19. In this, the libraries should consider they are not a trade organization, who, like the booksellers, depend on their trade for a living. Publisher and bookseller are one in interest—producer and distributor, and it is economically proper that the publisher's product should pass through the hands of the bookseller, and to whom?—to their clientele, the public. What relation does the library have to the bookseller, other than as a buyer, the same as the rest of the community? It is claimed that libraries are large buyers collectively, but the general public are larger buyers collectively, by many millions of dollars. If the library theory holds good, would not the same theory hold good if the citizens of each community were to combine in their purchasing and demand discounts accordingly? Would this not result in the booksellers' sudden and complete annihilation, instead of a gradual one, as it has been?

20. As to the "increasing charges," there is no more increase to the libraries than to the general public. What brought about these "increasing charges?" The necessity of self-preservation of both publisher and bookseller. Till the beginning of the net system and for some years thereafter books were published at the traditional prices of more than fifty years ago (and later a period of ruinous competition to the bookseller) the discounts to the trade remaining about the same, and this in spite of the fact that the cost of everything pertaining to book-making and its selling had greatly increased, and had not advanced in price, while almost every other article of merchandise, labor, material and the necessities of life, has greatly increased in cost, and increased in selling price.

21. The libraries state:

22. The booksellers do not feel that the libraries are a burden to them. They are anxious to have trading relations with them, but on a mutually satisfactory basis. The library does not need profit for its existence, supported as it is, but the bookseller needs it for his very existence. Were the libraries aware of the actual facts of the case, they would undoubtedly learn to their surprise that the trade done by "the jobbing trade and many dealers" was anything but satisfactory, and were their dealings with the libraries closely analyzed they would find they had made small profit, if not loss, on the total of the books sold to them. The dealers have only shown existing conditions, and have asked for relief.

23. The libraries are not sole buyers of net books. A very large proportion of their purchases are of non-net books, which are sold to them at little or no margin of profit, and at the same discount as the booksellers get. This is ruinous competition.

24. Why then do the trade desire library business under existing conditions? They do not seek this business for its profit-making on general publications, regular and net, for that is almost nil, but for such stock as can be bought at much better discount than the regular trade rates, such as jobs and the like, that they can sell the libraries, and also for the real value of the libraries to the bookseller that their orders often enable him to dispose of certain stock—even at cost—which might take a long time to dispose of. Finally, there is a certain amount of pride—surprising as it may seem—that the bookseller has. He wants to sell the library in his own community, he wants to do all the business of his community, and he feels it keenly that his library is the only one with whom he cannot do business, except at a very small profit or loss; and which trade goes to some other town or state.

25. We trust we have made clear to the libraries the exact business situation as it relates to the bookseller, jobber, and the like. To some extent, what is stated here is no new story. The general assertion has been made by the bookseller that the library business is unprofitable, while the libraries state they believe otherwise is or should be the case, and suggest their ideas as to a remedy.

26. It can be proved, we think, to the entire satisfaction of the libraries, that in spite of the net system and corresponding maintenance of price, the bookseller, jobber and the like, will be happy indeed if he can show the smallest margin of net profit as a result of a year's work in selling regular and net books to the libraries and the public as well.

27. The booksellers, jobbers and the like desire the library business. They believe that it rightly belongs to them in their own locality, and to no one else, be they large or small.

28. They believe the discount given to libraries by booksellers, jobbers and the like, should be uniform the country over, and leave a small margin of profit to the seller.

29. They believe that competitive bidding by the libraries has been detrimental to booksellers, jobbers and the like, as well as to the libraries in many ways, direct and indirect.

30. They believe that the libraries desire to be fair in this matter and not ask for unreasonable terms, and that a knowledge of the real facts of the case of the condition of the booksellers, jobbers and the like, will convince them that the booksellers, jobbers and others are doing all, if not more than they can, in giving the libraries a discount of 33 1-3 per cent on regular books, and 10 per cent on net books, as at present.

