65 - 11,379
STEVENS, Robert David, 1921- THE USE OF MICROFILM BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, 1928-1945.
The American University, Ph. D ., 1965 Political Science, public administration
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE USE OF MICROFILM BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, 1928-1945 by Robert David Stevens
Submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School
of The American University
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Public Administration
Signatures of Committee: Graduate Dean: Chairman:
Date:
Aprilj 1965
The American University AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Washington, D. C. LIBRARY MAY 191965 WASHINGTON^* C. PREFACE
This study traces the history and development of the microfilming of record materials by agencies of the Federal
Government from the first such efforts in 1928 through the year 1945, The individual responsible for introducing into the United States the microfilming of record material is identified and the spread of the use of microfilm by Federal agencies is documented. Microfilm projects during this period are evaluated and the reasons determined why the technique of substituting microfilm for original records as a means of saving storage space did not become more widespread and popular.
The study had its genesis in the author’s longstanding interest in the use of microfilm by libraries and archival agencies, an interest related to his employment by the
Library of Congress from July 1947 to August 1964. This interest was intensified by discussions of the problems of microfilming of records in Dr. Ernst Posner’s classes in
Archives Administration at The American University during the academic year 1951-1952. Since 1947 the author has been con cerned, as part of his official duties, with programs for the purchase of microfilm, attempts to astablisn national union catalogs of microfilm materials, and the attempts during the past several years to revive and reestablish the project to microfilm manuscripts relating to American hisiory in
European archives.
The majority of sources used in this study are found in Washington, D, C. Intensive use has been made of the documentary resources of the National Archives and the
Library of Congress. Particularly valuable were the records in the National Archives of the Work Projects Administration
(RG 69) , and of the National Archives itself (RG 64) . The
Library of Congress' archives relating to Project A, the project to microfilm manuscripts relating to American history in
European archives, were thoroughly studied. Records relating to the war-time microfilming activities of the War Department, housed with the current records of the Adjutant General's
Office, were also utilized.
Information from these sources was supplemented by published materials and by personal interviews with individuals who played important roles in the development of the micro filming of records. Those interviewed include Dr. Vernon D.
Tate, the first Chief of the Division of Photographic Repro duction and Research of the National Archives; Mr. Daniel F.
Noll, a microfilm expert who served on the staffs of both the
National Archives and the War Department; Dr, Theodore R.
Schellenberg, an associate of many of the pioneers, including
Robert C. Binkley, and the person responsible for the arrangement and microfilming of the records of hearings of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1934; Mr, Dan Lacy, a key figure
in the Historical Records Survey and later in the National
Archives; Mr. Irving K. Zitmore, an official concerned with
the War Department microfilm projects during World War II and later director of a private records management firm that
surveyed Government-wide microfilming activities in the 1950’s;
Mr. Roland Langelier, also connected with the War Department's microfilming programs; Dr. Dallas D, Irvine of the National
Archives staff; Mr. George A. Schwegmann, Jr. , the first
Chief of the Library of Congress Photoduplication Service; and
Mr. Donald C. Holmes, an early associate of Dr, Tate, who
played a key role in the Navy's wartime microfilming program and later became Chief of the Library of Congress Photo duplication Service,
Since microfilm resulting from many of the projects described in this study is stored at institutions in the
Washington area, it was possible to examine a large sampling of early microfilm. The reels or pieces of film examined
included: some copies of Prudent R. Dagron's film made during
the Siege of Paris in the Franco-Prussian War; the Agricultural
Adjustment Administration and National Industrial Recovery Act
films made by Dr. Schellenberg, which constitute the first
items in the general microfilm collections of the Library of
Congress; some of the films made in Europe by Dr, Samuel F.
Bemis in 1929 and 1930 and now housed in the Manuscript V
Division of the Library of Congress; and microfilm produced
by the Work Projects Administration and the Bureau of the
Census, now housed in the National Archives.
A note of thanks to the members of the author’s dis
sertation committee is appropriate. Dr. Frank B. Evans, the
Chairman of the Committee, was a source of encouragement and
advice in the final stages of preparing the manuscript.
Dr. Ernst Fosner originally approved this study and has
provided helpful advice and suggestions from his knowledge of
the history and present practices of archival institutions.
