With a Summary of Events from 1939-1959)

A HISTORY OF THE MARYLAND STATE LIBRARY

1827 - 1939

(with a summary of events from 1939-1959)

RoBERT W. CoovER

This Paper is Based upon a Thesis Originally Submitted by the Author to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of the Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Library Science

August, 1956 Washington, D. C.

Revised: March, 1959

Foreword

The staff of the Hall of Records is pleased that it has had some small part in this history of the Maryland State Library. As a sister institution we have long relied on the resources of the State Library and we have needed to know its history in order to understand our own. Mr. Coover's work will prove useful not only as a chronological account of the Library. It will also emphasize the riches of this relatively old institution; and, unfortunately, it will make its weaknesses-especially its poverty in money-equally clear. In any case, the Library and the State of Maryland as a whole are indebted to Mr. Coover for this careful, scholarly work.

MORRIS L. RADOFF, ArchiviJ"t Annapolis, Maryland

Preface

The history of the Maryland State Library is primarily the story of an institution and its collection of books. However, the books evolved around people: the librarians who administered the collection, and the various state officials for whom the collection was developed. In terms of facts alone this paper covers 112 years of this institution's history. These facts have been gleaned from the various official records relevant to the library. For many of these years the records give a rather complete picture of the library and the personalities involved, but for other years the picture is incomplete. In the preparation of this paper I am indebted to Mr. Richard John- son Duval, whose father, Edmund P. Duval, was State Librarian from 1880-1892. Mr. R. J. Duval helped his father in the State Library from 1880-1888, after which date he went to work at the Naval Academy Li- brary. I am also indebted to Mr. Nelson J. Molter, the present Director of the Maryland State Library and a member of the staff since 1932, and to his assistants: Mrs. Evelyn 0. Burrows and Mrs. Ruth D. Burton. These three have been very helpful in guiding me to the various records pertinent to the library's history. Mr. Duval and Mr. Molter because of their intimate connection with the library for an extended period, have been especially helpful in putting flesh on the skeleton of facts relevant to the library and to certain personalities behind the events.

Contents

Page

PREFACE ______- - V

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ----- Vlll

INTRODUCTION ______------· IX

Chapter

I. THE ESTABLISHING OF THE MARYLAND STATE LIBRARY AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF DAVID RIDGELY------1

II. THE 1'1ARYLAND STATE LIBRARY, 1842-1861______16

III. THE PERIOD OF TRA~SITION OF THE MARYLAND STATE LIBRARY, 1861-1896______----·- 29

IV. Tm; MoDERN PERIOD, 1896-1939 ______46

V. SU;\l:VIARY AND CONCLUSIONS ______66

Appendix

A. APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE MARYLAND STATE LIBRARY CONTINGENT AND AUGMENTATION FUNDS ______-- 71

B. STATISTICAL Co:v1PARISON OF ALL STATE LIBRARIES____ 73

C. STATE LIBRARIANS __ -- 85

BIBLIOGRAPHY______------. 97 List of Illustrations

Figure Page

1. Floor plans of the Maryland State Library______77, 78

Plate

I. Court of Appeals Building ___ ------79

II. Interior of the Court of Appeals Building______80

III. The Reference Room ______------81

IV. The General Collection and Reading Room______82

V. Part of the Law Library______83

VI. Main Room of the Law Library ______------84 Introduction

During the early part of the nineteenth century, Maryland experienced tremendous commercial and industrial expansion. This expansion was reflected in its population statistics for the half-century-period from 1790-1840. During this period the population grew from 319,728 to 470,019-almost a fifty percent increase. This expansion naturally brought increased problems in the governing of the state. The main problems requiring governmental action were: the regulation, investigation, and encouragement of trade, agriculture, and industry; state sponsorship and regulation of canal and road building; social and economic legislation to handle problems accompanying expand- ing population and urbanization. With a greater quantity of legislative materials, such as official reports, committee hearings, proceedings and journals of legislative bodies, and the laws themselves, the need was manifest to keep these materials in an orderly arrangement for future reference. Aside from purely legislative documents, there were also executive documents and judicial papers that had to be consulted by government officials. It was also necessary to refer to documents of other states in order to determine the specific action taken on a problem that might be pertinent to Maryland. It was out of this need of reference to official records of Maryland and those of other states that the Maryland State Library was established. This institution has from its beginning played a small but essential role in the official transactions of the state which has sponsored it. It is the purpose of this paper to trace the history of the Maryland State Library from its beginning until 1939-an institution which has been intimately connected with the governing bodies of the state.

CHAPTER I The Establishing of the Mary land State Library and the Administration of David Ridgely

Legislation for the formal establishing of a library for the use of the members of the governing bodies of the State of Maryland was initiated in 1803. Xo doubt the need of a book collection for the purpose of legislative reference had been realized by certain members of the state's General Assembly. This need was expressed in the form of a resolution, December 28, 1803, on the floor of the House of Delegates. Re.Yofved, That the governor and council be and they are hereby authorized whenever any part of the sum of five hundred pounds, annually appropriated to meet the contingent expenses of government, shall remain unexpended, to apply such surplus to the purchase of a library for the use of the legislature and the officers of government of this state, to consist of such books as the governor and council shall from time to time think proper to select.1 The resolution further provided for the location of the collection and a librarian with an enumeration of his duties. No action was taken on this motion during this session. The reason for this inaction may have been lack of interest; this attitude would seem to be indicated by the sole comment in the local newspaper of the following day. "The following resolutions (respecting the purchasing of a library for the use of the general assembly) being propounded to the house were read."2 Aside from the possible disinterest in a State Library, it should be noted that the resolution failed to provide a specific appropriation for such establishment. One can conclude that the resolution failed because of this fault. Regardless of the reason, the time for the formal establishing of a State Library had not as yet arrived, and the entire subject seems to have slept a deep sleep for twenty-three years. On December 27, 1826 the matter of a library for the use of the legislature was again approached. At this time the subject was advanced through a motion by a 1\ lr. Robert Banning of the House of Delegates. This gentleman moved that a committee of five members should examine 1 and report on the condition of the library of the House.3 Clerks of the House were directed to make a complete list of the books that were in the collection; this list was to accompany the report of the committee. From this motion and from the following report of the committee, it is evident that there had been some kind of collection which had been in existence for some time. The presence of this collection would seem to indicate that a library had been needed, but that the fulfillment of the need had been inadequate. The investigating committee reported their findings on January 11, 1827. There appears a great deficiency, as many of the books which they [the committee] suppose, had, from time to time been deposited therein [the library room], are not now to be found. Many of the laws of our state, and our sister states, have been removed, and the propriety of an immediate procurement of other copies, to supply the deficiency in this respect is respectfully submitted and recommended to the consideration of this house. 4 The report concluded by indicating that neither the books nor the room seemed to be under the care of any person. Recommendations were made for a bill which would provide for the arrangement of the books and the preparation of a library-room in the State House. 5 A listing of the books of the collection, valued by the committee to be between two thousand and three thousand dollars, followed the report. This enumeration, totaling 502 volumes, consisted mainly of the laws and legislative proceedings of Maryland, but also contained United States laws, laws and legislative proceedings of other states, as well as commentaries, indexes and digests of laws.6 During the month of January, 1827, plans and problems relating to the establishment of a State Library were discussed in both Houses of the Legislature. First of all a joint committee of both Houses was appointed to suggest regulations and to effect a plan for the preservation and continuance of the existing collection. 7 This committee drew up a bill for the establishing of a library, 8 but their bill encountered much discussion on the subjects of: the librarian's salary,9 bond for the librarian,10 and the annual appropriation for the library.11 These points were finally settled: allowing the librarian a yearly salary of two hundred and twenty- five dollars, bonding the librarian in the amount of five thousand dollars, and granting an annual appropriation of two hundred dollars for the increment of the library. These provisions were embodied in an Act of the Legislature, Chapter fifty-three of the Acts of Assembly, 1827, entitled "An Act establishing a Library for the use of the Legislature." 2 This Act gave the Executive the authority to equip a room as a library and to appoint some qualified person as librarian. Rules and regulations for the management of the library were to be drawn up by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. Provision was made for a library committee, consisting of six members, three appointed by each house. This committee was appointed at each session of the legislature and was responsible for the management of the library and for the disbursement of the annual appropriation of two hundred dollars. This body was in turn responsible to the legislature which Yoted upon the library resolutions that were proposed. The librarian's role seem to have been limited to merely making recommendations to the committee. The following excerpts from the twenty library regulations previously indicated illustrate administrative procedures and more specifically the lack of discretionary authority allowed the librarian. These rules, com- prising three finely printed pages of octavo sized volumes, were presented to and ordered to be observed by both the Senate and House members on .;\larch 10, 1827, and appeared in the Journals and Proceedings of both bodies.12 1. The library shall be opened every day during the session of the legislature, and for one week preceding and subsequent thereto, Sundays excepted, from nine o'clock in the morning to three o'clock in the afternoon, and from five o'clock to seven in the evening.

3. It shall be the duty of the librarian to label and number the books, place them on the shelves, and preserve due lists and catalogues of the same. He shall also keep due account and register of all issues and returns of books as the same shall be made. 4. Books to be issued by the librarian pursuant to law shall be turned as follows: A folio within three weeks A quarto within two weeks An octavo or duodecimo within one week And no member shall receiYe more than one folio, one quarto, or two octavos or duodecimos within the term aforesaid, unless so connected as to be otherwise useless. The remaining rules, in summary, stipulated: the conditions of loans and the method of recording them, the exact penalties attached to overdue or defaced books, the obligations of the librarian in regard to returned and overdue books, the responsibility of the librarian in reporting to the Joint Committee on the Library regarding the receipts from "fines", the policy of reserving books, and the restrictions entailed in the use of the reference collection. The Maryland State Library did not officially open until December 11, 1827, practically a full year after Mr. Banning' s initiatory resolution. 3 The exact opening date was recorded in the first library ledger13 kept by the first librarian, Mr. David Ridgely, who had been appointed to that office in February, 1827, by Governor Joseph Kent. The first six years of this institution's life was filled with many events which individually were inconspicuous, but which collectively constituted that accretion and progress essential for the healthy development of a library. These events can be roughly classed into three areas: the development of an exchange system, the use of the library as a depository of official state records, and the increment of the Law Library. The disposal of duplicate books was one of the first legislative actions pertinent to the library after its formal opening. On January 14, 1828, the Joint Committee on the Library was ordered to examine the Adr of CongreJ'J', fflaryland ReporlJ' and other duplicate copies then deposited in the State Library. This committee was to decide what copies were in excess of the library's needs and was in turn to authorize the librarian to exchange or sell those works which they so indicated.14 While this was the first legislative act relative to exchange after the formal opening of the library, an exchange system of sorts had existed since 1797. This system, according to the Librarian, David Ridgely, had been introduced by Maryland to her sister states. 15 Frequent references were made throughout legislative proceedings and the librarian's reports both to the disposal of duplicate copies and to the distribution of official reports, laws, etc. to courts and other local government units. Such references indicate both that the legislature had to give the librarian the authority to distribute or dispose of such duplicates and that the library was the distributing agent for the various annual state publications. While the Joint Committee on the Library was responsibl'°' for selecting those works that were to be disposed or to be received through exchange, in actual practice the librarian was in time allowed some initiative in this matter. For example, in the State Librarian's Report for 1836, the fact was noted that there were many additional copies of state papers, and a recommendation was made that such be distributed to agencies that could use them. 16 This recommendation, as was often the case with other recommendations, was in turn submitted by the Joint Committee on the Library in the form of a resolution and voted upon by both houses of the legislature. Two methods of exchange were used: one was direct exchange for other works; the second method provided for the sale of duplicates and allowed the proceeds to be used for purchases. As previously noted, an exchange systew had been started in 1797, however, two events of this period indicate either that Maryland's exchange system had not been systematic, and /or that it had not been on a continuing basis. In 1829 4 the governor was requested by the Joint Committee on the Library to exchange the adjudged cases of the Court of Appeals of Maryland for similar works of other states and to correspond with the other states' executiYes for the furtherance of this project.17 Secondly, in 1833 the librarian recommended the establishment of an exchange system with the other states of the Union for the principle papers of the legislatures of those states. 18 A resolution was made and passed which effected this recommendation by authorizing the executive department to forward three copies of state laws, transactions, etc. to other states and territories of the Union. A message inviting reciprocation was to be sent with these works. The governor was even allowed the authority to purchase other states' laws and relevant papers when necessary, in order to comply with the spirit of the resolution. 19 This provision seemingly indicated the desire of the legislators to haYe a continuous file of the laws and pertinent works of other states. The second method of exchange is indicated by notations in the librarian's annual reports. For example, in his Report of 1833 Mr. Ridgely recorded that a credit of $237 had been established with Baltimore book dealers through a deposit of certain duplicate works with them.20 Evidently such credits were utilized when the dealers' stock consisted of books needed by the library. It is difficult to surmise what percentage of the library's holdings were acquired through the exchange and sale of duplicate copies, but it is clearly indicated that exchange was the major means of library increment. In their Report of 1832, the Joint Committee on the Library commended the efforts of the librarian, the improved condition of the library, and further stated: " ... that these improvements and augmented sources of useful knowledge have been mainly acquired by sale and barter of surplus works ..." .21 The second group of events for this period concerns the gradual development of the idea that the Maryland State Library was to be a central collection and depository of the official papers of the state. While the words "depository" or "central collection" could not be found in any of the early records relating to the library, certain actions of the legislature, the librarian, and Joint Committee on the Library indicate the existence of some such plan. One legislative action which substantiates the existence of this idea is a resolution passed in the December Session, 1828; this action required the Treasurer of the Western Shore to deliver to the State Librarian certain books which had heretofore been deposited in the Treasurer's office. 22 The works were not named, but were evidently pertinent to the transac- 5 tions of the treasurer's office, and were probably of reference value to the members of the legislature, since a demand for their transfer was made. Further corroboration is found in an action by the legislative session of December, 1829, when provision was made for the library's continuous file of all official documents. A resolution was passed which instructed the Joint Committee on Public Printing to direct any printers, that the committee might contract, to furnish the State Library with five copies of all state documents.23 Two motions offered February 2, 1831, in the House of Delegates further demonstrate the legislators' concern for the storage of official documents in the State Library. First, an order was issued that all memorials, plats, maps, communications or other matters that had been referred to the Committee on Internal Improvements, be withdrawn from the files of the House, and placed under the charge of the librarian of the state.24 Secondly, a resolution was made requiring the clerks of the county courts to deliver copies of the annual laws, only to those persons authorized to receive them, while those surplus copies were to be given to the treasurer of the respective shore. The treasurer was responsible for the depositing of these surplus copies in the State Library. A fine of one hundred dollars was attached to this resolution as a penalty, if either the clerks or the treasurers failed to comply with the order.25 While this measure did not pass, its proposal, at least, indicates the legislators' concern for the State Library's being a depository for all the surplus copies of laws. Provision was also made for the library's having a continuous file of past official documents. In 1834 the local printer, Jonas Green, was con- tacted to supply the library with copies of the ProceedingJ' of the Com;en- tion of the ProPince of fflaryland for the years: 1774, 1775 and 1776. Mr. Green held the only copies of these Proceedings known to be in existence. While the printer declined to sell his copies, he did offer to publish the work, providing that the state subscribe to two hundred and fifty reprints. Mr. Green proposed that upon the completion of his contract, he would present his original copies to the State Library. A resolution to effect this contract was passed, following the report and recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Library.26 Quite probably the idea which resulted in the printing of these proceedings originated with the librarian. Although no statement could be found to directly substantiate this assertion, an item in the Librarian's Report of 1835 seems to indicate his hand in this project. In this Report, Mr. Ridgely noted that there were certain gaps, which he enumerated, in the legislative proceedings and journals for certain years during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.27 These historically 6 valuable documents, along with letters and relevant papers, were thought to be scattered in a disorganized condition in the several public offices of the capital. The librarian further suggested that the legislature authorize someone to examine the various offices, to collect these papers and " ... to deposit the same in the several departments to which they would appear most properly to belong."~s Evidently some action had been taken on this proposal prior to the report's formal issuance, as the "missing" Journals and Proceedings are reported in the Appendix of the Librarian's Report as having been received into the library from the Committee Room of the House of Delegates.29 Further action was taken on the historically important letters and papers, to which the librarian had referred, by an order, issued by the House of Delegates on January 20, 1835. This order required that a committee of three be appointed by the chair to collect all materials connected with the colonial history of the state in any of the public offices, and to deposit the same in the library.30 It is noted that the deposition of the papers in the order differs from the plan recommended by the librarian. The latter probably worded his recommendation in the manner that he did, to avoid the impression of library presumption upon any other government department. The third series of events for this period concerned the building-up of the law library. This "library", the ,,-riter conjectures, lacking a clear description of the first library quarters, was simply a law-book collection that was housed in the room designated as the State Library. This collection was under the supervision of the State Librarian but had been acquired primarily for the members of the Courts of Appeals and Chancery rather than for the members of the legislature. As previously noted, there were certain types of law books, as commentaries and digests, in the collection that existed prior to the formal establishment of the State Library. The integral housing of the two collections, the legislative and law collections, had evidently been a practice of long standing. This integration was undoubtedly largely due to the fact that the Court of Ap- peals itself occupied a room in the State House until 1903. 31 The first traceable effort to acquire law books for the State Library is found in the legislative proceedings of February, 1830. At that time, two resolutions were passed which authorized the State Librarian to dispose of certain duplicate works; law books for the State Library were designated to be acquired, either directly or indirectly through this disposal, under the direction of the Joint Committee on the Library.32 The probable result of this disposal was the acquisition of several hundred volumes of works on law, which number is so recorded in the State Librar- ian's Report to the legislature in January, 1832.33 Mr. Ridgely submitted 7 a discreet request, with this report, that the Library Committee should enhance the value of this collection by an annual enlargement; thus extending its usefulness for the help of the various branches of the state government seeking such aid. The librarian further commented that many important law authorities were lacking. While these "missing authorities" were not enumerated, the librarian added that because of this shortage, " ... the Court of Appeals has great inconvenience to contend with."34 1\lr. Ridgely's recommendation was at least partly effected in 1832, when two hundred and ten volumes, constituting " ... the nucleus of a very valuable law library ...", 35 were added. The report noted that this purchase complied with a suggestion of the Court of Appeals. 36 This body had probably indicated appropriate titles to be acquired, thus rein- forcing the librarian's recommendation. While the requested anual appropriation for the increment of the Law Library was not acted upon at this time, it is remarkable that over five hundred law books were added during a two-year period. While the exchange system, the centralized collection and the law collection were the three main areas of action relative to the State Library during this period, there was another more important component. This element was that which, as has been intimated, pervaded the various "library events"; it was the aggressive administration of the first librarian, David Ridgely. The energetic administration of the first librarian would be best illustrated by enclosing copies of his annual reports. However, the inclusion of such copies would be impractical. Instead, several notations from these reports will be cited to show 1\lr. Ridgely's enterprise. The report of 1832 seemed to move the legislature to greater activity on behalf of the library. A memorandum was made concerning the institution's holdings of about six thousand bound volumes, sixteen hundred of which were acquired the preceding year. This collection represented all branches of knowledge, but still had " ... many deficiencies in many branches of learning which should be supplied-to render it worthy of the State, as its public Library."37 The idea which ,\lr. Ridgely seems to have discreetly conveyed by these words, was that the legislators had good cause to esteem the progress, which their library had made in its first four years, but continued progress, the remedying of certain deficiencies, could only be achieved through active legislative support. This idea was amplified in the same report by a statement concerning the Virginia State Library, which institution was noted to have also been established in 1827. The librarian noted that it had been appropriated six thousand dollars for its augmentation in 1828, and it had received a further appropriation of four thousand dollars in 1829. These acts 8 were indicated to the Maryland Legislature as worthy of their consideration.38 That .\lr. Ridgely's efforts for an increased appropriation had some effect, is indicated by an additional appropriation in 1832 of eight hundred dollars, which sum was probably used for the purchase of law books. 39 More importantly, an additional annual appropriation of three hundred dollars was allowed by a resolution passed in 1833, making a total annual appropriation of five hundred dollars for books and other library supplies. 40 A second illustration of Mr. Ridgely' s aggressive administration is indicated in the matter of the acquisition of John J. Audubon's Ornitho- logical Biography. This subject was first mentioned in the librarian's report of January, 1832. Another work on natural history, by Alexander Wilson, was also mentioned in this report. Both works merited the patronage of the American people, but few could afford the apparently high cost, " ... but not dear [the librarian added] when considered, as they should be, proud specimens of American skill and talent."41 Mr. Ridgely remarked that these magnificant national works had not been surpassed by any of their kind, and that they deserved the patronage of the national and state governments, whose public libraries should not be without them. Unfortunately, the legislature did not act on Mr. Ridgely's original recommendation for this acquisition, thus, in the librarian's report of January, 1832, an additional recommendation was made. This time two pages of fine print were devoted to extolling the merits of the Audubon volumes. While the work by Alexander Wilson was also mentioned, the Audubon creation was emphasized, as that artist was currently seeking subscription to underwrite the printing of his work. Several reviews were cited as expert opinion on the excellence of this publication, and thus as justification for the library's acquisition of these volumes. 42 This time the legislature acted favorably upon Mr. Ridgely's recommendation; the first volume, costing $220, was noted as having been received by the report of January, 1834.43 Further illustration of Mr. Ridgely's active administration is found in the report of 1835, at which time the librarian related the events of a speciill meeting with the Joint Committee on the Library in June of 1834. At that meeting, which had been specifically called to consider problems and bids attendant to the renovation of new library quarters, the librarian indicated to the Joint Committee that the English Government was currently presenting a set of reprints of certain documents to principal libraries of the United States. These reprints included such famous works as: The Statute.s oj the Realm, The Doome.sday Book and The Rymer.s Col!ection. Mr. Ridgely reported, at the June meeting, that the Maryland State 9 Library had not been named as a recipient of these historically valuable documents. He then suggested that he be permitted to write Mr. 0. Rich, the American agent for the distribution of these English Documents, intimating in the letter the potential value of that set to the Maryland State Library. The librarian also suggested that a complete set of Judicial Reporf.r of Maryland be given to the English Government.44 The results of this able administrator's efforts in this endeavor were given in the same report, indicating that Mr. 0. Rich had replied and had promised the library a set of these documents. Mr. Ridgely commented that this donation " ... is intrinsically worth $3,000, but derives its high- est value from the liberal spirit that conferred it."45 Other incidents could be cited to confirm the industry and administrative ability of the first librarian. The entire project relative to the library's move to larger quarters in 1835, the details of which will be discussed subsequently, can be almost wholly attributed to the planning and action of David Ridgely. The growth of the collection from the original meager 500 volumes to between 8,000 and 10,000 volumes in the library's seventh year, can be largely attributed to the first librarian's endeavors. 46 That Mr. Ridgely's ability and service were recognized, is indicated in various commendations by the Joint Committee on the Library. They 47 refer to the"... zeal, industry and untiring devotion of the Librarian ..." , " ... [his] faithful performance [of library] duties."48, " ••• [his] persevering 49 industry ..." , and to the " ... zeal, fidelity and ability with which the Librarian has discharged the various duties imposed on him."50 In a more tangible way the legislature recognized and rewarded the librarian's service by the passage of resolutions allowing him compensation. The first of these, passed in 1828 gave him an additional $75.51 Another resolution passed in 1830, provided for a $200 increment to his present salary,52 while yet another resolution passed in 1831 provided for a payment of $300 in addition to the librarian's present salary.53 These resolutions were probably only on a yearly basis, their wording does not specify that they were to be permanent increments. However, in 1836 a resolution was passed providing for an increment of $200 to his salary annually.54 This action would probably have made the librarian's annual salary $500; the exact sum remains in question, because of the lack of official records on the state budget and the indefinite wording of the previously cited resolutions. The inadequacy of the State House Room as library quarters became apparent in 1832. In his report of January, 1833, the librarian reported that the room was far too small for the housing of the library's holdings, so that it was necessary to store thirty to forty boxes of books in various 10 places of the House.55 The report also stated that the library room had a tin roof which " ... leaks at almost every fall of rain-and some of the volumes have received injury thereby."56 ,\lr. Ridgely suggested that the octagonal annex on the western side of the State House, referred to as the Octagon Hall, occupied by the General Court until 1804, be renovated as library quarters. This location was indicated as having the advantages of being centrally located to all the departments of the state government and of being able to easily accommodate the library's holding of 7,000 to 8,000 volumes. The Maryland General Assembly evidently concurred with ,\lr. Ridgely' s recommendation for this renovation and accordingly passed an Act in 1833 which authorized the governor to execute this proposal.57 However, the governor did not carry out the provisions of this Act, indicating his reasons in a message to the legislature in January of 1833. Essentially, his reasons were that conformity with the Act would have meant a lowering of the existing floor of the Octagonal Hall, thus de- creasing the cellar space, which in turn would have entailed the storing of wood out of doors or the construction of a wood-house. Thus, not being empowered to provide for the problem of wood storage, the governor had not fu1£.lled the provisions of the Act providing for this renO\·ation.58 In the librarian's report of January, 1834, .'\Ir. Ridgely devoted nearly a page and a half of his seven page report to the need of new library quarters. He referred to the previous unexecuted Act and suggested that it " ... be so altered as to transfer the power of fitting up the new library, to the Joint Committee on the State Library."59 His recommendations further included "crude suggestions" which entailed the raising of the present floor by three feet and provided for galleries, around the interior wall of the Octagonal Hall, which would provide for book storage. Probably the most prominent feature of his recommendations was a provision for alternate plans. For example:"... should the Legislature prefer retaining the present floor, I would then suggest, as a great improvement, and matter of incalculable convenience to the Legislative Committees, to convert the Wood-Cellar into Committee rooms-each having access to the Library above."60 The Joint Committee on the Library prepared and submitted a bill which essentially followed ,\lr. Ridgely's recommendation of trans• ferring to that body the authority for the renovation of the library quarters. 61 Once the committee was so authorized, they appointed the librarian as their agent in the execution of .this project, 62 thus again demonstrating their trust in his abilities. Before proceeding in this task, the librarian reports that he visited the State Department and Congressional libraries as well as the library of "George Town College" .63 He considered the 11 style of the Library of Congress to be more appropriate for the needs of the ,\ lar_yland State Library, and made a sketch of that building which he used as the basis for his outline plan of the renovation of the Octagona Hall. This skeletal plan was submitted to a Baltimore architect, Mr. Robert C. Long, who made certain suggestions and supervised the building project until its completion.64 One of the major problems in the conversion of the Octagonal Hall was that of heating those quarters, as there was no chimney attached for the installation of stoves. This problem was solved by the installation of a furnace in the cellar; this "forced hot air" system was a heating method new to Annapolis buildings, although it had been tried in public buildings in Washington and elsewhere. The Joint Committee expressed the opinion that this experiment, if satisfactory to the library's heating problem, might be applied to the remainder of the building.65 In the same report, the Committee summarized the renovating expenses as: Construction, painting, etc. ______$3,403.12 Furniture ______1,068.41 Fcrm:ce and appendc>ges __ _ 146.79

