College and Research Libraries


the catalog, however, are these basic questions: 
Is the expansion of the L C Catalog into a 
current catalog of American library resources 
a desirable development? If so, is the time 
ripe for this development? If so, would the 
present subscribers be willing to pay twice 
what they now do in order to get this tool? 
If not, to what extent should subsidy be 
sought? In what direction? With what 
prospects of success? 

It is up to you and your confreres who are 
present or potential subscribers to the Catalog 
to answer these questions. If we are really 
to expand the Catalog in 1954 we need to 

know the answers fairly soon. 
I hope that you will be willing to give this 

matter serious thought and that you will bring 
the proposal to the attention of your local and 
regional library organizations so that later, 
when the time comes for the Library of 
Congress to distribute a prospectus and a 
questionnaire, opinion may have reached a 
state of crystallization. In the meantime, the 
Library of Congress will be glad to receive 
your comments, questions, suggestions and 
the like. If you care to write, I suggest that 
you address your letters to John W . Cronin, 
Director of the Processing Department. 

By C H A R L E S W . D A V I D 

T h e Reproduction of the National Union Catalog 

Dr. David is director, University of Penn-
sylvania Library. 

THERE IS A F A S C I N A T I O N about the con-cept of a vast and all-inclusive bibliog-
raphy of the printed output of the mind of 
man. W e are all familiar with the unsuc-
cessful attempts of some of the earlier bibliog-
raphers, who felt themselves adrift on a vast 
ocean of print, to produce such an index. As 
an example, though by no means the earliest, 
I may cite the Mare Magnum of the learned 
Florentine abbot, Francesco Marucelli, who 
died in 1703, leaving his work incomplete in 
111 manuscript volumes. 

In spite of failures the dream persisted, 
and what was acknowledged to be impossible 
by individual effort was undertaken by co-
operation. Little encouragement is, perhaps, 
to be derived from the experience of the Inter-
national Institute of Bibliography (founded in 
1895 at Brussels) and its Bibliotheca Uni-
versalis. But the Gesamtkatalog der Pruessi-
schen Bibliotheken of the Prussian State 
Library, which got under way in 1898 and 
began to be printed in 1931, has a much more 
encouraging record. Though wrecked by 
World War II, it would in a better world 
have been an undoubted success. Though at 
first legally and practically limited to Prussian 
libraries, it was inspired by the concept of a 
much broader inclusiveness, and in the end 
it was expanded to include all the important 

research libraries of Germany, and even 
Austria was in process of being drawn into it. 
Had disaster been averted we would in fact 
have had a major portion of a manageable 
world bibliography. 

Contemporaneously, American librarianship 
began to press for an expansion of the Union 
Catalog at the Library of Congress which 
would bring it to what was optimistically 
called "completion," and some minds began 
to entertain the thought of its publication in 
this expanded form, so that it could be made 
generally available to research libraries in 
various parts of the country. The key to 
success in such vast operations was of course 
to be found not only in the magic of coopera-
tive effort but also in the technical revolution 
in communication with which we are all at 
least in some degree familiar. 

In 1947 two Philadelphia librarians went 
still further out on a limb and in a brief 
article in the Journal of Documentation out-
lined a plan for a Cumulative World The-
saurus to be printed and widely distributed 
among research libraries all over the world.1 
In the light of the current rise in the cost of 
every library and publishing operation, the 
most charitable judgment which could be 
passed upon that article would seem to be that 
it may have been far in advance of its time. 

1 D a v i d , C . W . , a n d H i r s c h , R u d o l f , " A C u m u l a t i v e 
W o r l d T h e s a u r u s , " in Journal of Documentation, I I I 
( 1 9 4 7 ) , 43-45-

20 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



But meanwhile, in spite of all difficulties, 
interest in the possibility of the reproduction 
and distribution of the Union Catalog at the 
Library of Congress in some form has per-
sisted. The files of the Library of Congress, 
to which your reporter has had access, reveal 
that the subject has been under serious con-
sideration there for more than a decade. As 
early as July, 1942 there was discussion and 
correspondence between M r . Schwegmann and 
M r . Boni concerning the possibility of a micro-
print reproduction which would be subscribed 
to by research libraries. The thought of a 
reproduction on microfilm doubtless goes back 
to an even earlier date; and subsequently con-
sideration has inevitably been given to repro-
duction by other media such as microcards, 
miniature photo-offset, and fully legible photo-
offset. 

