College and Research Libraries .;., I By ROBERT B. DOWNS Distribution of American Library Resources O NE OF THE MOST frequently quoted sections of Louis R. Wilson's Geog- raphy of Reading deals with library cen- ters in the United States. Basing his find- ings on the American Library Directory and several other standard reference ·sources issued in 1935, Wilson discovered that there were 77 centers of not over 50 miles radius (airline) containing 500,000 volumes or more. 1 The Wilson study was primarily in terms of municipal centers, since the great concentrations of library resources normally are to be found in cities. At approximately the same date as the Wil- son report the results of another investi- gation appeared, using the same sources of information, but showing the distri- bution of library resources by states, and more strictly limited to collections of n;search importance. 2 How much has the situation changed in the period of about 20 years since these two studies were published? Has the number of centers increased su bstan- tiall y, and has their rank in relation to one another undergone any radical shifts? Are the rich states and cities getting rich- er and the poor poorer, or is there any 1 Louis R . Wilson , Geography of Reading (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), pp. 118-23. 2 ALA Committee on Resources of Southern Li- braries, Report (Chicago: ALA, 1936), pp. 118-19 . Also in Tommie Dora Barker's Libraries of the South (Chicago: ALA, 193 6), Appendix A. Dr. Downs is director of the library and library school) University of Tllinois. He was assisted in the preparation of this article by the following graduate students of the library school: Eloise Eb.ert) Bernard Gill) Angelina Martinez ) Peggy McCully) Furuzan Olsen) M .e.lville Spence ) Dwight Tuckwood) Howard Zan- dergen. evidence that library resources in differ- ent regions of the country are being equalized? These are some of the ques- tions that the present article will attempt to answer. The specifications used by Wilson for computing his map and table were thus stated: "In general, the area included does not cover more than 50 miles (air- line) from center. When a city could be attached to more than one center, the total number of volumes in the area and transportation faci lities were considered in allocating it. Public or college librar- ies of less than 20,000 volumes and spe- cial libraries of less than 5,000 volumes were not included. State lines were not crossed except in special cases. Centers such as Newark were maintained sepa- rately. No city was chosen as a center unless it contained one library having at least 75,000 volumes. Preference was given to state capitals, or cities in which state universities are located. Metropol- itan areas were selected unless the library center would fall elsewhere."3 The second study, showing the distri- bution by states, included "all educa- tional libraries with over 25,000 volumes, all public libraries over 50,000, and all special libraries of a research nature."4 In bringing the two earlier reports up to date, the same criteria have been ad- hered to, in general, as in the original studies.' 5 Table I summarizes the principal data 3 Wilson, op. cit. , p. 119. 