31. Booksellers, jobbers and the like fully believe that they can be of great assistance to the libraries and the libraries to them, and it is their earnest hope that close and harmonious relations may be brought about, and that they will do all in their power towards it. The booksellers most heartily endorse the great and good work the libraries perform to the community, and from a selfish point of view, the bookseller freely admits the great assistance derived by them from the influence of the libraries in creating a desire for reading and the possession of books, and the general educating and elevating of the community, and the bookseller also feels that his presence in any community is likewise educating and elevating and that his interests should be reasonably conserved.

32. The booksellers complain that when libraries become publishers, as many of them do, they make their prices net but give the trade little or no discount therefrom. Such books sold by the bookseller, cost him considerable in addition to the published price.

33. They cordially invite the librarians to go into any facts and figures they may desire to be informed about, as to the cost of booksellers doing business and as to the conditions affecting the relationship of both, with a view that all difficulties may be removed, to our mutual satisfaction.

34. We are pleased to learn that the libraries believe—-

1. The approval feature can be dropped.

2. That no library should ask for competitive bids on itemized lists.

3. The bibliographical work is entirely unnecessary by the bookseller and can be dispensed with.

4. That the relations between libraries and the book trade should be placed upon a business basis.

5. That there is no question as to the desirability and the necessity of improving the condition of the book trade, and that they are in sympathy with the apparently successful efforts now being made toward that end.

BOOKSELLERS SELLING TO LIBRARIES AND THE RESULT, IN PROFIT AND LOSS TO THE BOOKSELLER.

The following tabulation is compiled, from actual purchases made from four prominent publishers, by a large bookseller, during a period of one year. These purchases included books in all classes of literature, fiction, biography, science, travel, etc., etc., which would fairly represent the book purchases of a number of libraries for the period of one year. These books were bought at varying discounts, viz.:—2/5, 2/5-5, 2/5-10, ¼, ¼-5, ¼-10, 3/10, 3/10-5, 3/10-10, 1/3, 1/3-5, 1/3-10. Every advantage was taken where possible, to obtain by quantity buying, the extra 5 and 10 per cent, given by the publishers. The amount bought of these four publishers at published price was about $37,035.87, which cost the bookseller about $24,000.00, and included both regular, net and special books.

Let us assume that this bookseller sold these books from his stock to the libraries, at a discount from the published prices, on regular books, of 1/3 and a discount of 10% from the published prices of net books.

It is here shown, what the result of the operation would be to the bookseller, as to profit or loss. The cost point of doing business by booksellers the country over, has been fairly well determined to be on the same average, 28% per dollar of sale. This may fluctuate according to circumstances and location, between 30% and 25%. In order, however, to clearly and fully cover all possibilities in the matter, the expense per dollar of sale has been calculated at 28%, 20%, 15%, 10% and 5% per dollar of sale.

In all these calculations per dollar of sale, no allowance is made for depreciation of stock, fixtures, bad accounts, etc., etc.

It is hoped that a careful analysis of this table will help solve the library problem.

TABLE NO. 1.

TABLE NO. 2.

The following tabulation is compiled on the same basis as Table No. 1, but showing the result to the bookseller, as to profit and loss, if the bookseller increased the discount to the libraries, on regular books, from 1/3 to 2/5, and on net books from 1/10 to 1/5.

June, 1913
Report of the Bookbuying Committee of the American Library Association, 1912-13

In November, 1912, your committee was notified by the secretary that the executive board asked it to continue its negotiations with the committee on libraries of the American Booksellers' Convention.

A meeting with the latter committee was immediately arranged for, and such meeting was held in New York City on November 25th, which was attended by two representatives of the Booksellers' Association and by two members of the committee on Book Buying of the A. L. A. A discussion lasting over three hours, when all the details and conditions were gone over, resulted in a definite agreement, the ratification of which the committee of the American Booksellers' Association promised to recommend to that Association.

This agreement was in the nature of a small concession on the part of the Booksellers' Committee. While the concession was small, it was accepted as at least showing a disposition on the part of the Booksellers to co-operate with the libraries in the promotion of a better feeling between them. The Booksellers' Committee agreed to allow the libraries a discount of 15% from the net price on new fiction, instead of 10%, which is now allowed. The 15% discount was to be given during the calendar year in which the novel was published, as given on the title page.