$4,618.3266 There seems to be no detailed description of the new library quarters of 1835. Xone was given in the contemporary local papers or in any of the official records. This lack is understandable, since use of the library was restricted to the officials of the state government who would have through use of the library itself first hand knowledge of these improvements. However, in 1841 Mr. Ridgely does give a brief description of the State House including the library quarters in a book which he authored. He described the library's entrance as being at the opposite end of the hall from the main entrance to the State House. The Senate Chamber was to the right of this hall, while the House of Delegates' Chamber was to the left. The interior of the library was described as having seven alcoves on the main floor and ten arches on the gallery. The shelving in these spaces provided for the potential storage of 20,000 volumes.67 The furnishings, according to the Joint Committee on the Library, were of the best quality; all of them being of American manufacture and nearly all made in .\lar_vland. 68 The routines and procedures established during the earlier years of 1\lr. Ridgely's administration continued after the move to the new library quarters. ,\1any of the events of this latter period concerned the three subjects already discussed: the exchange system, the law library, or the library as a depository. To discuss all events, during this latter" period of ,\ lr. Ridgely' s administration, pertinent to these subjects. would es- 12 sentially be a reiteration. Thus, bearing in mind this general framework of procedures, only conspicuous events will be discussed. Probably the most important theme of the period was intimated in a Library Joint Committee's statement of library objectives. In their report of 1838, they referred to the purposes of the State Library, which aside from the primary one of providing for the immediate needs of the several government departments, they felt that " ... the true interest of the library would be best subserved by the endeavor to collect and preserve all such documents as would give correctness to our own history."69 While certain accessions indicate the importance of this acquisition policy for the period, it would be wrong to conclude that the policy did not exist prior to the move to new library quarters. The use of the library as a depository for official documents, Mr. Ridgely's search for early state documents in the various public buildings of Annapolis,70 and the printing of an account of a colonial exploratory expedition, 71 all point to the existence of a plan for preserving materials relevant to early Maryland history. After the move to new library quarters, the first notable incident illustrating the acquisition of materials on Maryland history was indicated in the librarian's report of 1837. At that time the librarian reported that he had received two catalogues from Mr. 0. Rich, the same gentleman who had been the American agent for the distribution of the English Documents. These catalogues listed various source materials on early American history that were available in Europe. The librarian had examined these volumes, and had selected those titles which had relevance to the history of Maryland. He submitted these titles, with purchase recommendations, in his report of 1837 72 Some of these _books written by Jesuit priests who had accompanied the early settlers of Maryland, were available in Rome. Others, such as the works of George Calvert, were obtainable in London. The legislature approved of the purchase of these volumes, providing the total purchase price did not exceed $100. 73 Further demonstration of this procurement policy is found in the legislature's purchase of important manuscripts on Maryland history in 1837 and 1838. 74 Probably the most important of these purchases was the so-called "Ridout Manuscript" which was purchased from Dr. John Ridout in 1838.75 This particular manuscript contained correspondence from Maryland's Proprietary Governor Horatio Sharpe, to officials and friends in England. These letters were of special value for the light that they shed on the activities and character of George Washington in the French and Indian War. In 1840 the legislature ordered that certain of these letters be printed.76 In 1839 and 1840 efforts were made to obtain files of historically important periodicals. A resolution providing an appropriation for the 13 purchase of a file of _Yile.r _Yational Regi.rter was proposed, but failed to pass the Senate.77 A file of The ./Haryland Gazette, from 1745 to 1839, owned by the local printer Jonas Green, was offered to the State Library for the sum of $3,500, but the resolution providing for the appropriation of this sum failed passage.78 Fortunately, this valuable file eventually became the property of the Maryland State Library at a later date.79 Aside from the procurement of materials relevant to Maryland's history, the legislature also encouraged the writing of Maryland history. The manner of this encouragement was demonstrated in the underwriting of a two-volume history of the state by John Leeds Bozman via a subscription to five hundred sets of this work. These sets were deposited in the Maryland State Library which distributed some to other state institutions and exchanged the remaining excess duplicates. 80 While this is the only known instance during this period of the legislature's underwriting a history, there are other incidents of state aid to authors of works considered of value to the state. For example, in 1840 the legislature subscribed to 100 copies of a work by Hugh Davey Evans which pertained to the common law practice of the courts of the state. This work had been examined by the Joint Committee on the Library which reported that the work would save various officials much time in their labor.81 The remaining events of Mr. Ridgely's administration are with one exception rather inconspicuous. They indicate his concern for the general welfare of the library. He showed concern for the physical condition of the library in his report of 1837. At that time he remarked that the windows needed weather-proofing and that the storage of wood in the furnace cellar constituted a fire hazard. The latter problem he advised should be corrected through the construction of a wood-shed, as he deemed himself " ... culpably negligent in case of any such accident occuring."82 These and other improvements, as the white washing of the library in 1839, 83 the repair of the furnace and the purchase of a carpet in 1841 84 were effected through the efforts of the librarian. As regards the collection itself, Mr. Ridgely urged that additional copies of all state material be deposited in the library as certain "gaps" became apparent when these were bound. Thus a resolution was passed requiring the public printers to send ten additional copies of all materials printed to the State Library.85 The Law Library was also supplemented in 1841 through the acquisition of important law books from the collection of the late Judge Bullit. These works, the librarian commented, were in excellent condition and were valuable as reference. 86 Further indication of the enlargement of the collection is via an order of 1840 which directed the librarian to have a new catalog prepared.87 This was the third catalog since the beginning of the library, the first having been made in 1833, while the second was published in 1837. 14 Probably the most significant single event of this period was Mr. Ridgely's attempt to encourage Maryland participation in an international exchange system, which had been proposed by M. Alexander Vattemare. This gentleman had, prior to his visit to the United States in 1842, been successful in introducing an exchange system between libraries of Europe and the Near East. The Frenchman had written a letter to the governor of l\laryland advocating the State Library's participation in an international exchange system. In reference to this proposition, the librarian devoted two pages of his 1842 report encouraging Maryland participation. This encouragement was largely by way of a reminder of the benefits derived from the exchange system which Mary- land had initiated with her sister states forty-five years previously.88 Although several years passed before the state actually engaged in this exchange program, l\1aryland' s participation was largely due to the original stimulus that Mr. Ridgely gave the program. Unfortunately, this report with its appeal was to be Mr. Ridgely's farewell address, as the state election of that year brought the Democrats to many offices including that of governor. The Democratic Governor, Francis Thomas, appointed one of his own supporters, Mr. J. H. T. Magruder, to replace David Ridgely in January, 1842. Party proscription ended the fifteen-year-period of efficient library administration. Thus ended the regime of the man who had brought the Maryland State Library from ". . . non-existence to a depository of 12,000 volumes."89

EPILOGUE With the return of the Whig party to state power in 1845, Mr. Ridgely tried to regain the appointment of librarian. With this purpose in mind he wrote a letter to Governor Thomas G. Pratt, which was forwarded to the governor -,;ia certain Whig legislators. The letter is brief and somewhat pathetic. After extending congratulations for his recent political victory, he writes: " ... I trust that the period of my Exile, from my home is near at hand; and that I shall through your kind consideration, be again reinstated in my own dear Library-the creation of fifteen years of my Life's devoted attention, and from which I was so heartlessly ejected."90 Mr. Ridgely wrote another letter to the governor of a similar nature on January 6, 1845. Unfortunately, the efforts of Mr. Ridgely and those of his friends, who wrote letters of recommendation, were to no avail. His recommendation of fifteen years faithful service to the Library seems to have been nullified by his inactivity and lack of influence in the political arena.

