made of public documents in the county library work in his state, and expressed the hope that provision would be made whereby the needs of large sections would not be determined by the requirements of smaller areas bearing the same name, for said he, "A California county covers some territory and therefore we require many duplicates in our system."

Mr. Nichols of the Library of Geological Survey, Washington, expressed his pleasure at the work accomplished by the Joint Committee on printing, and urged that the attention of our Congressmen and Senators should be called through personal letters to the desirability of its early passage. This suggestion met with hearty approval.

Mr. Thompson of the Library of Congress called attention to the large use of government and state publications by the

legislative reference departments now found in so many of our states.

The meeting, after expressing the hope that the proposed bill might be enacted into law substantially as presented, adjourned by passing a vote of thanks to

those who had arranged for the meeting, to those who had prepared papers and to those officials and others who, by their presence or through their representatives, had contributed to the success of this meeting.

FIRST SESSION

RED PARLOR, NEW EBBITT HOTEL, Washington, D. C.

Wednesday, May 27, 1914

President WYER: The Association will please be in order. It has been the custom heretofore to have an address of welcome from the librarian of the state in which the Association is meeting at the time. But as Dr. Putnam said last evening to the general Association we are not invited to Washington; we come to Washington as our right and as a sort of pleasant heritage that falls to all the people of the country to visit the capital personally, or in this more formal way. Dr. Putnam would be the analogue of the local state librarian, but he has already welcomed us in general session, and it does not seem requisite to put upon the program the customary addresses of welcome and of response.

Before proceeding to the program as it is printed, the chair will appoint a Committee on nominations to consist of Mr. Brown of Indiana, Dr. McIlwaine of Virginia, and Mrs. Fowler of Illinois; and as an Auditing committee Dr. Owen of Alabama and Mr. Greene of California. The latter can get from the secretary-treasurer at the close of this session the very few vouchers and financial records that will form part of its work, and both committees will be ready with a report at the second session.

The chair will also appoint Mr. Godard of Connecticut, Mr. Green of West Virginia, and Mrs. Cobb of Georgia as a Committee on resolutions.

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Your president has selected for a subject "The state library and its librarian," and he has chosen certain specific topics that relate to the exact province and business of the state library. By this time

these have been pretty well fixed-the aim and the work of the state library pretty definitely settled in our minds and in current practice throughout the country in those libraries which we are apt to consider typical. The American Library Association has been discussing these things among others for nearly forty years, the National Association of State Libraries has been talking about them pretty exclusively for fifteen years, and some of us who are here today with others who, after zealous and gratefully-remembered service, are no longer present, have put in years of hard work on this very matter of settling the place and function of the state library. During this time, as the library movement has grown greatly in volume and extent, its work has differentiated sharply, and certain pronounced types of libraries have been developed, each taking for its province a certain part of the ever more highly specialized work. Of these types the state library is one. For the present purpose the term "state library" will not mean any library owned by the state, for this in different states would include the libraries of the state universities, the state historical society, the normal schools or the charitable and penal institutions, which are themselves of other distinct types, as school, college or special libraries.

By state library is here meant only that one library in each state which is thus specifically termed, which is located in the capital city, usually in the capitol building, and which serves the government, people and library interests of the state as distinguished from any lesser or more restricted constituency.

In this sense, the state library is part of the official equipment of every American commonwealth. The earliest were those of Pennsylvania and New Jersey established 1796, Ohio 1817, New York 1818. In most states admitted to the Union since 1800, the state library was established

very soon after admission; in many of them territorial libraries existed for some years before statehood.

In seeking for the province of the state library, we find that it is usually formally defined by law, but it is clear at once that these earlier notions of this province would today appear narrow and inadequate. From the thought of a library, usually a law library, chiefly or solely designed for the state's official family, the legislature, courts, administrative departments and officers-in brief for state employes-the conception latterly and in many states has grown to mean a library which, without dropping any of its original duties, shall hold much the same relation to all library endeavor in the state as the Department of Education or Public Instruction holds toward all educational endeavor. Besides the functions of advice, inspection, organization, extension and supervision which this comparison suggests, the state library should supplement all other libraries by serving as a central collection ready to send to any part of the state the unusual books that local libraries cannot supply.

In this quest of the true province of the state library may we not, with assurance and for convenience and definiteness, set down a few points which discussion and experience have settled and upon which both theory and practice are by now agreed.