A few days after this agreement was made, the acting chairman of the American Booksellers' Association committee announced that he could not carry it out, because of his finding that the booksellers could not afford to do what he had promised to recommend, and at that time submitted figures which he thought proved his contention. These figures differed in no particular from those which were formerly submitted, and which are a part of this report, and which, we believe are on a false basis of an exaggerated cost of doing library business, and of misleading statements as to discounts allowed by the publishers to booksellers on new fiction.

At the annual meeting of the American Booksellers' Association, which was held in May of this year, a statement was made by its committee on Relations with libraries, but this statement does not form a part of the published report of the proceedings of the convention, and your committee has not been able to obtain a copy of the stenographer's notes. The acting chairman of the Booksellers' Committee informs us that he made no report, but that he submitted and supplemented the foregoing statements of the committees, with quotations from the correspondence of the two committees. It, therefore, probably differed but little from the original statements made by the two committees.

We would, therefore, call your attention to the reasons given in the Booksellers' "Statement" for holding the uniform higher prices which the libraries are paying for books because of the short discounts allowed by the Booksellers' Association. As the position taken by the Booksellers' Association is not agreed to by all of the individual booksellers, such action may or may not be looked upon as a "restraint of trade."

The estimate of the cost of doing business by retail booksellers is 28%, and the contention is that no profit is made from any item which does not net them a sum greater than 28% above cost. This would mean that they wish to force the libraries into becoming retail customers because library business as a wholesale trade is regarded by the retail booksellers as too costly, and the Booksellers' Committee believes that it should not be welcomed by them. All booksellers do not take this view any more than they would wish to endorse that expressed in paragraph 8 of the "answer" of their committee, which reads as follows: "A great majority of the libraries are created and supported by direct taxation, by charitable contributions, endowments, legacies and the like. It is true that libraries have to be conducted in a careful, businesslike way, simply keeping within their means. Doing this, they are free from the booksellers' anxieties and difficulties as a merchant."

Your committee believes that there is no question as to the desire of all libraries to encourage good feeling between the booksellers and themselves, nor is there any question as to the desirability of having a bookstore in every community.

We believe that the local booksellers should be encouraged, but not at the expense of the taxpayers through the library.

The libraries, as wholesale buyers, should, we believe, be allowed greater discounts on the net books. As the retail booksellers seem not included to make any compromise, we believe that your committee on Book Buying might, in the immediate future, be of service to the libraries by calling their attention to the advantages of buying many replace books from booksellers who are desirous of obtaining and keeping the library business and to those who deal in remainders and second-hand books, both here and abroad.

Inasmuch as the Booksellers' Committee on Relations with libraries did not keep its verbal promise, and has reassumed its former position which allows no concession whatsoever, although asking and expecting co-operation from the libraries, we believe that there is nothing to be gained by further negotiations with the Booksellers' Association Committee on Relations with Libraries as it is now constituted.

Respectfully submitted,

WALTER L. BROWN,
CARL B. RODEN,
CHARLES H. BROWN,
Committee on Bookbuying.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CO-OPERATION WITH THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

The committee of the American Library Association on co-operation with the National Education Association, while having no special accomplishment to present, still seems justified in reporting the year as being one decidedly of progress. Never before in the experience of the committee has there been a more friendly expression of a desire to co-operate on the part of the N. E. A. than has been the case this year.

President Fairchild sent an invitation unsolicited for a representative of the American Library Association to take a place on the general program of the meetings of the National Education Association in Salt Lake City. The committee has not been able to find a proper representative to accept the invitation, owing to the great distance from library centers of the place of meeting.

There has been an increased amount of discussion by correspondence of the members of the committee as to the work that could be done more thoroughly to create a sympathetic attitude toward the work of the public library as an integral part of public education.

An increasing number of schools are turning to the libraries for help, and one association of college librarians has strongly emphasized the need of instruction in library methods for the students of high schools.

The committee has been active in its efforts to co-operate with the library department of the N. E. A., and has received a written expression of thanks for its work this year from the officers of the department.