The matter was made the subject of a con-
siderable discussion at the Atlantic City re-
gional conference of the A L A in October 
1949.2 Shortly before this there had been pub-
lished in the L C Information Bulletin an im-
portant report by Robert B. Downs which 
recommended reproduction.3 Almost simul-
taneously Fremont Rider had made to the 
Librarian of Congress a rather definite pro-
posal for a microcard reproduction which 
was appealing enough to induce M r . Evans to 
ask the executive secretary of the A R L to 
find out whether the member libraries would 
be likely to be interested in such a reproduc-
tion to the extent of creating a market for it. 

In all of the discussions of 1949 two ob-
jectives were kept in mind, viz., the need to 
have the Catalog reproduced for security 
reasons (lest the original be wiped out in 
some disaster), and the need to make it avail-
able to research libraries outside of Washing-
ton for a variety of bibliographic uses. The 
many difficulties (apart from sheer cost) sur-
rounding any form of reproduction were also 
emphasized. The Library of Congress has 
lacked the resources to edit the Catalog as it 
ought to be edited before publication. It has 
even lacked the resources to keep it filed up-
to-date, and therefore there is a large backlog 
of unfiled cards. Resources have also been 
wanting to bring the Catalog to an acceptable 
degree of completeness. Also many of the 

2 A n unpublished " b r i e f interim report" [by F . H . 
W a g m a n ] made at the A C R L University Section Meet-
ing, Atlantic City, October 3, 1949. 

3 Downs, R . B . , " R e p o r t and Supplementary Report 
on the National Union Catalog and Related M a t t e r s , " 
being Appendix to the L C Information Bulletin, A u g u s t 
9 - 1 5 , 1949, p. 1 - 3 . 

cards in the Catalog are of such a character 
as to require retyping before they can be suc-
cessfully reproduced by a mass photographic 
operation. 

While these matters were under serious dis-
cussion the deterioration of our foreign rela-
tions produced one important development: 
as a security measure the Library of Congress 
was provided with funds to have the Union 
Catalog microfilmed, and it was in fact micro-
filmed in the spring of 1952—microfilmed "as 
is," without further expansion, without the 
filing of the backlog, without editing, and even 
without the retyping of unsatisfactory cards.4 
The effect of this has undoubtedly been to take 
some steam out of the boiler so far as the 
movement for the publication of the Catalog is 
concerned. The security argument is no 
longer seriously important. Also the existence 
of the microfilm negative and the willingness 
of the Library of Congress to provide positive 
copies at a fair price has given an opportunity 
to make, a practical test of the attitude of 
American librarianship toward one form of 
reproduction. And it has to be reported that 
so far only one library has indicated an inter-
est in obtaining a positive film copy, and even 
here no decision has yet been made.5 I fear, 
it must, therefore, be concluded that, except as 
a security measure, the filming of our national 
Union Catalog in its present condition is not 
the great forward step which it seems to a 
good many librarians and others to be re-
quired. 

It is to this far greater enterprise that the 
remainder of this paper is devoted. 

In the spring of 1952 a sub-committee of 
the A L A Board on Resources, chairmanned 
by your reporter, undertook a serious investi-
gation of the possibility of the reproduction 
and publication of the National Union Catalog 
( N U C ) in an expanded, well-edited, and 
legible form. The Library of Congress was 
approached and found to be highly sympathetic 
and willing to give every possible assistance. 
The method proposed for the investigation 
was essentially that of sampling. That is to 
say, the Library of Congress was asked to 
select a small segment of the alphabet and 
then to carry through (while keeping careful 
records) the actual operations of editing, pre-
paring copy, and printing—with a view to 
displaying specimen pages of the finished work 

4 Letter of George Schwegmann to the present writer, 
J u n e 1 , 1 9 5 3 . 

5 Ibid. 

JANUARY1954 21 



and of compiling cost statistics. It was also 
believed (and this did indeed prove to be the 
case) that this method would reveal in con-
ciete form problems which might otherwise 
have been overlooked. The Library of Con-
gress has been beyond praise in the patience, 
intelligence and industry with which it has 
gone about this assignment; and if the results 
achieved have not always appeared convincing, 
that has not been because of want of effort, 
but because of the difficulties of the problems 
under attack and the necessity, on numerous 
occasions, of relying on approximate estimates 
rather than upon established data. 

