College and Research Libraries


The Federal Depository System: 
A Proposal for Change 

By C L I F T O N B R O C K 

MANY LIBRARIANS—particularly t h a t species of the breed known as "doc-
uments" librarians—have long been con-
cerned about the inadequacy of the pres-
ent depository system for distribution of 
federal government publications to li-
braries. Much of this concern has cen-
tered on the relatively inflexible method 
of designating depository libraries and 
the gross inequities in distribution of 
documents resulting from this method. 

In recent years awareness of the mag-
nitude of the depository problem has 
filtered through to a few interested con-
gressmen. One congressional subcommit-
tee has noted "the long-felt need to cor-
rect the outmoded methed of selecting 
depository libraries"1 and has concluded 
that "the outmoded depository library 
law . . . is in need of major revision in 
order to best serve present-day needs."2 
A bill to amend the depository law in 
certain major particulars has passed the 
House of Representatives three times in 
the last five years, but has yet to be con-
sidered in the Senate. T h i s failure to 
revise what Representative Wayne Hays 
(D., Ohio) has called a "horse-and-buggy-
law in a jet-propelled age" appears to be 
due in large part to lack of quantitative, 
summary documentation of the inade-
quacy of the present depository system. 
Even the revision bill which passed the 
House last August and is now pending 
in the Senate—while an improvement— 
still is not adequate for present and fu-
ture needs. 

A congressional resolution of January 
28, 1857, amended slightly in 1859 and 

1 Paperwork Management and Printing Facilities in 
the United States Government ( U . S . Congress. House. 
Committee on House Administration, Report No. 2 9 4 5 , 
P a r t 2, 84th Cong., 2d S e s s . , 1 9 5 6 ) , p. 5. 

2 Ibid., p. 31. 

Mr. Brock is Visiting Lecturer in the School 
of Library Science, and Chief of the Business 
and Social Science Division of the University 
of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill. 

1861, provided that government publica-
tions "shall be distributed to such bodies 
as shall be designated to the Secretary of 
the Interior by each of the Senators from 
the several states respectively, and by the 
Representatives in Congress from each 
Congressional district, and by the Dele-
gates from each Territory." Thus the pri-
mary basis for designation became the 
congressional district through representa-
tives, the secondary basis the state 
through senators. While responsibility 
for the functioning of the depository 
system was transferred to the Superin-
tendent of Documents in 1895, the 
method of designation has remained un-
changed for over a century. Four classes 
of libraries—state libraries, the libraries 
of land-grant colleges and service aca-
demies, and certain libraries of the ex-
ecutive branch of the federal government 
—have been designated as depositories 
by special laws. These designations, while 
adding a large number of libraries to 
the depository system at various times, 
have not altered the basic method of 
designation. 

When this method was decided upon 
in 1857 there were 233 representatives in 
Congress. T h e r e was no limit on the 
number of representatives, and it was 
expected that as population increased and 
new states were admitted to the Union 



more congressional districts would be 
added. By 1912, however, all the land 
area of the continental United States had 
been encompassed within forty-eight 
states. This, plus the great increase in 
population and the consequent increase 
in the number of representatives, threat-
ened to make the House too large and 
unwieldy a body. Congress therefore set 
a limit of 435 on the number of repre-
sentatives. (A temporary increase of two 
to accommodate Alaska and Hawaii is in 
effect at present.) W i t h the depository 
system tied to congressional districts, this 
action automatically set a limit on the 
possible number of depository libraries. 
As a result, while the population of the 
United States has increased 100 per cent 
since 1910, the number of depository li-
braries has increased only 25 per cent. 

Once a representative has designated 
a library as a depository in a given dis-
trict, or a senator within a state, such 
designation cannot be changed unless 
the library fails to meet the standards set 
by law, and no additional designations 
can be made in that district. For exam-
ple, the Drury College Library in the 
Seventh district of Missouri was desig-
nated in 1874 by Representative Harri-
son Havens. Since that date no subse-
quent representative from Missouri's 
Seventh district has been able to desig-
nate a depository. 

Over the years the congressional dis-
trict boundaries of many states have been 
redrawn as a result of reapportionment 
following a decennial census. Since desig-
nations cannot be withdrawn, many in-
stances exist where a given district as it 
stands today has more than one deposi-
tory. T h e T e n t h district of Massachusetts 
has three designated by congressmen and 
one (the state library) by law. T h e first 
South Dakota district has four congres-
sionally designated depositories and two 
(the state library and a land-grant college 
library) by law. Thus, because of politi-
cal processes unrelated to the need for 
government publications, some districts 

are far better supplied with despositories 
than others. 

Being tied to congressional districts, 
the depository system is related, by rough 
extension, to population. In recent years, 
however, the relationship has become 
very tenuous. When the district system 
was made mandatory upon the states in 
1842, the theory was that districts would 
be approximately equal in population, 
thus providing equality of representa-
tion. T h i s theory was never closely fol-
lowed in practice, and in 1929 the legal 
requirement that districts contain as 
nearly as practicable an equal number 
of inhabitants was dropped. T h e result 
today is that congressional districts vary 
widely in population, ranging from a 
low of 177,431 for the Twelfth district of 
Michigan to a high of 1,014,460 for the 
Twenty-eighth district of California. De-
spite the fact that the California district 
now has two depositories, the ratio of 
depositories per person is 1 to 177,431 
for the Michigan Twelfth and 1 to 507,-
230 for the California Twenty-eighth. 

T h e r e seems to be wide agreement that 
the libraries of academic institutions 
have greater need for documents than 
other types of libraries. At least, Super-
intendent of Documents Carper Buckley, 
and Representative Wayne Hays—who 
do not often agree on matters relating to 
the depository system—have agreed on 
this point.3 T h i s generalization is not 
invalidated by the obvious fact that the 
library of a college with an enrollment 
of two thousand students cannot have as 
great a need for documents as the New 
York Public Library. T h e generalization 
implies no more than the equally obvious 
fact that, given the extensive and inten-
sive information requirements of stu-
dents and faculty, academic libraries gen-
erally will experience heavier demands 
for government publications than public 
or special libraries generally. T h e method 

3 Hearings, Sale and Distribution of Gevernment 
Publications by the Superintendent of Documents ( U . S. 
Congress. House. Committee on House Administration, 
84th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 9 5 6 ) , p. 8. 

