THE success of the New York Library Club has been a pleasant surprise. Some sixty residents of New York or vicinity are already enrolled, and each of the two meetings has been attended by thirty or more people. The meetings have been interesting, and a good deal of useful co-operative work is already well under way. The only parallel hitherto has been the monthly Council meetings of the L. A. U. K. in London, which are virtually a London Library Club, but there seems no reason why the New York example should not be successfully followed in Boston, Chicago, and other library

centres.

THE proposed free public library for New York is naturally the topic of interest in library circles. The discussion at the New York Library Club developed a general consensus of opinion that a true people's library would best consist of a number of small libraries in the most crowded parts of the city, extending the good work which the Free Circulating Library is already doing by private enterprise. On the other hand-and especially if these cannot be had and the other can-a great book-cathedral, to which all are welcomed, is a good in itself, a binding link between rich and poor, and from it a branch-system would almost certainly develop. The prospect of a free public library system in New York, in any shape, is one to gladden librarians.

GOVERNMENT publications, hitherto a sealed book, are beginning to have the attention they deserve. The Descriptive Catalogue of Mr. Poore, reviewed in this number, will be an open sesame to what have hitherto been inaccessible catacombs, despite all the imperfections it exhibits and acknowledges, and the list in the "American Catalogue" and Mr. Hickox's "Monthly Catalogue" supplement it very nearly to date. The reports on this subject at the Lake George Conference (now reprinted in a separate pamphlet) prepare librarians to welcome the Hoar and Singleton bills reforming the methods of

No. 1.

publication and distribution, which we make no apology for giving nearly in full elsewhere. We shall hope to discuss the Singleton plan in some detail in next month's JOURNAL.

WE were glad to print Mr. Schwartz's article in our last number. It brings into view certain desirable qualities in a classification. His argument will show the merits of his classification, which has been, perhaps, unduly laughed at. He does not, we think, prove his to be the only good scheme. All the schemes now before the American public have merit; all help the librarian, some a little more in one way, some a little more in another, and each has its own drawbacks. The question for each of us to determine is, which kind of help we want most, and which drawback he can best put up with. The "out" of Mr. Schwartz's scheme is his arrangement of classes, which shocks the classifying instinct of every one who looks at it. The merit is that it is possible, if we can remember what name has been assigned to a subject, and know under what general head the subject goes, to work out for one's self its place in the classification. The drawback of Mr. Dewey's system is the long numbers which he is compelled to use for minute subdivision, and the unsatisfactory classification of some parts. Mr. Perkins's and Mr. Smith's classes will not suit every one, and Mr. Smith's notation has some objectionable featMr. Cutter's notation offends many perBut the defect common to all but Mr. Schwartz's is that they are not automatic, they do not enable any one to work out à priori the place of a class in the scheme. Whether that feature of Mr. Schwartz's is of much value, we have serious doubts. We do not believe that it will be found to be any easier, when one has forgotten the place of a class, to translate the name into numbers by his table, than it is to look in an alphabetical index and find the word and its class number. The index has one great superiority-one will find there all the synonymous names of one's subject in their proper places; whereas in using Mr. Schwartz's scheme, one has to recollect exactly the word which he has used; otherwise the key gives no assistance.

ures. sons.

THE long-expected "Descriptive Catalogue of the Government Publications of the United States, September 5, 1774-March 4, 1881, compiled, by order of Congress, by Ben: Perley Poore, Clerk of Printing Records," was issued last month (December, 1885) by the Government Printing Office, Washington, in a square quarto of iv+1392 pages. It is in two divisions, a twocolumn chronological list of titles, covering 1241 pages, and including over 60,000 entries; and a three-column (subject) index, covering 148 pages and including over 40,000 references, the great majority of which are to individual names. The book is well made, and is fittingly bound in red half-skiver, paper sides. With all its imperfections, it is a great boon, and is another "monumental work."

Mr. Poore's two-page preface, dated June 1, 1885, is a brief history of the enterprise and a frank confession of the imperfection of the result. The first proposal of such a catalogue' was made in 1845. No action was taken until 1881, March 24, when Senator Cockrell introduced a resolution directing the Departments and the Secretary of the Senate to report "complete lists" of the issues of the Departments and of Congress. The results were funny: the War Department, for instance, frankly replied that it had no information on which to base such a list. At the next session Senator Cockrell procured the passage of a bill to provide for the present catalogue, under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, which was approved July 27, 1882. As Mr. Poore observes, it was a Christopher Columbus piece of exploration which the committee had before them. Unfortunately, they started with two pilots instead of one, and two cataloguers, working independently, amassed a great quantity of titles under the simple plan of recording title, author, date, where book was to be found, and brief abstract of contents. On March 1, 1883, Mr. Poore was put in charge of the work, and fourteen assistants from the several departments were named to assist him. Not one of them had any experience in cataloguing, nor was Mr. Poore himself a trained bibliographer. They found and catalogued 63,063 items, many of them duplicate or variorum editions issued by both Houses of Congress; it was