T w o meetings of the sub-committee with 
L C representatives were held at the New 
York Public Library, one in June, 1952, and 
the other in January, 1953.6 At first, there 
was pretty general, though not quite unani-
mous, agreement that the contemplated repro-
duction would be highly desirable and of 
great value, particularly for use in acquisi-
tions, cataloging, the handling of interlibrary 
loans, and in reference and research work. 

As to the scope and plan of the reproduction, 
it was agreed that it would be very desirable 
to have the Library of Congress Author Cata-
log expanded as of an agreed date, say 1950 
or 1952, to include all imprints currently re-
ported to the N U C for the first time, thereby 
making it no longer necessary to enter such 
imprints in the existing N U C . This proposal 
for an expanded Author Catalog is still under 
very sympathetic investigation at the Library 
of Congress. An ad hoc committee there has 
held frequent meetings on the subject over a 
period of many months and has drafted an 
extended report. It is to be hoped that in 
due course the report will be found acceptable 
and the expanded Author Catalog will become 
a reality. 

As for the retrospective N U C , the sub-
committee considered various possible expedi-
ents for breaking down so vast an enterprise 
into more manageable parts, e.g. a division by 
century of imprint, on the theory that this 
would permit the application of varying stand-
ards of description in accordance with bib-
liographical difficulties; but in the end it was 
decided that it would be best to try to go 
forward without subdivision. It was, how-
ever, decided that the magnitude of the enter-
prise might be reduced somewhat by the ex-

6 Reports of these meetings, though not published, 
were reproduced f o r information as Appendices in the 
minutes of the 39th and 40th meetings of the A R L 
( J u n e , 1 9 5 2 and F e b r u a r y , 1 9 5 3 ) . 

elusion, subject to certain limitations, of serial 
publications (including government serials, 
federal, state and local), newspapers, music 
scores, manuscripts, paged analytics, and prob-
ably also atlases; also that it might be further 
reduced by the inclusion of L C cards only in 
short-title form, and by the inclusion of text-
books and multiple editions of standard works, 
such as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, 
only in extremely compressed form. It was 
hoped that by such exclusion and compression 
the total number of entries in the proposed 
printed Catalog could be reduced to perhaps 
6,000,000, of which roughly 3,200,000 would 
be in shortened form. 

Though the Library of Congress had, as re-
quested, experimented with such a legible 
printed catalog for a short section of the 
alphabet and had attempted to make cost esti-
mates, it was felt that the data so far obtained 
were inadequate and that further study was 
necessary. It was therefore requested that 
these experiments be repeated, due account 
being taken of the exclusions and compressions 
which the sub-committee had proposed, and 
that care be taken to make a clear distinction 
between routine or clerical operations, which 
could be performed by sub-professional labor, 
and editorial work which would have to be 
handled by experts. The Library of Congress 
was also requested to make an estimate of the 
cost of "completing" the N U C as a prelimi-
nary to the contemplated reproduction. 

During the next six months the Library of 
Congress undertook to carry out these two 
assignments. The results were presented in 
documents which were considered by the sub-
committee at its second meeting last January. 
The documents are too complex and statisti-
cal for presentation in such a paper as this, 
but they may perhaps be summarized.7 

First, an estimate was given of the cost of 
"completing" the N U C in accordance with 
the proposals made by Robert B. Downs in 
July, 1949. It was calculated that such a 
procedure would result in the addition of 
1,500,000 new entries in the Catalog (plus a 
great number of new locations) but that the 
cost would amount to $1,212,318. It was 
further estimated that the addition of these 
1,500,000 new entries would result in added 
editorial and publication costs for the con-
templated reproduction amounting to $675,000. 