198 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S 



T A B L E 1 

S T A T E P O P U L A T I O N 
C O N G R E S S I O N A L 

D I S T R I C T S 
A C A D E M I C 

P O P U L A T I O N * 

N U M B E R C O L -
L E G E S A N D 

U N I V E R S I T I E S * 

N U M B E R O F 
A C A D E M I C 

D E P O S I T O R I E S 

M a s s a c h u s e t t s . 5 , 1 4 8 , 5 7 8 
4 , 9 5 1 , 5 6 0 

1 4 
8 

1 0 3 , 2 1 0 
4 4 , 6 7 1 

4 9 
1 1 

8 
7 F l o r i d a 

5 , 1 4 8 , 5 7 8 
4 , 9 5 1 , 5 6 0 

1 4 
8 

1 0 3 , 2 1 0 
4 4 , 6 7 1 

4 9 
1 1 

8 
7 

5 , 1 4 8 , 5 7 8 
4 , 9 5 1 , 5 6 0 

1 4 
8 

1 0 3 , 2 1 0 
4 4 , 6 7 1 

4 9 
1 1 

8 
7 

* D a t a in these two tables taken from American Universities and Colleges, 1960 edition. 

of designating depository libraries, how-
ever, does not take direct account of the 
varying concentrations of academic pop-
ulation or the location of colleges and 
universities. It does so very indirectly 
only through the loose correlations be-
tween congressional districts and general 
population, between general population 
and academic population, and between 
congressional districts and the location of 
academic institutions. T a b l e 1 indicates 
that the correlations among all these fac-
tors can be very loose. 

T h u s Massachusetts, which has about 
the same population as Florida, almost 
twice as many congressional districts, 
over twice as many students, more than 
four times as many colleges and univer-
sities, has only one more depository in 
colleges and universities. 

T h e law specifies that in order to 
qualify as a depository a library must 
have one thousand volumes other than 
government publications and must be 
open to the public. College libraries are 
not required even to have one thousand 
volumes other than government publica-
tions. Not surprisingly, there is appar-
ently no case on record of the depository 
privilege being withdrawn from a library 
because it failed to meet these standards. 

For many years depository libraries 
were sent all documents printed for dis-
tribution by the government, whether 
they wanted them or not. Beginning in 
1923, depositories were allowed to select 
the publications which they wished to 
receive. A 1956 survey disclosed that over 
50 per cent of the depositories selected 
less than 50 per cent of the documents 
available to them. Twenty-five per cent 

selected less than 25 per cent available, 
and 12 per cent selected less than 10 per-
cent of the documents available.4 There-
fore, to say that there are so many de-
pository libraries in the country or in a 
given state or congressional district is 
not very meaningful in terms of the over-
all distribution of government publica-
tions. Nor does the fact that a given li-
brary is a despository indicate very much 
about the range of government publica-
tions available to that library's clientele. 

All these aspects of the depository sys-
tem in conjunction have operated to 
produce such situations as the follow-
ing: 

1. T h e state of North Dakota, with a 
population one-seventh that of Missouri, 
has one-third as many depository librar-
ies as Missouri. Missouri, with a popula-
tion little more than one-fourth that of 
California, has more than one-half as 
many depositories as California. 

2. T h e First Congressional District of 
New York, with a population of 906,187, 
has one depository library. T h e First Con-
gressional District of South Dakota, with 
a population of 497,669, has six deposi-
tories. 

3. T h e Snow College Library of Eph-
raim, Utah, with a collection of 11,000 
volumes and serving 379 students, is a 
depository. T h e Boston University Li-
brary, with a collection of over 500,000 
volumes and serving 19,809 students, 
cannot become a depository. 

4. T h e library of Kent State Univer-
4 B e n j a m i n E . Powell and William R. Pullen, " T h e 

Depository L i b r a r y S y s t e m — A n Examination with Rec-
ommendations for Increasing I t s E f f e c t i v e n e s s , " Hear-
ings, Rei'ision nf Depository Library Laws, ( U . S . Con-
gress. House. Committee on House Administration. 85th 
Cong., 1st S e s s . , 1 9 5 8 ) , p. 173. 

M A Y 1 9 6 2 199 



sity, which serves an enrollment of over 
eight thousand students, cannot become 
a depository because the Hiram College 
Library, which serves an enrollment of 
six hundred students, has the designa-
tion for Ohio's Eleventh district. 

5. T h e library of Chico State College 
of California, serving an enrollment of 
over three thousand students and con-
taining eighty thousand volumes, cannot 
become a depository because the Shasta 
County Public Library of Redding, lo-
cated seventy miles away and containing 
forty thousand volumes, has the deposi-
tory designation for California's Second 
district. 

6. T h e Public Library of Charlotte, 
North Carolina, which serves a popula-
tion of over two hundred thousand and 
contains almost three hundred thousand 
volumes, cannot become a depository be-
cause the library of Queens College, 
which serves an enrollment of 642 stu-
dents and has 38,000 volumes, has the 
designation of the T e n t h North Carolina 
district. 

These aspects of the depository system, 
in conjunction with the growth of the 
nation over the past hundred years, have 
operated to nullify the original intent 
of the depository law and to render it 
inadequate to present and future needs, 
particularly to educational needs. T h e 
depository revision bill presently pend-
ing in Congress also is inadequate to 
meet these needs. Several examples of 
the inequities and absurdities of the 
present system have been given, but it 
can rightly be argued that a few isolated 
instances are not necessarily proof. In 
an effort to supply proof the public doc-
uments class of the University of North 
Carolina Library School has participated 
in an analysis of the present and pro-
posed depository systems. Some of the 
results are summarized here. 

Under present law each congressional 
district is allowed one depository library 
by congressional designation. Most of 
these opportunities for designation have 

been used. Out of an upper limit of 663 
possible depositories, including those by 
congressional designation and by law, 
592 have been named. In all but a few 
cases, the opportunities not used fall in 
districts where there are no libraries of 
any size available to accept designation. 
Representative J o h n McCormack of Mas-
sachusetts complained recently that his 
district had no depository, that he had 
inquired to see if any library was in-
terested but had found none which could 
qualify.5 T h i s is an example of one of 
the most absurd aspects of the present 
system, that vacancies exist in some dis-
tricts where they are not needed while 
opportunities are closed in other districts 
where they are badly needed. 