15 CHAPTER II The Maryland State Library 1842-1861

While this period of the library's history was only about four years longer than Mr. Ridgely's regime, it embraces the administrations of six different State Librarians. The first of these was Mr. John H. T. Mag- ruder, who was nominated to that office by Governor Francis Thomas on January 25, 1842.91 It is interesting to note that this appointment was not confirmed by the Senate until March 10, 1842.92 No reason could be found to account for this delayed confirmation. Possibly efforts were made to retain Mr. David Ridgely in this position, but this is purely a matter of conjecture. However, only a few days before the appointment's confirmation, March 4, 1842, the General Assembly passed a resolution which allowed Mr. Ridgely free access to and use of the State Library.93 While this seems a small concession in token of Mr. Ridgely's labors, free access to the library was at that time quite limited, requiring a special legislative act to entitle anyone other than Maryland government officials to the use of the collection. There were only a few noteworthy acts during Mr. Magruder's administration. In 1843 a resolution was passed allowing the payment of $100 to the librarian, in addition to his regular salary, for his labors in making necessary corrections to the library copies of DorJ"ey' J" LawJ". 94 These corrections had been ordered by a resolution passed in 1838; the purpose of this resolution being that the library's copies of this frequently- used reference work would include any law changes made by legislatures subsequent to the book's publication. Also in 1843, the State Librarian, the Treasurer of the Western Shore, and the Secretary of State were directed to prepare a code, from the best authorities, for the government of the common schools. 95 Another resolution was added to this which directed the librarian to obtain works needed to carry out the previous resolution. The librarian's assignment to this project gives some idea of "odd jobs" that were from time to time apportioned. In 1844 the librarian was rewarded for his labor and expense involved in carrying out a resolution of 1842, which authorized the disposal of certain books for international exchange purposes.96 Except for this and 16 similar scattered references in succeeding administrations, there is no dear indication of a definite program to effect such exchange. Mr. Magruder's report of 1845 noted that the eminent scholars George Bancroft and Jared Sparks had visited the Maryland State Library. These men had examined the "Ridout Manuscript" and were the first competent persons, according to the librarian, " ... to form a proper estimate of their importance."97 These papers were judged by these scholars to be of great historical value relative to the early history of Maryland. While the extent of the contents of this manuscript was not giyen, the documents did include papers relative to the relations between Great Britain and her colonies during the Revolutionary War, papers relative to Maryland participation in the French and Indian War, and papers pertaining to the Mason and Dixon line survey. A resolution was offered, following the librarian's report on this valuable manuscript, directing the Secretary of State to arrange the papers of the "Ridout Manuscript" in their proper order, and to have them printed for the use of the Library.911 This resolution was not acted upon at this time, but some of the documents were eventually printed as part of the ArchiveJ" of ,llaryland. The need of a new catalog was reported by the librarian in 1845. 99 The last general catalog of the library's holdings was prepared in 1837. Evidently the catalog which Mr. Ridgely had been ordered to prepare in 1840, either had not been completed, or had been merely a supplementary catalog. Nearly 5,000 volumes were noted as having been acquired since the compilation of the catalog of 1837. 100 When the Whig Party returned to power in 1844, many applicants, including David Ridgely, filed their petitions for the position of State Librarian. The winning candidate was Mr. Richard Swann, whose main qualification, according to the eighteen existing letters relative to his application, was his active support of the Whig Party in various elec- tions.101 Evidently someone had questioned the integrity of Mr. Swann, because of his connection with the business firm of Swann and Iglehart, which firm had an " ... embarrassing close."102 A letter, explaining the reasons for this misapprehension, was addressed to Governor Thomas G. Pratt by James Iglehart; it indicated that such rumors had no real grounds, and that Richard Swann' s appointment would " ... be entirely satisfactory to the Community and to the Whig Party generally."103 Mr. Swann was nominated for the position on February 3, 1845, and the nomination was confirmed by the Senate five days later. 104 A few days after this confirmation, a resolution was made and passed allowing Mr. John H. T. Magruder free access and use of the State Library.105 This act was doubtless a token for the librarian's service, following the precedent established for Mr. Ridgely. 17 Mr. Swann's administration comprised several noteworthy events. The first of these was the preparation of a new catalog of the State Libr- ary's holdings. This project, originally recommended by Mr. Magruder in his Report of 1845, and again by Mr. Swann in his reports of 1846 and 1850, was not approved until the latter date. At that time the Joint Com- mittee on the Library appended resolutions to their biennial report which initiated this project. By these resolutions, the librarian was directed to prepare a catalog of the books in the State Library, to prepare indexes for those Public Documents which needed them, and to make a supplementary catalog prior to each session of the legislature for those works acquired subsequent to the preparation of the general catalog.106 These resolutions were passed by the legislature in March of 1850. 107 A second development was in reference to the international exchange program. In his report of January, 1846, Mr. Swann commented that surplus books had not been distributed to foreign nations, as the Library Committee had not designated those books that were to be distributed. 108 Apparently there was some misunderstanding between the librarian and the Library Committee on this subject, as in 1848 the Committee reported on the progress of that exchange program, and indicated that the library has"... received no augmentation by that means, nor has any communica- tion touching the subject been received during the term of service of the present librarian." 109 The reasons for this misunderstanding are not evident, ½ut it is clear that the execution of this exchange was delayed until November, 1848. At that time approximately thirty books, mostly on agricultural subjects, were received from M. Alexander Vattemare. In addition to those mentioned, there were also included in the shipment certain documents pertinent to French history.U0 The report continued that the Maryland State Library had not reciprocated in this exchange, since the librarian had not been granted the authority to do so. Ref- erence was again made in the biennial report of 1852, to books received from Alexander Vattemare. It is uncertain that this reference is to a different donation, than the one previously cited, but it is clear that the library had not reciprocated for these works, and that such was suggested.111 A new approach to the subject of international exchange occurred during this period. Mr. Swann indicated in his biennial report of 1850 that many literary and scientific associations of Great Britain published works that would be quite valuable to the library collection. Such works, the librarian felt, could possibly be obtained through exchange. A list of potential British exchange agents was submitted with the report, and the request was made that the Joint Committee on the Library select those societies with which Maryland might most profitably reciprocate. 112 The 18 proposal, if pursued, would ha-ve doubtlessly resulted in valuable additions to the library, but no action was taken on this. The law of 1827 establishing the State Library was amended in January, 1848. The chief change was in the method of selecting the librarian. The amended law required that the librarian be selected by a concurrent vote of both legislative houses, rather than by gubernatorial appointment. In case the librarian's office was vacated while the legislature was not in session, the governor had the authority to appoint a librarian, but the legislature reserved the right to elect anyone it chose after it reconvened. 113 The section relative to the bonding of the librarian was rather vague as regards the amount of the bond; this was to be designated by the Committee of the House and the Senate, but the law was very definite in that the librarian must present bond prior to entering office. The amended act also transferred the superintendence of the buildings and grounds within the State House Circle to the librarian.11 4 This latter provision required later clarification; Mr. Swann requested, in his 1850 report, that a committee draw up regulations and define these duties. 115 A resolution to effect this request was passed in 1850, 116 but such evidently did not accomplish ~lr. Swann's requirements. Thus in the report of 1852 the librarian requested that the supervision should be fixed by definite regulation of the legislature. 117 However, that body took no action on this request. There were also a couple of small matters during Mr. Swann's administration which deserve note. One of these subjects was the introduction of a bill which would reduce the librarian's annual salary to $600, and to abolish all laws allowing the librarian additional compensation for duties pertaining to his office. 118 This bill failed passage. Another bill was introduced which merely moved that the librarian's salary be reduced; this bill also failed to pass. 119 The introduction of these two bills in 1846, both by the same gentleman, Mr. Thomas W. Clagett, is difficult to interpret, as all of the facts of the subject are not available. Possibly the librarian's salary, established during Mr. Ridgely's administration, was considered inappropriate to the talents and efforts of the first librarian's successors. Possibly there was a certain amount of animosity between Mr. Swann and certain legislators. Such animosity may be inferred from the misunderstanding noted in the matter of international exchange, or by the brevity of the Joint Com- mittee Reports, and their failure to commend his service. Antagonism toward Mr. Swann is also intimated by the election of the librarian in 1853, at which time Mr. Swann received only one of sixty-three votes. 120 19 There may have been other factors, of which we have no knowledge, which precipitated this proposed salary decrease. While the measure to reduce the librarian's salary had been introduced in 1846, in his report of 1852, Mr. Swann implied that his salary should be increased. At that time he noted that the librarian's salary had been fixed when the collection was less than 8,000 volumes, while the holdings at the time of his report were 17,000 volumes. A larger collection, the librarian contended, meant an accompanying increase in duties. In addition, he pointed out, the Court of Appeals and the Gen- eral Assembly met in the same season of the year, and in recent years the latter body's session had been prolonged. While an increase in salary was only intimated, a definite request was made that the librarian be allowed some assistance for the extra work involved when the General Assembly was in session.121 No action was taken on this recommendation, but the two events: Mr. Clagett's bills and Mr. Swann's intimation and recommendation, indicate that there were conflicting views on the remuneration for the position. It should be added that Mr. Swann's recommendation was made after the law of 1848 which affected the number of the librarian's _duties. One more item to be noted is that in 1848, the librarian suggested that the rules and regulations, originally drawn_ up in 1827 should be revised.122 No further mention was made of this matter, and Mr. Swann made no suggestions as to the manner or in what respects these rules should be revised. This detail seems to characterize a major fault of Mr. Swann's administration: his unwillingness to elaborate his requests and to persevere once he had presented them. In the General Assembly's session of January, 1852, an election was held for the office of State Librarian. The two nominees for the position were the then present librarian, Richard Swann, and Colonel Henry E. Bateman. The latter won the position, the vote being fifty to thirty-one.123 Colonel Bateman's administration was short, slightly more than a year, and relatively unimportant. However, this gentleman was conscientious in carrying out his duties and demonstrated a faculty for planning. These qualities are indicated in his single report of February, 1853. At that time he called attention to a credit balance due the library from the annual $500 library appropriation in the amount of $233.18. This amount he designated for needed law books even though they were unobtainable at the time. His planning faculty was further illustrated by his suggestion that the library be enlarged to accommodate the growing collection, increased annually by approximately 1,000 volumes. Mr. Bateman probably anticipated the need for more shelving space in a year or two on the basis of the known number of holdings at that time and the expected in- 20 crements. He suggested that the present alcoves on the first floor be deepened; this alteration he felt would accommodate the library's holdings for quite awhile. The library also needed painting and refitting which could be done at the time the other alterations were made. Mr. Bateman also noted that the present exchange system which authorized the librarian to send _:\laryland documents to other state of the Union, was not always reciprocated. He recommended that the legislature allow the librarian certain discretionary power to balance this inequity .124 Certain legislative orders indicated that things were awry with the library's system of distributing documents and of receiving all state publications. Certain state offices had not been supplied the documents which they normally received; the reason for this was simply that sufficient copies were not available. In an attempt to rectify this situation, several orders were issued which, in summary, directed the librarian to take necessary steps to obtain the needed state documents from issuing agencies or to procure surplus copies from institutions which had received more than they required.125 Colonel Bateman's administration seemed to promise worthwhile advances for the library. It was perhaps unfortunate for that institution that he was appointed Comptroller of the Treasury in 1853. Thus he resigned his position as librarian shortly after, 126 and received on the same date, April 20, 1853, a vote of commendation from the House for the " ... faithful, efficient and courteous discharge of his duties while Librari- an."127 Three days later, Mr. William Harwood was elected librarian. His opponent for the position was the former librarian, Mr. Richard Swann, who received one vote to Mr. Harwood's sixty-two.128 The Chairmen of the Library Committees of the two Houses were designated as being in charge of the library for the short period between Mr. Bate- man's resignation and Mr. Harwood's assumption of his duties.129 The events of Mr. Harwood's four-year administration were rather complex, and thus difficult to describe. Unfortunately, the degree of these entanglements was not accompanied by proportionate library progress. Arbitrarily, the events of this period will be discussed under three headings: plans for the enlargement of the library, the disposal of the 31aryland Chancery DeciJionJ', and the problems relative to the selection of another librarian. The reader should bear in mind that while these events will be discussed separately, in reality they were often concurrent. The need for more storage facilities had been anticipated by Colonel Bateman, but nothing had been done toward solving the problem. In their report of 1854, the Joint Committee on the Library indicated that the problem might be solved by fitting up the basement of the library quarters for the storage of duplicate and little-used works. The Com- 21 mittee had required the librarian to obtain an estimate for the cost of such work; the estimate was acquired and reported as being $300. With this project in view, the Committee recommended an appropriation and reported a bill for the project's accomplishment.130 The librarian's report of the same year, issued about two months before that of the Joint Committee, indicated that the book storage facilities of the library should be increased by a complete change of the present library arrangements. Mr. Harwood made three recommendations toward this end. The basement should be fitted up as storage for surplus and little-used books. Secondly, the existing shelving arrangements provided in the alcoves on the main floor and in the ten arches of the gallery were to be completely eliminated. In their place, a series of galleries, between six and eight feet in height, were to be installed. The bottom gallery was to be the deepest; the depth would decrease for each succeeding gallery. Mr. Harwood's final recommendation on this subject provided for the installation of a series of circular shelves in the center of the library. A light circular staircase was to entwine these shelves; the staircase would be ornamental and at the same time make the books on the upper shelves accessible. By these changes the collection might remain, according to the librarian, within the State House for many years 131 Other suggestions for the improvement of the library service were included in this report. These suggestions either involved repair work on the library, or hinged upon the increase of the shelving facilities. Con- cerning repairs, Mr. Harwood suggested that the cellar be paved and that its ceiling be plastered, as the present condition allowed gases from the furnace to come through the floor into the library. Regarding improvements that hinged upon increased shelving, the books were to be perma- nently arranged by subject; their location should be "fixed" through the preparation of a new catalog which would designate the location of each work. Systems in the past had a tendency to be changed according to the whims of the various librarians.132 While these rather detailed suggestions as to improvements were presented in 1854, the legislature took no action on the matter in that session.133 In 1856 the librarian again submitted his report which in a more general way requested that the library quarters be repaired and enlarged.134 No authority was given Mr. Harwood to make the necessary library improvements. One explanation may be that the librarian's plans were disproportionate to the size of the library. The boldness of Mr. Harwood's plans, inferred by his improvement suggestions, is further illustrated by his first report's remarks on acquisitions. He pointed out that the additions of that year were small; his explanation for that fact 22 was that Engli.rh Law Reporf.r had been ordered. This set, consisting only of a few volumes, was considered a valuable reference tool, but was quite expensive. He then requested an additional appropriation for the library m these words: The expenditure of a few thousand dollars each year in furnishing the State Library with proper books, would be an inconsiderable charge on the Treasury, and might make the Librarv what it should be, a source of full and accurate information the various departments of knowledge, and greatly enhance its usefulness. 135 Aside from the foregoing as being a possible reason for legislative inaction on library improvement, there is the strong probability that there were strained relations between the librarian and the legislature. Of course the librarian's ambitious plans may have contributed toward this "strain", but there were other factors invoked. From the librarian's viewpoint, the library hours had been increased by four hours daily during the legislative session. This had been done by an order of 1853, 136 which had not been accompanied nor followed by a consideration of additional help or remuneration for the librarian. While it is not known that ,\lr. Har- wood resented this increase of duties, there is that possibility. Probably of greater significance regarding "strained relations" are the events relating to the disposal of 3laryland Chancery Deci.rion.r and the selection of another librarian. It would probably be interesting to giYe a detailed recountal of the librarian's disposal of the .1llaryla11d Chancery Deci.rion.r, but such recital would not be proportionate to the significance of a subject long since dead. These eYents ,vill only be summarized to illustrate the evident conflict that existed between the librarian and the Joint Committee. Consequently the effort dissipated on this matter will also be demonstrated. The matter of the Chancery Deci.rion.r was broached in the 1856 January Session of the legislature. The publishers of this work wrote a letter of complaint to the Joint Committee on the Library, asking that the librarian be reprimanded for his sale and exchange of the Deci.rion.r which had been deposited in the library. The Joint Committee on the Library, the legislature and the governor concurred with the publisher's judgement that such sale was contrary to the spirit of the state's agreement with the publishers.137 Further, the Joint Committee felt that the librarian had no legal right to sell or exchange these works. After ex- amining the library, the Committee reported that the Deci.rion.r had been disposed in such a manner as to leave a number of broken sets.138 A bill was introduced to require the librarian to make only those exchanges needed to complete the broken sets, but no action was taken on that.139 23 Mr. Harwood, in response to an order of the House, submitted a report on his disposal of the Chancery Dect".sion.r. He felt that his action had been justified by several precedents and established practices. The librarian pointed to the practice of disposing of the .171aryland Repor!J', a compilation of Court of Appeals' cases by the State's Reporter. The preparation of these ReporlJ' had been underwritten by the state via a subscription to two hundred copies for the library. The librarian held that it was both inconsistent and unjust to allow the disposal of surplus Re- porlJ', an essential work done by the State's own Reporter, and at the same time not to allow the sale or exchange of an almost equal number of surplus DeciJ"ion.r, the publication of which had been initiated and continued by a private company.140 Mr. Harwood summoned other argu- ments as vindication of his action, among which was a resolution of 1832 which authorized the librarian, under the direction of the Joint Com- mittee on the Library, to dispose of surplus works. Mr. Harwood felt that past librarians had not actually consulted the Library Committee in such dispositions. He concluded by pointing to library records which contained no word condemning the disposal of surplus works. Mr. Harwood rather indiscreetly added: " ... that a man who could believe it [the disposal of surplus duplicates] has existed without the sanction of law in the continuous approbation of the Library Committee would be fit for no place outside the walls of a Lunatic Asylum."141 This issue, the disposal of the Chancery Dect".sion.r, was practically the only record of the library's transactions during the 1856 legislative session. This topic was the primary concern of three library reports, two from the Library Committee and one from the librarian. The House Committee on the Library had been originally ordered to investigate the library on January 22, 1856, and to recommend legislation that would effect better management.142 This Committee did not issue a report until March 10, and then it was primarily to condemn the librarian's action rather than to suggest steps for the improvement of the library. The condition of the library was deemed " ... disorderly, resulting partly from want of proper care and systematic arrangements, and partly from a want of room."143 Other derogatory remarks were made of the librarian indicating that he merely held the position by a "possessory title" and that he was wholly irresponsible to the state for the safety of its property.144 The Library Committee of the Senate issued a report which was similar in content to that of the House. The Senate report, after making similar critical remarks of the librarian, concluded by indicating that no legislation could be recommended to correct the library's condition at that late stage of the legislature.146 The preceding summary of reports has been given to indicate that the Committee showed a great deal of concern for the disposal of the 24 DeciJ'ion.r, but proportionately little concern for the welfare of the library as a whole. It would seem reasonable to expect that either committee could have examined the library early enough in the session to make recommendations that might be acted upon, but such was not done. On the other hand, the librarian, as he himself admitted, had no specific authority to dispose of the Chancery DeciJ'ion.r. He had used exchange arrangements, that had existed for years to acquire law books, valued at $2,000. Mr. Harwood argued that there were a number of DeciJ'ionJ' left in the library, and that valuable additions had been received via the disposal of duplicate books, which would otherwise " ... lie upon the shelves from year to year, and even from century to century, untouched but by the worm, or slowly consuming ravages of time."146 In summary, both parties were probably at fault in this argument. However, it would seem that had both parties utilized the otherwise expended effort in co- operative planning for the library, that the latter could have made significant progress during this period. The matter of the selection of another librarian is again another series of events illustrating dissipation of effort. In March, 1854, the legislature called for the election of a librarian; the nominees for the position were William Harwood and Thomas J. Marshall. Mr. Marshall won the position, the results of the election being fifty votes to thirty-one.147 It had evidently been the General Assembly's intention, or afterthought, to elect Mr. Harwood to fill the unexpired term of Colonel Bateman. This had not been specifically stated at the time of Mr. Harwood' s election, thus when Mr. Marshall presented himself at the library to take over his duties, Mr. Harwood contended that his own term had not expired. Mr. Marshall took the matter to court. The dispute was adjudged in favor of Mr. Harwood, but Mr. Marshall appealed to a higher court. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the lower court, and indicated that Mr. Harwood's election had been by virtue of legislative practice, and lack of specific statement to the contrary, for a two-year term.148 Again on April 24, 1855, Mr. Marshall presented himself for the position to which he had been elected. On this occasion Mr. Harwood showed his obstinacy and /or a different regard for legal technicalities than he had manifested in the matter of the Chancery DeciJ'ion.r' disposal. Since the legislature was not in session during that year, Mr. Marshall presented his bond to the Governor. The latter was only authorized to accept the librarian's bond in the case of a vacancy occuring while the legislature was not in session. Mr. Harwood refused to surrender his office on the grounds that the governor was not authorized to receive the bond, since the librarian's position was not vacant. Mr. Marshall asked 25 the court to issue a mandamus requiring Mr. Harwood to surrender the office to him; the court declined to act on this. 149 In April, 1856, Mr. Marshall again tried to obtain the office to which he had been elected two years previously. This twice thwarted individual had presented his bond in the prescribed manner, but was again denied the office. Mr. Marshall again appealed to the courts for a mandamus in order to procure the desired position. The court required Mr. Harwood to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued commanding him to surrender his office. Mr. Harwood gave as a reason that the legislature had elected Llewellyn Boyle in February, 1856. The latter had duly posted his bond, which had been approved by the Joint Committee on the Library .150 Mr. Marshall was more fortunate in this appeal than in his past cases. The court reversed the decisions previously held which in effect allowed Marshall to use the former petitions to obtain the desired position.151 Mr. Marshall finally won the librarian's position through the issue of a writ of mandamus to William Harwood, requiring the incumbent to surrender his office. 152 Mr. Marshall's administration was very short, from June 19, 1857 to August 8, 1857. On the latter date, after a compromise with Llewellyn Boyle, Mr. Marshall surrendered his office. 153 The subject of the library's administration during this period became so confused that apparently the legislature itself did not know who actually held the librarian's position. This uncertainty was revealed by a Senate order of February 28, 1860, which directed the Comptroller of the Treasury to inform the General Assembly as to whether the salary of the librarian had been paid between February, 1856 and June, 1857. In addition, the order requested, if such salary was paid, the Comptroller was to state the recipient of the salary, and also to declare, if he, the Comptroller, knew, whether the person that occupied the office actually discharged the duties of the office. 154 Mr. Llewellyn Boyle's approximate four-year administration, from August 8, 1857 to May 1, 1861, was mainly concerned with three activities. The first of these related to the librarian's superintendence of the capitol buildings and ground. These duties, as indicated in resolutions or in library reports, included such diverse tasks as: directing the laying of a sidewalk for the State House, appointing a police force for the capitol buildings, 155 appointing i:i, person to take care of the steam house and furnace, 156 and supervising the conditioning of fire fighting apparatus.157 It seems fairly evident that Mr. Boyle was quite conscientious in the execution of these tasks. For example, he drew up rules and regulations for the police to follow in their guarding of the buildings; he reported that he visited the buildings at, night to check the vigilance of the guards; he recommended the construction of a fireproof building for the preservation 26 of state papers; and he recommended the passage of an act for the pun- ishment of persons committing "malicious mischief" on public grounds.158 1'lr. Boyle felt that his conscientious execution of these tasks deserved a salary increase. He requested this in his first report by saying that these duties were " ... beyond a doubt, of very great responsibility, and the trust delegated, of a very high character, but unaccompanied with a pecuniary consideration proportionate to the responsible and highly important duties imposed upon him."159 The legislature allowed the librarian an assistant who was to receive the sum of $50 a month from the library contingent fund. 160 The second series of activities concerned the renovation of the library quarters. The librarian stated in his first report, January 1858, that he had not purchased any books because of the lack of shelving space. The legislature of 1856 had appropriated $900 for this renovation and had authorized the librarian to supervise the project.161 This work had not been started, probably because of the doubtful authority of Mr. Harwood. But by an act of 1858, this library renovation was made part of a more general project, the improvement of the State House and the erection of a £reproof building. The entire project was placed under the supervision of the Committee on Repairs of Public Buildings, who issued a report of their accomplishments in 1860. Their report indicates that, among other things, a £reproof building for the housing of the heating apparatus had been erected, thus this £re hazard to the Sta_te House had been eliminated. There are few details concerning the renovation of the library. The original plan reported by the Committee on the project: " ... had been to add to the old walls, but it was discovered that this could not be done to advantage; it was therefore, built up anew from the foundation, and made considerably larger than was contemplated from the outset."162 Another source indicates that the library, called the annex, was rebuilt with eight full sides rather than six. 163 Possibly the original intention had merely been to add galleries to the old walls, but the walls' condition made such a plan unfeasible. From a description, made around 1900, of the 1859 improvements, a gallery had been built around the interior wall.164 This gallery probably contained a series of shelves for book storage. This latter description also indicates that the State Library was approached by a grand stairway which would indicate that the library floor had been raised, thus increasing the basement room beneath the library. This basement space may have been used for storage or offices. The quarters were turned over to the librarian near the close of 1859. Mr. Boyle reported that the room was unfinished, as the appropriation had been expended. However, he arranged the collection so that the books might be available for the legislators' use in January, 1860. 165 27 The last major activity of this administration concerned the collection itself. When Mr. Boyle began his administration, he obtained from the Comptroller of the Treasury the amount of the balance credited to the library. This amount, totaling $378.32, he designated for the purchase of law books, but delayed ordering them until more shelving space was available.166 At that time, Mr. Boyle also asked for the authority to exchange or sell surplus copies of /l1aryland Reporf..r, Maryland Chancery De('i..rionr and certain other works. 167 Such disposal would have perhaps made more room, since the number of books received would probably have been less than the ones originally removed. No action was taken on this request. The request was again made in the librarian's report of 1860, but again no action was taken except for what might be a pertinent remark of the Joint Committee on the Library in their report of that year. The Committee indicated that the librarian was to strictly observe all legislative acts and resolutions regarding the removal of books from the library .168 Law books and the usual number of state documents, normally deposited in the library, were the main acquisition of the period. The entire $500 library appropriation for 1859 was expended on needed law books. An exception to this rule was the purchase, in 1858, of a series of papers relating to the colonial history of Maryland; the contents of these papers is not noted. 169 Generally, there had been added only a few books on miscellaneous subjects, according to Mr. Boyle, since 1851. 170 The exact size of the collection at the close of Mr. Boyle's administration remains uncertain. However, in his report of 1860, the librarian noted that upon occupying the new library room, he arranged and classified some 18,000 volumes. Doubtless there were a number of duplicate and little- used works in addition to that figure. One cannot help expressing surprise at Mr. Boyle's justification for special compensation in his last report. This justification seems completely incompatible with present day library practices. The librarian explained that he had classified and arranged some 18,000 volumes ". . . according to the most approved systems as in vogue in the Libraries of the Old and New World."171 For this service he requests a special compensation, as he states his case: I respectfully submit, that the duty of rearranging, classify- ing and assorting the books in the new library room, was no part of the State Librarian's duties, nor has it been prescribed by law, as the Constitution required.172