As for its other and more important assign-
7 T h e documents were reproduced in the Appendix to 

the 40th meeting of A R L r e f e r r e d to in note 6. 

22 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



ment, the Library of Congress explained in 
some detail what it had done, and then pre-
sented a number of specimen pages which 
illustrated the results achieved. Finally it 
presented in some detail an estimate of the 
cost of editing and publishing the NUC. 8 
The total mounted up to the staggering figure 
of $4,458,955 for an edition of 1000 sets of 
89 volumes each, or to a price of $4,458.95 
per set if the entire edition could be sold. 

The documents submitted by the Library of 
Congress were considered at some length by 
the sub-committee at its January meeting. 

It was realized at once that the magnitude 
of the enterprise of "completing" the N U C 
as envisioned by M r . Downs was so great 
and costly as to seem out of the question as 
a preliminary to the reproduction which the 
sub-committee had in mind. Little further 
attention, therefore, was given to it. 

On the other hand, in its estimate of the 
cost of editing and publishing the N U C , the 
Library of Congress had been encouraged by 
the sub-committee to include as "preliminary 
operations" a partial "completion" of the 
Catalog. These preliminary operations and 
the estimates for them were discussed at some 
length. It was pointed out that it would be 
of much importance to include a great number 
of cards not yet reported from Harvard, and 
that therefore the estimated cost of these 
preliminary operations would in all probability 
have to be increased. On the other hand, the 
view was taken that these preliminary opera-
tions, however desirable, were not properly a 
part of the reproduction enterprise then under 
consideration and ought not to be permitted 
to stand as a financial obstacle in the way of 
its success. Rather it was felt that the "com-
pletion" of the N U C , particularly such an 
item of it as the filing of a large arrearage of 
unfiled cards, was really the business of the 
Library of Congress and an obligation of the 
federal government. However, the Library 
of Congress spokesmen pointed out that ap-
propriations for this work had been repeatedly 
refused by Congress over the past ten years 
and that it had never been clearly established 
as a principle that the federal government has 
an obligation to provide for such work. One 
member of the sub-committee observed, on the 
other hand, that no plan had ever yet been 
implemented for the libraries of the country 
to support the N U C . 

8 See the appendix below. 

Perhaps the most serious matter brought to 
light during the discussion of "preliminary 
operations" was the estimate of 9,000,000 
entries which would remain in the N U C to 
be published after all the contemplated exclu-
sions and compressions—a figure which is to 
be compared with the 6,000,000 estimate which 
the sub-committee had made at its meeting 
six months earlier. This figure was regarded 
as staggering but nevertheless valid in the light 
of the most recent calculations which the Li-
brary of Congress had made. 

Attention was then directed to a great item 
of $2,800,000 which the Library of Congress 
had calculated for "editing for publication." 
The view was expressed that this figure, which 
was based on an estimate of 32 cents per 
entry, was excessive. Some members of the 
sub-committee mentioned figures as low as ten 
cents an entry, though these were thought to 
be pretty certainly too low. Mention was 
made of the possibility of organizing the enter-
prise less expensively by placing it under an 
independent management which would co-
operate closely with the Library of Congress 
but be separate from it, and therefore would 
escape some of the costliness which seems in-
herent in the operations of a government 
agency. Finally, as a kind of "wild guess," 
the view was expressed that the editorial cost 
might conceivably be got down to as little as 
$1,200,000. 

But even at this reduced figure, would 
there really be any hope of finding a subsidy 
adequate to make it possible to carry this 
project through to successful completion? If 
one were to eliminate entirely the cost of "pre-
liminary operations" and to reduce editorial 
costs from $2,800,00 to $1,200,000, the cost of 
the total enterprise for an edition of 1000 sets 
would still be in the nature of $2,200,000. 
Foundations were considered as possible 
sources of a subsidy, but no one appeared 
to believe that support on a large enough 
scale could be found in that quarter. An 
adequate federal subsidy was also not to be 
thought of in the present temper of Wash-
ington. 

The final conclusion, therefore, was that 
while the sub-committee was of the opinion 
that the publication of the N U C in a conveni-
ent legible form would be highly desirable, the 
cost appeared to be prohibitive, there being 
no present prospect of finding the amount of 
money which the project would require. 