In an effort to open up additional op-
portunities, the pending bill (H.R. 8141) 
would allow each representative to desig-
nate one depository library in his district 
if that district now has only one congres-
sionally designated depository. ( T h e bill 
makes no provision for additional sena-
torial designation.) Thus Representative 
Durward Hall of the Seventh Missouri 
district could name another depository. 
Representative Samuel Devine of the 
Ohio Twelfth district, which now con-
tains three depositories, could designate 
one more because only one of the three is 
by congressional designation, the other 
two having been named by law. But Rep-
resentative J o h n Lindsay of the New 
York Seventeenth, which already has two 
congressionally designated depositories, 
could not name another. Mr. McCor-
mack, if he could find any takers, could 
designate two depositories. 

T h e r e has been a good deal of con-
fusion about this provision of the bill. 
Some librarians apparently have assumed 
that the bill would allow another de-
pository in every district, regardless of 
the number of depositories in a district 
or how they were designated. T h e perti-
nent section of H . R . 8141 reads: 

5 Congressional Record, C V ( 1 9 5 9 ) , P a r t 3, 4277. 

200 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S 



Government publications. . . shall 
be distributed to depository libraries 
specifically designated by law and 
to such libraries as may have been 
designated by each of the Senators 
from the several states, respectively, 
[note: this represents no change from 
the present law] and as have been 
or shall be designated by the Repre-
sentative in Congress from each Con-
gressional district . . . : Provided, 
T h a t additional libraries within 
areas served by Representatives 
may be designated by them to re-
ceive Government publications to 
the extent that a total of not more 
than two such libraries, other than 
those specifically designated by law 
. . . may be designated within each 
a r e a . . . . 

When a question was raised about this 
language during hearings on an earlier 
version of H . R . 8141, Representative 
Hays explained that the bill "would al-
low an additional depository in each 
congressional district if there is now only 
one congressional designated deposi-
tory."0 T h e clear implication is that if 
a district has two congressionally desig-
nated depositories it would not be eligi-
ble for another one. If the bill should 
pass in its present form and a question 
arose about legislative intent, Hays's re-
ply undoubtedly would be controlling. 

T h e r e also has been much confusion 
about the total number of new deposi-
tories which would result from passage 
of the Hays bill. Mr. Buckley, for in-
stance, has testified that the bill "would 
provide for roughly doubling the num-
ber of depository libraries."7 Apparently, 
this is one factor behind his opposition 
to the bill. Careful analysis indicates that 
the bill could theoretically result in a 
total of 342 new depositories, an increase 
of 58 per cent, not of 100 per cent. Actu-

8 Hearings, Revision of Depository Library Laws 
( U . S . Congress. . . . ) , p. 102. 

7 Hearings, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 
1960, ( U . S . Congress. House. Committee on Appropria-
tions, 86th Cong., 1st S e s s . ) , p. 256. 

ally, it is extremely unlikely that the to-
tal number would be higher than 244. 
Beyond this, precise statements cannot 
be made, but a realistic estimate would 
seem to place the probable number of 
new depositories somewhere between one 
hundred and one hundred and fifty. 

These figures are much lower than 
those normally estimated and are likely 
to be questioned. T a b l e 2 summarizes the 
data for the nation as a whole and for 
each state. 

In compiling T a b l e 2 the appendix to 
the hearing on Sale and Distribution of 
Government Publications, containing a 
list of depositories in existence on Aug-
ust 13, 1956, was used. T h e list is by 
states, and indicates the name of the de-
pository, congressional district, and 
method of designation. T h i s list was 
brought up to date by using the list of 
depositories in the September 1961 issue 
of the Monthly Catalog. ( T h e table has 
not been altered to reflect changes in 
congressional districts subsequent to the 
1960 census. Further research, however, 
indicates that such changes would have 
little effect in a number of opportunities 
available for designation of libraries as 
depositories.) If a given district does not 
have a depository by congressional desig-
nation, it was assumed that one deposi-
tory could be named in that district un-
der present law. For example in Ala-
bama there are no congressionally-desig-
nated depositories in the Second, Third, 
Fifth, or Seventh districts. T h e r e are two 
congressionally-designated depositories in 
the First and Ninth districts; no new de-
positories could be named in these dis-
tricts. T h e r e is one congressionally-desig-
nated depository in each of the Fourth, 
Sixth, and Eighth districts; one new de-
pository could be added in each district. 
One new depository could be added in 
each of the Second, Third, Fifth, and 
Seventh districts, since these districts do 
not now have any congressionally-desig-
nated depositories. In all, a total of seven 
new depositories are possible in Alabama 

M A Y 1 9 6 2 2 0 1 



TABLE 4 

N U M B E R O F N E W D E P O S I T O R I E S P O S S I B L E AND P R O B A B L E U N D E R P R O P O S E D L A W 

N E W D E P O S I T O R I E S N E W D E P O S I T O R I E S N E W D E P O S I T O R I E S 
P O S S I B L E U N D E R P O S S I B L E U N D E R P R O B A B L E U N D E R 

S T A T E P R E S E N T L A W P R O P O S E D L A W P R O P O S E D L A W 

Alabama 4 7 3 
Alaska 1 1 0 
Arizona 2 2 0 
Arkansas 1 5 4 
California 6 24 18 
Colorado 0 1 1 
Connecticut 1 2 1 
Delaware 0 1 1 
District of Columbia 0 0 0 
Florida 2 6 4 
Georgia 5 8 3 
Hawaii 1 1 0 
Idaho 0 1 1 
Illinois 8 19 11 
Indiana 0 9 9 
Iowa 1 5 4 
K a n s a s 0 3 3 
K e n t u c k y 0 7 7 
Louisiana 1 7 6 
Maine 1 2 1 
Maryland 2 6 4 
Michigan 4 16 12 
Massachusetts 4 13 9 
Minnesota 0 8 8 
Mississippi 1 6 5 
Missouri 3 7 4 
M o n t a n a 0 1 1 
Nebraska 0 3 3 
N e v a d a 0 0 0 
New Hampshire 0 1 1 
New Mexico 0 0 0 
New J e r s e y 4 11 7 
New Y o r k 16 35 19 
North Carolina 4 10 6 
North D a k o t a 0 0 0 
Ohio 3 19 16 
Oklahoma 0 3 3 
Oregon 0 2 2 
Pennsylvania 12 26 14 
P u e r t o Kico 0 1 1 
Rhode Island 0 1 1 
South Carolina 3 6 3 
South D a k o t a 0 1 1 
Tennessee 2 7 5 
T e x a s 3 20 17 
Utah 0 0 0 
Vermont 0 0 0 
Virginia 1 8 7 
Washington 2 5 3 
W e s t Virginia 0 6 6 
Wisconsin 0 8 8 
W y o m i n g 0 1 1 

United S t a t e s 98 342 244 

202 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S 



under the proposed law. T h e notation 
of probable depositories assumes that a 
district which has not taken advantage 
of its depository privilege under present 
law is extremely unlikely to take advan-
tage of additional opportunity under the 
proposed law. In Alabama there are four 
districts in this situation. For the pro-
posed law to be operational for one of 
these districts, two depositories would 
have to be named where none is appar-
ently now needed. T h i s seems improb-
able. While it would theoretically be pos-
sible for seven new depositories to be 
added in Alabama under the proposed 
law, actually four of these possibilities 
are very unlikely to be used. 