28 CHAPTER III

The Period of Transition of the Maryland State Library 1861-1896

This period has been termed one of transition, smce by various changes that occurred during these years the State Library approached its present day form. One of these changes was a more marked division between the two collections, the "Department of General Literature" and the "Law Department."173 The latter collection is termed, by practice, simply the "Law Library", and has via additions, been emphasized more than the former. A second series of changes during this period concerned the administration of the library, both as to the methods of selecting the librarian and as to the responsibility for the management of the library. Subsequent to these administrative changes of the period, the evidence indicates that the librarians demonstrated little initiative in that institution's management. This evidence will be discussed more fully later, but two other factors that paralleled this development should be indicated now. One of these factors was the lack of distinct dates de- lineating the beginning and ending of several of the librarians' terms. This vagueness may in itself indicate that the librarians had become less a factor in library policy, as such generally continued as it had been in the previous librarian's term. Secondly, we note that the librarians' terms of office were longer during this thirty-five year period, than they were during the preceding nineteen year period, 1842-1861. Each period had six librarians. These longer terms were doubtlessly largely due to the change of methods in selecting the librarian, but they suggest a greater continuity of library policies. Mr. Edwin M. Shipley was elected to the office of State Librarian on February 7, 1860. 174 The exact date on which Mr. Shipley assumed his library duties is uncertain. However, he was involved in the preparation for a special meeting of the General Assembly in April, 1861 at Frederick, Maryland. As a brief explanation for this special legislative meeting, the Southern portion of Maryland, from Baltimore southward, had been economically and socially tied to the seceded Southern States. This 29 portion of the state probably hoped to remain neutral in the conflict, but Northern interests, by a show of their strength, attempted to force the state as a whole to join with the Union. This was demonstrated in April, 1861, when a Massachusetts Regiment was sent to Maryland. The people of Baltimore resented this forceful intrusion, and mobbed this body of soldiers, as it was passing through that city on April 19. Martial law was proclaimed consequently, and the whole section of the state seethed with unrest.175 Governor Augustus Bradford convened the General Assembly in April of 1861 to discuss problems accompanying these developments. The session met at Frederick as this city had been unaffected by the turmoil. The State Librarian had been directed to provide needed books and stationery for this special session. He reported that he complied with the governor's order, and that he fitted up a room at Frederick as temporary library quarters. After the special session had ended, Mr. Shipley had been required to take charge of the furniture which had been especially procured for that assembly. These articles he decided to auction, after consultation with various legislative members, as the state would have to pay rent for the rooms until the furnishings were removed.176 The sale of these furnishings was later validated by a law of 1862. 177 Other laws were passed which allowed the librarian a total sum of $2,372.22 for the supply of stationery to the legislature, and as compensation for his own and his assistant's labors involved in the Frederick meeting. 178 The library events of Mr. Shipley's administration are not especially significant, but they do show both a healthy interest in the library and the influence of the Civil War upon certain developments. The special session of the General Assembly had appointed a committee to investigate the library. This committee was to make necessary recommendations, and to authorize the librarian to make a catalog of the collection. This group started their investigation, but one of its members was arrested by the federal government a few days after the work started. The other committee members declined to act further, so that the work was sus- pended. The librarian doubted that he had the authority to prepare this record, not having been authorized by the committee. Since there had been no new listing for ten years, the performance of even routine library tasks was greatly hampered. Mr. Shipley consulted the Judges of the Court of Appeals and then, with the help of two clerks, proceeded to prepare a new catalog. 179 For these labors, the librarian was later paid $400. 180 Aside from these catalog preparation difficulties, the Civil conflict also affected the exchange scheme. The seceded states, according to Mr. Shipley's report, did not reciprocate for the /lfaryland ReporfJ' and LawJ" sent them.181 30 In his first year of office, Mr. Shipley attempted an inventory through a comparison with the 1851 catalog. '-''lany of the books were missing. A notice was printed and circulated which announced that many State Libra- ry books had not been returned. Mr. Shipley reported that as a result of this notice " ... many valuable books were returned, some of which had been out for seYeral years."182 In addition the librarian employed a messenger to Yisit each and eYer_y house in Annapolis. B_y this maneuver he secured many magazines, pamphlets, and other items which borrowers had overlooked.183 It is evident from these transactions that the original regulations regarding the use of the State Library had not been strictly observed. i\ew rules and regulations were drawn up in 1861; the librarian felt that the enforcement of these would make for a more efficient management of the library.184 In 1861, the librarian reported several matters of importance regarding the law collection. He indicated that the annual library appropriation of $500 was not sufficient for the purchase of law books, as the latter were Yer_y expensive. The collection lacked many standard works in the field. This deficiency was especially conspicuous in the light of his statement that the State Library was " ... intended to be more especially a Law Library."185 This statement would indicate that there had been a change of acquisition policies as compared to earlier acquisition practices. Then the policy seems to haYe been to prm,ide for the Yarious needs of the seYeral government departments. This would have entailed the acquiring of other books than law books alone. The librarian made other recommendations regarding the law collection. He requested the authority to rebind a number of law books which would deteriorate if allowed to continue in their present condition. He also requested an appropriation for the purchase of standard law works; no specific amount was indicated, but it was noted that the $500 annual appropriation due that year had been expended by his predecessor, Llewellyn Boyle. The library contingent fund, as well, had been so exhausted by Mr. Boyle, that Mr. Shipley was unable to pay his assistant the normal salary of $50 monthly.186 The library contingent fund, which will be discussed later, was increased in 1861 and 1862. The last significant event of Mr. Shipley's term was relevant to the librarian's duties as superintendent of the public buildings and grounds. An act was passed in 1861 which itemized the duties involved in this superintendence more clearly than did the previous act of 1848. 187 How- ever, in 1862 the legislature transferred these duties to the governor. 188 Thus the librarian was relieved of this onerous task. On February 26, 1862 the General Assembly held an election for State Librarian. Mr. E. M. Shipley received thirteen of eighty-one 31 votes.189 The winning candidate, Mr. Hanson P. Jordan, took office on May 1, 1863.190 His approximate fiw-year administration was mainly concerned with four subjects: finances, the physical condition of the library, the book collection, and the responsibility for the library's management. The first of these subjects actually embraced three topics: the library contingent fund, the appropriation for stationery, and the appropriation for library augmentation. The library contingent fund had been in existence since the early days of the library. The matter was not explained before, as it was never a very large sum; the annual appropriation was seldom more than $200 or $300. According to the general wording of the various laws which appropriated this money, it was designed to cover such expenses as: postage, freight, stationery for the use of the office, for menial services and assistance, advertising and printing and other incidental expenses. This fund was mentioned more often in ,'Vlr. Jordan's reports than in previous ones, and the annual appropriation for this became as much as $1,500. Both of these factors would seem to require some explanation. The subject was first broached during this period by Mr. Jordan's report of 1864. At that time he indicated that the contingent fund for the preceding year had been $1,500, and that the balance that Mr. Shipley had reported as being left was proportionately less than that already spent for only one-third of the year's expenses.191 In 1865, Mr. Jordan reported that the actual balance left by ~\lr. Shipley was less than the latter had reported. A reason for these unusually large appropriations for these years was advanced in this report via a statement of the Comptroller. The latter is quoted as having said that the contingent fund for a number of years had been found inadequate to meet the expenses of the office. Addi- tional expenses, such as the meeting of the General Assembly and the Constitutional Convention in the same year, added to increased costs of freight and express, made many extraordinary demands on the contingent fund.192 Besides this statement, there seems to be no other explanation for the wide fluctuation of this appropriation. A summary of these various appropriations during the library's history is indicated in Appendix A. The second aspect of the library finances concerns the stationery fund, which also fluctuated widely, varying from $75 per year to as much as $9,000 in 1866. This practice appears to have been established in 1833 by a Joint Resolution which authorized the librarian to purchase stationery for the various government departments and officers. 193 The stationery fund does not seem to have been very important until the 1860' s and subsequently. At that time the subject was frequently referred to by the library reports and by the state's laws. 32 In 1864 the Joint Committee on the Library noted that the $3,000 appropriation for the preceding year's stationery was inadequate. An additional appropriation of $1,200 was requested to meet the increased costs of these items.194 The following year another increase of the appropriation was requested. The amount granted was still only $3,000, in spite of the Committee's plea that stationery supplies had practically tripled in price during the past several years. The Committee later suggested an appropriation of $7,500 to meet contingencies as well as the existing deficit. 195 In 1867 that body again requested a similar sum, when they noted that the librarian had unpaid stationery bills amounting to nearly $6,000. They further commented that it was surprising to them that the legislature had not appropriated the needed money considering the number of items the librarian was required to purchase.196 The above information, besides the laws themselves appropriating the needed funds for stationery, all indicate that this one "chore" of the librarian had become a rather important job. The explanation for these large stationery appropriations, aside from increased costs, may lie in two reasons. First of all the authorities responsible for the allocation of various government funds probably had different interpretations from time to time as to the items which constituted stationery. For example at one legislatiYe session, the librarian was required to furnish the officers of the House with knives. 197 At another time such use of stationery funds would not be approved. A second reason for this wide fluctuation of the fund was that certain government officers evidently abused the entailed privileges. It is evident that such abuses existed from the passage of a law in 1867. This fixed the amount of stationery to be given to any officer to an amount not to exceed $25 in value. 198 Other evidence of the existence of abuses was via the appointment of a Joint Standing Committee of the House and the Senate in 1868. This Committee had the right to investigate all abuses in expenditures for all public contracts and purchases including stationery. 199 The annual appropriation for library augmentation had remained about the same, usually $500, since 1833. This sum was usually provided by law or by resolution at each legislative session. Sometimes the amount was less, and a few times the appropriation had been entirely omitted. The latter had been the case according to a Joint Committee Report of 1864 for the preceding year. On that occasion the Committee noted this omission and took the opportunity to request that this annual appropriation should be made $1,000 instead of $500. 200 Mr. Jordan, in his report of the same year, following that of the Joint Committee, referred to the omitted appropriation, which " .... very much embarrassed our augmentation of the library."201 Additional funds were requested for the law collection needs, and an additional annual appropriation was requested by the statement: "You will at least, I trust give us the appropriation for the last and the present year, if not more."202 The amount appropriated for library augmentation was increased; the annual sums from 1864 onward vary. At times they were as much as $2,500; at other times the appropriation was omitted entirely. These yarying annual appropriations are tabulated in Appendix d. Some attempts were made to remodel the library during this period. In 1864 the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House reported on the condition of the walls of the second and third tiers of the library. They found that the books had been injured by the dampness of the walls. An appropriation of $1,000 was recommended to remedy the situation through the placing of boards, well painted on both sides, behind the shelves of both tiers. 203 The librarian that year also reported on the same problem. He indicated that he had removed and cleaned the books twice since he had been in office, but that unless a more permanent solution was offered, the state would lose several thousand dollars worth of books. He also suggested the finishing of an alcove, four closets and the passage of the third tier, which work had evidently never been completed. 204 It is noted that Mr. Boyle had reported in 1860 that he had moved into the library prior to its completion, as the appropriation for such work had been exhausted. An act was passed by the legislature in 1864 allowing $1,000 for these various repairs.205 During the remainder of Mr. Jordan's administration other recommendations were made for the improvement of the library quarters. In 1865 the Joint Committee complained that the present method of heating the library, a system of "vaporized warmth", was highly detrimental to the books.206 In 1867, the roof was reportedly in bad condition; the librarian reported that it had leaked since he took office. Mr. Jordan also noted that the room needed painting.207 In February of that year, the Senate asked the librarian to have a plan drawn up for the enlargement of the State Library. This plan was to provide Senate Committee Rooms beneath these quarters. 208 Mr. Jordan complied with this order shortly afterward, having obtained a plan and estimate from a local architect. The cost of the proposed project, without alcoves, was ren- dered as $9,500. The report was then submitted to the Committee on Finance.209 No action was taken on any of these recommendations at this time. However, their proposal does give us a picture of library needs. The collection itself during this period was probably in fair condition. A comment indicating a very favorable impression of the condition of the library was appended to the Committee Report for 1867.210 Mr. Jordan himself was not hesitant in lauding his efforts toward the improved condi- 34 tion of the library. In his first report of 1864 he stated: "Of improvements in the conditions of the Library it would be immodest for me to speak. Let the Court of Appeals and others who have had almost constant business with the Library speak."211 A yet more favorable picture was presented by the librarian in his report of 1867 at which time he declared that the State Library ought to be a point of pride for every ..'.\larylander. He continued: "It now rates, I believe, in size and numbers as the third in the United States. \\'hy should it not be first in the Union?"212 At that time l\lr. Jordan also suggested that a new catalog be prepared, and that it should follow the plan of a supplementary catalog which he submitted with his report. This supplementary catalog utilized a classed arrangement. These various testimonals of the library's condition with the proposed preparation of a new catalog, present a highly fa\"orable picture. This view is not easily reconcilable with statements made by a special Library Committee report to the Senate in 1868 or by a statement made by the governor in 1870. Each of these reports, which will be discussed later, indicated that the State Library was quite inadequate. Probably the actual situation was that the collection was arranged in proper order due to 1'lr. Jordan's efforts, but that the quality of the collection was confused with the quantity of the collection. It probably included many duplicates and infrequently used works. Thus on the basis of numbers alone, Mr. Jordan had made his comparison. Through the issue of a Senate order, we have another indication that the condition of the collection, or at least its maintenance, was not all it should be. On that occasion it was noted that the use of the State Library had been allowed the citizens of Anna- polis for some years, even though it had not been established to serve them. The Senate order, of January 26, 1866, required the librarian to confine the use and circulation of all books only to those persons for whom the library was established. 213 Finally during 1'lr. Jordan's administration, there were changes in the method of selecting the librarian and in the library's management. Mr. Jordan had been first elected under the terms of the 1'laryland Con- stitution of 1851. This provided for the election of the state librarian by both branches of the legislature for a two year period, or until a successor was duly elected and qualified. 214 The librarian's first term did not actually expire until May 1, 1865. However, he was re-elected for another term on January 12, 1864, 215 since the legislature was not to be in session during 1865. This election would probably have been quite ac- ,-eeptable, but a new State Constitution was framed during the summer of 1864. This Constitution provided that: the legislature elect a librarian for a four-year term; the librarian's salary be fixed at $1,500 annually; 35 the governor be allowed to appoint a person to fill the position in case of a vacancy while the legislature was not in session. 216 Since there was a conflict between the expiration date of Mr. Jordan's first term and the operative date of the 1864 Constitution, the legality of Mr. Jordan's second election was questioned. The Attorney General was asked to render his opinion on the matter. He ruled that since Mr. Jordan's first term had not expired when the Constitution of 1864 went into effect, the second election was invalid.217 Mr. Jordan was then re- elected under the new provisions on March 7, 1865.218 Other administrative changes were effected through a special report by the Committee on the Library in 1868. This report rather severely criticized the State Library. Possibly certain legislators and judges had complained of its inadequacies. The Committee examined the holdings and noted that many indispensible books were lacking " ... which no private collection of any pretension is without ...", and that many of the volumes it did contain were either duplicates or parts of broken sets.219 In general, the Committee criticized the method of library management on three points: inadequate annual appropriation; impractical method of spending funds ;220 misplaced responsibility for the library's management. The heads of both legislative houses had the latter responsibility, but the Committee felt the full schedules of those officers did not allow them to give the matter the attention it required.221 The Committee made several recommendations which they hoped would remedy the present faults. First, the Judges of the Court of Appeals, being the most frequent users of the library, and thus more acquainted with its requirements, should supervise the expenditure of the annual library appropriation and prepare rules for the library's management. Secondly, the annual library appropriation for augmentation should be increased to not less than $1,000. Finally, a thorough de- scriptive catalog of the library should be made; the cost of which was estimated to be between $1,000 and $1,200. A resolution was appended to the report for initiating this catalog. 222 The first of these recommendations was embodied in a legislative act of that same year. It would seem that the passage of these provisions was the legislature's afterthought, as the title and the main portion of the act pertained to the librarian's duties in the distribution of official publications. The last two sections of the act allowed an annual library appropriation of $200. This was to be supervised by the Judges of the Court of Appeals The Judges were also authorized to draw up needed regulations for the library's management.223 This act of 1868 was probably passed during the administration of Mr. Henry A. Silver. His advent as librarian, probably that year, re- 36 quires another explanation of the change in the method of selecting the librarian. Another State Constitution was framed in 1867. This Consti- tution provided that the State Librarian was to be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The librarian's salary was fixed at $1,500 annually, and provided that " ... no appropriation shall be made by law to pay for any clerk or assistant to the Librarian." The librarian was to serve during the term of the governor by whom he was appointed and qualified.224 Mr. Silver was appointed by Governor Thomas Swann in February of 1868. 225 Nothing of significance seems to have occurred during this librarian's term, except the passage of this 1868 law, and the legal involvements regarding Mr. Silver's term of office, which explanation will follow. The Constitution of 1867 became effective in the middle of Governor Swann's term of office. Thus, Mr. Silver received his appointment after that governor had already served three years of his term. How- ever, Silver interpreted his appointment as being for a term equal to that of the governor. In January of 1869, Governor Oden Bowie was in- augurated; the following year the legislature convened for the first time during his term. At that time Governor Bowie nominated Mr. John H. T. Magruder for the position of State Librarian. This nomination was confirmed by the Senate on February 1, 1870. 226 Shortly after that date, Mr. Magruder tried to take charge of the library. Mr. Silver refused to surrender his office believing that his own term had not expired. Mr. Magruder asked for a mandamus to obtain the position, but the lower court evidently declined to act on this. Governor Bowie's appointee appealed, and was subsequently awarded the position by a decision which was given on April 8, 1870. The Court of Appeals held that Mr. Silver's interpretation of the Constitutional clause regarding the length of his term was allowable, but that such was contrary to the intent of the Con- stitution.227 Mr. Maruder was later allowed by a legislative act of 1872, $200 for counsel fees incurred in obtaining his office. 228 During the remainder of this period, 1870-1896, the librarian seems to have become an almost insignificent factor in the library's management. This conclusion is indicated by the lack of existing librarians' reports for the period. It is quite probable that none of these librarians actually issued reports; there is no reference to such in the extant reports of the Committee on the Library. Recommendations seem to have been initiated by the Committee on the Library. These were in turn acted upon by the legislature. The evident result of these administrative methods seems to be that the librarian merely became an agent of the Committee on the Library or the legislature; the librarian's position was thus reduced to that of a steward with little authority. 37 These administrative changes were formally initiated by the law of 1868 which had made the Judges of the Court of Appeals responsible both for spending the library appropriation and for making library regulations. However, this law evidently did not accomplish any worth-while changes; this is indicated by Governor Oden Bowie's message to the legislature in January, 1870. In this message, the governor indicated either his ignor- ance of the 1868 law, or, by failing to recognize it, he showed his dissatis- faction with its accomplishments. He noted that the legislature had been made responsible, by the Constitution of 1867, for making rules regulating the manner in which library books were to be kept and accounted for. However, the legislature of 1868 had failed to comply with that require- ment. The governor asked the 1870 legislature to enact the needed measures, and submitted for their consideration: ... and without by any means intending any reflection upon the present Librarian, that the Library is anything but creditable to the State, and to all preceding Governors and Legislatures. Excepting the law books, most of which are the contribu- tions of different States, the volumes are by no means of standard works, such as should grace the shelves of a State Library. Proper provision and proper appropriation for the purchase of books should be made by this Legislature, and the Library put in the way at least to become what it should be.229 The library law of 1870, passed April 4 of that year, probably resulted from the governor's recommendations. In principle, this law was very similar to that one passed in 1868, but was much more specific. This law first of all appointed a permanent, three-man, library committee consisting of: Associate Judge George Brent, of the Court of Appeals, J. Schaff Stockett, State Reporter, and Arthur W. Machen, of Baltimore. These men were to serve without compensation. Their duties were enumerated as follows: to examine the library; to select a competent person to make a catalog of the holdings; to have two hundred copies of the catalog printed; to have the cataloger remove infrequently used books to storage; to sell unnecessary surplus books, the proceeds of which were to be used for new books; to direct the disbursement of the annual $500 library appropriation; and to make necessary regulations for the library's management. This law also allowed an appropriation of $3,000 for the refurnishing and refitting of the library room. 230 The work of this Committee was reported two years later on February 9, 1872. They had found the library to be confused and disorderly. In attempting to remedy this situation, the Committee had employed Mr. William L. Yerkes to make an inventory. This project had proved that many books were missing; only a few books of the general collection remained. The law collection had many defects; in some cases only broken 38 sets remained on the shelves; excess duplicates had been set aside for disposal. Standard reports and text books on law were almost entirely lacking. In fact, the entire holdings were judged so inadequate that the Committee did not allow a catalog to be prepared; they indicated that such would be of no credit to the state. The Committee had authorized needed repairs to the library room. The quarters had been repainted and recarpeted, while the furniture had been repaired or, when necessary, replaced. 231 Concerning acquisitions and the annual appropriation, the Com- mittee reported that they had acquired 473 law volumes, mostly from England, and 500 volumes, which seemed of permanent value, for the general collection. The law books had been acquired abroad as the initial price was less, and could be imported by the State Library free of duty. The Committee " ... urgently recommended a liberal appropriation for further purchase of books."232 This request was justified on the grounds that the Maryland State Library was far behind those libraries of her sister states in regard to the extent and quality of her collection. It was further defended on the basis of the efficient management of the last appropriation. The Committee concluded their report by indicating that they had established library regulations, the execution of which would result in more efficient management. The Committee also commended the librarian, who has " ... cheerfully and laboriously aided them in the discharge of their duties."233 It is interesting to note that the librarian was not mentioned by name, and also that the Committee commended him for aiding "them" in "their" duties. A detailed statement, consisting of seven pages, of the library's finances and acquisitions was appended to their report. During the same year, 1872, there were a number of legislative orders requiring the librarian to supply certain agencies or persons with certain official works. The most significant of these orders was one which directed the librarian to supply the Maryland Historical Society with a number of volumes of old official state publications. These volumes were enumerated by titles and dates, and were probably excess duplicates that were valuable as historical source material. It will be recalled that the collection of materials relevant to the early history of the state had been early stated as a purpose of the State Library. No such documents are known to have been acquired by the library since 1858, during Mr. Boyle's administration.234 Certain historically significant works were acquired since that date; but these were primarily of legal importance. For example in 1865, the library subscribed to two hundred copies of EngLiJh Statufe.r which were reprints of English laws having relevance to the people of colonial Maryland. 235 39 It is conjectured that this early conceived function of the State Li- brary, that of acquiring historical documents, had passed into the hands of the Maryland Historical Society. This Society had been incorporated by a legislative act in 1844 and had been allowed by the law to" ... procure and collect a general and miscellaneous, library ..." 236 There are probably several reasons for the gradual transfer of this "historical collection function" to the Historical Society. First, the Society would have ex- perts that could properly evaluate the documents acquired; secondly, the annual library appropriation was not sufficient to allow such purchases. Finally, Mr. Ridgely' s successors did not seem to share the first librarian's enthusiasm for the collection of such materials. The remaining events of Mr. Magruder's term, from 1874 to 1880, can be rather briefly summarized. The 1874 legislature allowed a $2,500 appropriation for acquisitions, 237 while the Committee on the Library reported on the disbursement of that sum in 1876. This report gave a detailed account of the library's additions; of the 425 total volumes added, about half were law works. In addition the Committee named eighteen periodicals to which they had subscribed. These magazines were devoted to law and other subjects of general interest. The report noted that the Law Department " ... is greatly improved; and it is the only department which even approximates to anything like completeness."238 On the other hand, only " ... standard works of approved excellence and some of the numerous current publications ..." had been acquired for the general collection, since funds were limited. The Committee requested a liberal annual appropriation of not less than $2,500 in order that the library might be both creditable to the state and worth-while to its clientele. 239 The Committee report of 1876 noted that a creditable catalog, as authorized by the law of 1870, had been prepared. It should be noted that this work was not done by the librarian but by William T. Iglehart, who had been appointed for that work by the Committee.240 In 1878, the Committee on the Library was authorized to employ a clerk. Through this means the restriction imposed by the Constitution of 1867, that is of not allowing any additional appropriation for an assistant to the librarian, was by-passed. The clerk was hired by the Committee and worked under them, but he assisted the librarian when necessary. This is clearly indicated by Senate orders of 1878 which first authorized the Committee to hire a clerk and later granted pay to the clerk for services as "Assistant Librarian". 241 Mr. Magruder, as will be recalled, had been originally appointed librarian in 1870 by Governor Bowie. This appointment had evidently been renewed by Governor Bowie's successors when they took office, that is by Governor William Pinkney White in 1872, and by Governor 40 John Lee Carroll in 1875. No records were found to confirm these appointments, but this was evidently the case, since Mr. Magruder was still in office in 1880 when Governor William T. Hamilton nominated him. The Committee on Executive nominations failed to approve of Mr. Magruder's reappointment.242 It seems that the librarian was quite elderly and had become inefficient.243 On April 5, 1880 Governor Hamilton proposed the nomination of Edmund P. Duval of Montgomery County, vice John H. T. Magruder. This nomination was approved by the Committee on Executive nominations on the same date.244 While no written record states that Mr. Magruder was inefficient, such is inferred by an act passed in 1882. This act was passed for the financial relief of Mr. Edmund P. Duval, State Librarian, whose predecessor, Mr. Mag- ruder, had so exhausted the contingent fund that Mr. Duvall was unable to pay the running expenses of the library for the remainder of the fiscal year. An appropriation of $400 was allowed the librarian to meet these expenses, as well as to pay a number of outstanding bills left by his predecessor. Among these bills was one of $3.32 owed to the Annapolis Post Office. 245 The events of Mr. Duval's term were primarily concerned with problems relating to library management and to the construction of a new Library Annex. Concerning administrative matters, in 1880 the House of Delegates sent a letter to the Senate proposing that the Library Standing Committees of each House should act as a Joint Committee. The Senate concurred with this proposal on February 4, 1830.246 While the significance of the formation of this Joint Committee is not clear, it is eYident by this action that the legislative bodies still maintained some interest in the library. Probably this Committee reviewed the reports and proposals of the Committee on the Library, and then submitted appropriate bills to the legislature for passage when necessary. Another matter of administrative significance is found in the Committee on the Library's report of 1864. It was noted that Judge James L. Bartol had resigned from the Committee and that Richard H. Alvey had been selected by the Court of Appeals as a replacement.247 From this action, it is clear that the Court of Appeals controlled the appointment of members for the Committee on the Library. The Committee's report also indicated the disbursements and acquisitions; a total number of volumes, amounting to over eight hundred, were purchased since the Committee's report of 1882. The Law Department was noted as reaching a " ... condition of completeness, and in a few years, will be ample for all reasonable demands."248 The general collection had received a number of additions but was reported as being far from complete. The numerous acquisitions of the past several years re- 41 sulted in the need for more library space. The problem of enlarging the library building, the Committee indicated, had been stated in their report of 1882. The 1884 report continued that the present library space was so insufficient that many books had to be stored in the cellar. The final recommendation was that the present quarters be so enlarged as to provide for present needs as well as expansion for the next fifty years. These quarters were to be furnished in such a manner as to provide every facility for the conYenient use of books.249 The Committee's recommendation for the enlargement of the State Library were incorporated into a bill and introduced to the Senate on March 12, 1884.250 This bill was reported upon unfavorably and probably died. Another bill for the same purpose was reported as "read for the first time" on March 24, 1884, and was passed two days later by the Senate.251 Since the legislature adjourned in the early part of April, this bill evidently did not reach the House in time to be acted upon. Legislation on State Library enlargement was thus postponed until 1886, the next meeting of the legislature. In March of that year, the Com- mittee on the Library submitted their report which enumerated over four hundred purchased books and accounted for the disbursements of the appropriations for 1884 and 1885.252 The Committee again urged that action be taken on the subject of library enlargement. They drew attention to plans, made by Mr. Frank B. Mayer, which proposed that an annex be made to the existing quarters. This annex would increase the library's capacity to 100,000 volumes, and would afford accommodations to the library's clientele. The plan allowed for committee rooms on the basement floor, an easy access to the addition, and also space for the State Museum collection. The proposed enlargement's dimensions were indicated as one hundred and twenty feet times forty feet, allowing for a library equipped with two tiers of alcoves, a general reading room, a conversation room and the librarian's office.253 While Mr. Mayer was not commissioned as the architect for the project, the foregoing plans, excepting the Museum, were accepted as an outline scheme for the new library annex.254 The authority and appropriations for beginning the work were authorized by two laws passed by the 1886 legislature. The first law provided an appropriation of $3,225 for repairs to the Governor's mansion and making additional committee room conveniences.255 The latter were to be located beneath the Library Annex. The second law provided an appropriation of $50,000 for the enlargement and erection of an Annex to the Maryland State House especially to meet the needs of the Maryland State Library. The work and the disbursement of the money was to be directed by the Committee on the Library. The appropriation was to cover the entire cost of the con- 42 struction, shelYing, plumbing, painting, and thorough equipment for use, excepting heating and furniture. The last two items were to be provided through an appropriation of $5,000 allowed by the same act.256 The work on the Annex, and the entailed renovation, was not completed b_y the next session of the legislature, that is by January of 1888. This completion had been delayed because of a misunderstanding between the contractor and the subcontractors. Certain workmen involved in the subcontract work had not been compensated for their labor. This situation resulted in much legislative discussion, as the legislators wished that none of the workmen would suffer loss in the construction of a state building.257 The members of the General Assembly were anxious to occupy the unfinished committee rooms. Thus, they appointed a Joint Committee of six, three from each House, to negotiate with the contractor for an expedition of that part of the project.258 This Committee later reported on an agreement made with the contractor whereby the eleven rooms might be completed. A bill allowing the Committee an appropriation for the completion and furnishing of the Annex basement was passed in .\ larch, 1888.259 During the same month, the Committee on Public Buildings ,vas asked to report on the possibility of making the present State Library room comfortable for use. The Committee reported on .\1arch 19 that the present condition of the library was due to an open elevator shaft between the present library quarters and the new Annex. The Committee recommended that the opening be boarded up and that heavy curtains be hung over the doorway. They further recommended that radiators be installed in front of each of the large v.:indows so that the rooms might be comfortable in the severest weather.260 From these reports, it is evident that the new Annex was not completed in 1888, and indeed it seems that many details of the project were not completed by 1890. A House Committee, reporting in that year, indicated that the contractors had failed to comply with the provisions of their contract, and that the completion of the project had been subsequently undertaken by the Building Committee.261 The date that this Building Committee completed the project is not given, but various 1890 laws relative to library repairs or improvements indicate that the work was not at that time finished. Appropriations were made to repair the roof and other portions of the library; to install radiators in the old library quarters;262 to furnish and carpet the State Library Annex;263 to grade and sod the grounds around the -Annex and to construct a pavement.264 A brief description of the Annex was given by Librarian Luther H. Gadd in the preface of his 1895 catalog. He reported that the Annex consisted of three large, well ventilated and lighted additional rooms with galleries, devoted principally to the "Literary Department." This 43 collection had previously been crowded into a few alcoves of the "Law Department", or stored in an inconvenient place. Cases fitted with ad- justable shekes had been installed in the Annex. Books were arranged on the shelves according to class, similar to the arrangement of that particular catalog.265 A more unfavorable picture of the New Annex was presented by Louis H. Diehlman, a member of the State Library staff around the turn of the century. The latter corresponded with Dr. Morris L. Radoff, when Dr. Radoff was writing his book on the public buildings of Annapolis. The following is quoted in that book from Mr. Diehlman's letter of April 3, 1950. In 1886 another annex was added, a huge rectangular room entirely unsuited for the purpose for which it was intended and Yery badly built, with windows about 8' x 20'. It was approached by five steps from the hexagonal section [elsewhere referred to as the "octagonal annex"]. This latter had three galleries running around it in which the books were stacked in my early days there. 266