Some thought was then given to the possi-

JANUARY, 1954 23 



D A L L A Y , LOUIS A L E X I S . 
D e s c a r a c t e r e s p r o p r e s h f a l r e d l s t i n q u e r la 

f l e x i o n p e r m a n e n t * m u i c u l a l r e ou l l g a m e n t e u s e 
du c o u d e et du g e n o u , . . . P a r i s , R i g n o u , 1842. 
36 p . D A F M P P C P 

D A L L D O R F , G I L B E R T , 1 9 0 0 - j o i n t author 
» e e E d d y , W a l t e r H o l l l s , 1 8 7 7 -

T h e a v l t a m l n o s e s . 

D A L L D O R F , H E I N Z . 
T r o p o s p h a r l s c h e r M e r l d l o n a l a u s t a u s c h In 

d e n g e m a s s i g t e n B r e l t e n . H a m b u r g , 
P r e i l i p p e r , 1937. 21 p. l l l u s . ( G e r m a n y . 
D l r e k t l o n d e r S e e w a r t e . A r c h i v de r D e u t s c h e n 
S e e w a r t e und d e s M a r l n e o b s e r v a t o r i u m s , Bd. 
5 7 , N r . 10) NN 

D A L L D O R F , K A R L , 1 9 1 0 -
D l e kUnstliche B e w f i s s e r u n g M e s o p o t a m i e n s . . . 

H a m b u r g , 1 933. 67 p. l l l u s . D i s s . - H a m b u r g . 
NN 

D A L L D O R F ( I R R E N A N S T A L T ) 
s e e W i t t e n a u , G e r . I r r e n a n s t a l t D a l l d o r f . 

D A L L E , A N T O I N E . 
C o u r s de g l o m l t r l e . . . 3. 6d. N a m u r , 

A n d r l e s , 1 9 1 2 . 2 v . At head of title: A n t . 
D a l l e et C . de W a e l e . R P 

2000 t M o r t m e s fc p r o b l i m e s de g i o m i t r i e 
a v e c s o l u t i o n s . N a m u r , A n d r i e s , 1912. 
825 p . l l l u s . M H MIU R P B 

D A L L E , JEAN C H A R L E S T H E O D O S E . 
D u r e g i m e de la f e m m e en c o u c h e . P a r i s , 

1 8 0 8 . 26 p . D A F M 

D A L L E , M A U R I C E . 
H l m a t l m e s e s t a b e t l q u e s et f a u s s e s 

M m a t < m » s e s t a b e t i q u e s . P a r i s , 1912. 115 p 
D A F M M H - M 

D A L L E , P 
N o t i o n s e i e m e n t a l r c s d'hygifcne A l ' u s a g e du 

d e g r e s u p ^ r i e u r d e s e c o l e s p r i m a i r e s d e s 
s e c t i o n s p r ^ p a r a t o l r e s a n n e x ^ e s aux e c o l e s 
m o y e n n e s et d e s c o u r s d ' a d u l t e s . N a m u r , 
A l o s t , 1 9 0 7 . 46 p. D A F M 

D A L L E , R O M E O , 1 921 -
L e s n e p h r o p a t h i e s a i g u e s p o s t - t r a u m a t i q u e s . 

L y o n , B o s c , 1948. 1 02 p. T h e s e - L y o n s . 
A M L 5 1 - 1 4 1 2 3 C t Y D A F M 

D A L L E , SH 
s e e D a l l e t , C h a r l e s . 

D A L L E , V I C T O R 
s e e F r a n c e . C o n s e i l s u p ^ r i e u r du t r a v a i l . 

R a p p o r t s u r d l v e r s e s m o d i t i c a t i o n s & la 
l e g i s l a t i o n d e s c o n s e i l s de prud' h o m m e s . 

D A L L E C E L L E , GIOVANNI 
s e e C e l l e , Giovanni d a l l e , f l . 1 374-1 392. 