M. E. AHERN,
Chairman.

COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL AND STATE RELATIONS

The committee reports that its chief activity throughout the year, has been the endeavor to secure a cheaper postal rate upon books, in which effort it has been unsuccessful. Attempts were made to have books included in the parcel post bill of 1912, and also to have the rate on books made the same as the second class rate on magazines when sent by individuals. At the regular and extra sessions of Congress, the Chairman of the Committees of Congress on Post Offices and Post Roads, were interviewed, and the Postmaster-General was urged to give the favorable influence of his department toward the end desired. There seems to be no probability of an immediate alteration in the rate upon books, unless a complete revision of the parcel post section of the postal laws be made, and there is some question as to whether it is desirable for books to be included in the parcel post, with the present zone system, inasmuch as under it, the postage upon books within certain zones would be actually greater than under the existing law. The activity of those desiring a one cent postage upon letters, also causes members of Congress to hesitate in making any reduction such as we desire.

When the new tariff bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, the Committee addressed a communication to the Committee on Ways and Means, so as to secure the retention of the privilege of free entry for books imported by public libraries. The Treasury Department on April 19 decided "that small importations through the mails for colleges or other institutions entitled to import books free of duty under Par. 519 of the Tariff Act will be passed without requiring an affidavit in each instance, provided such institutions will file with the Collector of Customs a copy of its charter or article of association showing it to be entitled to pass such importations free of duty." Libraries desiring to avail themselves of this privilege should forward this information promptly to the Collector of Customs at the port where they receive books.

BERNARD C. STEINER, Chairman.

COMMITTEE ON LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION

Part of your Committee's report is simply supplementary to that of last year, constituting with it a survey of methods used in certain libraries in carrying out two common operations—accessioning and the charging of issue. Last year the selected libraries were asked simply to describe these operations closely, being urged to leave out no detail, no matter how trivial and unimportant. It was thought that no set of questions, however minute, would provide for all such details, and that a questionnaire might result in many omissions and make the operations, as performed by the contributing libraries, appear to be more uniform than is really the case. The event proved, however, the necessity of some sort of a questionnaire, and after a study of last year's results the following was prepared by Mr. George F. Bowerman, of this committee, and sent out by the chairman both to the libraries named in the last report and to certain others. Data have been received from the following institutions:

Public or Circulating Libraries

• Butte, Montana
• Atlanta
• Pittsburgh
• East Orange
• Forbes Library
• Jacksonville, Florida
• Lincoln Library, Springfield
• Los Angeles
• New York
• Pratt Institute
• St. Louis
• Salt Lake City
• Seattle
• Washington

College or University

• Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
• Westminster College, Fulton, Mo.
• Harvard
• Kansas
• Syracuse
• Tulane

State Libraries

• Indiana
• Iowa
• New York
• Virginia

Special Library

• John Crerar, Chicago

Society Libraries

• Medical Society of the County of Kings
• New York Society
• New York Bar Association (accession only)

We give below the questions sent out with a summary of the various answers by numbers. The original blanks are on file at A. L. A. headquarters, showing answers in greater detail, together with the names of the answering libraries.

Summary of Reports on Accession Routine

[Harvard University library did not answer each question in detail, as it keeps no accession record in the usual sense. A record is kept each day of the number of volumes and pamphlets received by gift and by purchase, from which statistics are made up at the end of the year. A file of continuation cards for annual reports and similar continued publications and a record of gifts from individuals are useful supplements to the daily record. Bills for books are filed alphabetically under dealer's name each year, and order slips, giving agent, date of order and date of receipt, are preserved.]

Summary of Reports on Charging Systems

The most interesting thing brought out by this investigation is the fact that it has taken your committee two years to ascertain and tabulate the simple facts regarding methods of procedure, in a very limited number of institutions, in the performance of only two of the many operations that go to make up their current work. From this it may be imagined how long and difficult a task it would be to carry out a really comprehensive survey of all the work of all kinds of libraries as currently performed. And yet such a survey would appear to be a necessary preliminary to a study of the subject whose aims should be definite suggestions toward the improvement of this work in the direction of greater efficiency. It would seem, at present, a task beyond this committee's powers, although we may be prepared to take general advisory charge of such a work if others can be induced to undertake the details. Possibly some of the library schools may regard this as profitable employment for their students.