The last sigificant event of 1' lr. Duval' s term was the passage of an act, 1'1arch 30, 1892, which authorized the Board of Public Works to thoroughly clean the basements of the Annex and the State House. This act did not name the library, yet it affected that institution in that a number of the library's infrequently used documents were stored in these places. This 1892 law empowered the Board to examine the works in question and to either store them in an appropriate place or to dispose of those that they did not deem worthy of preservation.267 According to the present Director of the Library, -'\Ir. ~elson J. ,\loiter, a member of the library staff for approximately twenty-five years, the story has been passed down that many valuable provincial journals and early session laws were indiscriminately sold to a junk dealer along with more ephemeral materials that had collected in these places. In fact it is related that one book dealer made $600 on rare books procured from the junk dealer. Undoubtedly this act caused the library valuable losses simply because it did not provide for an authoritative decision on the worth of the books and papers involved . .\Ir. E. P. Duval' s successor was Colonel Luther H. Gadd who took office .\lay 1, 1892. 268 From a conversation which this writer had with 1'1r. Richard J. Duval, it appears that Colonel Gadd's appointment was purely a matter of chance. Colonel Gadd had been active in political circles and in supporting Governor Frank Brown when the latter was selected in 1891. Governor Brown had partly promised a certain position to .\ Ir. Gadd, which the latter coveted, but due to certain circumstances the particular position was not available. When the time came for the 44 governor to appoint someone to the librarian's position, Governor Brown awarded that post to this constituent for his political help.269 The only records of Colonel Gadd' s term are several laws relative to the library, a report of the Committee on the Library, and a catalog made in 1895. One of these laws, passed in 1892, legalized the practice of authorizing the Judges of the Court of Appeals to appoint a Committee of three to act as the Committee on the Library. This Committee was to serve without compensation and was to direct the expenditures of the library appropriations as well as to draw up needed library regulations.270 Another law passed in 1894, appropriated $4,000 for the rearrangement of books, maps, charts, etc. in the State Library and for the making of a catalog of these holdings. The librarian was authorized to employ necessary help for the execution of the project. The catalog was to be " ... inter- larded with blank leaves alternately, in order that the proper additions may be made as new books are added to said library."271 In 1894 the Committee on the Library issued a report which indicated that the Committee had become unconcerned with the library's augmentation. They reported that there was a balance deposited in the Farmers National Bank of Annapolis from the various library appropriations in the amount of $8,431.75, and that the 1894 appropriation of $2,500 had not even been withdrawn from the State Treasury. The Committee recommended that the augmentation for the next two fiscal years be reduced to $500 for each year. Authority was requested to allow a portion of this augmentation sum to be used for the purchase of suitable furniture and to have the books in the library properly arranged.272 Quite probably the law of 1894, previous cited, partly followed the Committee's recommendation in allowing $4,000 for the rearrangement of books and the preparation of a new catalog. No provision seems to have been made for the purchase of new furniture. The legislature of that year did its best to reduce the large balance credited to the State Library. It allowed appropriations " ... for the augmentation and furnishing of the State Library, one dollar, or so much thereof as may be necessary . . ." for each of the two fiscal years, 1895 and 1896.273