D A L L E L A S T E , NATAL.E 
s e e L a s t e , Natale d a l l e M H 

D A L L E S P A D E , G1ANNINO F E R R A R I 
s e e F e r r a r i d a l l e S p a d e , G i a n n l n o , 1 8 8 7 -

D A L L E r o v i n e . . . d o l o i e - a m j r e ' . R o m a , 
A l b r l g h l , S e g a t i , 1 909. 175 p. NN 

D A L L E M A G N E , J U L E S . 
L e c r e d i t et la petite b o u r g e o i s i e , r a p p o r t 

p r e s e n t s . . . au g r o u p e de la petite b o u r g e o i s i e 
A la C h a m b r e d e s R e p r ^ s e n t a n t s . . . L l t g e , 
C o r m a u x , .1909. ! 1 9 p . NcD 

i l l b r e s . B r u x e l l e s 
7 - 3 4 1 1 9 D L C 

D e g e n ^ r e s et des^qu 
L a m e r t l n , 1894. 658 p . 
D A F M ICJ 

1895. 658 p . 

Du f o l e d e s t u b e r c u l e u x . P a r i s , 
G . S t e i n h e l l , 1891. 152 p. The s e - B r u s s e l s . 
D A F M 

— Etude s u r l e s p e n s i o n s o u v r l f c r e s 
d'Invalidity fc de v l e l l l e s s e ; . . . L U g e , 
G r a n d m o n t - D o n d e r s , 1 897. 1 18 p. i l l u s . 
3 - 2 5 1 9 3 D L C 

P a t h o l o g i c de la v o l o n t e . . . P a r i s , M a s s o n 
(1898 i 190 p. ( E n c y c l o p e d i c s c i e n t l f l q u e d e s 
a i d e - m e m o i r e ) C t Y D A F M ICU 

La peine c 
p h y s i o l o g i q u e s 
24 p. 

r p o r e l l e et s e s b a s e s 
B r u x e l l e s , L a m e r t h , 1894. 

D A F M 

P h y s l o l o g i e de la v o l o n t e . . . P a r i s , M a s s o n 
11 898 i 202 p. ( E n c y c l o p e d i c s c i e n t i f i q u e 
d e s a i d e - m e m o i r e ) ICU M H NN N j P 

L e s s t l g m a t e s a n a t o m i q u e s de la 
c r l m l n a l l t e . P a r i s , M a s s o n (1 896 i 185 p. 
( E n c y c l o p e d i c s c i e n t i f i q u e d e s a i d e - m e m o i r e ) 
3 7 - 1 4 2 3 9 D L C D A F M MH MiU OC1M PU 

L e s t h e o r i e s de la c r i m i n a l i t e . P a r i s , 
M a s s o n ( 1 8 9 6 ) 21 3 p. ( E n c y c l o p e d i c 
s c i e n t i f i q u e d e s a i d e - m e m o i r e ) 3 7 - 1 4 2 3 2 
D L C ICU MiU NN 

La volante dans s e s r a p p o r t s a v e c la 
r e s p o n s a b l l i t e p e n a l e . P a r i s , M a s s o n i ! 8 9 9 ? I 
212 p. ( E n c y c l o p e d i c s c i e n t i f i q u e d e s a i d e -
m e m o i r e ) CtY D A F M NN 

D A L L E M A G N E , L O T Y . 
La v i e b r u t a l e . B r u x e l l e s , E d i t i o n s de 

B e l g i q u e , 1936. 267 p. NN O r P R 

D A L L E M A G N E , M A R C E L J 
A s p e c t s a c t u e l s de l ' a n e s t h e s i o l o g i e . L i e g e , 

S c i e n c e s et l e t t r e s , 1949. 462 p. i l l u s . (part 
c o l . ) D A F M OC1W 

D o n n e e s r e c e n t e s s u r la nature et le 
m e t a b o l l s m e de l ' o s . P a r i s , M a s s o n , 1945. 
67 p. ( A c t u a l i t e s b i o c h i m i q u e s .. nr. 2) R P B 

La natur 
m i n e r a l e oss 
303 p . 

c h i m i q u e de la s u b s t a n c e 
:use . . . ( L i e g e i Univ. de L i e g e 

D L C 

D A L L E M A G N E , M A R C E L J j o i n t a u t h o r 
s e e D a u t r e b a n d e , L u c i e n . I n t r o d u c t i o n A 

l ' e t u d e de l ' a n e s t h e s i e . D A F M 

D ' A L L E M A N D , D A V I D . 
De a n t l o c h o a s c a l o n i t a . M a r b u r g , 1856. 

