College and Research Libraries EVA GOLDSCHMIDT Archibald MacLeish Librarian of Congress When Archibald MacLeish became Librarian of Congress in 1939, the library profession obfected to the appointment of an untrained li- brarian. Yet, tu'ithin five short years M acLeish infused new l'ife and spirit into the library. He introduced modern fiscal and administrative concepts, arranged for systematic surveys of the collections, defined goals and priorities for acquisitions and services, and initiated pro- gressive personnel policies. But his most enduring contribution to American librarianship is his dynamic philosophy and his insistence that librarians be not mere keepers of books but active participants in the .education of the people in the values of their democratic heritage and the defense of intellectual freedom. ARCHIBALD MAcLEISH will always be best known, no doubt, as a great poet and writer. But librarians will recall that just thirty years ago he was also ap- pointed Librarian of Congress, a post he held for five years. This paper will at- tempt to review his half-decade of serv- ice in that position. I. A CoNTROVERSIAL APPOINTMENT To put the story in perspective, one must go back a little in the history of the Library of Congress. From Civil War days to 1939 the library had been, except for a short interval, under the direction of two men, Ainsworth Rand Spofford and Herbert Putnam. Under Putnam's leadership (from 1899 to 1939) the library had increased its holdings from about a million to about six million volumes of books and pamphlets, not counting maps, newspapers, music, Miss Goldschmidt is Administrative As- sistant to ·the Director, W aZter E. Meyer Research Institute of Law, Columbia Uni- versity. 12/ prints, and manuscripts running into the millions. The Library of Congress clas- sification scheme was devised, catalog- ing practices became standardized, the printed card service was inaugurated, the Union Catalog had its beginnings, and in 1930 Congress authorized the construction of the Annex just across the street from the original building which had been completed in 1897.1 Thus, to use MacLeish' s words, "the Library of Congress in 1939 was not so much an organization in its own right but the lengthened shadow of a man."2 No won- der that the question of the succession to the office of Librarian of Congress aroused unusual interest. Already towards the end of 1937 Herbert Putnam had indicated a desire to retire. The Executive Board of the American Library Association promptly appointed a committee to advise Presi- dent Roosevelt on the nomination of a 1 Lucy Salamanca, Fortress of Freedom ( Philadel- phia: J. B. Lippincott, 1942), p. 195-313. 2 Archibald MacLeish, "The Reorganization of the Library of Congress," reprint from Lib-rary Quarterly, XIV (October 1944), 2. Archibald MacLeish, Librarian of Congress I 13 successor.3 Throughout 1938 and the spring of 1939 the committee sought in vain to obtain an interview with the President. As time elapsed and no nomi- nation was forthcoming , the ALA inten- sified its campaign, and at the instiga- tion of the Association's officers letters from librarians started to arrive in large numbers at the White House and Con- gressional offices. 4 Meanwhile, the man who spumed this well-intentioned advice confessed to his friend, Justice Felix Frankfurter, that he had "had a bad time picking a librarian to succeed Putnam." He had, he said, "been tempted to appoint Archibald MacLeish" and wondered what Frankfurter thought. Admittedly, MacLeish was not a librarian, "nor a special student of incunabula or ancient manuscripts." Nevertheless, Roosevelt thought, "he has lots of qualifications that said specialists have not."5 In reply Frankfurter not only warmly endorsed MacLeish's candidacy, but he also tried, apparently successfully, to allay Roose- velt's misgivings regarding MacLeish's lack of professional training. "What is wanted in the directing head of a great library," Frankfurter wrote, is "imagina- tive energy and vision." He should be "a man who knows books, loves books, and makes books. If he has these three qualities, the craftsmanship of the li- brary calling is an easily .acquired quali- ty."6 On J nne 6, 1939, President Roosevelt 3 " MacLeish Appointment Protested," ALA Bulletin, XXIII (July 1939), 467. 4 " Librarianship of Congress," Proceedings of the 6lst Annual Conference of the American Library As- sociation, June 18-24, 1939, ALA Bulletin, XXXIII ( October 15, 1939), 55-56. "MacLeish Nomination Raises Controversy," Publishers' Weekly, CXXXV (June 17, 1939), 2159-60. 5 Letter from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Justice Felix Frankfurter, May 3 , 1939, reprinted in David C. Mearns, "The Brush of the Comet, Archibald Mac- Leish at the Library of Congress," Atlantic Monthly, CCXV (May 1965), 90. 6 Letter from F elix Frankfurter to Franklin D . Roo- seve lt, May II , 1939, r eprinted in Mearns, op. cit. made known his nomination of Mac- Leish to be Librarian of Congress. 