45 CHAPTER IV The Modern Period 1896-1939

The final chapter of the library's history begins rather auspiciously with the energetic administration of Mrs. Anne Burton Jeffers. She was the first woman to hold a public office in the State of Maryland and the first of a series of women State Librarians. Mrs. Jeffers had been appointed by Governor Lloyd Lowndes in 1896; she was reappointed twice for a four-year term each time by Governor Lowndes' successors: Gover- nor John Walter Smith and Governor Edwin Warfield. 274 The recountal of library activities during her administration will be arbitrarily divided into three periods: the major accomplishments from 1896-1904, the move of the library to new quarters in 1904, and library activities between the time of that move and the time of Mrs. Jeffers' resignation. One of Mrs. Jeffers' first official acts was the beginning of a card catalog. Without the aid of a special appropriation, she hired a cataloger on a contract basis and paid these expenses from the library contingent fund. At the next meeting of the legislature in 1898, Mrs. Jeffers was able to demonstrate the first fruits of this project, some 9,000 volumes having been cataloged. The legislators could thus see the practical advantages of a card catalog. They did not hesitate to provide money for the con- tinuation of this work. 275 In the following legislative session, April 1900, the legislature passed a law which firmly established this project by creating the position of "Indexer and Cataloger". This act provided that the governor be empowered to fill this position with the consent of the Library Committee. The cataloger's salary was specified as $600 annually; the duties were outlined as those entailed by the position or as required by the Library Committee. 276 The creation of this position actually by-passed the constitutional restriction, prohibiting appropriation for the payment of an assistant to the State Librarian, 277 by providing that the cataloger's salary by paid by a warrant on the Comptroller of the Treasury. Concurrent to the establishment of the card catalog were the installation of additional shelving and a general "housecleaning" of the library. The legislature had in 1898 appropriated $2,000 for shelf installation. The part which Mrs. Jeffers played in the passage of this act 46 is not evident, but the law appropriating this money required the librarian to supervise the shelf installation and to account for the expenditure. These provisions indicate her cognizance of the involved details and perhaps her instigation of the project.278 The 1900 librarian's report, which itemized the installation cost, noted that more shelving would be required to provide for annual acquisitions. 279 Partly to create additional space and partly to better organize library holdings, .\ lrs. Jeffers started a general "housecleaning" project. i\1any duplicate state publications had accumulated through the years. She arranged these by subject, disposing of excess duplicates through exchange when possible. 280 This general "housecleaning" project brought about the "discovery" of a number of incomplete newspaper files stored in the basement. Some of these were over a hundred years old. Those papers found worth preserving, some having been ruined by poor storage conditions, were collated and bound.281 This general inventory revealed that the library had only 40,000 volumes exclusive of duplicates, 282 a marked contrast to the 100,000 volumes reported in 1891. (See Appendix B). .\ lrs. Jeffers' final major accomplishment in this pre-library-move period related to the annual library appropriation. She gave a brief history of this subject in her 1902 report, noting that for fourteen years, 1880-1894, the amount appropriated was $2,500 annually. However, this sum was reduced to $1,000 after that time, as the appropriations had been allowed to accumulate unexpended.283 A thousand dollars, she reported, was scarcely enough to maintain the Law Library alone; she requested that the appropriation be returned to its 1880-1894 status. .'lrs. Jeffers justified this request by indicating that states having a population equal to .\laryland's allowed from $2,000 to $5,000 annually for their state libraries.284 The 1902 legislature granted the $2,500 for the fiscal year 1903 ;285 this sum remained the annual allotment for nine years. (See Appendix A). The move of the library to the new Court of Appeals Building in 190-1 was, unlike previous library moves and renovations, prompted by other factors than library needs. Aside from the brief mention in the 1902 report that additional shelving would be needed, there was no suggestion that library facilities ,vere inadequate. This shelving need could probably have been easily satisfied within the present quarters for some _years. 286 Further, the library quarters had been enlarged only a dozen years before.287 Thus, on the basis of that fact alone, the library's move to new quarters at this time would seem totally unnecessary. This 1904 library move was concurrent to a general State building program on the State House Circle. It was directly precipitated by the 47 need of enlarging the Senate and House Chambers. This enlargement required the space then used by the State Library. An act appropriating $250,000 for the removal of the State Library and for the construction of additions to the State House was passed in 1902.288 The preceding legislature had in 1900 provided for the acquisition of a lot of land which was opposite the State House and adjacent to the Governor's mansion. This lot was to be the site of the new Court of Appeals Building, which was to accommodate that Court and its necessary offices, the State Li- brary, and several other State offices. 289 It is interesting to note that the State Library, originally established by and controlled by the legislature, 290 had in its early days only a collection of law books for the use of the Court of Appeals.291 During its first seventy-five years, the major acquisition emphasis had become the purchase of law books to satisfy the needs of the Court of Appeals. The administration of the library had practically passed from the hands of the legislature to a committee composed of Court of Appeals members. The move of the library to the building built for and named for the Court of Appeals was, while necessitated by the legislature's need for more space, bound to create an even closer relationship between the Court and the Library. Conversely, the ties between the legislature and the library were bound to decrease. In Mrs. Jeffers' 1904 report, she commented on the library moves between the latter date and her 1902 report, saying: Since my last report, the library has been twice moved into temporary quarters in the old Hall of the House of Delegates, where it remained for nineteen months; it was moved a second time into new and incomplete quarters in the Court of Appeals Building. 292 During this interim period, she reported that, the working conditions were naturally hampered, but she had attempted to satisfy the legitimate demands of library users. The move to the new and unfinished quarters involved much heavy work, made heavier by the need of installing temporary wooden stacks. This in turn meant that the books had to be moved two or three times before they were placed into £nal position. Many books, damaged either by the moving process or by poor storage conditions, had to be rebound, and an appropriation for that project was requested. An added problem was a delay in the supply of library furniture and equipment. Mrs. Jeffers reported that it was doubtful if the library would be operating smoothly for six or eight months.293 No description of these new quarters will be given here, but reference is made to the floor plans and pictures following the text. Following the move to new quarters, Mrs. Jeffers continued to improve library facilities and procedures. The first item on her list was to 48 obtain an additional library position. This matter was first brought to the fore in her 1902 report. At that time she noted that the heavy work load of the librarian and the cataloger made an assistant necessary to operate effectively. She enumerated certain major tasks requiring the full time employment of an additional person. To effect this position increase, she recommended that the 1867 Constitution be amended to remove the prohibition of any payment for an assistant to the librarian.294 Since many of the legislators considered the librarian's duties as trivial, Mrs. Jeffers concluded her report by attempting to correct the " ... pre- vailing impression that the office of Librarian is a sinecure". She quoted a pithy extract from an address of the late John Fiske, former librarian of the Harvard College Library. The essence of this quotation was that Fiske's position was often thought to allow plenty of time for private study and work of a literary sort. However, Fiske's own experience had forced him to reply to such references that the librarian's duties took all of his time plus that of twenty assistants, seventeen of whom were occupied in cataloging. This work itself was frequently misunderstood as cataloging was never completed; it was a continuing process. 295 No action was taken on this recommendation, unless we consider a feeble attempt of the Senate. In 1906 this body recommended that a library clerk be appointed for the convenience of its use of the library. This proposal was referred to the Committee on Finance, and seems to have "died" shortly after that.296 During the same year the librarian, via her report, repeated her request for additional help, but this time it had added reinforcement. She first of all noted that other states of similar size and population to Maryland supported State Libraries no larger than Maryland's. Yet none of these had a staff of less than five. 297 Secondly, she pointed out that the arrangement of the new library quarters, with its three separate entrances, made an additional library position essential for the proper supervision of the collection. Actually the main entrance, which opened into the Reference Room and General Collection, had to be closed, because of the lack of an assistant. Mrs. Jeffers obliquely noted the paradox-the state had provided its library with a reading room for the public, but had in effect closed it to them through failure to provide the library with an adequate staff. The librarian asked the legislature to create the position of "Custodian of Works of Reference". This person would supervise the General Reference Collection and also assist in legislative reference work, which had been handled very inadequately in the past. To offer adequate service in this field, Mrs. Jeffers further contended that it was necessary to prepare indexes of legislative material in advance of the demand. This work neither she nor the cataloger had had the time to do. The librarian's 49 concluding remark on this subject pertained to state libraries in general, but clearly inferred that the 1'laryland State Library had failed to keep abreast of the times. They are hampered by constitutional restrictions and lack of sufficient appropriations and necessary staff. ... State Libraries are no longer fossilized, and the administration of a modern State Library with its manifold interests demands the undivided attention and close application of the librarian. "A good librarian is worthy of his hire; a poor librarian dear at any price". 298 Following 1''lrs. Jeffers' recommendation, the 1906 legislature passed a la,v creating the requested office. This law noted that this position had been created on the recommendation of the State Librarian to make the General Reference Collection available to the public. Again the pre- mentioned constitutional restriction hindering the employment of an assistant to the librarian ·was by-passed by procedure similar to that used in creating the position of cataloger.299 The new library position was filled by gubernatorial appointment for a term of two years; the annual salary was specified as $725; the duties were enumerated as having charge of the Public Reading Room and such others as were required by the Li- brary Committee or the State Librarian. 300 ,_\ lrs. Jeffers made recommendations to obtain other staff positions in her last report as State Librarian. In this, her 1908 report, she noted that partly because of constitutional restrictions and partly because of the small library appropriation, it was necessary for the librarian to do many manual chores to carry out the library exchange program. She had to pack and ship books, and also act as "runner" to obtain items from the shekes or to reshelve them. The contingent fund, she noted, allowed the payment of a janitor two hours daily; an increase in that fund was suggested to allow the procurement of a janitor, " ... one able to read and write ... " who would be able to perform both the "runner" duties and those entailed in exchanges.301 Unfortunately, this position was not created for some years. Besides her efforts to improve the library's facilities, Mrs. Jeffers attempted to improve the collection. She noted in her 1900 report the importance of the General Collection, saying that these books were more frequently used during legislative sessions than were those of the Law Collection. The explanation for this was that economic and social ques- tions with which the legislators were concerned required much research, while judicial decisions often hinged on the definition of one word which meant the consultation of authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias.302 The increased annual appropriation, already discussed, 303 had been chiefly advocated as a means of acquiring these general works. The 1906 re- 50 port indicated that while acquisitions between 1904-1906 had been primarily for the la,v collection, a number of standard reference works had been acquired for the General Collection. 304 Along with this concern for the General Collection, there was a regard for the ,\ laryland History Collection. In 1900 ,\ lrs. Jeffers noted that the library had only 252 volumes and -139 pamphlets relating to ,\1aryland history. This number included publications of the ,\ laryland Historical Society and newspaper files of the 3laryland Gazette, and the Baltimore Ga:::ette and Daily ,-fd,·erti.Yer. 305 She recommended that this collection be expanded. Such open adYise in this matter had not been offered since DaYid Ridgely. The next mention of this ,vas in the 1904 report when ,\ lrs. Jeffers noted that certain of the old session laws of the Province of ,\laryland had been acquired; these had been collated and bound in series. They were thus made accessible for the first time in some years, but there were still gaps in the set which the librarian was trying to fill as opportunity allowed. 306 The final mention of this collection ,ms in ,\lrs. Jeffers' last report, when she listed the supposed functions of the State Library. She indicated that a chief library function was the preservation of archiYes concerning the general and local history of the state, but the ". . 1'laryland State Library was woefully deficient ..." in that endeavor. ,\ lany libraries, state, public, and eyen those of private indi- viduals had collections of",\ larylandiana" which far surpassed the holdings of the Free State's own library. She concluded that this collection should be a matter of state pride, and that provision should be made to obtain this material, which while rare, was obtainable at prices that were constantly increasing. 307 The legislature and the Library Committee took no action on this recommendation, perhaps because they felt that this function was being fulfilled by the ,\laryland Historical Society. It is interesting to note that the 1904 legislature requested that Society to submit a progress report of their work. 308 There may be no connection between ,\ lrs. Jeffers' recommendation and the legislature's request, but the two incidents seem to be contingent. In concluding this topic of attempts to improve library facilities,,\ lrs. Jeffers made several other efforts to improve the condition of the collection. She urged in 1902 that sheepskin binding be discontinued for rebinding purposes and that morocco or buckram be used instead. 309 In the same report she recommended that a penalty be inflicted for the defacement of books owned by the library. ,\'lembers of the Bar were frequently guilty of such by underlining long passages for court use. 310 Again in 1906 she reported that many books of the collection were in deplorable condition, but no improvement could be made in face of the 51 small binding fund. 311 In her final report Mrs. Jeffers noted that the original binding was frequently inferior, thus creating an additional need. She also mentioned the matter of lost books, consisting chiefly of law_s and Code.r. These usually disappeared from the Committee Rooms through carelessness or theft, and were frequently impossible to replace. 312 The final topic of Mrs. Jeffers' administration concerns her attempted reforms of certain practices in which she and /or the library were engaged. These practices pertained to state publications and stationery. The first of these had several aspects; one of which was the matter of state agency reports. After the "housecleaning", the librarian reported in 1900 that the library had no complete file of any one agency's reports. 313 The librarian reported that it was often impossible to secure even a single copy of current state agencies' reports. In 1902 she recommended that the situation be remedied by making the State Librarian the distributor of all agency publications, that is, after each agency head had met the direct needs of his office. 314 No action was taken on this recommendation, and it was renewed in the 1904 report, 315 and again in 1908, with the same lack of legislative action each time. The last time the request was modified to merely require the department head to deposit two copies of his current report in the library. 316 The explanation for this lack of action was partly that there was little co-ordination in the printing of these reports. By custom, most department heads had their reports printed by their "home town" printers, defraying such expense through departmental contingent funds. The State Printer in turn procured, when possible, copies of these reports from the local printers for insertion in the Documenf.r volume. The state thus frequently paid twice for the same job.317 Regarding the binding of the Document.r, this was usually a haphazard and incomplete collection of reports issued by legislative committees, state agencies and executive departments. These were usually bound together by year of issue, in no prescribed order, in one rather unwieldy volume without benefit of index or table of contents. Since their make-up resulted in their being of little reference value, few other states or institutions wanted them. None- theless, several hundred volumes were bound for each legislatiYe session, resulting in the storing of hundreds in the library basement, many in boxes that had never been opened. In 1902 the librarian recommended that no more than fifty copies of Documenf.r be bound per year. It was suggested that other states and institutions might be glad to accept these individual reports. 318 Since the legislature failed to act on this, in 1904 another recommendation was made specifying that these reports be bound in one or more volumes of reasonable size with title page and table of contents that would indicate 52 the reports included and period covered by each. 319 These Document.r were again criticized in 1908 as containing only a small number of the executive reports actually made to the governor or to the legislature. Again, no action was taken on these recommendations. The second problem connected with state publications concerned the binding, preparation and make-up of state laws and legislative journals. Mrs. Jeffers criticized these as being inappropriately bound in "sheep" binding and as being poorly indexed. In general she suggested that Mary- land's publications be bound in more durable half-cloth and that they be more uniform with those of other states. Such uniformity was advocated by the National Association of State Librarians, a movement which Mrs. Jeffers heartily favored even though the Maryland State Library was not represented in it. 320 No action was taken on her recommendations, thus the subject was treated more fully in her 1904 report. On this occasion she devoted six full, and finely printed pages of her report to cite the rules laid down by the National Association of State Librarians. The librarian suggested that these rules, which constituted a style manual for state publications, should be gradually effected by the Free State so that its publications might ultimately " ... rank with the best."321 This same report recommended that the number of legislative journals printed for each session be reduced from 500 to 300, as the storage of excess volumes was becoming quite a problem. Again, these recommendations met with inaction. The 1906 report repeated the request that the quantity of session publications printed be reduced, as the unused copies of these were filling the cellar to "overflowing." The binding of a legislative session's printed issues was also discussed. The State Printer usually bound all of these and received the entire appropriation, usually $3,000, allotted for this purpose. While the laws appropriating these sums made the State Li- brarian the supervisor of this operation, the State Printer had in practice actually taken charge of the entire operation. Mrs. Jeffers feeling that the work could be done much more economically, contracted with a commercial binder at a cost of only $1,500. The State Printer objected, saying that custom had allowed him this work, and that it could not really be done for less. The librarian over-ruled these objections and had the work done by the commercial binder. She reported that this binding was superior to that previously done and suggested that the appropriation for this purpose be reduced to $1,500. She declared that this sum was reasonable and should be reduced to only the required amount since it was referred to as the librarian's "private graft."322 The librarian's last recommendations relating to state publications were embodied in her final report, which was written after she had been 53 notified by Governor Austin L. Crothers that she would not be reappointed as State Librarian. This fact should be considered, as her final recommendations, while perhaps justified, were somewhat caustic. These recommendations were preceded by a critical description, both of the preparation of these state publications and the publications themselves. Generally, she commented that they compared unfavorably with those of other states. The supervision of their preparation was ... left to the tender mercies of the State Printer or is con- fided to the care of the legislative clerk, who is usually entirely without experience in book-making requiring as it does a knowledge of make-up, composition, proofreading,. etc. 323 Further, the indexing had been done by someone without qualifications or experience. For example, the printed volume of laws pro- duced by a particular legislative session was concluded by a listing of the laws in numerical order, a survival of times when a session's laws comprised only fifty to one-hundred pages. The laws of the 1906 legislative session, for example, comprised 1,560 pages, while the numerical listing covered 113 pages. This was judged by the librarian as " ... a dreary waste, which is useful only as a refuge from bad indexing; while the index proper covers only forty-five pages."324 Another practice criticized was that of the "folding room" which the librarian termed as a " ... surviving anachronism of legislation." State law had long provided for four folders, at a salary of five dollars per day, to fold the legislative journals, as they were issued daily. In practice there were usually eight folders who did work that could be done far better, more quickly and economically on the machines that printed the journals. In general the librarian felt that the low quality of state publications was the result of lack of supervision and co-ordination in their preparation. She recommended, as a remedy for this situation, the passage of an act which would hold one person, the Secretary of State or the State Librarian, responsible for the entire preparation of state publications. This person should be held accountable for any shortcomings of the published works. Secondly, it should be required that at least two copies of all state publications should be deposited in the State Library. The short-comings of the present deposit system were evident, illustrated by the matter of Senate and House bills. No provision had ever been made for the library to receive copies of these and in order to secure needed copies it was necessary to bribe a legislative employee.325 Another subject relating to state publications was that of the JJary- land Code.s. The various editions of these Code.s, while published by a commercial publisher, were usually legalized by the state through legislative acts which in effect made the particular edition official. Further, the 54 state underwrote the publication of each edition Yia a subscription to a number of sets, usually 500 sets of each edition. While some of these sets were distributed to certain state agencies, excess copies were deposited in the State Library. Of those so deposited, the librarian was allowed to sell any that were in excess of library needs. Thus the State Library acted as an agent for the publication, while the publisher was relieved of the responsibility of carrying an excess stock of each edition much beyond the publication date. Ylrs. Jeffers objected to this procedure, especially in face of the fact that many of these excess sets remained permanent library "£xtures" with entailed storage problems. In 190-! she reported that there were a large number of 1888 Code.r still one hand, while the 1904 edition, though not yet legalized by the state, was currently being sold by the publisher. She recommended that the legislature reduce the price of this older Code, in order to unburden the library of this excess before that particular edition became obsolete. 326 The legislature took no action on this recommendation, thus in 1906 the library still had 400 sets of the older edition. These were then obsolete and worth only 3c per Yolume. In Yiew of this serious £nancial loss, caused by the state's over-subscription, the librarian recommended that the state only subscribe to such number of the 1904 Code as would satisfy various state office needs and allow a small surplus for the library.327 Again the legislature ignored .\lrs. Jeffers' recommendation and subscribed to 500 sets of this new edition at a cost of $6,000. Thus, rather critically, she reported that many of these sets would, as the 400 sets of the previous edition, crowd the library shelves with more useless volumes. m \Yorthy of £nal note regarding state publications is a report on the progress of the exchange program. The number of institutions with which the library exchanged ,vas noted as rapidly increasing in 1900. 329 The following report of 1902 noted that the work was being perfected year by year, as it became more generally understood. The number of publications issued and exchanged ,vere steadily increasing, 330 but the librarian should be made exchange agent for all state publications.331 In 1906 the librarian reported that exchange was usually in ,\ laryland's favor, as its publications were limited as compared to those of other states, but .\'laryland's publications were increasing year by year.332 .\lrs. Jeffers' administration sa,v the end of the long established procedure of the librarian acting as purchasing agent for the stationery supplies needed by the yarious government offices. This procedure, incidentally, had neve~ been regulated by law. In 1900 the librarian noted that she had effected a consid~_rable saYing in stationery purchase, a saying equal to or. exceeding that thus far spent on library improvements during her administration. This saYing was realized by contracting for 55 the total annual stationery supply; the former procedure was to make various purchases through the year according to needs. 333 Perhaps the legislators were prompted by the economy effected by this "total purchase" plan to prescribe this procedure by law. In any event, an act incor- porating this method of stationery purchase was passed in 1904. This act transferred the purchasing authority to the Board of Public Works, but still required the librarian to furnish the specifications for the materials needed. 334 However, the librarian still remained the custodian and distributing agent of these supplies. Mrs. Jeffers noted that there was much extravagence and waste in the use of supplies. This she noted both in her report of 1906335 and in that of 1908. At both times she recommended that the legislature make certain regulations governing stationery used. In the latter report she noted that the $25 stationery certificate given legislative officers and members was usually converted into cash as a perquisite of office, yet such action did not deter them from drawing the required amount of stationery.336 The phrase "Mrs. Jeffers' last report" has been used several times in the preceding discussion regarding recommendations for library improvement. The 1908 report was indeed her final report, as she had not been reappointed by Governor Crothers. This particular report contained only one indirect reference to her leaving, by the note that she wished every department of the library to be in first class condition when it was turned over to her successor in office. 337 However, the report itself was somewhat bitter in tone, and many of the short-comings of the library and its practices were rather fully discussed in those seven pages of fairly fine print. These particular criticisms have already been discussed. The fact that this last report was "bitter" is understandable in that Mrs. Jeffers had given twelve years of devoted service to the State Library and had worked industriously for its advancement. Through her efforts a card catalog had been established; two positions were added to the library staff; and the library appropriation had been more than doubled. She had attempted other reforms regarding practices which were not strictly library matters, but which very directly concerned the library. Normally such efforts would offer good reason for reappointment, but their merit seem to have been cancelled by political expediency. That Governor Crothers had failed to reappoint Mrs. Jeffers for political reasons alone is clearly indicated by copies of correspondence between these two appearing in The Library Journal of 1908. In a letter dated February 19th of that year, Governor Crothers replied to Mrs. Jeffers' application for reappointment to the position of State Librarian. This application had been accompanied by letters of recommendation from Judges of the Court of Appeals and certain legislative members, 56 which the governor referred to as being very "strong and complimentary." However, Governor Crothers contended that Mrs. Jeffers had held the position for a number of years, and that there were relatively few positions which he was authorized to fill, while there were " ... many applicants of sterling qualities, efficiency and good party record who are anxious to enjoy the honors of a public position that we are forced, as we are in your case, to gratify them by failing to reappoint officers against whom there has been no complaint."338 He further added that this decision was not intended as any personal reflection against her. Mrs. Jeffers' reply of February 24th was characteristically meticulous. She thanked the governor for his kind sentiments and tendered her resignation to take effect February 29, 1908, 10 A. M., at which time she would turn over the keys to her successor. She referred to the governor's letter and especially his phrase: " ... efficiency and good party record ..." which she felt to be incompatible with his " ... appointment of another woman, and one without training or experience in library work. .." She added that the State Library had been out of politics for twelve years, and that many states were alive to the fact that the rotation of the office of State Librarian was more detrimental to the interests of state libraries than to other departments of government. Thus their tendency was. to make the tenure of office dependent solely on the qualifications of the in- cumbant without any regard to the good of the party. She closed with the note that she was glad that " ... no personal element has entered into the matter." 339 The Library Journal article citing the above correspondence added a note concerning Miss Lynn M. Shaffer, the new State Librarian. Little information is given in the press with regard to the new incumbent. The Baltimore NewJ' of February 29 contains a note which refers to Miss Shaffer as "attractively brisk and bright of feature, and brightly and briskly attractive in form," and continuing, says: "Miss Shaffer impresses one as being fully as capable of keeping one pueJ'J'ing as is Governor Crothers, who appointed her, when a desire to learn more than she cares to con- vey is manifested by an interviewer she has a way of smiling that fully compensates one for all she does not say." No mention is made of her library experience or qualifications.340 Miss Shaffer and her five successors had a couple of things in common. Each librarian was a political appointment, meaning that the term of each generally concurred with that of the governor who made the appointment. Secondly, these librarians' reports were rather unimaginative, usually quite factual in nature, and followed the prescribed pattern of: summarizing the approximate 3,000 volume biennial acquisition by type and source; listing the various gifts to the library and their donors; and 57 giving a brief summary of such library activities as binding, staff changes, library sales of laws and Code.Y, and special library holdings or features. The concluding section of these reports, usually merely a paragraph, submitted a couple of recommendations, the most constant of which were: that the librarian be made exchange agent for all state publications, that more shelf space be provided, and that some action be taken on the matter of surplus duplicates stored in the library. While there were similarities in the administrations of Mrs. Jeffers' successors, there were also certain distinctions which justify a brief recountal of each. Miss Shaffer's accomplishments were largely a tribute to her predecessor's administrative effectiveness. First, regarding the matter of stationery waste, the Attorney General had ruled that the practice of legislators converting their stationery certificates into cash and yet drawing needed stationery was contrary to the law, and that in the future such withdrawals would be limited to a $25 value stationery certificate alone. The legislators were allowed a choice of the money, the stationery, or a combination of both, as long as the $25 limit was not exceeded.341 This wastefulness had been strongly condemned by Mrs. Jeffers, but it is uncertain if there were other factors than that which brought about this ruling which Miss Shaffer reported in her first report of 1910. At that time the latter also requested that the practice of each legislative house sup- plying a clerk to aid in stationery distribution was annoying to the library force and an unnecessary expense.342 The following report of 1912 indicated that great savings had been effected both through the Attorney General's ruling and the legislature's compliance with her previous request. 343 A second matter of note regards the ordering of supplements to the 1904 .171aryfand Code. Mrs. Jeffers had repoded that the legislature's order of 500 sets of the basic volumes were far in excess of needs. Perhaps her recommendation had some effect, as in 1908 the legislature ordered only 300 copies of the supplement. 344 Likewise there were several recommendations, strongly advocated by ""1rs. Jeffers, included in milder language in her successor's reports. Mrs. Jeffers had indicated in 1908 that an additional tier of shelving for the Law Library was imperative, and that the installation of this would be a comparatively small matter, as the framework and flooring for that tier were already in place 345 Miss Shaffer only indicated this need in her last report and then merely stated that such would alleviate congestion. 346 Again, Miss Shaffer repeated in both reports her predecessor's recommendations that there be a reduction in the number of journals and Documen!J' printed, but she failed to emphasize, as did Mrs. Jeffers, the large number of surplus duplicates that resulted from this over-printing.347 Finally, Miss Shaffer requested in both her reports that she be authorized by 58 law to supervise the printing of the ActJ' oj the General.dJ"J"emb(l/, the laws passed by each legislative session. Such supervision, she contended would effect greater savings to the state through a better co-ordination of the printing with the actual needs. 348 1\lrs. Jeffers, on the other hand, had strongly recommended that one person be held responsible for the printing of all state publications. 349 Unfortunately, Miss Shaffer's recommendations met with the same legislative inaction as did those of her predecessor. In 1912 1'liss Shaffer was replaced by Miss Sallie Webster Dorsey, who was appointed by Governor Phillips Lee Goldsborough. Only one report remains from her administration; this covers the latter two years of her term, 1914-1916. However, this report was about three times as long as either of those submitted by her predecessor, but her recommendations were similar to those submitted by 1'vlrs. Jeffers. The problems of incomplete current files of agency reports and the large number of surplus duplicates still remained. Miss Dorsey recommended that steps be taken to correct both of these matters. She had taken some action on the latter problem by asking the Library Committee to examine the congested conditions of the library storerooms. The committee made their examination and directed their own stenographer and the cataloger to roughly classify and make a list of these surplus works. This was the only step they took, as they believed they required legislative authority to act further. 350 1\liss Dorsey also asked the legislature to name all agencies which were to receive copies of each session's laws, as the current practice required the Library Committee to authorize each distribution.351 The much requested third tier of stacks for the Law Library had been installed, and 1\liss Dorsey noted that this collection had been re- shifted into permanent position during the summer of 1916. The General Collection had also been cleaned and shifted. However, the four stack sections of this collection lacked third tiers which were solicited because of the increasing number of annual additions. 352 It was noted that the general public was not allowed to withdraw books from the library, but the general interest of the collection still attracted many readers. Specifi- cally noted was the file of the ~llaryland Gazette from 1745-1840, which incidentally was the first time since 1840 that a librarian reported the extent of this file. 353 Finally, concerning finances during Miss Dorsey's term, the annual library appropriation for augmentation was reduced to $1,000 in 1912 and remained that amount for eight years. (See Appendix A). The reason for this reduction is not explained, but possibly the appropriation required for the shelving and the increase in the cataloger's salary354 made necessary the reduction in the augmentation appropriation. The cata- 59 loger's salary was increased to $1,500 which meant that his wages were equal to those of the librarian; the latter was restricted to that amount by the 1867 Constitution. In 1916 Governor Emerson C. Harrington named Miss Nettie V. Mace as a successor to Miss Dorsey. Miss Mace made no conspicious contribution to the library's development. She reiterated the problem of surplus duplicates, including texts as well as state publications in this category. Concerning the former, the state subscribed to hundreds of copies of works on law, for example in 1916 the legislature purchased copies of Conle.rt.r of Will, by Daniel C. Joseph. 855 Many of these texts were usually distributed to state courts and agencies, but a considerable number were left for deposit in the State Library. There they remained even after they were outdated or superseded. Miss Mace requested a reduction in the number of state publications ordinarily printed and bound; she had previously submitted an estimate of the needed number to the Board of Public Works.856 The legislature had, after these repeated requests, passed a law in 1916 allowing the disposal of duplicates, contingent upon Library Committee approval. The negotiatiom for this disposal required much time, and the sale itself was not reported until 1920. Using indefinite language in commenting on this transac- tion, the librarian said: "Hundreds of useless books and pamphlets were disposed of, and a goodly sum of money turned over to the Treasurer."857 She added that there were many other items that could be eliminated if the committee would approve. Concerning improvements and other recommendations during her term, she reported the addition of a table and some chairs for the convenience of the general public in their use of the General Collection. 858 She further hoped that it would be possible, in view of the public's increased use of the State Library facilities, to set aside a room for the com- fort and convenience of these users, especially considering the limited circulation privileges.359 In her first report, Miss Mace repeated Miss Dorsey's recommendation that a third tier of stacks be installed in four sections of the library. 360 However, in her last report, she altered this recommendation, in view of the high cost of steel, to request that wooden stacks be temporarily installed. Of final note is the fact that the reference librarian's salary was increased to $1,200 during her term of office. 361 This amount was probably adjusted because of increased living costs. While Miss Mace's two reports reveal little of great consequence for the State Library during her term, two legislative actions of 1916 did have great significance for the library. The first of these was the enlargement of the scope of the Department of Legislative Reference, originally created in 1906 for the city of Baltimore. By this enlargement, this 60 department did legislative research for the General Assembly, the governor, or any state agency, and aided in the drafting of any desired law. While its headquarters were then, as they are today, in Baltimore, the department maintained offices in Annapolis when the General Assembly was in session. This legislative service was, and is, implemented by an ex- tensive collection of books, pamphlets, and periodicals. 362 Through this legislative action this newly enlarged agency increased its collection so that it duplicated many of the State Library's holdings, and at the same time assumed the function of_ legislative reference which is frequently a service of a state's own library. However, only through a reorganization of Maryland's State Library, a reorganization involving the employment of a specialized staff, could the State Library have assumed this additional responsibility. Also in 1916 the State Law Department was created. This department was designed to assist the Attorney General in his labors of giving legal c~unsel to all state government departments and to Baltimore officials.363 That same year the legislature required the State Librarian to furnish books, namely laws, reports, and Code.r, upon the request of the Attorney General, to this newly established agency.364 Again, as in the case of the Department of Legislative Reference, another collection was established which in part duplicated, and yet competed, with the state's own library. Likewise, this new collection served a function which is frequently served by a state's own library. In 1920 Governor Albert C. Ritchie appointed Miss Mary Garnett McCarty as State Librarian, a position which she occupied for only two years. This short term, judging from the evidence supplied by her one report, was rather uneventful. Aside from the usual recountal of acquisitions, binding, and other items, she reported that the Law Collec- tion had been shifted to relieve congestion, 365 and submitted several recommendations. In summary she recommended that: cases should be acquired for preserving the Audubon books; the State Library should be made a depository and distributing agent for all excess departmental reports; provision should be made for the acquisition of the codes of other states when the 1924 edition of the 31aryland Code was acquired (The Department of Legislative Reference, she noted, had already acquired the codes of other states); the 1922 legislature should pass a bill authorizing the librarian, under the supervision of the Library Committee, to dispose of all surplus unneeded volumes; a third tier of stacks should be installed in four sections (An estimate of $5,600 for this work had been obtained and submitted to Governor Ritchie for inclusion on his 1922 budget.) 366 During Miss McCarty's term the salaries of the reference librarian and the cataloger were again increased. The salary of the former was 61 raised to $1,500 making it equal to that of the librarian's, while the cataloger's salary was raised to $1,700.367 The library appropriation was raised to $1,500 in 1920 and remained that for nine years. (See Appendix A) These raises, while probably prompted by increased living costs, resulted in an inequity between the librarian's salary and her staff. Pos- sibly it was for this reason that Miss McCarty left her position after only two years, as her term would not have expired until 1924 according to the appointment terms set forth in the 1867 Constitution.368 In 1922 Governor Ritchie appointed Miss Mary E. Shearn as State Librarian. Miss Shearn served in two capacities during her term of office. She was a trained nurse, and, aside from her library duties, she acted as the nurse and companion of the governor's semi-invalid mother. Until Mrs. Ritchie died, in 1930, Miss Shearn lived in the Governor's Mansion which was across the street from the library.369 Thus her salary as librarian, while fixed at $1,500, was additionally compensated by de- creased living costs and possibly supplemented by other remuneration. She remained librarian for fourteen years. During that time Miss Shearn submitted five reports: two biennial reports, two triennial reports, and one quadrennial report. None of these reports offered any conspicuous recommendations. They were concerned with accounting for library activities and conditions during this period. Each report except the last, submitted the request that the librarian be made the general exchange agent for all official publications. These recommendations were justified on the basis that other states and agencies usually addressed their publication requests to the State Library; this practice was judged as fairly uniform in other states.370 No legislative action had been taken on such recommendations to this day. During her comparatively long term of office several improvements were made in the library. The report of 1927 noted that the library had been painted and the woodwork renovated. Modern desks had been purchased while "silver ray" reading lamps were procured for the tables in the reading room. Especially noted was the acquisition of steel cases for the preservation and safeguarding of old laws and documents which " ... had been vanishing from the shelves at an alarming rate for some time past."371 This same report noted that the governor had provided for an appropriation of $5,500 for steel shelving and wiring in his budget for 1927. This had been requested in her 1924 report,372 as well as in the reports of her five predecessors. This shelving was finally installed in 1928.373 The books were subsequently rearranged to facilitate their access.374 There were two subjects of note concerning the collection. The first of these was the matter of rebinding. During her predecessor's ad- 62 ministration the augmedation fund was increased to $1,500 annually, but this increase was to coyer rebinding costs.375 The inadequacy of this sum created a large backlog of books requiring binding. This backlog was made greater by the poor storage conditions which many volumes "suffered" until adequate shelYing was installed. This binding problem prompted the librarian in 1927 to request a special appropriation of $5,000 for that purpose.376 In 1931 a special appropriation of $1,000 for each of two years, 1931 and 1932, was granted.377 The second subject of note regarding the collection was Miss Shearn's comments concerning notable acquisitions or important library holdings. The librarian was evidently interested in acquiring back files of Mary- land newspapers. In 1932 she noted that a photostat copy of the .Jlary- land Gazette for the period December 10, 1729 to 1\ovember 29, 1734 had been acquired several years before. 378 Thus, the library's file of this paper, one of the nation's oldest, was practically complete. Steps had been taken for the preservation of fiye of the most used volumes through photostating them. An appropriation in 1931 had provided for this work and the librarian hoped that photostats would eventually be made of all volumes, thus removing the originals from circulation.379 She named and indicated the extent of other library newspaper files, which, though incomplete, dated back to the early part of the nineteenth century. 380 Probably, these were the ones "discovered" and bound by 1\lrs. Jeffers in 1900.381 01iss Shearn's interest in this newspaper collection is indicated by her notation that she found an additional file of old Maryland newspapers. However, the owner of these was not willing to sell, but Miss Shearn hoped that he could be prevailed upon to sell them. 382 Possibly the librarian felt that such newspaper files were of special significance as documenting Maryland history. Other holdings or acquisitions were noted which would be valuable in historical research. A few of these were: ~Yife.s RegiJ"ter from 1811-1848, a chart of the Chesapeake Bay dated 1776, 383 a file of the Journa& of CongreJ'J' and its successors from 177 4 to date, 384 copies of letters from Chief Justice Taney to his friend William 01. Beall of Frederick, Maryland, and an original copy of the Source RecordJ" of the War Between the Statu (presented to the library by the Daughters of the Confederacy).385 There were also a number of law books and periodicals added to the library during these years. These latter additions prompted the librarian to remark that the Law Library was " ... in a more up-to-date condition than ever before during the 6 history of the Library."38 A few notes in regard to the staff will serve to conclude the discussion of Miss Shearn's administration. In 1922 the janitor's salary was for the first time specified in the legislative appropriations. The salary, by cur- 63 rent standards, was small, $240 annually.387 However, it was probably around this time that the janitor's position began to include general library duties, especially those of a shipping clerk in connection with the exchange program. It is uncertain as to the exact time when these duties became a part of this janitorial position, but they are currently the main duties of this position. Another staff position was added in 1928 by allowing an appropriation the preceding year for a charwoman. 388 The addition of this position allowed the janitor more time for previously indicated chores, and yet assured the necessary cleaning of the library. This new position almost rounded out the library staff as it exists today. It should also be noted that the 1929 report indicated the death of the cataloger, Mr. Edward G. Kenly.389 This position was filled in July 1929 by Frank P. Bassett until his death in August 1932. Mr. Nelson J. Molter was appointed to the position in September 1932. As a depression measure for a four-year period, from 1934 through 1937, the salaries of all state employees, except those fixed by the constitution, were reduced on a percentage basis. The cataloger's salary was reduced 11 % making his annual wage $1,437, while the reference librarian's salary was reduced 10% making her annual salary $1,268. The augmentation fund was reduced to $500 annually. Only the librarian's salary remained the same. 390 In 1934 Harry W. Nice replaced Governor Ritchie. Consequently in 1935 Governor Nice appointed one of his constitutents, Mr. John W. McCool, as State Librarian. Mr. McCool had had no library experience and further, lived quite a distance from Annapolis. The result of these circumstances was that the governor's appointee took no active interest in library affairs. Indeed, it might be added, that when Miss Shearn left the Library, so too, did the position of State Librarian. Another change was the replacement of Miss Francis B. Wells, who for many years had been Custodian of Works of Reference, by the appointment of a local politician, Mr. W. Hallam Claude, who not only lacked library experience but was quite deaf. These two re-appointments meant that only one experienced library staff member remained. The Library Committee, anticipating that this person, Mr. Nelson J. Molter, might also be replaced, requested that Governor Nice retain Mr. Molter in his position as cataloger. Supposedly the governor agreed to this request, but evidently some misunderstanding developed, as Governor Nice appointed Mrs. Frankie Wilson as cataloger. The Library Com- mittee, being the chief patrons of the library, stood firm to their original request of maintaining Mr. Molter as the only experienced staff member. Thus, they did not concur in the appointment. Governor Nice was rather embarrassed at this development, so he created the post of Assistant 64 Librarian to which he appointed Mrs. Wilson. However, the Assistant Librarian's office was short-lived, as the next session of the General As- sembly failed to approve an appropriation for that position. Thus for the remaining two years of Governor Nice's term, the library was virtually managed by the cataloger. Only one report was issued during Mr. McCool's term; this covered his first two years. This report, as those of his predecessors, was addressed to the Library Committee. It noted various distributions made by the librarian and various additions to the library, but offered little worthy of comment, save that an inventory had been made of the library holdings in 1936. This inventory disclosed that the library held 108,000 books including state publications. An examination of the insurance on the entire contents of the library revealed that there was only a $50,000 policy covering the collection; a new policy was secured which included a Fine Arts Insurance to adequately insure the library's rare books against theft as well as fire. This new policy made a total coverage of $262,400.391 During Mr. McCool's administration the emergency salary cuts of the depression years were dropped. In 1937, that is for the fiscal years 1938 and 1939, the appropriations for library salaries were for the most part returned to their former status. However, the cataloger's salary was increased to $2,000 which was a $300 increase over the pre-depression salary and $500 more than that of the State Librarian's. 392 In 1939 the act authorizing the governor to appoint a cataloger was repealed and re-enacted. This new act created the new position of Law Librarian, who was to be appointed by the Library Committee and to perform such duties as required by that Committee. This law did not set the salary of this post; it merely indicated that the Law Librarian would receive such salary as would be provided by the state budget. 393 The committee appointed Mr. Molter, previously the cataloger, to this new office. This act thus assured a continuity of office of a major administrative library position. From 1939 to 1959 the office of State Librarian, with its salary limitations in the face of changed economic conditions, had become merely a nominal position.