T h e total of 244 "probable" new de-
positories is far too high. T h i s total as-
sumes that every district which now has 
one congressionally-designated deposi-
tory would take advantage of the pro-
posed law to add one more, and the 
assumption is unrealistic. T h e Sixth Ala-
bama district would be entitled to a new 
depository. T h e University of Alabama 
Library is now the district's depository. 
T h e largest eligible library in the district 
would be the Friedman Public Library 
of Tuscaloosa, which has 42,000 volumes 
and an annual budget of $37,000. It 
seems improbable that this library would 
wish to become a depository. T h e larg-
est library in the Sixth district outside of 
Tuscaloosa is the Judson College Li-
brary in Marion (population 2,822) with 

23,000 volumes and an enrollment of 245 
students. It would be tedious and un-
productive to try to determine how many 
similar situations exist across the coun-
try. In any case, H . R . 8141 requires that, 
before a new depository is designated in 
a district, the need for such a depository 
must be certified by the head of every 
existing depository within the district or 
by the head of the library authority of 
the state. T h i s provision would act as a 
brake on unnecessary designations. With 
these factors in mind, the educated 
guess of one hundred to one hundred 
fifty new depositories resulting from the 
proposed law seems fairly liberal. 

T o compile evidence that both the 
present and proposed depository systems 
are inadequate to meet present and fu-
ture needs, two major assumptions were 
made by the students: that academic li-
braries have greater need for documents 
than other types of libraries, and that 
this need varies with the size of the 
school. Each of the twenty-four students 
working on the project was assigned a 
state or states to analyze. A worksheet was 
completed for each academic depository 
library in each state. With the work-
sheets as data, each student filled in the 
summary sheet for his state or states. 

T a b l e 3 shows the results for each 
state and for the country as a whole. It 
should be noted that in this procedure 
two unrealistic assumptions were made: 

1. T h e possible designation of public 

D E P O S I T O R Y P R O J E C T S U M M A R Y S H E E T 

S C H O O L S E X C L U D E D S C H O O L S E X C L U D E D 
N o . O F N o . O F U N D E R P R E S E N T U N D E R P R O P O S E D 

W E I G H T E D T O T A L S C H O O L S D E P O S I T O R I E S L A W L A W 

under 1,000 11 0 9 6 
1 , 0 0 1 - 3 , 0 0 0 18 4 1 3 8 
3 , 0 0 1 - 5 , 0 0 0 0 — — — 
5 , 0 0 1 - 1 0 , 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 
over 1 0 , 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 

Totals 3 6 8 2 5 17 

State: Massachusetts 

M A Y 1 9 6 2 203 



and other libraries was ignored. When 
vacancies existed under present and pro-
posed systems, it was assumed that aca-
demic libraries would fill these vacancies. 

2. A further assumption was made that 
among academic libraries those with the 
greatest need for documents, as meas-
ured by a weighted total arrived at by 
doubling the number of graduate stu-
dents and faculty members and adding 
the resultant figure to the number of un-
dergraduates, would take precedence. 

Certainly some public or other li-
braries would be designated in place of 
some academic libraries, and among aca-
demic libraries the logic assumed by the 
weighted total progression would not fol-
low. Therefore T a b l e 3 pushes both the 
present and proposed systems to the ex-
treme optimistic limit in so far as aca-
demic libraries are concerned. Despite 
these assumptions, we find that the li-
braries of one-half of the colleges and 
universities in the country with weighted 
totals of 1,000 or higher cannot become 
depositories under the present system 
and that one-fourth still would be ex-
cluded under the proposed system. 

T h e r e may be some differences.of opin-
ion as to whether every school in the 
country with a weighted total over 1,000 
should have a depository library. Pre-
sumably there would be no question that 
any school with a weighted total over 
5,000 should be accorded the opportu-
nity to have a depository library. T a b l e 
4 lists schools with 5,000-plus weighted 
totals excluded by present law. Those 
which would be excluded even under the 
proposed law are indicated by an aster-
isk. 

T a b l e 4 shows that 43 schools are ex-
cluded by present law. Despite the fact 
that the procedure employed heavily 
favored these large schools in the assign-
ment of vacancies, 28—or 65 per c e n t — 
still would be excluded under the pro-
posed law. Some particularly anomalous 
situations exist. Hunter College, for in-
stance, has two branches, one in the Sev-

enteenth New York district, the other 
in the Twenty-fourth, either of which 
could be used as a location for deposi-
tory designation. Since two congression-
ally designated depositories already exist 
in both districts, however, Hunter would 
be excluded under the proposed law. 

While the depository revision bill 
would bring about some improvement 
over the existing situation, it would not 
be adequate for present needs, even if the 
needs of nonacademic institutions are 
not considered. Its inadequacy in the face 
of future needs is undeniable. A recent 
study projects a 1980 college and profes-
sional school enrollment which is 235 
per cent higher than the 1960 enroll-
ment.8 Enrollments of the schools ana-
lyzed in this study are going to increase 
dramatically in the next twenty years, 
and their requirements for government 
publications will increase accordingly. 
Many new colleges and universities will 
be founded. By 1980 schools not yet in 
existence will have over 5,000 students. 
Many, if not most, of these new schools 
will be so located that they could not 
benefit from the proposed depository law. 

With these factors in mind, one could 
make a strong case against passage of the 
depository bill in its present form. Con-
gress has not changed the essentials of 
the depository law for over a hundred 
years. If the Senate should pass the pend-
ing bill this session, we would hardly 
expect another revision within the next 
twenty years. If the depository system is 
to be revised now, it would seem wise to 
do it with a realistic view of present and 
future needs in mind. 