In the next place we are struck with the complete negative that our results place upon the general impression that the various details of modern library work are becoming—possibly even have already become—thoroughly standardized. No one thinks, of course, that everyone does everything alike; but we are apt to believe that there are now a few generally approved ways of doing each thing, and that each library selects from these the one that suits its own conditions and limitations. On the contrary, we seem to be in an era of free experiment. Nothing in the two sets of operations that we have studied—not even the existence and value of the operations themselves—would appear to be regarded as sacred. Everyone has his own methods and is apparently satisfied, either with them, or with his own ways of departing from them and groping after something better.

We cannot regard this as altogether desirable. Doubtless no one most efficient way of doing any of these things can be settled upon, so long as conditions differ, but we cannot believe that differences so fundamental and complexities so varied as those revealed in this report are due merely to differing conditions, and that each is the best in the place where it is practised. We must conclude, therefore, that many of our libraries are doing these particular things, and by inference others also, in wasteful, inefficient ways.

Having made a survey of the facts, the next step would be to inquire concerning all variations from a method selected as the simplest in each case—possibly accessioning as practised at Pratt Institute Free Library or the Public Library of the District of Columbia and the charging system at Pittsburgh or at East Orange, New Jersey. The cost of these variations in time and money and the skill necessary in carrying them out, should be ascertained and the practical value of each, if it has any, should be found. It may then be possible to select, for a library of a given type, a standard method of procedure, which will be, all things considered, the most efficient for it.

In regard to cost, the report of the sectional committee on the cost of cataloging, to be made at this conference, will doubtless throw some interesting light on the problem.

Questionnaires

The use of the questionnaire by this committee may require some justification in the light of the growing feeling among librarians that the multiplicity of such demands upon their time is becoming a nuisance; and possibly some general recommendations on the use of library questionnaires may be in order.

We feel that the value of the questionnaire, and the way in which it should be received, regarded and disposed of, depend primarily on the purpose for which it is intended and also largely on the skill and tact of the questioner. We distinguish three main classes of library questionnaires: (1) Those intended to gather data for the information of librarians in general; (2) those intended for the use of single libraries; (3) those intended for the information of individuals. Those of the first class, it seems to us, it is the duty of all librarians to answer, as far as possible. They include questions sent out by A. L. A. or state association committees and those put by individual libraries or librarians with a promise to publish the results or to put them into shape that will make them available to the public, provided, of course, the information sought appears likely to be of value when tabulated.

Questionnaires of the second class will generally be answered, not so much as a matter of public duty as of personal courtesy. They include requests from one librarian to another about details of administration for guidance in making improvements or alterations in method. A librarian feels usually that it is good policy, if nothing more, to comply with such requests so far as his rules permit, for he may at any time desire to make a similar request on his own part. It is suggested, however, that whenever possible such data as these should be asked in a way, and from a sufficient number of libraries, to warrant throwing the results into a form that will make them generally available.

The third category includes most of the questionnaires that excite the ire of librarians and cause a feeling that questions of all kinds are nuisances demanding abatement. They come from students writing theses, from assistants preparing papers for local clubs, from individuals obsessed with curiosity, from reporters, from persons of various degrees of irresponsibility. There is no reason why any attention at all should be paid to these and we recommend librarians to return to them merely a stereotyped form of polite acknowledgement and refusal.

It is hoped that the Headquarters of the Association may become more and more the clearing house for systematized information of this kind, saving thereby much wasteful duplication of material and effort. We recommend that the originators of legitimate questionnaires send to Headquarters before making up their list of questions, to see how many can be answered in this way.

Much of the feeling against questionnaires is due to lack of good judgment on the part of the framers. It is obviously unfair to ask another librarian to answer questions that could be answered from the resources of the questioning library, even if the latter would require a little more time and trouble. A large proportion of the items in questionnaires of all three grades specified above are of this character. If it is desired that all the answers shall appear in the same form on one sheet, answers obtainable in the questioning library may be written in before sending out the list, and the attention of the correspondent may be called to this fact. In any case a statement should accompany the questionnaire that the information asked cannot be obtained by any other means at the asker's disposal.