65 CHAPTER V Summary and Conclusions

The Maryland State Library has had a long and interesting history. The statistical comparison given in Appendix B indicates that this Mary- land institution was established in a decade when many of the early states were establishing their state libraries. The statistics relative to volumes held in 1891, the earliest date for which such statistics could be found, and 1939, the terminal date of this study are probably not a valid comparison of the Maryland institution with others. This is a rather obvious conclusion in face of the fact that Maryland reported 100,000 volumes in 1891, while in 1904 the holdings were only 40,000 exclusive of duplicates. However, the comparisons are still interesting and especially those regarding the annual appropriations for various state libraries. If we were to adjust the 1891 Maryland volume report to 35,000 and assume that the other statistics were more nearly accurate, we might yet conclude that the Maryland State Library did not progress as rapidly as did many similar institutions. While this paper has not pretended to evaluate the Maryland State Library, least of all to compare it with similar institutions of other states, it would yet seem appropriate via this summary to point out certain features of the Maryland institution which are probably not common to many of the larger state libraries. The Maryland State Library probably had as notable a beginning as that of any other state. Its frrst librarian, David Ridgely, established exchange routines with other institutions, acquired certain "landmark" books as well as materials relevant to the history of the state, developed the Law Library, and helped to establish the idea that the State Library should be the depository for all state publications and papers. Unfortunately, certain obstacles hindered the library's progress after this excellent beginning. Probably the primary obstacle was the fact that his successors were mostly political appointees. These librarians generally attempted to continue the procedures established by the first librarian. However, their terms of office usually being limited to a four-year period, their interest in the library was not that of a career occupation. The 1848 law, providing for legislative election of the State Librarian for a two-year term, removed the position from gubernatorial control, 66 but it did not succeed in removing the position from the political arena. While legislative committees had partly supervised the library from its beginning, the 1848 la,v meant that the library and the librarian were brought directly under legislative control until 1867. During this period the librarian's position became burdened by additional duties delegated to it by the legislature. The delegation of these duties resulted from the fact that the librarian's position continued the year around, while the legislature ordinarily met only every other year. This nineteen-year period was a time in which the librarian was responsible for supervising the capital's buildings and grounds; the duties connected with the procurement of stationery supplies then became an important part of the librarian's job. In 1864 a new state constitution was made providing for the election of a librarian by joint legislative vote for a four-year period. This provision was short-lived, as a new state constitution ,vas framed in 1867 which again brought the office of librarian under gubernatorial appointment, but provided that such should be with the advice and consent of the Senate. This Constitution, limited the State Librarian's salary to $1,500 and prohibited the payment of additional money for assistance to the librarian. ".\bout the time of the framing of this Constitution, various officials of the three branches of the state goverpment made critical comments of the State Library and its condition. Perhaps such criticism prompted this "new" method of selecting a librarian. Certainly these various library inadequacies did prompt two laws, one of 1868 and another of 1870. Both of these made the Judges of the Court of Appeals responsible for supervising the library's augmentation appropriation and for drawing up rules to regulate the library's management. A number of improvements were made as a result of this committee's actions and recommendations, but, unfortunately, continued library progress hinged upon the interest of this committee's members in the library's welfare, not upon the selection of able librarians. Consequently, around 1890, when there was a change of committee membership, the new members, as evidenced by the large unexpended augmentation balance reported in 1894, did not seem to be as interested in the library's welfare as were their predecessors. Fortunately, the library was again rejuvenated in 1896 by the appointment of >lrs. Anne Burton Jeffers. Her twelve-year administration initiated the modern library period with the establishment of a card catal~g, the move of the library to its present quarters, the increase in staff in.em- bers, and in increase in the annual library appropriation. Unfortunately, these progressive measures were not as vigorously pursued by her successors. The shortness of their terms and /or the limitation of their 67 salaries tended to exclude trained librarians from the position. This situation was in effect terminated in 1939 when the position of Law Li- brarian was created. The act creating this position practically delivered that post from politics by granting the Library Committee, consisting of Judges of the Court of Appeals, the appointing power over that position. Finally one other factor helps to explain why the Maryland State Library did not develop as rapidly as did larger state libraries in general. This explanation lies in the state support or establishment of agencies which have book collections that are often a part of state libraries. Illus- trative of this are the Department of Legislative Reference, the Mary- land Historical Society and the Division of Library Extension; all of these have collections that are frequently incorporated in a state's own library. The establishment of such collections in Maryland's "other capital", Baltimore, has naturally detracted from the purposes of the Maryland State Library as originally stated at the time of its founding: that is, for the use of the legislature. The Maryland State Library offers its services to various government departments and to the public, but its holdings and services are primarily geared to fit the needs of the Court of Appeals and to the members of the Bar who practice before that Court.

SUMMARY OF EVENTS SINCE 1939 Since 1939 there were three State Librarians; their terms have generally paralleled those of the governor who appointed them. Mr. McCool was succeeded by Robert F. Leach, Jr. who was appointed by and served under Governor Herbert R. O'Conor from 1939-1946. Mr. Leach died in August 1946; the remaining year of his unexpired term was not filled. In 1947 Gertrude E. Horigan was named librarian by William Preston Lane, Jr. who had been elected governor. She was replaced in 1951 by Mrs. Louise Couper, who was appointed by Governor Theodore Roosevelt McKeldin and served as State Librarian during both of McKeldin's terms, 1951-1959. Mrs. Couper became in fact the last State Librarian. The Consti- tutional Amendment of 1867 regulating the appointment and pay of this position was abolished by the election of 1958. * The post had become, because of economic changes in the face of its static salary, merely a nominal office. Its formal abolition embodied in law that which had already been in effect for almost the past quarter of a century. From 1939 to the present, the library has been directed by the Law Librarian, advised by a three-member Library Committee. This committee, consisting of Judges of the Court of Appeals, legally has the super- * Laws 1958, Chapter 97. 68 visory responsibility. In June 1955 the position title of Law Librarian was changed to Director of the State Library, which title more accurately describes the duties of this post. There are currently three members of the library staff. Mr. Nelson Molter is the Director and has two assistants, each bearing the title of Assistant Librarian. Mrs. Evelyn 0. Burrows occupies one of these positions that was created in July 1947. She is responsible for maintaining and cataloging the General Reference Collection. The other position has been filled since 1952 by Mrs. Ruth D. Burton, who is also secretary to Mr. Molter. She keeps the exchange aq:ount records, catalogs law books, and is responsible for library book- keeping. The position especially requires her to assist patrons in the Law Section. The library's collection today numbers approximately 112,000 volumes of which around 75,000 pertain to law while the remainder are of a general nature. Audubon' .r Bird.r of America, the files of the 3/aryland Gazette and the Baltimore Sun, publications of the English Record Com- mission of 1831, and the file of Documenf.r of U. S. Congre.r.r Serial Number Serie.r, are a few of the conspicuous holdings to which the library staff proudly point. The current annual acquisition rate is approximately: 1,000 bound volumes, 10,000 pamphlets (including supplementary and upkeep services) and 125 periodical titles. Naturally, materials on law receive the main acquisition emphasis, the ratio being about three items on law to one in all other fields. The present shelving capacity is around 120,000 volumes, but according to Mr. Molter, additional space will not be required for ten or fifteen years. Future expansion needs will be partly met through the removal of superseded or out-of-date works, and by the installation of additional shelving. The current library budget, aside from salaries, is approximately $8,500 annually. Of this total about $5,500 is used for the purchase of books, periodicals and for periodical binding. The remainder of this fund is allocated for rebinding, replacement and upkeep of equipment and the purchase of various library supplies. For the past several years this fund has allowed for a "restoration project" which was initiated at Mr. Molter's request. This project, as its name implies, has as its goal the renewal of several thousand damaged books to good useable condition. This work entails the oiling, treating, mending, etc. of books needing repairs. As previously noted, several General Catalogs of library holdings have been prepared during its existence. A departure from this general catalog was undertaken in 1954. At that time Mr. Molter assisted by Mrs. Ruth D. Burton prepared a Catalog of Law Book.r (A Selected Li.rt) Including a Brief Hi.rtory of the Library. This catalog was arranged 69 by types and classes of law books. It made prov1s1on through blank spaces and pages for the addition of new titles as added to the collection. This compendium was well received by the judges and lawyers who are continually using the State Library. In 1958 a revised and enlarged edition of this catalog was published and included an author index. For the many state officials, and the general public, the State Library is an important "information center".

70 APPENDIX A APPHOPIUATION8 FOH MAHYLAND STATE LIBHAHY CONTINGENT AND AUGMENTATION FUNDS }'F,/R C'Ol\'J'/.W,'f,:.\''f' Ff'i\'f) }'/UR ,/f'(,'.l/H.\''f',/J'/0.\' Ff'.\"!) 184:'i- 18:,1 $ (i() 1827 -- 18,';2 $ 200 18:'i2--18:'i3 700 I 83,1 - 18:"7> !iOO 1854-)8()1. I ,,c;oo 18:,4 -18:'i(J 5,552 18(i2-)8(J9 l,:'iOO l8:'i7 - 18<>0 GOO 1870--1871. :,00 18(>1 1872. .. hOO 18(>2 GOO 1873-1877.... :,00 18(),) 1878. ,17:'i 1864- 18(,(J 1,000 1879-188(> GOO 18h7 400 1887* ... :,00 18h8-18h9 I , 000 --1904* (J[i0 1870-1871 2,000 190:'i 9:'iO 1872-1874 .. 2,500 190(> GOO 187:'i .. 1907-1908 9:'iO 187(>-)877 2,500 -:i,..... 1909 GOO 1878. 1,87.'i 19IO %0 1879-1894 2,500 1911. GOO 18%--18% I 1912 %0 1897-1902 1,000 1913 500 I 90,1 -- I 91 l 2,500 1914 %0 1912-1919 1,000 1915 .. GOO 1920-1928 1,500 1916-1917. 7.'iO 1929-1932 2,500 1918-1919 1,:,00 193,1-I 9,1(> 1,670 1920-1921 1.100 19,17-19,18 2,000 1922-1923 8(>() 19.'>9 2,!iOO 1924- 192(> 7(>0 1927... (,,260 1928 760 1929-1930 %0 1931-19.',2 l,!iOO 1933-19.14 .. 97.'i 1935-19,)(J !iOO 1937-1939 (J!i()

* For this period, odd years' appropriations--$500. even years' appropriations--- $650. ABBREVIATIONS USED IN APPENDIX B Archs .... . ·····-···-···-•··-···•··Archives C ...... _ _ ····-····Approximately Ct...... ·- ... Court Hist ...... History inc ...... includes Leg...... _ ----·--·.Legislative n.d ... •-----·-·- ...... no date mags ...... _.. . _ _ --· -·· -··magaz1nes pams .... _ -·· -- ••··················· ...... pamphlets S.L.C.... . ··- ...... State Library Commission Sup ...... ··-······-·Supreme Terr.·····-··--········--···-······------··--··--·-········-··························· --··-··-•-·········Territory

72 APPENDIX B STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF ALL STATE LIBRARIES

Volume Holding,r Reported ,lmounl Expended Slate I Library Location I Year of ' Founding2 1 2 3 2 3 . I 1849 I 1891 I 1939 1891 I 1939

Alabama_·-·-----····------1 Montgomery __ .... ·-···------········-·····------1828 ------17,626 75,000 ------I $1,200 Dept. of Archs ...... ______n.d. ------200,000 Arizona ______\ Prescott Terr. L, ______1864 5,000 Phoenix ______...... ______n.d. ------I I 19,809 I ------21,400 (Dept. of L. and Archs.)

ArkansaS------········-----1 Little Rocle. __ .. --·-·-·-·--·-···-············-•-····1846 ------51,000 ------$100 S.L.C. ______··-···············--··-··-···· n.d. 8,130 ------9,000 Sup. Ct. L•--·-······-·-----···--···-···--·--··-······· n.d. ------34,500 ------2,000 -:t c,.:i California.. -·--···-···-···-······ Sacramento·------·----··------1852 ------85,000 465,482 ------16,900 Colorado .. ______Denver·-···-·····-·-··--·------·------·--- 1873 11,369 250,000 ------2,025 Sup. Ct. L. ______1872 6,000 60,715 500 8,000

Connecticut ______. ______Hartford ______1854 3,000 15,000 350,000 ------12,258 Delaware______Dover______1830 4,000 21,000 75,000 400 3,550 (inc. Law Books only)

Florida ______······---··---·-····-- Tallahassee______1845 2,000 12,500 15,200 1,650 Georgia ______Atlanta ______1825 45,000 82,896 ------3,596 Idaho ______Boise ______1863 5,000 75,000 (State Law L.) 34,590 I I 16,000 pams and mags. Illinois ______[ Springfield ... 1818 4,000 38,000 I 286,487 1,500 34,000 Sup. Ct. L. ______\ ::::: __ 1837 I 8,000 60,000 I ------I 5,000 APPENDIX B-Continued STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF ALL STATE LIBRARIES-Continued

I Volume Holding., Reported Amount Expended Stale I Library Location I Year of Founding 2 1 2 3 2 3 1849 1891 1939 I 1891 I 1939

Indiana...... __! Indianapolis ...... 1825 7,000 20,832 188,425 2,000 12,585 Sup. Ct. Law L...... 1867 ------17,000 52,397 ------15,000

Des Moines ...... 1838 1,600 44,500 244,021 3,000 10,458

Kansas ...... Topeka...... 1862 ------27,450 160,000

Kentucky ...... Frankfort ...... 1821 9,000 80,000 150,000 Law and Leg. L. .... n.d. ------25,450 ------15,000 I I Louisiana ...... New Orleans ...... 1838 ------41,000 -;t Baton Rouge ...... ------n.d. 7,000 ------39,086 ------16,369 (L. C.) Maine ...... ------Augusta ...... 1820 9,000 40,000 250,000 4,500 8,190

1Vlar_vland ..... ------Annapolis 1826 15,000 100,000 110,000 2,500 2,000

Massachusetts ...... Boston ...... ------1826 7,400 73,324 587,952 4,991 8,174

Michigan ...... Lansing...... ------.. 1828 4,400 55,000 286,817 8,000 11,875 87,160 p ams. 5,186m aps Minnesota...... St. Paul...... ··! 1849 ----.. --- 20,679 150,000 2,000 11,000 Mississippi ...... Jackson .. 1836 4,637 60,000 62,000 500 14,000

Missouri ...... Jefferson Ci iy 1829 ------20,000 66,640 4,000

Montana ...... Helena 1881 ------7,200 70,000 ------3,500 (Law L.) Nebraska ... Lincoln. ------1867 ------22,851 107,000 4,549 5,000

Ne,·ada.... ------Carson City ...... 1865 ------26,000 200,000 624 10,000 APPENDIX H--Continucd STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF ALL STATE LIBRARIES Continued

T'olumc llold,11.11,r R, porfrd ,'lmo1111{ R.t·pendcd Stale l1hn11:11 f,o/'alion Year oJ --~1- l•i,1111di11,q 2 ]8--J!)I 1891 2 I ~9:i -l-~8')~ j')J')3 -----1-----

New Hampshire ______j Concord. 1819 4,700 30,000 188,547 3,024 4,958 New Jersey. ______[ Trenton .. 1822 5,000 38,586 150,000 3,635 4,000

New Mexico Santa Fe ---······- 1850 4,500 33,332 2,350 (Law L.-originally Terr. L.) ______9,107 2,047

New York __ _ J\lbanv .. 1818 23,274 157,114 751,774 10,.3.16 47,629 Law C 1818 ------45,982 315,000 3,000 North Carolina Raleigh 1822 30,000 49,090 5,743 Oater inc. S. L. C.) ....::i 01 Sup. Ct. L._ 1812 ., ..... 9,449 36,241 1,090 7,024 North Dakota . Bismarck 1865 3,IOO 19,500 1,500 (later inc. S. L. C.) Law L ... 1890 ------27,000 3,748 Ohio Columbus __ 1817 12,500 63,500 629,000 1,873 40,000 Sup. Ct. Law L.. n.d. 61,400 500

Okhhoma .. Oklahoma City n.d. -----··· 103,000 10,000 Oregon .. Salem ______1850 17,000 382,646 2,500 8,850 Sup. Ct. L. .. n.d. ---- 56,000 7,500 Penns.vlvania __ Harrisburg. __ _ 1790 10,000 60,000 375,000 7,500 12,000 (L. and Museum)

Rhode Island __ Providence __ n.d. ------80,000 13,100 Law L. 1868 ------12,000 52,000 4,000. South Carolina .. Columbia. n.d. 3,000 36,000 125,000 Sup. Ct. Law L. ______n.d. ----···· 5,000 19,419 1,200 APPENDIX B-Continued STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF ALL STATE LIBRARIES-Continued

T"olumc lloldin.lJ,I' Rcporfrd ,l11w11nt R.rpcndcd Stale Library l,ocalion I Year oj I ----- Foundinp2 ]8.fl)l ]81)]2 ]'}Jl)3 ]81)]2 I J'}Jl)3 --- South Dakota. ------1 Pierre...... __ .... ------n.d. 10,000 1,000 (Lib. and Hist. Soc.) Sup. Ct. Law L .. n.d. ------25,714 3,884 Free L. Commission .... n.d. 29,476 2,500 Tennessee...... -1 Nashville .. 1854 8,000 30,000 280,000 I , 000 4,500 Texas...... _. Austin __ ------1846 1,000 10,000 31,000 .'>,500 2,000 Sup. Ct. L. L. and Hist. Comm ... ···---- n.d. ------193,614 7,500

-:i Utah ...... Salt Lake City...... _ ...... 1852 4,000 27,000 (Law L.) Vermont...... Montpelier...... 1825 3,500 26,089 140,000 800 5,000 Virginia ...... Richmond ...... 1823 14,000 50,000 293,050 313 5,060 Law L ...... 1823 ------9,429 48,000 7,500 Washington .... ------I Olympia ...... ___ ...... 1856 16,021 65,000 2,000 West Virginia ------Charleston ...... ____ ------186.) 6,000 Law L...... n.d. ------90,000 ------4,000 Dept. Archs. and Hist. . __ ___ ...... n.d. ------80,000 ------25,550 \Visconsin ...... Madison ...... ------1836 4,000 24,735 99,000 2,000 5,400 Wyoming. ------Cheyenne ... ------1869 14,000 135,000 7,19'.) (Law L.)

I Charles C. Jewct1., Nolicu oj Public l,ihrarie.r in !he f.'niled Stalc.r oj d111crim (\Vashington: Smithsonian Institution, I 'l5 l ), , .. p.* 2U. S. Bureau of Education, Stati.rlic.r oj Public l,ihrarie,1' in the { 1nilcd Stale.,· and Canada, comp. by \Veston Flint, Statistician of the Bureau of Education (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1893), v.p.* 3,:/merimn l,ihrar:i; Direclo,:11, 1939, comp. b,v Karl Brown (New York: R.R. Bowker Co., 19.39), v.p.* *Each figure given would require a different page citation, thus the general reference, v.p., various pages. COUNT15.R ,--, rJ U'-0" I • w ul I % ,JI I II.I u uJ I z Ill L ___I ill' Ill ft 1 II.lo LA.1' II.I It •I

SC.ALE r,~ .. •I '-o• ROOll'IS '2'1~'-" C£11,.1.._,4 HE.IC.HTS

77 Kl IS (

0 I 1- ~,r ------GEN 'L C.OLL CT lOk & # I t- ill 11..I Ill (I

II) ~,IJ ., ~EJ~LC.ON'I Ill L __ "'iJ) I I 1 I

SHlPPINC, ~N\.

sC.A.l-E" ½~"=I '-o L ROO S - 2 3 ' - b" C. EI L I N " \.4~1(iHTS,

00 0

· the Court oj /lppeals Building The lliain Entrance to the State Library is at the jar

The General Collection and Readinq Room. Tfze Steel to the n~qht of the entrance coniain,r the valuable file of The .171aryland vu,,;,c,,,

APPENDIX C

STATE LIBRARIANS

DAVID RIDGELL·······------.... 1827-1842 tJ. H. T. MAGRUDER...... -· _____ .... 1842-1845

RICHARD SWANN.... ·-···-·- . --·-·1845-1852 HENRY E. BATEMAN...... -._ ... _1852-1853

WILLIAM HARWOOD ...... -- ..... 1853-1857

THOMAS J. MARSHALL._····- _ _ --··. 1857

LLEWELLYN BOYLE ...... --·--- _ ··- .... 1857-1861

E. M. SHIPLEY ...... ·-··-··--·-·-- _ --- .. _.1861-1863

H. P. JoRDAN ...... ·-······· .. -····-1863-1868 HENRY A. SILVER...... 1868-1870 tJoHN H. T. MAGRUDER .. ______... _ 1870-1880

EDMUND P .... DUVAL.. .. -... _ --- -··-·--··-·1880-1892

LUTHER H. GADD ...... --•------··---·-·---·.1892-1896 MRS. ANNE BURTON JEFFERS .. •-·- .. __ .. 1896-1908

Miss LYNN:M. SHAFFER ...... __ ... _1908-1912

Miss SALLIE WEBSTER DoRSEY...... __ 1912-1916

Miss NETTIE V. MACE .. ··············- .... 1916-1920 Miss MARY GARNETT McCARTY .. ··--····1920-1922 Miss MARY E. SHEARN.. __ .. --·- ____ -·•-•.1922-1935

JoHN W. McCooL. ... •-····--·--- _ ____ .. _.1935-1939 ROBERT F. LEACH, JR...... -· .... -.1939-1946* GERTRUDE E. HoRIGAN .... -. _...... 1947-1951

LomsE E. CouPER·--·-······-- _. -······1951-1959**

t See footnote 243. * Died in 1946. ** Office abolished by Chapter 97, Acts of 1958. Constitutional amendment approved by referendum November 4, 1958.