I n a u g . - d i s s . - M a r b u r g . D L C 

D A L L E N , R O B E R T A M B R O S E . 
T h e U n i v e r s i t y of Sydney; its h i s t o r y and 

p r o g r e s s I l l u s t r a t e d . S y d n e y , Angus b R o b e r t -
s o n , 1914. 55 p . i l l u s . ( i n c l . p o r t s . ) MH NN 

e y , Sydney 
t s . CtY NN 

D A L L E S BUSINESS M E N ' ! 
T h e D a l l e s and D u f u r , O ? 

I The D a l l e * , n . d , 4 8 i p . 

• The D a l l e s , O r e g o n . i T h l 

1910,. 32 p . 

D A L L E S et p l a n c h e s ; c o r r e s p o n d 
p r t t r e . . . P a r i s , 1876 
s e e K a u f f m a n n , E m l l e . 

D A L L E T , A D E L L A . 
N u m b e r l e s s o n s . T h i r d y e a r J 

1 8 9 2 i 74 p . 2 - 2 6 2 2 0 

N u m b e r l e s s o n s . F o u r t h y e l 
B e e Job R o o m s , 1892. 88 p . 

D A L L E T , C H A R L E S . 
H l s t o t r e de l ' e g l t s e de C o r e e 

P a l m e , 1874. 2 v . I l l u s . , majj 
CU CtY DCU D L C DS M B 
N j P OC1 OU PU 

D A L L E T , E M I L I E ( M O R E T ) 
L e F a m l l l s t S r e l l l u s t r e , r«si| 

ans d ' a s s o c l a t l o n , 1 8 8 0 - 1 9 0 0 . 
G u l l l a u m l n 11901 j 85 p. l l l u s j 
4 - 3 6 8 9 6 

P e t i t e m e t h o d e de l e c t u r e _ 
d e s c a r a c t e r e s m o b i l e s A l ' u s a g e 
et d e s f a m i l i e s . P a r i s , D e l a g r a f 
72 p. 9 - 1 2 6 9 6 r e v . 

T w e n t y y e a r s of c o - p a r t n e l 
T r . f r o m the F r e n c h by A n e u r i J 
L o n d o n , L a b o u r C o - p a r t n e r s 
1903. 88 p. l l l u s . , p o r t , 
a u t h o r ' s L e F a m l l l s t i r e i l l u l 
de vlngt ans d ' a s s o c l a t l o n , 18^ 
C t Y D L C ICU MH PU 

T w e n t y - e i g h t y e a r s of c o - p a j 
at G u i s e ; being the 2d e d . of 1 
of c o - p a r t n e r s h i p at G u i s e . " . 
L a b o u r C o - P a r t n e r s h i p A s s o c * 
89 p. l l l u s . , p o r t s . 1 0 - 1 9 5 

D A L L E T , E M I L I E ( M O R E T ) 
s e e G o d l n , M a r i e A d e l e ( M o r J 
D o c u m e n t s pour une b l o g r a p j 
J e a n - B a p t l s t e A n d r e G o d i n . , 

D A L L E T , E M I L I E ( M O R E T ) 
s e e G o d i n , . M a r i e A d e l e ( M o r i 
In m e m o r i a m , M a r i e A* M o r e t l 

D A L L E T , F R A N C O I S . 
L e s pieds du d l a b l e ; r o m a r 

D e n o e l i c l 9 3 7 i 237 p. 

D A L L E T , G A B R I E L , 1 8 5 8 -
A s t r o n o m i e p r a t i q u e , le j 

P a r i s , 1800. 

L e c e n t e n a i r e de la scleri 
le m o n d e vu par l e s savants i 
P a r i s , B a l l l l t r e , 1890. 112J 

C e n t e n a r l o d e l l a s c l e r 
m o n d o v l s t o dagll s c l e n z i a t ^ 
T r a d u z l o n e . . . t d l i D i e g o 
M l l a n o , S o n z o g n o , 1892. 
m a p s . 

