0 ( 5 rW A U, ‘ / of Illinois, | State library School, T^.^n^printing AMERICAN MUNICIPAL DOCUMEN A Librarian’s View. John Boynton Kaiser, Department Librar- ian, Economics and Sociology, University of Illinois Library. Accompanying the great awakening of interest in American municipal affairs in the last two decades, and in some places anticipating it, American public and univer- sity libraries have been accumulating col- lections of the official documents of rep- resentative municipalities, a field of literary output long neglected. In addition to the ordinary citizen, the student or city official who may find these documents of use, this “civic awakening’’ has in the last half doz- en years produced both the municipal ref- erence library and the bureau of municipal research, two institutions which have great need for good libraries of this type. During this same period, however, the improvement in the form of publication, both of individual documents and the col- lected documents of cities, from the stand- point of reference use, has by no means kept pace with the demand -for the docu- ments themselves. Even the problems of distribution and local preservation have not received the attention they deserve, ex- cept in a few scattered instances, despite the necessity for at least local preservation and the great desirability of having a re- sponsible and permanent distributing office and exchange for the benefit of officials and lbraries in other municipalities. A study of the manner of publishing and distributing municipal documents and also an examination of the form in which the volumes of collected city documents are published may prove profitable. First, there is great lack of uniformity among our cities with regard to almost all questions relating to the publication and distribution of both the separate and col- lected reports of municipal officers. Spe- cific inquiry among the cities themselves reveals this. Take, for example, the ques- tion of publishing and financing the sep- arate departmental reports. In New York City this is in the hands of the Board of city record consisting of the mayor, corpor- ation counsel and comptroller. The execu- tive officer of the board is termed the Su- pervisor of the city record. The funds by which these department reports are financ- ed are a part of the general fund for city printing appropriated to this board. San Francisco puts the burden of expense on the general fund of the Board of Supervi- sors, the legislative branch of the city gov- ernment, which has jurisdiction over all city printing. Similarly, in Cleveland the City council has control, and departmental ♦Reprinted from Special Libraries, June, 1913. at city expense must be author- ized by it. In Grand Rapids the City clerk handles the publication, also through gen- eral funds. In numerous places, however, depart- mental printng is paid for out of de- partmental funds, in some cases from specific printng funds, in others from general maintenance funds. In Chicago and Milwaukee, departments have a specific printing fund. In Boston, St. Louis, Kan- sas City and Newark general department funds meet the expense. In most of the above named cities, the separate departments either by law or by courtesy, control the distribution of their separate reports. A Boston ordinance pro- vides that the City messenger “shall have the care, custody, and distribution of all documents pamphlets, and books printed for the City council.” But by courtesy, de- partments control the distribution of any number of copies they desire. The San Francisco situation is similar, the Clerk of the Board of supervisors being legally in control. In the other cities, the depart- ments themselves control this matter ex- cept where there is a municipal reference department or a municipal reference li- brary. Where that is the case it usually becomes a central distributing agency and by exchange with other cities acquires a collection of municipal documents for com- parative research purposes. Such is the case with the Kansas City Municipal reference library, which is made an exchange agency by the ordinance creat- ing it, and with the Municipal reference li- brary of Chicago which came under the jurisdiction of the Public library of that city by ordinance March 31, 1913. In Mil- waukee, apparently, no one is specifically authorized to distribute reports, the de- partments doing whatever distribution is done, but the Municipal reference library expects eventually to acquire this function. When the Municipal reference department of the Cleveland Public library is further developed, it will doubtless be able to as- sume a similar function for Cleveland. The bound volumes of collected municipal reports, in contrast with the separate de- partmental reports just discussed, are us- ually issued by the city clerk, or some equivalent officer, and their publication financed from general funds. In St. Louis, the cost is provided for in the annual ap- propriation ordinance by the comptroller; in San Francisco by the general fund of the Board of supervisors; in Cleveland through authorized expenditure by the City clerk, and similarly in Newark and Grand Rapids. The City messenger distributes them in Boston; while in St. Louis the Municipal reference library, by arrangement with the City register’s office, performs this duty. In San Francisco the Clerk of the Board, and in Cleveland and Newark, the City clerk distributes. In Newark, however, this is actually done by a branch of the City clerk’s office which has charge of the Municipal reference library, located in the city hall. Again, in Kansas City, the Muni- cipal reference library and in Grand Rapids the Public library are the distributing agencies for the collected documents Uniformity in all these matters may not be essential and general rules suitable to all cities regarding the