85 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FOOTNOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

# Md. # ______Maryland Court of Appeals, Reports. Comm______Committee. Const. Conv. ______Constitutional Convention. Dels. ______Delegates. Exec. ______Executive. House JrL ______Journal of the House of Delegates. Journal of the proceedings of the House of Delegates. J t. ______Joint. Laws______Laws made and passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland. Laws of the State of Maryland made and passed at a session of the General Assembly begun and held at Annapolis. Libr. ______Library. Md. Pub. Doc. ______Maryland Public Documents. MHR ______Maryland Hall of Records. Ops. Att'y. Gen. ______Opinions of Attorney General. Procs. ______Proceedings. Pub. Bldgs. ______Public Buildings. RCL ______Report of the Committee on the Library. RCSL _ _ Report of the Committee on the State Library. RJCL ______Report of the Joint Committee on the Library. RSL ______Report of the State Librarian RSLJCL ______Report of the State Librarian to the Joint Com- mittee on the Library. Rep.______Report. Resol. ______Resolution. Sen. ______Senate. Sen. Jrl. _____ Journal of the Proceedings of the Senate. Sess. ______Session.

86 FOOTXOTES lHouse Jrl. 1803, p. Ti. 2The .'laryland Gazette, Dec. 29, 1803, p. 3. 3House J rl. 1826, p. 7. -!Ibid., p. 89. 5Jbid. 6 Ibid., pp. 90-91. 7lbid., pp. 119, 122, 123. BJbid., p. 138. 9Jbid., pp. 180-181. l0Jbid., p. 101. lllbid., pp. 181, 483. 12lbid., pp. 529-532. Sen. Jrl. 1826, pp. 183-186. 13L. H. Gadd, ''Sketch' of the .\laryland State Library," Catalogue of the .\laryland State Library, 1895 (Annapolis: .\laryland Republican Steam Print; 1895), p. III: 14flouse Jrl. 1827, pp. 77-79. · 1·5"RJCSL", Feb. 4, 1842 (Annapolis: Wm. Johnston, 1842), p. 6. · (.vld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1841, Document "D"). · 16 "RSLJCL", Jan. 1, 1837, p. 8. (,\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1836). 17House Jrl. 1828,cp; 501. 1s"RSLJCL", Jan. 1833 (Annapolis: J. Hughes, 1833), p. 10. (.\ld. Pub. Doc.

Dec. Sess. 1832 1• 19House Jrl. 183t p. 10: 2o"RSLJCL", Jan. 1833, p. 5. (.\ld. Puhl Doc. Dec. Sess. 1832). 2lflouse Jrl. 1831,-p. '107. 22Sen. Jrl. 1828;pp': 114, 202, 298. 23House J rl. 1829, pp: 34;' 576. 24House Jrl. 1830, p:·209.' 25Ibid., p. 209. ~')}?V_iJ·~ 26House J rl. 1833; pp:'67, 211-212, 519, 564. 27"RSLJCL", Jan:, :-1835, p. 14. (.\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1834). 2s1bid., p. 15. 29Jbid., pp. 18-19. 30House J rl. 1834; p.-,H5. 31Carroll T. Bond/ The Court of Appeals -of .\laryland, A History 1(Baltimore: Barton-Gillet Co., 1928)n_:i: -l87. 32House Jrl. 1829, pp. 350, 490, 513, 326, 406-407, 435. 33House Jrl. 1831,'p.·Hl. 34lbid. 35"RJCSL", Jan., 1833 (.\nnapolis: J. Hughes, 1833), p: 3. (.\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1832). 36 Ibid. 3 7 House J rl. 1831; ·v, 11112.- 38 Ibid. 39Jbid. pp. 177, 192,196,305,407. 40House Jr!. 1832, pp·.-4O5, 406, 417, 430, 445, 610, 612, 634. 41House Jr!. 1831, p. 112. 42"RSLJCL", Jan. 1833, op. cit., pp. 8-10. 43"RSLJCL", Jan. 1, 1834 (Annapolis: J. Hughes, 1834), p. 4. (,\ld. Puhl Doc. Dec. Sess., 1833). . . 44"RSLJCL", Jari!.1835-:;p. 7. L\ld. Puhl Doc. Dec. Sess. 1834J. 45lbid., p. 7-8. :, t.· 46lbid.,-p. 17. 47House Jr!. 1835, pJ 314. 48House Jrl. 1831, p. 108. 49 Ibid. so"RJCSL", Feb. 1835, p. 3. (,\ld. Puhl Doc. Dec. Sess. 1834) .. 51House Jrl. 1827, p. 569. 87 52Laws, 1829, Resol. 68. 53Laws, 1831, Resol. 9. 54House Jrl. 1835, pp. 400, 407. 55"RSLJCL", Jan. 1833, op. cit., p. 8. 56 Ibid., p. 7. ·01Laws, 1832, Chap. 279. 58House J rl. 1833, p. 18. 59"RSLJCL", Jan. 1, 1834, op. cit., p. 7. sorbid. 61"RJCSL", Jan. 1834 (Annapolis: J. Hughes, 1834), p. 3. (,\ld. Pub(Doc. Dec. Sess., 1833). 62"RSLJCL", Jan. 1835, op. cit., p. 5. 63Jbid., p. 6. 64lbid. 65"RJCSL", Feb. 1835, op. cit., p. 2. 66lbid., p. 1. 6 7David Ridgely, Annals of Annapolis (Baltimore: Cushing and Brothers, 1841), pp. 234-235. 68"RJCSL", Feb. 1835, op. cit., p. 2. 69"RJCSL", Jan. 30, 1838, p. 3. (,vld. Puhl Doc. Dec. Sess. 1837, Doc. ".\1"). 70 ,\lHR, Librarian's correspondence, 1835, p. 330. Mr. Ridgely corresponded with Matthew St. Claire Clarke and Peter Force on the results of his search for important historical documents. A copy of the librarian's letter to these men, dated September 28, 1835, reveals that he had examined all of the offices and places of deposit for old records with the exception of the Treasury vaults; a list of his findings is given with an indication of the physical condition of each. ,.\,lr. Ridgely copied many of these important documents for purposes of preservation. One large folio volume of his work is still on file in the ,\laryland Hall of Records. 71 House J rl. 1832, pp. 89, 536. In 1833 the legislature ordered the printing of five hundred copies of a narrative by Colonel Edmund Scarborough. This narrative of a 1663 expedition, that had been sponsored by the colony of Virginia, evidently contained much material pertinent to colonial ,\ laryland history. 72"RSLJCL", Jan. 1, 1837, p. 7-8. (Md. Publ Doc. Xov. Sess. 1836). 73House Jrl. 1836, p. 171. 74House Jrl. 1838, pp. 162-163. 75,.vlHR, Librarian's correspondence, 1838. Letter from David Ridgely to Dr. John Ridout dated March 22, 1938. Letter indicates that the Joint Committee on the State Library has authorized the Librarian to offer five hundred dollars for the purchase of these documents. 76"RJCL on the manuscript relating to the early history of the state", Feb. 6, 1840, pp. 1-16. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1839). 7 7House J rl. 1838, pp. 421, 685. 78House Jrl. 1839, p. 337. 79The file of the Maryland Gazette became the property of the State Library through a judgement levied on William S. Green in 1847. The latter had received this file as an heir of Jonas Green and had, as a clerk of Anne Arundel County, failed to satisfactorily settle his accounts with the Treasurer of the State. Laws, 1847. 80"RJCSL", Jan. 30, 1838, op. cit., p. 4. 81House Jrl. 1839, p. 5. 82"RSLJCL", Jan. 1, 1837, op. cit., p. 9. 83House Jrl. 1838, pp. 511, 552. 88 s.;"RJCSL", Dec. Sess., 1840, Feb. 19, 1841, p. 7. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess., 1840, Doc. No. 14). 85 "RJCSL", Jan. 1840, p. 5. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1839). 86 MHR, Letter from David Ridgely to Fielding Lucas, Oct. 19, 1841. State Librar,y papers found among Adjutant General papers, 1840-1841. 87House Jrl. 1839, p. 332. 88 "RSL", Jan. 1, 1842 (Annapolis: Wm. Johnston, 1842), pp. 6-7 (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1841, Document "D"). 89 Niles National Register, LXI (January 29, 1842), p. 340. 9 O,\1HR, Letter from David Ridgely to Governor Pratt, Oct. 5, 1844. Executive papers 1844-1846. 91 "Exec. Procs. of the Sen. of Md., at Dec. Sess. 1841", p. 16. (Sen. Jrl. 1841). 92 1bid., p. 58. 93House Jrl. 1841, p. 428. 9.;House Jrl. 1842, pp. 457-458, 597, 646. 95Jbid., pp. 75, 133. 96House Jrl. 1843, p. 501. 97 "Rep. of the State Librarian relative to the augmentation of the Libr.", Jan. 27, 1845, p. 5. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1844, Doc. "L"). 98House Jrl. 1843, p. 375. 99"Rep. of the State Librarian ..." Jan. 27, 1845, op. cit., p. 5. l00Jbid. 1 O1,\ lHR, "Exec. Papers for 1845". 102Jbid. Letter to Thomas Swann from James Iglehart, Jan. 11, 1845. 103 Ibid. Letter to Gov. Thomas Pratt from James Iglehart, Jan. 20, 1845. 10.J,"Exec. Procs. of the Sen. of Md., Dec. Sess. 1844", pp. 53, 60. I05Sen. Jr!. 1844, pp. 81, 184. 106"RJCL", Feb. 26, 1850, p. 4. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1849, Doc. "Q"). IO 7House J rl. 1849, p. 504. IOB"RSL", Jan. 14, 1846, p. 3. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1845, Doc. "B"). 10 9"Rep. of the Comm. of the House of Deis. on the Libr.", Mar. 8, 1948, p. 3. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1847). llO"RSL", Jan. 19, 1850, pp. 7-8. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1849, Doc. "Q"). 11 1 "Rep. of the Comm. of the Sen. on the Md. State Libr.", Apr. 3, 1852, p. 5. (Sen. J rl. 1852, Doc "F"). 112"RSL", Jan. 19, 1850, pp. 7, 9. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1850). ll 3House J rl. 1847, p. 370. Mr. Swann was elected by the General Assembly approximately a month after the law of 1848 was passed. Three years after the passage of this law, a new State Constitution was framed. This Constitution had the same provision relative to the election of the librarian as did the law passed in 1848, however, the 1851 Constitution further stipulated that the librarian's salary should be limited to $1,000 annualiy. (Const. Conv. 1851, Art. VII. Sec. 7). 114Laws, 1847, Chap. 53. ll-0"RSL", Jan. 19, 1850, op. cit., pp. 6-7. ll 6House J rl. 1849, p. 504. 117"Rep. of the Comm. of the Sen. on the Md. State Libr.", Apr. 3, 1852, op. cit., p. 5. 11 BHouse J rl. 1845, pp. 172, 256. 11 9 Ibid., pp. 367, 368-369, 411. 120House Jr!. 1853, p. 601. 121 "Rep. of the Comm. of the Sen. on the Md. State Libr.", Apr. 3, 1852, op. cit., p. 5. 89 12 2"RSL", Jan. 15, 1848, p. 6. (Md. Publ Doc. Dec. Sess. 1847, Doc. "V"). 123House Jr!. 1852, p: 70. ,, l 1·i'., 12 4·'Rep. of the Comm. of the Sen. on the Md. State Llhr:", May 28, 1853, p. 4. (Sen. Doc. "L", Jan., Sess. 1853). 125House Jr!. 1852, pp. 238, 553, 648. 12 6House J rl. 1853, p. 572. 12 7lbid., p. 573. 128Ibid., p. 601. 129House Jr!. 1853, p. 574. 130"RJCL", Mar. 6, 1854, p. 4. (Sen. Doc. "I", J'an. Sess:·1854). 13l"RSL", Jan. 1, 1854, p. 5. (Sen. Doc. "I", Jan. Sess. 1854). 132Jbid. 133fo 1856 the legislature did pass an act authorizing the newly elected State Librarian Llewellyn Boyle to direct the repair and furnish'ihg-of the State Library and to have the room adjoining the Court of Appeals fittect' utf a~'a consultation room. This act allowed an appropriation of $900 for the execution or this project and specifically named Mr. Boyle, the librarian-elect, as the diredb:r of 'this work. No action was taken on this law as Mr. Boyle did not actually takeplied the writer with thi, information. 370"RSL", 1922-1924 (Annapolis: Evening Capital-Maryland Gazette Press [1924?]), p. 7. 37l"RSL", 1924-1927 [no imprint], p. 8. a12"RSL", 1922-1924, op. cit., p. 7. 373"RSL", 1927-1929 [no imprintl, p. 10. 374"RSL", 1929-1932 [no imprintl, p. 6. 375Laws, 1920, Chap. 487. 376"RSL", 1924-1927, op. cit., p. 8. s 11"RSL", 1929-1932, op. cit., pp. 7-8. 378Conversation with Mr. Nelson J. .\lolter. 379"RSL", 1929-1932, op. cit., p. 7. aso1bid. 381Supra, p. 47. as2"RSL", 1929-1932, op. cit., p. 7. asaibid., pp. 7-8. 384"RSL", 1933-1934 [no imprint], p. 8. 385lbid., pp. 5-6. 386Jbid., p. ,. 387Laws, 1922, Chap. 500. 388Laws, 1927, Chap. 654. as9"RSL", 1927-1929, op. cit., p. 11. 390Laws, 1935, Chap. 92. 391 "RSL", 1935-1936 [no i'Tiprint], p. 8. 392Laws, 193,, Chap. 515. 393Laws, 1939, Chap. 413. 96 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Maryland Public Documents 5 Md. 423-433. 7 Md. 466-483. 9 Md. 83-108. 10 Md. 451-467. 13 Md. 387. 32 Md. 387-398. Const. Conv. 1851, 1864, 1867. Message of Gov. Oden Bowie to the General Assembly of Maryland at the regular session, January, 1870. Annapolis: Wm. Thompson of R., 1870. (House and Sen. Doc. "A", Jan. Sess. 1870). House Jr!. 1804, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1838, 1839, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1845, 1847, 1849, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1856, 1858, 1861, 1865. Laws, 1829, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1843, 1844, 1847, 1856, 1860, 1861, (Special Sess.), 1861 (Dec. Sess.), 1864, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1872, 1874, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1894, 1898, 1900, 1902, 1904, 1906, 1908, 1914, 1916, 1918, 1920, 1922, 1927, 1935, 1937, 1939. Ops. Att'y. Gen. Feb. 3, 1865. Sen. Jr!. 1828, 1856, 1860, 1861, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1870, 1878, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1904, 1906.

97 Maryland Reports "Exec. Procs. of the Sen. of Md. at Dec. Sess., 1841." (Sen. Jrl. 1841). "Exec. Procs. of the Sen. of Md. at Dec. Sess., 1844." (Sen. J rl. 1844). "Rep. from the Comm. on the Libr. to the Sen., 1868." (Sen. Jrl. 1868). "Rep. of the Comm. of the House of Deis. on the Libr., Mar. 8, 1848." (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1847, Doc. "V"). "Rep. of the Comm. of the Sen. on the Md. State Libr., Apr. 3, 1852." (Sen. J rl. 1852, Doc. "F"). "Rep. of the Comm. of the Sen. on the Md. State Libr., May 28, 1853." (Sen. J rl. 1853, Doc. "L"). "Rep. of the Comm. on Pub. Bldg. to the Sen., Mar. 19, 1888." (Sen. Jrl. 1888). "Rep. of the Comm. on Repairs of the Pub. Bldgs., Jan. 1860." (House Doc. "C", Jan. Sess. 1860). "Rep. of the Comm. on the Libr., Feb. 26, 1865." Annapolis: Richard P. Bayly, 1865. (House Doc. "U", Jan. Sess. 1865). "Rep. of the Comm. on the Libr., Feb. 9, 1872." Annapolis: S.S. Mills & L. F. Colton, 1872. (House Doc. "O", Jan. Sess. 1872). "Rep. of the Comm. on the Libr., Feb. 29, 1876." Annapolis: John F. Wiley, 1876. (House and Sen. Doc. ''.\1", Jan. Sess. 1876). "Rep. of the Comm. on the Libr., 1884.'' (House Jr!. 1884). "Rep. of the Comm. on the Libr., Mar. 4, 1886." (House Jr!. 1886). "Rep. of the Comm. on the Libr., Feb. 28, 1894." (House Jr!. 1894). "Rep. of the Comm. on the State Libr., Mar. 9, 1867." Annapolis: Henry A. Lucas, 1867. (Sen. Doc. "\\"', Jan. Sess. 1867). "Rep. of the House Comm. on work done on the Annex, Feb. 28, 1890." (House Jr!. 1890). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the Libr., Feb. 26, 1850." (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1849, Doc. "O''). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the Libr., Mar. 6, 1854." (Sen. Doc. "12", Jan. Sess. 1854). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the Libr., Mar. 10, 1856." (Sen. Jr!. 1856). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the Libr., Jan. 10, 1860." (House Doc. "NN", Jan. Sess. 1860). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the Libr., Jan. 29, 1864." (House Jrl. 1864). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the Libr. on the manuscript relating to the early history of the state, Feb. 6, 1840." (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1839). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the State Libr., Jan. 1833." Annapolis: J. Hughes, 1833. (.\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1832). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the State Libr., Jan. 1834." Annapolis: J. Hughes, 1834. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1833). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the State Libr., Feb. 1835." (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1834). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the State Libr., Jan. 30, 1838." (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1837 Doc. ''.vl"). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the State Libr., Jan. 1840." (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1839). "Rep. of the Jt. Comm. on the State Libr., Dec. Sess. 1840, Feb. 19, 1841." (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1840, Doc. 14). "Rep. of the J t. Comm. on the State Libr., Feb. 4, 1842." Annapolis: Wm. Johnston, 1842. (Md. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1841, Doc. "D"). "Rep. of the Libr. Comm., .\lar. 10, 1856." (House Jr!. 1856). 98 "Rep. of the State Librarian, Jan. 1, 1842." Annapolis: \\'m. Johnston, 1842. (.\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1841, Doc. "D"). "Rep. of the State Libr;iia'n, Jan. 14, 1846." i.\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1845, Doc. "B"). "Rep. of the State Libr?r-ian, -Jan. 15, 1848." ·. (.\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1847, Doc. "\"' '· "Rep. of the State Librarian, Jan. 19, 1850." (.\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1849, Doc.

"Rep. of the State Librarian, Jan. l, 1854." (Sen. Doc. "1 2" Jan. Sess. 18541. "Rep. of the State Lib.p:1.rjan, Jan. l., 1856." 1Sen. Jr!. 1856,. "Rep. of the State Libiar\<11;\, Feb. 9, 1856." I House Jr!. 1856). "Rep. of the State Librarian, Jan. 1, 1858." ,Sen. Jr!. 1858). "Rep. of the State Li·brarian, Jan. 1860." (House Doc. '.'XX", Jan. Sess. 1860). "Rep. of the State Libraidaii, Dec. 1861." {House Jr!. 1861). "'Rep. of the State Librari.~n, Jan.1864." (House Jr!. 1864). "Rep. of the State Li~'rian, · Jan. 20, 1865." (House Doc. Jan. Sess. 1865\ Doc. "C"). "Rep. of the State Librarian, Jan. 2, 1867." Annapolis: Henry .-\. Lucas, 1867. ,Sen. Doc."'\\"', Jan. Sess. 1867,. "Rep. of the State Libr:a~,,}900, 1902, 1904, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1912, 1916, 1916-17, 1918-19, 1920-21,,,{9231-24-. 1924-27, 1927-29, 1929-32, 1933-34, 1935-36. "Rep. of the State Lil;>rw,ian relafrve to the augmentation oft.he Libr., Jan. 2,, 1845." : .\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1844, Doc. "L" I. "Rep. of the State Librarian to the Jt. Comm. on the Libr., Jan. 1833." (.\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1£3~ ,. "Rep. of the State Lib?a\}a~'-l:o' the J t. Comm. on the Libr., Tan. l, 1834." Annapolis: J. Hughes, 1834:',!P;\'\?d.'-Tub.·Doc. Dec. Sess. 18331.· "Rep. of the State LiB;1rii}n ·1:o the Jt. Comm. on the Libr., Jan. 1835." (:\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. !8~Jic _ "Rep. of the State Libraris',n,.io the Jt. Comm. on the Libr., Jan. l, 1837." 1.\ld. Pub. Doc. Dec. Sess. 1836 ,'.' · · · State Libr. Commissf~•;.J S.~0nd .Annual Rep. to his Excellency, the Cov. of .'ld .. for the year 1904. [no imprint]. Books American Library Directory, 1939. Compiled by Karl Brown, New York: R. R. Bowker Co., 1939. Bond, Carroll T. The Court of Appeals of Maryland, A Hi,rtory. Balti- more: Barton-Gillet Co., 1928. Dugan, M. C. Outline Hi.Ytory of AnnapoliJ' and the _Yaval Academy. Baltimore: B. G. Eichelberger, 1902. Gadd, Luther H. Catalogue of the Maryland State Library, 1895. Anna- polis: Maryland Republican Steam Print, 1895. Jewett, Charles C. XoticeJ' of Public Librariu in the United StateJ' of America. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1851. .1lfaryland ,Jlanual, 1937; A Compendium of Legal, Hi.Ytorical and Stati.Ytical Information Relating to the State of Maryland. Compiled by E. Ray Jones, Secretary of State. Baltimore: 20th Century Printing Co., [1937?] Maryland .1llanual, 1948-1949. Compiled by Morris L. Radoff, Archivist, Hall of Records. Issued by Bertram Lee Boone, 11, Secretary of State, Annapolis, Md. Baltimore: 20th Century Printing Co., [1949?] Mayer, Lewis. Supplement to the Maryland Code, containing the AciJ' of the General Auembly paued at the Su.YioM of 1861, 1861-1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867. Arranged in articles and sections to correspond with the Code. Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1868. Radoff, Morris L. BuildingJ' of the State of Maryland at AnnapoltJ'. Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1954. Ridgely, David. Annalr of AnnapoliJ'. Baltimore: Cushing and Brothers, 1841. Scharf, Thomas J. Hi.Ytory of Maryland from the Earliut Period to the Pruent Day. 3 vols. Baltimore: John B. Piet, 1879. U. S. Bureau of Education. StaftJ'liCJ' of Public Librariu in the United Statu and Canada. Compiled by Weston Flint, Statistician of the Bureau of Education. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1893. Wellborn, Fred W. The Growth of American Nationality, 1492-1865. New York: Macmillan Co., 1943.

Articles and Periodicals Reid, Leigh W. "The English Ancestry of the Hoxtons of Maryland and Virginia," 1he Virginia Magazine of Hwtory and Biography, LX (1952), 157-161. The Library Journal, XXXIII (February, 1908), 101. 100 The ,llan;land Gazette. (December 29, 1803), 3. Nile.r ~Yational Regi.rter, LXI (January 29, 1842), 340.

Unpublished Material Maryland Hall of Records (MHR). "Executive Papers for 1845." MHR. Letter from David Ridgely to Governor Pratt, October 5, 1844. "Executive Papers for 1844." MHR. Letter from David Ridgely to Fielding Lucas, October 19, 1841. "State Library papers found among Adjutant General Papers, 1840-1841." MHR. Librarian's correspondence, 1835. MHR. Librarian's correspondence, 1838.

101