One-quarter of one of the specimen pages referred to in the text. It is reduced by 57i Per c^nt 
from the size of the original copy on cards. 

24 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



bility of attempting something on a much 
smaller scale which would still be of value. 
It might, for example, be useful and manage-
able to attempt a catalog of personal names 
and titles only, leaving the complex problems 
of corporate entries for some other solution. 
Also author and title entries which pose very 
complex editorial problems might be omitted 
or postponed. But such partial or makeshift 
solutions were clearly not a part of the sub-
committee's assignment, and they were there-
fore not pursued. 

The meeting of the sub-committee ended on 
a somber note. Its chairman was directed 
to present a final report to the Board on Re-
sources and to ask that it be dismissed. This 
has in due course been accomplished, and the 
present paper has been in large part based 
on the final report. 

Yet, experienced librarians will hardly be 
willing to write finis upon this project and 
condemn it to the musty files of the forgotten. 
There is real hope that the expanded Author 
Catalog (which would constitute a landmark 
in the Union Catalog's development) will in 
the not distant future become a reality. As 
for the retrospective Catalog, there are cer-
tainly influential librarians both on the L C 
staff and elsewhere who, in spite of the diffi-
culties, do not believe that the ambition to 
publish this great instrument in an improved 
and readable form must be finally abandoned. 

In the opinion of your reporter it is an ob-
ligation of the federal government (though 
this may require considerable persuasion) to 

provide the Library of Congress with adequate 
funds to "complete" the N U C , to file the 
cards into it, and to edit it to the extent of 
making it a far better bibliographical instru-
ment than it has ever been before. T o ac-
complish this, he feels, ought not to be an 
obligation of American librarianship. If this 
much could be achieved at federal expense, 
then the cost of publishing the N U C in 
readable form for the use of research libraries 
and scholars everywhere, while still a gigantic 
task, would certainly be less formidable. It 
would doubtless still, with present methods, not 
be practical as a commercial or self-liquidating 
venture; some form of subsidy would pre-
sumably still be necessary, though it is to be 
hoped that it would not be impossibly great. 
It is the conviction of your reporter that the 
dream of an expanded, improved, and properly 
legible N U C will persist and that in a better 
day the means will be found to make this 
dream a reality—thus providing in the re-
search libraries of this country a manageable 
thesaurus of approximately our total biblio-
graphical resources, which, like the Gesamt-
katalog in Germany (had it not been wrecked 
by the Second World W a r ) , would constitute 
a major portion of the bibliography of the 
printed output of the human mind. The work 
of the sub-committee of the A L A Board on 
Resources should not, therefore, it is hoped, 
be regarded as having recorded a failure, but 
rather as having established a bench-mark for 
the guidance of the more successful explorers 
and surveyors of a later time. 

A P P E N D I X 

Estimated Cost of Editing and Publishing 
the National Union Catalog 

S U M M A R Y 
A . P R E L I M I N A R Y OPERATIONS 

1. M i c r o f i l m i n g and p h o t o - e n l a r g i n g 2,600,000 c a r d s f r o m U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a 
and U n i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n L i b r a r i e s and the D e n v e r and Seattle U n i o n 
C a t a l o g s $ 58,500 

2. F i l i n g into N a t i o n a l U n i o n C a t a l o g a total of 4,800,000 c a r d s representing a b o v e 
and supplements on hand ( a t $.027 e a c h ) 129,600 

3. P r e - e d i t i n g o f g r o s s N a t i o n a l U n i o n C a t a l o g o f 15,000,000 c a r d s to result in 
the elimination o f 4,500,000 duplicates ( a t $.025 e a c h ) 375,000 

P r e - e d i t e d N a t i o n a l U n i o n C a t a l o g 10,500,000 
Less 1,500,000 entries f o r g o v e r n m e n t publications, serials, 
m u s i c scores, manuscripts, p a g e d analytics 1,500,000 

N e t entries to be published 9,000,000 

JANUARY, 1954 25