manner of publish- ing and financing the publication of city documents cannot be formulated. One thing is certain, however, and that is that there should be a responsible and perma- nent central distributing agency, preferably one interested in the work and taking ad- vantage of its function as such to acquire by exchange with other cities, a library of municipal documents. The Municipal ref- erence library is the logical place to locate such responsibility, and has been urged for the place for some time by the National municipal league. In cities lacking such an institution, the Public library should endeavor to acquire the responsibility. Opposition to such an attempt may be expected from departments which feel that some authority over their own property is being taken from them; but this should be overcome by making them understand that simply the physical burden of distributing is being taken from them and that the reports are as much at their disposal as formerly. Department mailing lists will still be maintained. This would be quite in harmony with the sug-* gestions of the President’s Commission on economy and efficiency concerning the dis- tribution of the reports of the various offices of the United States Government. Its recommendations were that the distri- bution of federal documents of all kinds be centralized in the office of the Superin- tendent of documents, an office well equipped to assume such a duty. Turning now to the form of publication of collected city documents what do we find? Let us examine those of four typical cities with a view to suggesting possible improvements in form only. The cities se- lected are of varying sizes and are selected at random, though a more extended com- parative study shows that they may be re- garded as indeed typical. The documents of Bangor (Maine), Cambridge ( Massachu- setts), Boston and Cleveland will serve our purpose. The collected documents of Bangor (pop- ulation 24,803 in 1910), for the fiscal year 1911-1912, form a continuously paged oc- tavo volume of 399 pages, bound in dark green cloth and exhibiting a good quality of press work on paper fairly well suited to its task. The title-page signifies that within are the Mayor’s address, the annual reports of the several departments, and the receipts and expenditures for the mu- nicipal year 1911-1912. No table of contents is given. Preceding even the Mayor’s ad- dress is a page showing the Bangor city government 1911-1912 on which appear the names of the mayor, city clerk and clerk of board, aldermen and common council- men, by wards. The separate reports then follow in no discoverable order and have in no instance, individual table of contents or index. Following the last report is a directory of the city government for 1912- 1913, complete, including even a table of salaries. A three-page index— single col- umn — closes the volume. Considering form only, without regard to data presented, several things seem ob- vious. A table of contents to the whole should certainly be furnished; and the sep- arate reports should be arranged in some definite order. Add a consecutive number to the documents, thus arranged and you have a convenient method of citation by merely referring to Doc.26: 1912. Further, each separate report should have its table of contents and index unless the final vol- ume-index is made in sufficient detail to cover each document analytically — which in this particular case it is not. This vol- ume being paged consecutively at the usual place for page number, the paging of each separate report as originally issued should be printed at the bottom so that a given reference may be found no matter which form of paging is cited. An occasional illustration would add value. Some of the same criticisms apply equally well to the Mayor’s address at the organi- zation of the city government, April 3, 1911 and the annual reports made to the city council for the year ending March 31, 1911, under which title appears a recent volume of the collected documents of Cambridge, Mass.,( a city of 104,839 population at the last census. In this volume the Mayor’s address is evidently considered an introductory doc- ument, being paged I-XXI. The first Report follows that of the School Commissioner, a document of 91 pages, with an individual table of contents. This last distinction is attained by none other of the documents forming the total 693 pages of reports. In an appendix following these reports are printed the ordinances passed between April 1, 1910, and April 1, 1911, and the amendments to the standing regulations of the Board of aldermen. Next come lists of the Mayors of Cambridge from 1846 to 1911, the Presidents of the Board of aldermen and Common council, diagrams of the Al- dermanic and Common council chambers, a directory of the alderman, councilmen, their committees, and the various depart- ments and officials of the city — all pre- sented under the appropriate running title of Municipal register. A table of votes cafet at all state and city elections held between November 8, 1910 and March 14, 1911 con- cludes the appendix. The Contents at the end of the volume is virtually an index, covering first, rather minutely, and by spe- cific topics alphabetically arranged, the auditor’s report, then presenting in alpha- betical order the general subjects of the other documents. There is no real table of contents showing the order of topics either to the whole volume or any of its constituent parts. Nor does any one of these parts have its separate index, ex- cept as the general index furnishes first a specific index to the auditor’s report, as just noted. Turning to our “Sixth city” numbering 560,663 in 1910, we find that Cleveland’s Annual reports of the departments of gov- ernment of the City of Cleveland for the year ending December 31, 1910 form a bulky and somewhat unsubstantial