First: A state-wide service. Ninety-five years ago the act founding the New York state library read that it should be "a public library for the use of the government and of the people of the state." If we are tempted to feel that the legislature then took refuge in a good-sounding phrase, with no far vision or full perception of its wide implications, we can at least be very sure that as not New York alone, but other states as well have steadily advanced to the literal fulfillment of that early and prophetic program, there has been hearty assent to and approval of every effort to realize the ideal which

is the present conception of the state library.

The founders of our early state libraries would without doubt be very much astonished could they return and see today the stature to which have grown the modest library infants to which their early laws gave birth, yet I cannot believe that this growth, this extension of its functions and concern to embrace the book-thirsty of the whole state, would call out from them anything but hearty approval for the wisdom which has in response to new conditions and new needs so greatly expanded their original conception of the state library.

This state-wide conception is now the popular and accepted one. The burden of proof rests heavily upon the conservative or obstinate state library management which still clings to the antiquated idea of service to the state's official family only. Such a library today is likely to be waked rudely by legislative resolution, seeking to know why such or such a line of work notably performed in other states is neglected locally, or rebuked by mandatory statute establishing new work in charge of other agencies more willing and alert. If there is one sure trait of modern state library conduct, confirmed by popular approval and sanctioned by increasingly liberal money grants, it is this conception of state-wide service and obligation.

If there are states where the state library still clings to the old idea, where a collection wholly or chiefly of law books is held sacred to the exclusive and infrequent use of courts, legislature or state officials, states where the library is still waiting in dignified aloofness for the few privileged people to come to it, whose custodians have never moved to carry the library to the people, to such it may be said that you are out of touch with current library development, ignoring wonderful potential possibilities, and inviting yourselves and your libraries to a place in the rear of the procession.

Second: A single agency for all state library activities. Are we not agreed fully

on this? I hope and believe so, although agreement is of later date than on the first proposition. Let us state the thesis in some detail. At the state library should be centered all library work done in the state's name. In addition to the duties of advice, inspection, extension, supervision and circulation mentioned above, it is appropriate for the state library to distribute the state's public documents; to allot and distribute its library grants and subsidies; to give library instruction; to maintain traveling libraries; to do reference and bibliographic work by mail, telegraph and telephone; to carry on legislative reference work; to collect and preserve the manuscript records of the state or any of its political divisions-all these and other functions now admittedly appropriate, nay necessary, to a state library should be combined in and carried out by one agency, the state library. This is no longer an ideal, for it is realized in several states, notably in New York and California, and the trend of library coordination sets strongly this way. That it is not realized in more states is because the functions which should have been conserved in one and only one state library office are too often dissipated, and delegated to more than one, often to several libraries, boards or commissions.

There are states with a state library and a library commission; with a state library and two library commissions; with a state library, a library commission and a state historical society library. There are states with a state library, the obvi ous and logical center for all library activities, where the usual duties which should be performed by such a central library office have been divided among other departments, boards and offices, not only with inevitable wasteful duplication but, worse still, with no opportunities to perfect that one close-knit organization which shall seize every chance for effective coördination, and for the weaving of a single firm library fabric.

It is interesting to note the reasons for this uneconomic multiplication of the

state's library agencies. The root of it lies in the old, original idea of the narrow function of the state library, and beyond this, rather a logical result of it, the political control and management of the state library.

This political connection put placehunters in our state libraries, men who in many cases (though not in all, for there were eminent and honorable exceptions) were looking for the least books for the fewest people with the least work. To such men, library extension was abhorrent. When the library commission movement began in the early '90's most of the state libraries and their custodians were either indifferent or actively opposed to undertaking this new work of stirring people up to want something they never had heard of, and they did not want the library commission attached to the state library any more than the pioneers of the library commission work wanted it there either.

As a result a movement took place to create other and new agencies apart from the state libraries, which the pioneers in library extension were either unable to interest or feared to entrust with the new work, and consequently has grown up this multiplication of agencies which we now deplore.

I believe it to be a safe and sound proposition that before any central library office (and it should preferably be called the state library) can do the utmost to coördinate and advance library interests in any state, it must have the field to itself.

Third: The recognition of library work as an expert and highly specialized service. This recognition is neither so cordial nor so widespread as could be wished, yet there has been a decided movement of public opinion in this direction and a very palpable and substantial progress can be cited as having marked the past thirty years. These comforting statements can be supported by a glance at some of the changes that have marked the administrative status and legal control of state