4 ALA Committee 'on Resources of Southern Li- brar ies, op. cit ., p. 119. 5 The sources used for compiling the 1955 data were: American Library Directory (New York: R. R. Bowker, 1954); American Univer sities and Colleges (Washington: American Council on Education, 1956); "College and University Library Statistics, 1954-55," CRL , XVII (1956), 56-84; U. S.· Office of Educa- tio~, Statistics of Public Libraries in Cities with Popu- latwn of 100 ,000 or More: Fiscal Year 1955 , Circular 471, March, 195 6. TABLE I: LIBRARY CE TERS, OF NoT OvER 50 MILES RADIUS Rank Volumes in Rank Volumes in Increase in Increase City 1955 Area, 1955 1935 Area, 1935 Volumes Per Cent Washington, D.C. . . . . . . .. J 25 ,356,917 2 11,744,966 13,611,951 115 .89 New York City, N .Y. . . . . . . . 2 24,688,777 1 12,910,623 11,778,154 91.22 Boston, Mass . .. . . .. . . . . .. 3 18,334,377 3 10,709,614 7,624,763 71.19 Chicago, Ill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 12,519,393 4 6,691,144 5,828,249 87.10 Los Angeles, Calif. . . . . . . .. . 5 10,096,635 5 6,564,016 3,532,619 53.82 Philadelphia, Pa . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7,867,242 6 4,805,252 3,061,990 63.72 San Francisco, Calif. .. ..... 7 6,901,607 8 3,558,191 3,343,416 93.95 Cleveland, Ohio • • •• 0 •• •• 8 6,140,556 7 3,835,889 2,304,667 60.08 Newark, N.J. . .... . ... . 9 6,024,375 9 2,955,827 3,068,548 103.82 New Haven, Conn . . .. ... .. . 10 5,330,221 10 2,868,781 2,461 ,440 85.77 Minneapolis, Minn. ....... 11 4,988,889 13 2,475 ,322 2,513,567 101.57 Baltimore, Md. .. . .... .. ... 12 4,857,922 12 2,477,779 2,380,143 96 .04 Albany, N.Y. . . . . . . ... .... . 13 4,498 ,344 19 1,902 ,574 2,595,770 136.41 Columbus, Ohio • • •• 0 • • 0. 14 4,119,799 20 1,813,637 2,306,162 127.12 Princeton , N.J . . . . •••• •• • 0 • 15 4,040,143 15 2,150,512 1,889:631 87.86 Pittsburgh , Pa. . . . 0 •• • 0 •• 0 • 16 3,937,179 16 2,136,108 1,801,071 84 .31 Cincinnati, Ohio . . . .. . . . . . . 17 3,750,316 18 2,066,825 1,683,491 81.42 Detroit, Mich. . . . . ... . . . . . . 18 3,707,637 25 1,404,736 2,302,901 163.91 Providence, R.I.: Fall River; New Bedford, Mass . . . ... . 19 3,646,088 11 2,607,138 1,038,950 39 .85 Hartford, Conn. . . . . . ... 20 3,583,938 58 691,217 2,892,721 418.66 Chapel Hill; Durham, N.C . . 21 3,337,247 34 1,091,858 2,245 ,389 205.58 St. Louis, Mo. . ...... . .. . . . 22 3,217,632 14 2,269,662 947 ,970 41.76 Springfield, Mass. . . • 0 •• •• •• 23 3,170,131 17 2,099,229 1,070,902 51.02 Seattle, Wash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3,122,956 36 1,064,818 2,058,138 193.23 Urbana, Ill. . . . . . . . . ...... 25 3,072,034 33 1,184:,928 1,887,106 159.24 San Jose; Stanford, Calif. . . . 26 3,006,064 22 1,551,791 1,454,273 93.68 Indianapolis, Ind . . . .. 27 3,000,499 30 1,266,031 1,734,468 136.96 Ann Arbor, Mich . ...... 28 2,884,529 35 1,074,274 1,810,255 168.52 Buffalo, N.Y. . . . . ... .. ... . 29 2,809,211 27 1,341 ,455 1,467,756 109.47 Denver, Colo .. . . . . . . .. .. 30 2,715,259 32 1,212,159 1,503,100 124.00 Milwaukee, \Vis. . . . . . . . . . 31 2,673,066 21 1,565,732 1,107,334 70 .68 Ithaca, N .Y. . . . . . . . . . . 32 2,573,378 31 1,264,920 1,308,458 103.39 Topeka, Kan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2,505,793 29 1,293,901 1,211,892 93 .66 Lansing, Mich . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2,351,614 45 797,736 1,553,878 194.73 Worcester, Mass . .. . . . ... . 35 2,341,469 28 · 1,315,636 1,025,833 77.96 Madison, Wis. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2,155,846 26 1,341,899 813,947 60 .65 Dallas, Tex. ... 37 1,963,176 70 570,746 1,392,430 243.78 Sacramento, Calif. . . . . ••• 0 • 38 1,958,441 23 1,534,107 424,334 27.64 Akron, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 39 1,937,456 44 799,509 1,137,947 142.25 Kansas City, Mo.: Kansas City, Kan ... . .... 40 1,937 ,367 47 788,837 1,148,530 145.62 Austin, Tex . ... . . . . . . . .. . . 41 1,918,420 49 783,391 1,135,029 144 .95 Atlanta, Ga .. ... .. . . . . . . 42 1,865,435 54 715,842 1,149,593 160.61 Des Moines, Iowa . .. . 43 1,851,960 40 972,814 879,146 90 .33 Springfield, Ill. . . . . • • 0 • • 44 1,851,364 60 667,247 1,184,117 177.51 Corvallis, Ore. . . . . . . . . . . .. . 45 1,843,038 42 903,154 939,884 104.09 Rochester, N.Y .... . . . . . . . . . 46 1,836,532 24 1,515,438 32(094 21.18 Harrisburg, Pa. . . . . .... ... . 47 1,743,178 43 902,802 840,376 93 .02 Dayton, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 1,637,991 41 955,198 · . 682,793 71.51 New Orleans, La . .. . . .. . .. 49 1,625,299 56 702,703 922 ,596 131.29 Oklahoma City, Okla. . .. . 50 1,550,821 68 604,140 946,681 156.78 Nashville, Tenn . .... . . . .. . . 51 1,526,868 46 791 ,242 735,626 93.04 Lexington, Ky. · • • • •• • • 0 •••• 52 1,475,022 69 578,806 896,216 154.74 Richmond, Va . . .... . . . . . . . 53 1,441,119 6 1 651,842 789,277 121.01 Baton Rouge, La. . .. . . . . . . 54 1,415,255 (AIRLINE), CONTAINING 500,000 VOLUMES OR MORE Rank Volum es in Rank Volumes in Increase in I ncrease City 1955 Area, 1955 1935 Area, 1935 Volumes P er Cent Columbia, Mo. . ... . . . . . 55 1,413,600 55 7 15,829 697,771 97.48 Iowa City, Iowa . . . . . . . . . . 56 1,40 1,880 59 679,405 722,475 106.3~ Birmingham, Ala . ... . . . . 57 1,374,977 76 508,381 866,596 170.66 Concord, N.H .. .... . . . . . . 58 1,344,35!) 51 782,818 561,537 71.77 Portland, Ore. . .. . . . . . . . . 59 1,322,670 53 759 ,320 563,350 74.17 Grand Rapids, Mich. . ... .. 60 1,299,376 52 775 ,680 523,696 67.52 Bridgeport, Conn. . . . .... 61 1,240,975 65 607,834 633, 141 104.11 Lincoln, Neb .. . . . .... 62 1,237,610 37 1,031,052 206,558 20.07 Houston, Tex . . . . . . . . . . . 63 1,231,685 Augusta, Me . . .. . . . . . . . 64 1,230,769 39 989,944 240,825 24.34 Salt Lake City, Utah ... 65 1,218,566 Ft. Wayne, Ind . . . ... 66 1,133,926 Charlottesville, Va .. .. . . . 67 1,069,935 Bethlehem, Pa. . .. . . . . 68 1,048,181 50 783,274 264,907 33.84 Lafayette, Ind. . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 1,020,870 75 513,855 507,015 98 .63 San Diego, Calif. ••••• 0 • . . . 70 1,010,631 77 500,383 510,248 102.00 Louisville, Ky. .. .. 71 1,003,900 71 537,494 466,406 86 .77 Fresno, Calif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 971,751 38 995,404 (-23,653) (-2.41) Columbia, S.C . . . . . . . . . . . 73 960,247 Montpelier, Vt. . . . . .... . .. 74 952 ,662 67 607,570 345,092 56.74 Utica, N.Y. . . . . . . . . . .. 75 917,844 74 514,373 403,471 78.40 South Bend, Ind . . .. . . . 