7 An immediate furore arose, both in Con- gress and among professional librarians. Violent anti-New Dealers saw in the ap- pointment of this alleged pro-Commu- nist and fellow traveler one more bit of evidence of "Communist influence on appointments emanating from the White House."8 Librarians were outraged at the nomination of a non-professional. The incumbent President of the ALA indignantly told the press that to ap- point MacLeish as Librarian of Con- gress was about the same "as appointing a man Secretary of Agriculture, because he likes cut flowers on his dinner table."9 The general burden of the argument against MacLeish' s appointment was that "there is a great deal more to being Librarian of Congress than possession of an ignorance of the Dewey Decimal system,"10 and that in appointing an "untrained and unqualified person" the President was coming "to the aid of the enemy," just as the ALA was "beginning to win its nationwide battle" for recogni- tion of librarianship as an established profession.11 "Politicians, university au- thorities, and other appointers" would "not be slow in taking the President's cue." More library positions were likely to be filled from outside the profes- sion, 12 making it thereby "less attractive to ambitious and able recruits."13 A non- professional could not truly represent 7 "Poet Named Librarian of Congress," L ibrary Jour- nal, LXIV (June 15, 1939), 508; "Nomination of Li- brarian of Congress," Publishers Weekly, LXXXV (June 10, 1939) , 2ll6. 8 "Panned Poet," Newsweek, XIII (June 19, 1939), 20. 9 "Library, Librarian," Time, XXXIII (June 19, 1939) , 18. 10 Viola Mauseth, "MacL eish Appointment," Satur- day R eview of Literature, XX (July I , 1939) , 9. 11 Pelham Barr, "MacLeish Nomination Raises Con- troversy," Publishers Weekly, CXXXV (June 24, 1939) , 2219. 12 "Forgetting the Library of Congress," Book L ife, I (October 1939), 3-4. 13 Arundell Esdale, " Librarian of Congress," Library Association R ecord, XLI ( August 1939 ), 430. 14 I College & Research Libraries • January 1969 the Library of Congress, which was "in a special sense . . . the representative and symbol of the whole body of Ameri- can librarians," unless MacLeish' s selec- tion implied that "the claim that librar- ianship is a profession is all bunkum."14 Although the ALA claimed that in its opposition to MacLeish's appointment it spoke for 90 per cent of American librarians,15 the nomination was warm- ly defended by some leading librarians and non-librarians alike. The New York Times editorially endorsed the appoint- ment. The Staff Association of the New York Public Library urged prompt Sen- atorial confirmation. 16 Writing editorially in the Saturday Review of Literature, Henry Seidel Canby dismissed the charges of MacLeish's pro-Communist sympathies as "that familiar red her- ring." The real issue, as he saw it, was whether the head of a great library should be a specialist "in the technique of bookgetting and bookkeeping, or should be an executive broadly trained who has demonstrated his scholarship, his ability to organize, and his capacity for representing a great storehouse of intellectual energy."17 Other supporters of MacLeish unanimously cited his suc- cessful career as lawyer, poet, writer, editor of Fortune magazine, and Cura- tor of the Niemann Collection of Jour- nalism at Harvard University. Although a poet, they said, he was not a dream- er.18 "Far from moongazing," he was c'a thoroughly practical workman of marked executive ability and extraordinary ener- gy." Efficient and sensitive, he had the ability to inspire affection and confi- dence in all who worked with him.19 14 L. Stanley Jast, "Library and the Community," ibid., 431. 15 "Librarianship of Congress," ALA Bulletin, XXXIII (October 15, 1939), 49. 16 " MacLeish Nomination Raises Controversy," op. cit. 11 Editorial, Saturday Review of Literature, XX (June 17, 1939), 8. 18 John Chamberlain, "Archibald MacLeish," Satur- day Review of Literature, XX (June 24, 1939), 10-11. He was a man of vision and .a humani- tarian. 20 Librarians should welcome a man of MacLeish' s character and talents and not set up requirements so stringent that an able scholar and administrator could not readily join their ranks. 21 The campaign against MacLeish's con- firmation shifted into high gear when the ALA membership gathered in San Francisco for its 61st annual conference from June 18-24. The Executive Board, on June 18, sent a protest letter to Presi- dent Roosevelt and members of the Sen- ate, asserting that confirmation of Mac- Leish would be "a calamity," because he "lacked the essential qualifications of a librarian." Library services "would al- most certainly deteriorate under ama- teur leadership." Two members dele- gated to represent the ALA at the hear- ing of the Senate Library Committee on June 21, 1938, soon reported back, how- ever, that the matter seemed practical- ly settled and that their strenuous pro- testations appeared to be of no avail. Indeed, the committee voted unani- mously to recommend confirmation. This was the signal for further frantic activity by the ALA leadership, but thanks to Ralph Munn, President-elect of the ALA, saner counsels prevailed in the end. Speaking at the closing session of the conference, he made it clear that he would do nothing further to oppose MacLeish' s confirmation. On the con- trary, he would ask the Executive Board for authority to write to MacLeish (in the event of his confirmation), explain- ing that opposition had not been based on personal feeling but solely on the 19 "Librarianship of Congress," ALA Bulletin, XXXIII (October 15, 1939), 50. 