Many proposals have been made for 
changing the method of designating de-
pository libraries. In 1938 the late Je-
rome K. Wilcox suggested that designa-
tions be made "dependent entirely on 
three factors—heavy population concen-
trations, large library centers, and re-

8 Philip M. Hauser and Martin Taitel, "Population 
Trends—Prologue to Library Development," Library 
Trends, X ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 59. 

204 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S 



T A B L E 3 

S U M M A R Y O F E F F E C T O F P R E S E N T AND P R O P O S E D D E P O S I T O R Y L A W S ON S C H O O L S W I T H 
W E I G H T E D T O T A L S O V E R 1 , 0 0 0 

S T A T E 

Alabama. 
Alaska. 
Arizona. 
Arkansas. 
California. 
Colorado. 
Connecticut. 
Delaware. 
District of Columbia. 
F l o r i d a . 
Georgia. 
Hawaii. 
Idaho. 
Indiana. 
Iowa. 
Illinois. 
K a n s a s . 
K e n t u c k y . 
Louisiana. 
M a i n e . 
Maryland. 
Massachusetts. 
Michigan. 
Minnesota. 
Mississippi. 
Missouri. 
M o n t a n a . 
Nebraska. 
N e v a d a . 
New Hampshire. 
New J e r s e y . 
New Mexico. 
New Y o r k . 
North Carolina. 
North D a k o t a . 
Ohio. 
Oklahoma. 
Oregon. 
Pennsylvania. . 
Puerto Rico. . . 
Rhode I s l a n d . . 
South Carolina. 
South D a k o t a . 
Tennessee. 
T e x a s . 
U t a h . 
Vermont. 
Virginia. 
Washington. 
W e s t Virginia. 
Wisconsin.. . . 
W y o m i n g . . . . 

N U M B E R O F 
S C H O O L S 

United States. 

11 
0 
3 

10 
35 
10 
10 

1 
6 

1 
3 

14 
10 
27 

7 
12 
14 

2 
8 

25 
16 
16 

7 
13 

3 
6 
1 
1 

17 
3 

59 
15 

3 
30 
11 

8 
44 

4 
4 
7 
5 

12 
31 

3 
2 

15 
7 
9 

17 
1 

595 

N U M B E R O F 
D E P O S I T O R I E S 

3 
5 

13 
8 
4 
1 
0 
7 
3 
1 
3 

2 
4 
8 
7 
6 
4 
9 
3 
2 
1 
1 
6 
2 

20 
9 
3 

12 
9 
3 

10 
2 
2 
4 
2 
6 

16 
3 
2 
8 
3 
5 
8 
1 

278 

S C H O O L S E X C L U D E D 
B Y P R E S E N T L A W 

4 
21 

2 
6 

6 
6 

17 
1 
7 
5 

3 
16 

8 
10 

3 
3 

9 
1 

33 
6 

15 
2 
5 

29 
2 
2 
2 
3 
6 

14 

S C H O O L S E X C L U D E D 
B Y P R O P O S E D L A W 

288 ( 4 8 . 4 % ) 

2 
13 

2 
5 

6 
0 
4 

1 
3 

12 
0 
5 
2 

0 
11 
3 
5 
2 
2 

5 
0 

19 
5 

4 
2 
4 

13 
1 
1 
0 
2 
3 
7 

155 (26.0%) 

M A Y 1 9 6 2 
205 



T A B L E 4 

L I S T OF S C H O O L S W I T H W E I G H T E D T O T A L O V E R 5 , 0 0 0 E X C L U D E D B Y P R E S E N T AND 
P R O P O S E D D E P O S I T O R Y L A W S 

S C H O O L 

* B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y 
* N o r t h e a s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y 
* G e o r g e W a s h i n g t o n U n i v e r s i t y 
^ U n i v e r s i t y of Buffalo 

S a n J o s e S t a t e College 
* S a n Diego S t a t e College 
* H u n t e r College 
* M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y 

L o n g B e a c h S t a t e College 
* G e o r g e t o w n U n i v e r s i t y 
* D e p a u l U n i v e r s i t y 
* B o s t o n College 
*Illinois I n s t i t u t e of T e c h n o l o g y 

K e n t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 
* W e s t e r n M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y 
* S a c r a m e n t o S t a t e College 

F r e s n o S t a t e College 
* A m e r i c a n U n i v e r s i t y 
Adelphi College 

* G e o r g i a T e c h 
D r a k e U n i v e r s i t y 
Y o u n g s t o w n U n i v e r s i t y 
V i l l a n o v a U n i v e r s i t y 

* H i l l y e r College 
* C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y 
* H o w a r d U n i v e r s i t y 
* C a r n e g i e I n s t i t u t e of T e c h n o l o g y 

R e n n s e l a e r P o l y t e c h n i c 
""University of D a y t o n 
* G e o r g i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s 

t r a t i o n 
E a s t e r n M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y 

* D u q u e s n e U n i v e r s i t y 
* C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P o l y 
* Y e s h i v a U n i v e r s i t y 
* R o o s e v e l t U n i v e r s i t y 
* X a v i e r U n i v e r s i t y ( C i n c i n n a t i ) 

U n i v e r s i t y of A k r o n 
B u t l e r U n i v e r s i t y 

* C o l o r a d o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 
* S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of N e w Y o r k — B u f f a l o 

U n i v e r s i t y of B r i d g e p o r t 
M a n k a t o S t a t e College 
U n i v e r s i t y of S a n F r a n c i s c o 

W E I G H T E D U N W E I G H T E D V O L U M E S I N 
T O T A L E N R O L L E M N T L I B R A R Y 

2 5 , 2 8 6 1 9 , 8 0 9 5 2 7 , 0 2 5 
1 9 , 2 7 1 1 6 , 2 4 5 8 2 , 5 0 0 
1 5 , 7 3 4 9 , 6 5 3 3 3 2 , 0 0 0 
1 4 , 9 8 4 1 0 , 7 6 8 3 5 5 , 0 6 5 
1 4 , 4 3 9 1 1 , 5 0 8 1 9 3 , 6 4 3 
1 2 , 7 8 5 9 , 7 0 3 2 4 0 , 2 8 1 
1 2 , 7 8 1 8 , 7 5 5 2 1 4 , 4 0 4 
1 2 , 7 1 7 1 0 , 0 9 4 2 7 4 , 0 0 0 
1 2 , 1 8 9 9 , 3 0 1 9 5 , 0 0 0 
1 0 , 7 1 4 5 , 8 6 0 3 7 4 , 5 8 2 
1 0 , 0 5 2 8 , 2 9 8 1 5 2 , 5 9 2 