found impracticable to do otherwise than to dump in both entries, and there is probably some duplication also of titles reported from more than one department library. With the "abstracts of contents" the material was found to be too copious; these were therefore reduced to the minimum, but the catalogue was again extended by adding "publications of public interest purchased by the United States for use or distribution." In addition to the Washington libraries, much use was made of the Boston Public Library Collection of pub. docs., which is one of the best, and by all means the best-catalogued, in the country, and of some private collections. The work, exclusive of intervals, occupied, it is stated, about two years; its cost is not given. It is understood that the appropriations have exceeded $40,000, in addition to cost of printing.

The catalogue begins with the "Abridgment of Laws in the American Plantations" (London, 1704), in the Law Library of Congress; it continues with the Writings of Washington, the Works of Hamilton, Jefferson, and Adams, the Madison papers, the American Archives, and the Journals of the Continental Congress; and the last entry is the Statement of Appropriations and New Offices," March 3, 1881. The order is strictly chronological, year-entries prefacing day-entries, except that such entries as 'Statements of the Tariffs," 1789-1833, are put in the earliest year, as 'from 1789." The entries up to 1800 are within 42 pages; those up to 1850 occupy 535 more; from 1850 to March 3, 1881, requires 664 pages, of which the last complete year (1880) takes 62 pages. The titles are brief, but size and number of pages are given. The bureau of publication or place where the book may be found, is noted in each case. A descriptive note, averaging two lines, supplements each title; these notes are often very valuable, often giving, in the case of committee reports, the gist of the entire document, and in composite volumes a list of conThe student of political reform can get a deal of light from this catalogue as to waste of Government time and money, vide the 279 p. majority report and 279 p. minority report (p. 1241) on an anonymous letter sent to Congressman Springer.

tents.

The key to this enormous heap of material is, of course, to be found in the index, in which a bibliographer of critical acumen could probably drive a horse and cart through every page. But any one who has ever been lost in the labyrinth of Government publications will be grateful for what he gets, and in this index he gets a great deal. To take two or three examples: There are thirteen entries under Library of Congress, with perhaps a hundred page-references, but no reference from Congress or Congressional to Library; the 1876 Report on Public Libraries is entered under Public, but not under Libraries, and, by the way, the note on this work on p. 1051 is very inadequate, and as to Part II. (Cutter's rules) absolutely incorrect. There are three entries and 24 page-references under Copyright, none under International copyright. This lack of sub- or cross-references or of duplicate entries is, of course, bothersome. On some subjects sub-references are given, as from Revenue to Duties on Imports, with about thirty references, Internal-revenue taxes (10), Tariff (400), and Taxation (50); but even here cross-references are sometimes given and sometimes not. Trained help would have bettered this index vastly, but as it is, it is of such very great service that to criticise seems hypercritical, in view of the enormous difficulties of the work achieved.

The act provided for the printing of 6600, of which 1000 were to be bound in full sheep, and 5600 in half leather like the Congressional record. Of these 60 were apportioned to the Library of Congress (50 for foreign exchanges); 1000 for the "reserved" or Congressional document sets, of which one copy is delivered to each State and Territorial library, and to other institutions (libraries, colleges, literary and historical societies) designated as depositories according to the provisions of the Revised Statutes; 818 copies "to be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior for distribution to such libraries, not depositories of public documents, as shall be named for this purpose by each Senator, Repre

sentative, and Delegate in Congress." Besides these, provision was made for 500 copies halfbound in leather for sale at ten per centum advance on cost price, which may be had by sending a money-order for $1.90 (payable to Mr. Cadet Taylor, Chief Clerk) to the Public Printer, Washington, who will send the book by registered mail, without extra charge. Only 100 of these copies were taken up in advance. Stereotype plates were made, and a second printing will be ordered by Congress if there is sufficient demand. The recall, by the Public Printer, of an insignificant number of unbound copies, which were sent out by mistake, seems to have led to an erroneous belief that libraries would not be able to get this work freely. As will be seen above, extra provision has been made for distribution among libraries.