In some cases questions are asked that require the collection of unusual data regarding the current work of the library. The answers to such questions can evidently not be given, even if the library is willing and anxious to undertake at once the additional work of collection, until the expiration of the period for which the figures are asked—generally one year. The usual method seems to be to send out such questions to a large number of libraries in the hope that a few will be able to answer them at once. A better way would be to send out to a large number of libraries a statement of the desired data, asking those willing to undertake their collection to notify the asker. At the expiration of the period of collection the sender of the questions would then have accurate data and he would not expect them before the end of this period—whether one year or less.

It would seem to be unnecessary to remind those who receive and answer questionnaires that returned blanks should bear the name of the library to which they refer, were it not for the fact that this is so often omitted. In one recent case the name was given simply as "Carnegie library," with no address.

Briefly set forth, the recommendations of this committee, regarding the use of library questionnaires, are, then, as follows:

(1) That questionnaires should always be for the information of librarians in general, or for improving the service of one library in particular, preferably the former.

(2) That no questions should be included that can be answered in the questioning library or at A. L. A. Headquarters.

(3) That questions requiring the collection of current data over a specified period of time be asked proportionately in advance of the report desired, in cases where the data are not such as are usually recorded.

(4) That those who answer questionnaires be careful to include the name and address of their library.

Labor Saving Devices

It is a commonplace of library history that librarianship has contributed the card catalog idea to commercial life. The library in turn is indebted to commercial life for many labor-saving devices. Very likely a few of the largest libraries utilize all available labor-saving devices to the utmost. Your committee is, however, of the opinion that the medium size and smaller libraries might reduce the cost of administration through the more general use of mechanical appliances. We recommend that at a coming meeting of the Association there be held an exhibition of all available competing labor-saving devices adapted to library use. The assembled demonstration of such devices should prove most instructive to the members of the association and would itself be a time-saving device. Such an exhibition could probably not be advantageously assembled except in a large city. Your committee therefore recommends that either it or a special committee be authorized to arrange for such an exhibition and demonstration.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

ARTHUR E. BOSTWICK, Chairman.
GEORGE F. BOWERMAN,
JOHN S. CLEAVINGER,
Committee on Administration.

COMMITTEE ON LIBRARY TRAINING

At the beginning of the year the committee began the consideration of an outline, prepared by the chairman, of possible points considered in the proposed examination of library schools. This outline was submitted to the members of the committee individually and valuable suggestions obtained and was afterwards discussed by such members of the committee as were present at the January meetings in Chicago.

This outline which is appended to the present report is not to be considered as necessarily final, for the committee invites criticisms and suggestions from other members of the profession. What the committee desires if library schools are to be examined, is that the schools should be examined from the point of view of the needs of the profession, not simply from the point of view of the interests of the library schools. The real vital questions lying at the foundation of the examination of library schools are these: Does this method of obtaining recruits for the profession give the best results which can be secured by such a method? Do the library school trained workers prove in actual experience that their training has been of the right sort? These questions cannot be answered from an examination of the records of any one or even any half dozen library school graduates, but only from the examination of many such records.

As was before said, criticisms on the outline are invited from members of the profession and from any of the library schools, as the desire of the committee is to make an absolutely thorough, and impartial study of the whole library school problem.

At the January meeting in Chicago the members of the committee were rejoiced to learn that the executive board had re-appropriated the appropriation for 1912 with a like amount for the work of 1913.

With these financial limitations in mind the committee considered the question of an examiner, and one having been agreed upon, made the proposition with great confidence, only after considerable delay to have it declined. Further search through the field discovered another person who seemed equally suitable and she was approached only to decline.

The real difficulty evidently lies in the fact that we are asking the examiner to undertake a large piece of professional work and practically offering only expenses and the cost of a substitute for the regular work during such times as it is necessary to leave it. Naturally enough, it is not easy to find anyone willing to take this additional burden.

The committee now have in consideration other names and hope, if reappointed, to be able to announce an examiner before the beginning of the next library school year to such schools as indicate their readiness to receive an examination.

For the Committee.

AZARIAH S. ROOT, Chairman.

Appendix
Scheme of Efficiency Tests for a Library School

(Note.—In its general outline this scheme is indebted to the admirable Test of College Efficiency prepared by Dean Charles N. Cole of Oberlin College.)

I. THE PROCESS OF EDUCATION