9 , 8 9 4 7 , 4 1 6 4 9 3 , 6 4 9 
9 , 6 6 8 7 , 6 4 1 1 2 8 , 7 9 2 
9 , 4 4 7 7 , 7 7 8 1 6 8 , 1 2 0 
9 , 1 2 3 7 , 8 0 4 1 3 3 , 3 4 4 
8 , 9 2 7 6 , 3 6 9 9 5 , 0 0 0 
8 , 3 1 9 6 , 4 3 6 1 3 9 , 4 6 2 
8 , 0 9 0 5 , 2 4 2 1 6 5 , 0 0 0 
7 , 7 9 8 5 , 3 3 2 9 4 , 8 2 9 
7 , 6 9 7 6 , 4 9 3 2 1 5 , 5 2 5 
7 , 5 4 6 6 , 2 2 9 1 6 1 , 9 9 2 
7 , 3 5 3 6 , 0 4 4 9 3 , 0 8 8 
6 , 7 5 2 5 , 8 6 2 2 0 6 , 7 5 8 
6 , 6 6 8 5 , 1 2 0 3 0 , 0 0 0 
6 , 6 0 0 3 , 8 3 0 5 5 5 , 7 0 6 
6 , 5 8 9 4 , 3 4 7 3 5 3 , 4 6 0 
6 , 5 8 4 5 , 1 7 3 1 5 1 , 0 6 9 
6 , 4 3 9 4 , 4 4 7 8 5 , 0 0 0 
6 , 3 4 9 5 , 9 1 5 9 5 , 2 3 4 

6 , 1 8 3 5 , 6 6 8 1 0 3 , 8 3 1 
6 , 1 5 6 4 , 8 8 2 1 2 1 , 0 5 9 
6 , 1 3 6 4 , 9 9 8 1 0 8 , 8 9 3 
6 , 1 3 4 5 , 3 0 0 7 2 , 8 2 5 
5 , 7 1 0 2 , 5 6 0 1 5 3 , 0 0 0 
5 , 6 6 3 4 , 5 5 8 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 
5 , 5 5 9 4 , 2 8 5 1 1 1 , 4 0 7 
5 , 4 9 8 4 , 7 8 2 1 1 8 , 2 8 3 
5 , 4 2 4 4 , 0 6 7 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 
5 , 3 4 9 4 , 2 8 5 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 
5 , 2 9 5 3 , 9 4 5 7 8 , 4 7 9 
5 , 2 0 2 4 , 2 9 6 8 3 , 1 5 0 
5 , 1 8 8 4 , 5 8 1 6 5 , 6 6 1 
5 , 0 7 5 4 , 1 1 6 1 0 5 , 8 5 0 

gional designation for the sparsely set-
tled regions," although he did not indi-
cate whether he would do away with the 
method of designation through senators 
and representatives.9 In 1956 Representa-
tive Hays suggested that all state univer-

9 J . K . W i l c o x , " P r o p o s e d S u r v e y of F e d e r a l Deposi-
t o r y L i b r a r i e s , " A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y A s s o c i a t i o n , Public 
Documents, 1938, ( C h i c a g o , 1 9 3 8 ) , p. 33. 

2 0 6 

sities be designated.10 Representative 
Paul Schenck (R., Ohio) proposed that 
any public university whether state or 
privately supported, should have the de-

(Continued on page 247) 

10 Hearings, Sale and Distribution of Government 
Publications . . . ( U . S . C o n g r e s s . . . ) , p. 8 . 

C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S 



T h e Federal Depository System . . . 
(Continued from page 206) 

pository privilege.11 During the same 
hearing Hays also suggested that any 
school with an enrollment of three thou-
sand to five thousand students should 
have the opportunity to become a deposi-
tory.12 

During hearings on an earlier version 
of H . R . 8141, one librarian proposed 
that the "entire urban area," rather than 
the congressional district, be made the 
base for designation. Another librarian 
"wondered if somehow perhaps a more 
rational approach to the whole problem 
might be made on the basis of popula-
tion and proximity to large libraries."1 3 
Wilcox contended that "distribution 
should be based upon geographical loca-
tion or population centers rather than 
upon political expediency." Proposing 
size of student body as the criteria for 
designation of academic libraries, Wil-
cox suggested that 750 students be the 
level above which an academic library 
would become eligible for designation.14 

T h e Hays subcommittee seemed most 
receptive to these proposals for increas-
ing the number of depository libraries. 
At one point Hays, after explaining that 
his bill would permit only one new de-
pository in districts which had only one 
by congressional designation, said: " T h e 
subcommittee, however, will be open-
minded on this matter and, if the testi-
mony we adduce around the country 
brings out the necessity for more than 
that, then I am sure that the subcommit-
tee will be willing to entertain such an 
idea."1 5 Hays, in fact, appeared puzzled 
about the lack of widespread or intensive 
interest in his efforts to improve the de-
pository system: " T h e depository law it-
self is rather an ancient one and I pre-

11 Ibid., p. 10. 
12 Ibid., p. 12. 
13 Hearings, Revision of Depository Library Laws, 

(IT. S. Congress . . . ) , p. 49. 
14 Ibid., p. 1 1 8 - 1 9 . 
15 Ibid., p. 39. 

sume the reason nothing has been done 
about it before is because the people 
most affected by it have never brought 
any pressure on the Congress to do any-
thing about it. As a matter of fact, none 
has been brought yet." 1 6 

In the late 1930's a chairman of the 
Joint Congressional Committee on Print-
ing gave the library profession a virtual 
carte blanche to "rewrite the federal de-
pository distribution act." 1 7 Whether or 
not Congress itself would have made good 
on the offer, the invitation was not ac-
cepted. T h e Board of Resources of ALA, 
asked to back a comprehensive survey of 
depositories as a basis for revision of the 
law, contended that "most of the facts 
to be sought were already known and 
declined to support it. . . . Lack of agree-
ment on the sort of survey to be con-
ducted, lack of money with which to 
conduct it, lack of conviction that one 
was needed, and a variety of other rea-
sons" operated to kill the idea.18 

Today the profession has no such 
broad mandate to rewrite the depository 
law. H . R . 8141 may be as extensive a 
revision as we can hope to get at this 
time.19 T h e bill's provisions for addi-
tional depositories are inadequate, how-
ever. Fortunately, the evidence seems to 
indicate that Congress might be recep-
tive to an amendment to H . R . 8141 
broadening these provisions. Ideally, a 
comprehensive study of library needs and 
future development should precede an 
effort towards that end. Standards should 
be set which would assure the depository 
privilege to those libraries which need it 
and deny it to those present depositories 
which, in the words of the Powell Re-
port, use it "only as a convenient method 
for obtaining a small handful of govern-
ment publications from a central 

16 Ibid., p. 8 9 . 
1 7 J e r o m e K . W i l c o x , " R e p o r t of S t a t u s of H . R . 

5 4 7 1 , " A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association, Public Docu-
ments, 1937, (Chicago, 1 9 3 7 ) . p. 17. 