76 9ll,314 Syracuse, N.Y. . . . . . . .. . 77 906,08·1 57 695 ,5 65 210,5 19 30.31 Oshkosh, Wis. . . . . . . . .... . 78 892,690 Roanoke, Va . . . . . • • 0 • • . . 79 859,511 Hanover, N.H. •• 0 •• 80 831,089 73 523,641 307,448 58.58 Poughkeepsie, N.Y. ... .. . . 81 822,856 64 6 13,535 209,321 34.03 Toledo, Ohio .. . .. ... .. . 82 818,293 63 620,711 197,582 31.88 Peoria, Ill. .. . .. . . . . . ... 83 817,470 66 607,659 209,811 34.53 Phoenix, Ariz. . . . . . . .. . 84 815,778 Knoxville, Tenn . . . . . 85 801,299 Montgomery, Ala .. .... . . . . 86 797,701 San Antonio, Tex . . . . . . . . . 87 782,248 Miami, Fla. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 757,906 Gary, Ind ... . . . . . . . 89 739 ,501 Little Rock, Ark . . . . . . . . . 90 736,870 Omaha, Neb . . . . . . . . . 91 724,850 State College, Pa . • • • 0 • • . . . 92 715,896 Tulsa, Okla. . . .... . . 93 693,836 Gainesville, Fla. . . . . . . . 94 686,243 .Charleston, W .Va . • • • 0 •• 95 678,681 .Charlotte, N.C. . .. .. . . . . 96 670,739 Athens, Ohio .. . . .... 97 664,610 Greenville, S.C. .. .. . . . . . . 98 658,138 Rock Island, Ill. . . . . . . . 99 654,067 Wilmington, Del. . . . . . . 100 629 ,775 .Santa Barbara, Calif. ..... 101 623,121 Morgantown, W .Va . . . . . . . 102 596,929 Bakersfield, Calif. . . . ... . .. 103 593,277 62 611,660 (-48,383) (-7.47) Norfolk, Va . .... . .. .. . . . . 104 590,478 Lowell, Mass. ••• 0 • . . . . . . 105 580,ll9 48 784,843 (- 204,724) (-26.1 1) Evansville, Ind . . . . . . .... . . 106 560,300 Erie, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 547,168 Wilkes-Barre, Pa. ..... . . .. 108 546,564 Tallahassee, Fla. . . . . .... . . 109 537,755 Total ..... . . ...... 289,355,391 138,867,606 150,487,785 108.36 concerning library centers, i.e., the rela- tive ranks of the centers and the number of volumes in each area in 1955 as com- pared to 1935, the increase in volumes, and the percentage of increase. The num- ber of centers grew from 77 to 109 during the 20-year period, an increase of 32. The ten leading centers in 1935 re- mained at the top in 1955, but there were two slight shifts In rank order: Washington, D.C., displaced New York City in the number one spot, while San Francisco pushed Cleveland from sev- enth to eighth place. In 1935 there were 38 centers holding over one million vol- umes. By 1955, the number of centers had jumped to 71. While the top ten were the same at TABLE II 76 LIBRARY CEN TERS ARRA NGED I N THE ORDER OF THEIR PERCENTAGE I NCREASE , 1935 TO 1955 Rank 1955 20 37 21 34 24 44 57 28 18 42 25 50 52 40 41 39 27 13 49 14 30 53 l 29 56 61 45 9 32 70 11 69 55 12 7 26 33 51 186 Cit y Hartford , Conn. . ... . Dallas, Tex .. ... . .. . Chapel Hill; Durham, N.C . ......... . Lansing, Mich. . ... . Seattle, Wash . . . . . . . Springfield, Ill. .. . Birmingham, Ala. . . Ann Arbor, Mich ... . Detroit, Mich. . . . Atlanta, Ga . . . .. .. .. . Urbana, Ill. . . . Oklahoma City, Okla. Lexington , Ky . ... Kansas City, Mo .: Kansas City, Kan. Austin , Tex . . ... . . . . Akron , Ohio . Indianapolis , Ind. . .. Alban y, N.Y .. ...... . New Orleans , La . ... . Columbus, Ohio ... . . Denver, Colo. Richmond, Va. Washington , D.C . . . . . Buffalo, N.Y. . .... . Iowa City, Iowa .... . . Bridgeport, Conn. . . Corvallis , Ore. . ... . Newark, N.J. ....... . Ithaca, N.Y. . .. . San Diego, Calif. Minneapolis , Minn. Lafayette, Ind. . .. Columbia, Mo. . .... . Baltimore, Md. . . .. . . San Francisco, Calif. San Jose; Stanford, Calif .. ..... .... . . . Topeka, Kan . ....... . Nashville , Tenn . .... . Increas e Rank of P er Cent Increas e 418 .66 243.78 205.58 194.73 193.23 177 .51 170.66 168.52 163.91 160.61 159.24 156.78 154.74 145.62 144.95 142.25 136.96 136.41 131.29 127.12 124.00 121.01 115.89 109.47 106 .33 104.11 104.09 103.82 103.39 102.00 101.57 98.63 97.48 96.04 93.95 93.68 93.66 93 .04 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Rank 1955 47 2 43 15 4 7l 10 16 17 75 35 59 58 48 3 31 60 6 36 8 80 74 5 23 22 19 83 81 68 82 77 38 64 46 62 72 103 105 City Harrisburg, Pa. . ..... New York City, N.Y. Des Moines, Iowa ... Princeton, N.J. . .. Chicago, Ill. ... . . . .. . Louisville, Ky .... . . . . New Haven, Conn. Pittsburgh, Pa. . .... . Cincinnati, Ohio . . . . Utica, N.Y . ........ . . Worcester, Mass. . .. Portland , Ore. . .... . Concord , N.H .. . . .. . Dayton , Ohio ... .. . Boston , Mass. . .. . . . Milwaukee, Wis. Grand Rapids, Mich. Philadelphia, Pa. Madison , Wis. . . . . . Cleveland , Ohio .. . Hanover, N.H . .. . .. . Montpelier , Vt. Los Angeles, Calif. . . Springfield, Mass. . . St. Louis, Mo. Providence, R.I.: Fall River; New Bedford , Mass .. .. . ... . ... . Peoria , Ill. . .. . .... . . Poughkeepsie, N.Y. . . Bethlehem, Pa. . .... Toledo, Ohio . . . . . . . Syracuse, N.Y. . ... . Sacramento, Calif. Augusta, Me. . ..... . Rochester, N.Y . .. .. . Lincoln , Neb . . ..... . Fresno , Calif. . .... . . Bakersfield, Calif. . . . Lowell, Mass. • Decrease. Increas e Ranh of P er Cent Increase 93.02 91.22 90.33 87.86 87.10 86.77 85.77 84.31 81.42 78.40 77.96 74.17 71.77 71.51 71.19 70 .68 67.52 63.72 60.65 60.08 58.58 56.71 53.82 51.02 41.76 39.85 34.5 3 34.03 33.84 31.88 30.31 27.64 24.34 21.18 20 .07 - 2.41 '*' - 7.47 '*' -26.11 '*' 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63- 64- 65 66- 67 6S 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES MAP I 85 So------ - -7~ TABLE III COMPARISON OF CENTERS AND VOLUMES IN THE QUARTERS OF THE NATION FORMED BY THE 38TH PARALLEL AND THE 97TH MERIDIAN Percentage Increase Quarter Centers Volumes of Total Per Cent 1935 1955 1935 Northeast .... 57 70 113 ,158 ,458 Southeast . . . . 7 22 5,032,614 Southwest ... 8 11 15 ,202 ,976 Northwest ... I 5 6 5,473,558 Total . . .. . 77 109 I 138 ,867 ,606 the beginning and end of the peri.od, their total collections were not quite so disproportionate in relation to the rest of the country in 1955 as they had been in 1935; in 193~·, the ten leaders held 48 per cent of the volumes in all 77 centers, while in 1955 their holdings represented 42.6 per cent of the total volumes in the 109 centers. Below the first ten, some striking changes in rank may be observed. For example, Hartford, Connecticut, fifty- eighth in 1935, jumped to twentieth place in 1955; Chapel Hill-Durham, North Carolina, from thirty-fourth to twenty-first; Seattle, Washington, from thirty-sixth to twenty -fourth; Dallas, Texas, from seventieth to thirty-seventh. Among the smaller centers, there ap- pears to be little stability in rank . Table II arranges the centers listed in the 1935 study according to their per- centage of increase. Twenty-one states gained centers dur- ing the 20-year period, accounting for a good proportion of the 32 new centers. The largest number_ of new centers for any one region, fifteen, appeared in the Southeast. Indiana gained four centers, and Florida, Pennsylyania, and Virginia, three each. In 1935, there were five states east of the Mississippi without a center; by 1955, there was only one-Mississippi . 