volume of an unknown number of pages. The separate reports, called “divisions,” are separately paged, numbered 1-20, and arranged in nu- merical order. The beginning of each di- vision in the volume is discoverable by a labelled thumb-mark similar to the A, B, C, thumb-marks on the face of a large dictionary. Preliminary pages give a reg- ister of municipal officers. The table of contents notes the twenty divisions in 1, 2, 3, order. A detailed index of ten pages precedes the auditor’s report and a table of contents is given to the report of the water works department. No general in- dex to the volume as a whole is furnished and valuable reports of important depart- ments cannot be located where the depart- ment reDorting happens to be a part only of one of the larger divisions mentioned in the contents. The paper is too heavy; the binding is too weak, strong cloth being pref- erable to weak leather. Boston with a population of 670.585, is a little more successful, though there is still room for improvement. For a number of years its reports have filled two, and some- times three, thick volumes, called parts, each with separate table of contents. This table shows that Boston documents are ar- ranged alphabetically by the names of the departments reporting and thus arranged a consecutive number is assigned running through both or all three of the volumes. Moreover, the contents of each volume (or part) is plainly printed on a black label on the back of each volume. The printing and paper are good, the work being done at the municipal printing office. The in- dividual documents are separately paged and, as a rule, like the previous examples, have neither table of contents nor index, though here again the auditor’s report of 333 pages is an exception. It has a de- tailed, double-column index of six and one quarter pages. Boston documents may be conveniently referred to by number and year, i.e., Doc. 2 — 1907; the year being the year in which the report was made, not the year covered by the report, and not necessarily the year in which the collected documents were published. For example, the reports covering 1906 were presented in 1907, but the volume of collected docu- ments bears the imprint date 1908. For a number of years the Boston docu- ments included in the final volume, usually three, a brief alphabetical index to all the collected volumes for that year. Special attention must be called to the general indexes covering the collected doc- uments of Boston for a long series of years, indexes which are almost linique in their field. They have been published as follows and cover the years indicated in the first column: 1834-1874, published in City Docs., 1874, Vol. 1. 1834-1830, published in City Docs., 1880, Vol. 1. 1834-1886, published in City Docs., 1888, Vol. 1. 1834-1891 with an appendix containing a list of publications not included among the numbered documents. Bost. Rock- well & Churchill, 1891. 120 p. (1834-1891) A list of documents not seri- ally numbered prior to 1891. Appen- dix to index to documents. Bost. 1894. 1834-1897, with an appendix ... of ... publications not included among the numbered documents. 142 p. Bost. * 1897. Numerous references have been made in recent years to the inadequacy and mean- inglessness of the average city document. But, even without the improvement in data which is more and more noticeable, city Gocuments should be viewed as historical records and published and preserved with the care due such records. Good book-making would seem to demand at least the following points: Begin with a title-page. Let it indicate the compiler, if any, the place of publica- tion, publisher or printer, and date. Let the title state specifically the period cov- ered by the reports. Follow this with a good table of contents to the whole vol- ume. It should show not only the order in which the reports appear, but also the names of all important subordinate divi sions of departments which have reports of division heads published within the full report of the department. Let the reports be arranged in a definite order by the name of the department re- porting and be consecutively numbered as thus arranged. An alphabetical arrange- ment is the simplest and always a feasible plan; but in many cases, a grouping of closely related departments might be more satisfactory. The paging of the separate reports should be preserved and a contin- uous paging for the volume added. The -separate reports should each have a table of contents noting all officers re- porting therein. For any but the shortest an index should be provided. At the end of the volume should appear an analytical and detailed index to the entire contents. Good index-making requires care, thought and experience. Yet there are printed helps for the guidance of the inexperienced in- dexer compelled to do this work. Also, there are experts who for a reasonable charge will compile an index satisfactory in every respect. Good paper should be demanded, not only paper that makes a good appearance at first, but paper that will withstand the ravages of time. Among others a commit- tee of the American library association has studied for some time the question of paper suitable to receive the impress of what should be imperishable records. Good press-work should be insisted upon and a substantial cloth binding demanded, for it is more suitable than leather for the pres- ervation of books not subjected to frequent handling. The present binding of the United States Government documents is a choice made after long study of the ques- tion by qualified experts and experimenters. The historian has found public documents a precious heritage. Let those of us who are preparing today the heritage of to-mor- row bequeath it to him in a form, if not always in content, such that his faith in our degree of civilization need not be shaken.