18 Revision of Depository Library Laws, ( U . S. Con-
g r e s s . . . ) , p. 172. 

1 9 H . R . 8 1 4 1 contains several important provisions in 
addition to expansion of the number of depositories. 
See the bill itself and H o u s e R e p o r t 7 2 4 , 87th Cong., 
1st Sess., for details. 

M A Y 1 9 6 2 2 4 7 



source."2 0 Such a study might follow 
some of the suggestions made by Wilcox 
and others and could well result in a 
recommendation to depart altogether 
from the congressional-designation 
method. 

Considerations of time and politics 
operate against such an ideal approach. 
H . R . 8141 has passed the House, and 
there is ample time for Senate passage 
this session if complicated changes are 
not made. In any case, a study such as 
the one contemplated could not be com-
pleted speedily. With these factors in 
mind, it would seem wise to make the 
amendment as simple and as attractive 
to the Senate as possible. Fortunately, it 
appears that this might be done. 

H . R . 8141 makes no provision for ad-
ditional Senatorial designation of deposi-
tories. Very likely, the Senate will object 
to this. While the right of designation is 
largely formal and relatively unimpor-
tant, it is a means bv which a legislator 
can please at least one small group of 
constituents without antagonizing other 
groups. Representatives and senators do 
not spurn such opportunities. Therefore 
it would seem possible to broaden the 
provisions for new depositories and, at 
the same time, make the bill more palat-
able to the Senate. An amendment to 
H . R . 8141 allowing each senator to des-
ignate one new depository for every one 
million population in his state would 
achieve two major objectives: 

I. Allow opportunities for immediate 
designation of approximately 360 deposi-
tories. In many states, of course, few ad-
ditional depositories would be needed 
and the opportunities would not be fully 
exploited. But the provision would allow 
new depositories where they are needed 
instead of, as in the present bill, allowing 
many where they are not needed. In Cali-
fornia, for instance, the amendment 
would open up thirty-two opportunities 
on a statewide basis. In those congres-

20 Revision of Depository Library Laws, ( U . S . Con-
g r e s s . . . ) , p. 173. 

2 4 8 

sional districts excluded by the present 
provisions of H . R . 8141, the California 
senators could use their designations to 
rectify the situation. 

2. T h e amendment would allow the 
depository system to grow with future 
needs. As it now stands, H . R . 8141 would 
open up a few vacancies on a one-time 
basis but would leave the system inflexi-
ble in the face of future developments. 
T h e amendment could be written so as to 
tie in with official Census Bureau popula-
tion estimates. T h e 1960 population fig-
ures for each state could be used as the 
base. Thus, when a state's population in-
creased one million over 1960 figures, 
each senator would be allowed one more 
designation. When population has in-
creased another million over 1960, each 
senator would get another opening. By 
this provision new opportunities would 
be opened up periodically in states with 
growing population and a corresponding 
need for more depositories. Since a few 
states have less than one million popula-
tion today and are unlikely to add a mil-
lion in the foreseeable future, the amend-
ment should allow every senator one new 
designation, regardless of his state's pop-
ulation. Even if these designations are 
never used, the provision might make 
the amendment acceptable to small-state 
senators. By allowing both senators from 
a state one designation each for every 
million population in their state, rather 
than one designation for one senator for 
every five hundred thousand, the amend-
ment should prevent any possibility of 
the depository system becoming involved 
in partisan or personal politics. 

Getting such an amendment through 
Congress would require careful timing 
and, perhaps, intensive lobbying by the 
library profession. Given the present 
stage of H . R . 8141 in the legislative proc-
ess, the most feasible procedure might be: 

1. T r y to persuade the Senate Rules 
and Administration Committee, to which 
the bill has been referred, to accept the 
amendment as a committee amendment. 

C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S 



2. If the amended version of the bill 
passes the Senate, it would have to go 
back to the House. T h i s seems likely in 
any case, since the Senate probably will 
tack on some kind of senatorial-designa-
tion amendment, even if it leaves the 
other provisions intact. Once in the 
House, Representative Hays might per-
suade the House to accede to the Senate 
version without asking for a conference. 
If this could be done, the danger of ex-
piration of the bill toward the end of the 
session could be avoided. In any case, 
there would be little to lose and much to 
gain. Even if the bill does not get 
through this session and has to be rein-
troduced in the Eighty-eighth Congress, 
this would be preferable to passage in its 
present form. 

T h e proposed amendment has one ad-
ditional major advantage. Presumably, it 
would be endorsed by the Superintend-
ent of Documents, since the idea of ex-
panded senatorial designation is his own. 
T h e r e is not space nor reason to discuss 
Mr. Buckley's opposition to H . R . 8141 
here. So far as the public record shows, 
his opposition is directed primarily at 
that provision of the bill requiring him 
to distribute to depositories those gov-
ernment publications not printed at the 
Government Printing Office and at the 
provision which might, sometime in the 
future, require him to furnish microfac-
simile copies of documents to the pro-
posed regional depositories. So far as ad-
ditional depositories are concerned, Mr. 
Buckley has registered opposition pri-
marily to the "piecemeal" designation of 
depositories. And when asked by Repre-
sentative Hays if he had any suggestions 
about an equitable way to expand the 
depository system, Mr. Buckley replied: 

" I n view of the fact that in many cases 
the congressional district designation 
does not appear to provide adequate serv-
ice, consideration might be given to ex-
panding the designations for the states at 
large, which would be the senators' desig-
nation." 2 1 

As for the cost of new depositories, the 
Hays subcommittee has estimated an $1,-
100 annual cost per depository. Assum-
ing that the amended version of H . R . 
8141 passes and is exploited to the limit, 
a most unrealistic assumption, we might 
have as many as six hundred new deposi-
tories at an annual cost of $660,000. (A 
realistic estimate would be three hun-
dred at a cost of $330,000.) Last year Mr. 
Buckley testified that in fiscal 1961 the 
profits returned to the Treasury from the 
sale of government publications "for the 
first time in the history of the office cov-
ered not only the cost of the sales pro-
gram but also the cost of all the other 
programs with which the office is charged 
by law." For fiscal 1962 Mr. Buckley fore-
saw profits of $5,600,000, which would be 
$876,000 more than the entire appropria-
tion for the Documents Office.22 T h u s 
the expanded depository program could 
be financed without any increase in ap-
propriations. T h i s would be true even if 
the cost of all the other provisions of 
H.R. 8141 are included. 