'Nest of the Mississippi, ten states lacked centers in 1935; in 1955, Arizona, Arkan- sas, and Utah each had a center, leaving seven western states outside the select 1955 1935 1955 223,812,024 81.48 77.34 97.78 25,092,084 3.63 8.68 398.54 28,270,353 10.94 9 .77 85.95 12,180,930 3.95 4 .21 122.52 289,355,391 100 .00 100.00 108.36 group-Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Wilson compared the number of cen- ters and volumes in the four quarters of the nation formed by the thirty-ei1!hth parallel and the ninety-seventh meridian. The overwhelming lead then held by the northeast quarter was still being maintained in 1955, though the per- centage of increase dropped off slightly. The story is told in Table III, and in Map I. The Northeast, which had 57 centers in 1935, had 70 in 1955, while its volume holdings grew from 113,158,458 to 223,812,024, almost double . Of the nation's total number of volumes in the 109 -centers (289,355,391), only 65,543,- 367 volumes were outside the Northeast. Nevertheless, other areas had reasons for optimism and satisfaction. The most rapid expansion occurred in the South- east, with a startling increase of nearly 400 per cent, and the Northwest grew b y 122.52 per cent. The Southwest showed a small decline in relation to the other quarters. When one turns from library centers to a consideration of the distribution of · resources by states, substantially the same patterns are repeated. Conforming to the criteria for the earlier study, by the ALA Committee on Resources of Southern Libraries, only public libraries of over E·O,OOO volumes, educational li- braries above 25,000 volumes, and spe- (ContinuecD on page 235) 188 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Distribution of Library Resources (Continued from page 188) cial libraries of research significance have been included in the revised com- putations. The figures may appear some- what inconsistent, therefore, with those noted for library centers, and it should be understood that the differences are explained by the use of different bases for tabulation. Table IV and Map II re- Rank 1955 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 TABLE IV NuMBER OF VoLUMES IN REsEARCH LIBRARIES OF THE UNITED STATES Rank Volumes State 1935 1935 New York . . . . 1 District of Columbia . . . 4 California • . . . 2 Massachusetts . 3 Ohio . . • . . • . . . 5 Illinois • • . . . . . 6 Pennsylvania . . 7 Michigan . . . . . 8 Connecticut . . . 9 New Jersey . . . 10 Texas . . . . . . . . 16 Indiana . . . . . . 12 Missouri . . . . . 11 Wisconsin . . . . 13 Minnesota 14 Washington . . . 18 Iowa . . . . . . . . . 15 Maryland . . . . . 17 North Carolina 2 5 Virginia . . . . . . 22 Colorado . . . . . 23 Kansas . . . . . . . 19 Oregon . . . . . . . 