20 John T. Vance, "Discussion on MacLeish at the 34th Annual Meeting of American Association of Law Libraries," Law Library Journal, XXXII (September 1939), 338-39. 21 "Archibald MacLeish," Wilson Library Bulletin, XIV (September 1939), 57. Clarence S. Paine, "Look- ing Forward," ibid. (October 1939), 138. L. M. Ran- ey, "The MacLeish Case," Library Journal, LXIV (July 1939), 522 . Archibald M acLeish, Librarian of Congress I 15 ground of lack of training, and that- having fought and lost-the ALA would not "sulk like spoiled children."22 When th~ Senate confirmed MacLeish' s ap- pOintment on June 29 by a vote of sixty- four to eight, 23 Mr. Munn kept his word and offered the new librarian the ALA's "complete and most friendly coopera- tion." MacLeish promptly and gracious- ly accepted the proffered olive branch. 24 It is perhaps idle to speculate why President Roosevelt and members of the Senate so completely ignored the spokesmen of the library profession. There is some indication that the very vehemence of its campaign created the impression that the ALA was a self- seeking pressure group, which had over- played its hand. It was said that the ALA had recommended the appoint- me~t. of its ~wn secretary to the library position, while this same secretary was sending letters to librarians urging them to protest the appointment of MacLeish a circumstance which Senator Barkely: head of the Library Committee, felt Senators had "a right to consider" in de- termining "the weight to be given to the protest."25 For the ALA leaders, on the other hand, appointment of a non-pro- fessional added insult to the injury of being consistently ignored. Had Presi- dent Roosevelt taken them into his con- fidence, they might not have reacted as vehemently as they did to MacLeish's nomination. The entire episode at best is a study in poor public relatio~s. ' 22 "Librarianship of Congress " ALA Bulletin XXXIII (October 15, I939) 47-48 49-5I 55-58' 62-63. ' ' ' ' 23 "New Librarian of Congress," Library Journal LXIV (July 1939), 546. ' 24 Ralph Munn and Archibald MacLeish "Let Us All Cooperate," Library Journal LXIV (August 1939) 570. ' ' 25 Qu~ted from Congressional Record, June 21, 1939; cf. Manon C. Manley, "Letter to the Editor" Wilson Library Bu_lletin, XIV (September 1939), 74-75. Two representa_hves sent by the ALA to the hearing of the Senate ~1brary Committee on June 21, 1939, took ~rea~ pams to deny that the ALA's protest was the . actwn of a pressure group fighting for a member of 1ts own machine." Cf. ALA Bulletin, XXXIII (October 15, 1939) , 57. II. REoRGANIZATION OF THE LIBRARY OF CoNGREss The task which the new librarian as- sumed officially on October 1, 1939, was staggering. 26 The problems Herbert Put- nam left for his successor to cope with were as vast, many, and varied as had been his achievements. A committee of outside library experts 27 conducted a thorough administrative survey and re- ported that the Library of Congress had "in all probability the largest and most diffuse span of control to be found in any American library." Below the two top administrative officers, the Librarian and the Chief Assistant Librarian were thirty-five separate administrative' units all reporting directly to the chief. "Small wonder," the committee stated "that the li.brar~ is o~te~ described as ; group of hbranes within a library. It is in effect a loose federation of principalities each with strongly developed tradition's and with administrative and technical idio- . "28 N syncr~sies. . o c~ntral control along functional hnes existed. Eight distinct divisions, offices, or services, for exam- ple, maintained accounting records, and ~o less than ten divisions were engaged In the processing of books, without any central supervision over their respective activities. • 26 This ~ection of the paper is based on the follow- mg m~ten~ls: U.S. Library of Congress, Statement of the Ltbranan of. G_ongress in Support of the Supple- ~nentary Approprwtwn for the Fiscal Year 1941 (wash- mgton: Government Printing Office, I942); U.S. Li- brary of Congress, Annual R eport of the Librarian of Congress for the Fiscal Year Ended 1940 (Washington· Government Printing Office, 1941); Ibid., Annual Re~ ~arts for 194f , 1~~2, 1943, 1944 ( 1942-1945); Arch- Ibald MacLe~:h, ~he Reorganization of the Library of Congress, repnnt from Library Quarterly XIV (October 1944) , 1-37; Luther H. Evans Confidential R eports to the Libr~rian, 9 vols., unpublished. As the above _sources contam a great deal of overlapping in- f?rmatwn, references are given only for exact quota- tions. 27 • The so-called "Librarian's Committee" appointed Apnl 10, 1940. It_ co~sisted of Professor Carleton B. Joeckel of the Umvers1ty of Chicago Library School · Paul North Rice of the New York Public Library· and Dr. Andrew D.