T h i s is, of course, a specious argu-
ment. While a program with its way al-
ready paid may have smooth sailing in 
Congress, the taxpayers still would be 
out $660,000, and the question of the 
program's justification remains. In writ-
ing the original depository law, Congress 
assumed that it was a good thing for gov-
ernment publications to be distributed to 
libraries and to be made accessible 
through libraries to the public. T h i s as-
sumption is basic to democratic govern-
ment, and it still underlies the whole 
depository program. Additional justifica-
tions can be advanced for distribution to 
and accessibility through libraries rather 
than directly to individuals. 

Increasingly in recent years, the fed-
eral government has assumed that the 

21 Hearings, Sale and Distribution of Government 
Publications, ( U . S . Congress . . . ) , p. 10. 

22 Hearings, Legislative Branch Appropriations for 
1962, ( U . S . Congress. House. Committee on Appropria-
tions, 87th Cong., 1st S e s s . ) , 1 9 6 1 , pp. 2 7 9 - 8 0 . 

M A Y 1 9 6 2 2 4 9 



national interest requires the appropria-
tion of large sums for aid to higher edu-
cation. Particular emphasis has been 
placed upon stimulating and aiding re-
search in colleges and universities. One 
relatively cheap method of furthering 
these ends would be to expand the de-
pository program to take in more aca-
demic libraries. T o o often the depository 
system has been viewed by government 
officials as a means by which libraries get 
something for nothing. W i t h few excep-
tions, the libraries pay many times over 
for the privilege. While some libraries 
have abused the privilege at the expense 
of others, most depositories serve in ef-
fect as agents of the government in dis-
seminating its publications. It is literally 
true that if depositories did not exist in 
public, academic, and other libraries, the 
government would have to invent them 

and have to subsidize them. An expanded 
depository program would be a very good 
bargain for the federal government. 

T h e taxpayer pays either way. No pub-
lic or academic library today can provide 
adequate service without government 
publications. If Kent State University 
cannot become a depository and obtain 
documents free except for postage, it 
must buy them. T h e taxpayers of Ohio 
still foot the bill, and the bill is higher 
because Kent State cannot take advan-
tage of the automatic and very efficient 
distribution service of the Documents 
Office. 

T o sum up, the passage of an amended 
version of H . R . 8141, while not an ideal 
solution in all respects, would lead to a 
depository system geared-to the realities 
of the 1960's and 1970's, not those of 
1857. 

an easy, logical guide to skill in using the library 

GUIDE TO THE USE OF BOOKS AND 
LIBRARIES 

B y J E A N K E Y G A T E S , D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e . 
2 5 6 p a g e s , $ 3 . 9 5 ( c l o t h ) , $ 2 . 2 5 ( p a p e r ) 

shows the student how the library can help him 
A G U I D E T O T H E U S E O F B O O K S A N D 
L I B R A R I E S s h o w s s t u d e n t s h o w t o u s e t h e 
l i b r a r y t o b e s t a d v a n t a g e a n d g i v e s s p e c i a l 
p o i n t e r s o n e f f e c t i v e u s e o f t h e c o l l e g e li-
b r a r y . I t p r o v i d e s a b r i e f b u t c o m p r e h e n s i v e 
t r e a t m e n t o f b o o k s a n d l i b r a r i e s , w i t h e m -
p h a s i s o n t h e m a n y t y p e s o f l i b r a r y m a t e -
r i a l s , b o t h g e n e r a l a n d s p e c i a l i z e d , a n d o n 
t h e s k i l l s n e e d e d t o l o c a t e , s e l e c t , d e s c r i b e , 
u s e , a n d e v a l u a t e t h e s e m a t e r i a l s f o r s p e c i f i c 
p u r p o s e s . O n e t h e m e p e r v a d e s t h i s b o o k 
u s e f u l n e s s . E a c h t y p e o f m a t e r i a l is d i s -
c u s s e d i n t h e l i g h t o f i t s u s e f u l n e s s t o t h e 
s t u d e n t . T h e r e a s o n s f o r c h o o s i n g a s p e c i f i c 
k i n d o f m a t e r i a l f o r a g i v e n p u r p o s e a r e d i s -

c u s s e d ; w a y s o f u s i n g t h e m a t e r i a l s e a s i l y 
a n d e f f e c t i v e l y a r e e n u m e r a t e d . 
N O T E : i n c l u d e s r e p r o d u c t i o n s o f m a n y r e f -
e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s s t u d e n t s w i l l a c t u a l l y u s e 
i n t h e l i b r a r y ; d i s c u s s e s g e n e r a l m a t e r i a l s 
s e p a r a t e l y f r o m t h o s e w h i c h b e l o n g in s p e -
c i a l i z e d o r s u b j e c t a r e a s ; e x a m i n e s s p e c i a l -
i z e d r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s i n e a c h s u b j e c t 
f i e l d ; s t r e s s e s i m p o r t a n c e o f p e r i o d i c a l s , 
m a g a z i n e s , n e w s p a p e r s , a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l 
j o u r n a l s ; d e s c r i b e s g o v e r n m e n t p u b l i c a -
t i o n s ; a s p e c i a l s e c t i o n s h o w s h o w t o u s e t h e 
l i b r a r y i n p r e p a r i n g a n u n d e r g r a d u a t e r e -
s e a r c h p a p e r . 

w r i t e f o r y o u r 
e x a m i n a t i o n 
c o p y 

C O L L E G E 
D I V I S I O N 

M c G R A W - H I L L B O O K C O . , I N C . 
3 3 0 W . 4 2 n d S t . , N e w Y o r k 3 6 , N . Y . 

2 5 0 C O L L E G E A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S