24 Louisiana . . . . . 3 0 Georgia . . . . . . 31 Florida . . . . . . . 35 Rhode Islanrl . . 2 1 Tennessee . . . . 20 Kentucky . . . . . 27 Alabama . . . . . . 32 Nebraska . . . . . 29 Oklahoma . . . . . 33 Maine 26 New Hampshire 28 South Carolina 34 Utah . . . . . . . . . 36 West Virginia . 39 Arizona . . . . . . 38 Arkansas . . . . . 44 Vermont . . . . . . 37 Montana ..... 40 Mississippi . . . . 42 New Mexico . . 49 Delaware . . . . . 41 South Dakota . 45 Wyoming . . . . . 46 North Dakota . 43 Idaho ...... .. 48 Nevada . . . . . . . 47 Totals ... . . . 16,931,000 10,348,000 14,401,000 12,944,000 9,669,000 8,907,000 8,056,000 4,427,000 4,220,000 4,137,000 2,196,000 3,345,000 3,495,000 3,027,000 2 ,916,000 1,665 ,000 2,527,000 2,163,000 1,131,000 1,552,000 1,425 ,000 1,643,000 1,416 ,000 818,000 790,000 447,000 1,6 40,000 1,642,000 1,011,000 763,000 947,000 720,000 1,046,000 948,000 594 ,000 446,000 420,000 425,000 236 ,000 440,000 376,000 267,000 90,000 314,000 227,000 187,000 254,000 167,000 175,000 137,931,000 Volumes 1955 34,041 ,000 25,357,000 23,951,000 22,951,000 18,606,000 17,089,000 14,697,000 8,988,000 8,507,000 8,080,000 6,716,000 6,520,000 6,239,000 6 ,195,000 5,700,000 4,415,000 4,108,000 3,888,000 3,882,000 3,684,000 3,098,000 3,045,000 3,038,000 2,797,000 2,659,000 2,553,000 2,469 ,000 2,412,000 2,379,000 2,292,000 1,93 1,000 1,902,000 1,706,000 1,693,000 1,483,000 1,330,000 1,207,000 1,187,000 1,153,000 928,000 848,000 828,000 677,000 557,000 475 ,000 470,000 456,000 378 ,0 00 249,000 279,814,000 MAY_, 1957 Rank 1955 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 TABLE V RATE oF INcREASE oF VoLUMES IN RESEARCH LIBRARIES OF THE UNITED STATES FROM 1935 TO 1955 State New Mexico Florida . .. . . .... ... .. . . .. . . Arkansas North Carolina . ...... . .... . Louisiana ... .... . . . . ... .. . . Georgia ...... .. . .. . .... . .. . Mississippi . . . .. . . . .... . . .. . Texas ............ ... . . ... . Alabama . . .. . . . .. ... . Utah ........ .. .... . West Virginia ... . Arizona Oklahoma .. ....... . . Washington ........ . Wyoming . ... ..... .. . South Carolina .. ... . District of Columbia Virginia . . .. . ...... . Kentucky ..... . Idaho .. .... . .. . ... . ... . Montana Colorado Oregon . . . .... ... . Vermont . ..... .... .. .... . . South Dakota ...... .. . . . . . . . 'Visconsin ... . . . . . . Nebraska .. ...... .. ... . .... . Michigan .... .... . Connecticut .. . . New York . Minnesota . . .... . . . New Jersey . . . . . .. ...... . Indiana ..... . . .. . ....... .. . Ohio ..... ... .. . . ... . Illinois Kansas ........... . . . ... . .. . Pennsylvania .... .. . . ... . Maryland ... North Dakota . ... .. .. . .. . . . New Hampshire Missouri .. . Delaware . . . Massachusetts California . . .... . ..... . . . Maine .. . .. . . ........ . . . Iowa ........ · . .. . Rhode Island .. . ......... . Tennessee .. . . . . ... . . . . . Nevada ............. ... ... . National average .. . ... ... . Per Cent of Increase 652.2 471.1 388.5 243.2 241.9 236.6 210.1 205.8 200.4 198.2 187.4 179.3 170.9 165.2 151.3 149.6 145.0 137.4 135.3 126.3 125.5 117.4 114.5 110.9 109.3 104.6 103.9 103.0 101.6 101.1 95 .5 95.3 94.9 92.4 91.9 85.3 82.4 79.7 79.5 78.6 78.5 77.4 77.3 66.3 63.1 62.6 50.5 46.9 42.2 102.11% 235