Since this work ends with March 3, 1881, a word in regard to later endeavors to catalogue Government publications may be added. The appendix on United States Government Publications in the new American Catalogue overlaps Poore's list, commencing January 1, 1881, and gives publications to June 30, 1884. This list was purposely planned to supplement Poore's Catalogue in quite another way, by affording a cue to the relations of the several Departments and Bureaus with each other, in respect to publications, and to the several regular series of Government publications. The Poore Catalogue gives no indication whatever of these matters, but the American Catalogue arrangement will serve to give a clue to the years preceding as well as succeeding 1881. Mr. Hickox began his Monthly Catalogue of Government Publications with 1885, so that there is a gap of six months uncovered, except by the irregular sales catalogues of James Anglim & Co., Washington. The card catalogue of the Boston Public Library, kept in a separate case in Bates Hall, but accessible by request, is by far the best index to Government publications anywhere accessible, the card catalogue of the Library of Congress being phenomenally incomplete.

issues of an equal number of pages. They make ridiculous comparisons of paper and type, and assume that the higher price means unreasonable profits to some one. A single case illustrates I induced a publisher to bring out a little pamphlet much needed by a few people. He

fixed the price at less than one half actual cost, not counting time and labor, because unwilling to charge more for so small a thing. One of the first copies sold was by mail to a well-known member of the A. L. A., who returned it with an indignant note at the extortionate price. The note was sent me as a sample of the encouragement offered by some librarians to publishers who wish to help the profession by printing matter greatly needed.

I wanted recently a copy of some matter in the Harvard Library, and had it made at a cost of about $25, and every one thought the price very moderate; but had any publisher been foolish enough to put that matter in type, hoping to sell five or ten copies, and offered the printed copy at $10, I fear that nine tenths of the librarians, who of all men, except publishers, ought to know better, would have thought it a disreputable scheme for making money out of the libraries who must buy it so or not at all.

The lack of reason and thought has done some of our best enterprises much harm and has caused some of us who understand the facts no little mortification. It emphasizes the need in the country of publication societies which shall bring out these things that cannot pay at any reasonable price. But for our common reputation among intelligent publishers, I beg that we shall be reasonable and willing to pay at least the cost of printing such things as we wish to use.

This Co-operative Index is a good case in point. Let every library consider itself in honor bound to count the cost of making whatever substitute it would need if this were given up, and then agree to give some portion of its proved value toward paying the printer.

It hardly seems credible that intelligent librarians and trustees could be so blind to their own interests as to risk the suspension of this Index, and yet the publisher, after paying deficiencies in printers' bills till it ceases to be a virtue, has sent us a circular asking if it must be given up for want of money enough to print it after the editor and contributors have given their services.

The circular came to my committee at the worst possible time, at the meeting where we found ourselves with funds for books exhausted, and compelled to make a special effort to raise money. But we looked into the matter, and decided that, if the Index were given up it would cost us not less than $300 to pay a cataloguer for making what we should want to take its place, and we

should then have a less complete record in manuscript instead of the printed copies. In spite of the pressure upon us we could not respectably offer less than $20 per year for our copies or as our contribution toward printers' bills, and I sent a check for that amount, with the assurance that we should continue it till the Index was made self-supporting. This end will be reached at once if the better class libraries will pay a small fraction of what it saves them. If this cannot be done, we have small hopes of making any substantial progress in library co-operation.

The office of the LIBRARY JOURNAL has proved to us for ten years back that it is ready to work hard for our interests, and often to help us pay • our own bills; but there is a limit, and just at the time when we have agreed to try the longtalked-of printed cards for catalogues, and are asking its co-operation, we should show a disposition to be just-we are not asked to be gen

erous.

I have written this note without the knowledge or consent of the publisher of the JOURNAL, but I know that Mr. Bowker and Mr. Leypoldt before him have sunk a good deal of money in keeping up our library publications, beside much work that would have yielded large returns if given to other business. Under such circumstances it is not creditable for us to sit indifferently by and allow them to bear our burdens till they are no longer able, and then to give up our best co-operative plans, simply because so many of us either don't think about it at all or else wish to let others do all the work, pay all the bills, and then let us share equally in all the benefits.

That the publisher has hesitated to state this matter fully to us is double reason why we should state it to ourselves. I appeal to the intelligent and reasonable librarians who really wish to see our profession elevated to a higher rank, our methods improved, our expenses reduced by co operation, while our usefulness steadily increases, to stand by the men who have done for us in the past, and will continue to do, unless we blindly force them out of our service by a penny-wise policy that enables us to sponge the benefits this year, but cuts us off from getting them at any price hereafter.

We have not yet attained to the doctrine that the laborer is worthy of his hire, but are striving for that lower plane, where we preach that the laborer who works for nothing is worthy of having his actual expenses paid by those who reap the benefits of his services.