Dr. Lester K, E1 irn proved a source of basic information about
microfilming through his published writings. Most of all,
thanks and appreciation are due to Mr. Daniel F. Noll, who was of great assistance because he had been intimately
associated with microfilming activities at both the National
Archives and the War Department during important periods in
the history of microfilming, and because his prodigious memory
for events, documents and persons enabled him to suggest sources
which might not otherwise have been located. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
PART A: BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Objectives and Organization of the Study . . . 1
Scope of S t u d y ...... 7
Terminology...... 9
II. HISTORY...... 21
Invention and Development of
Microphotography in Great Britain...... 21
Dagron's Pigeon P o s t ...... 23
Otlet and Goldschmidt's Contribution ...... 25
Invention of the Leica ...... 27
The Recordak Camera, ...... 31
Spread of the Use of Microfilm...... 32
III. THE USE OF MICROPHOTOGRAPHY BY THE LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS, 1928-1945 ...... 35
Library of Congress "Project A" ...... 35
The State Records Microfilm Project, ...... 51
The British Manuscripts Project, 1940-1945 , . 53
IV, MICROFILMING BY THE WORK PROJECTS
ADMINISTRATION...... 56
Pilot Project...... 58
The Legalization of Microfilm Copies of
Records...... 61 vii
CHAPTER PAGE
Management and Control Aspects ...... 63
WPA Filming for Other Agencies ...... 66
Extent of WPA Program...... 68
Microfilming by the Historical Records
S u r v e y ...... * ...... 69
Significance of WPA Microfilming Program .. . 71
V. THE BUREAU OF CENSUS MICROFILM PROGRAM..... 74
Origin and Development ...... 74
Decision to Make Microfilm the
Permanent Record ...... 77
VI. MICROFILMING AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES...... 82
Establishment of a Division of
Photographic Reproduction...... 82
Copying of Indexes and Adjuncts to Records . . 83
Microfilm Publication Program...... 90
VII. MICROFILMING IN WORLD WAR II ...... 102
War Department Microfilming...... 103
Navy Department Microfilming ...... 114
V - M a i l ...... 117
PART B; ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
VIII. PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION, . . 124
Administrative Problems Ignored by
Contemporaries...... 124
Government Failure to Meet Demands of Public , 126 viii
CHAPTER PAGE
Organization of Reader Facilities ...... 130
Placement of Laboratories in
Organizational Structure...... 135
IX. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
AND OTHER AGENCIES ...... 145
Manual of Microphotography Proposed ...... 146
The Problem of Legislation...... 148
Attempted Control through Bureau of
the Budget...... 153
Effects of World War I I ...... 156
PART C: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 158
S u m m a r y ...... 158
Conclusions...... 170
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 185 PART A
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The objectives of this thesis are (1) to provide for the first time a documented account of the introduction and use of microfilm by agencies of the Federal Government of the
United States during the period 1928-1945; (2) to describe, analyze, and evaluate the manner in which microfilming activities were administered; and (3) to evaluate the potential of microfilm as a tool of archives management.
The invention and spread of microfilming is in some respects comparable to the invention of printing. Micro filming, like printing, is a means of reproducing recorded knowledge in a different form. The historical development of microfilming from its beginnings in 1839 will be described in order to present the background against which microfilming developed in the United States after 1929. Discussion of equipment in this study has been given when the persons reporting on microfilming took sufficient interest to record or report on the equipment used. Such reports were most common during the earlier years when photographic equipment was designed for specific projects. In later years, it became possible to purchase stock items of equipment from manu facturers1 catalogs, and it was no longer necessary for those 3 planning microfilming projects to draw up detailed individual specifications.
The history of microfilming by Federal agencies will be presented agency by agency, with separate chapters devoted to agencies carrying out major programs of microfilming, and with less important programs grouped together or presented along with the story of the major programs to which they were closely related.
The resulting history makes possible analyses from several points of view. It provides the basic information
for identifying the individuals responsible for introducing
the technique of microfilming records into the United States.
It provides an opportunity for examining some of the basic
principles of public administration in highly complex admin
istrative situations. Finally, the history will reveal how well the potentialities of this new technique were exploited and to what extent the potential applications were ignored.
The re-discovery and relatively rapid growth of the
technique of microphotography during the second quarter of
the twentieth century is one of the most interesting chapters
in the recent history of technology. Invented by John B,
Dancer in England in 1839, microfilming was improved greatly
after the introduction of the collodion wet plate by
Frederick S. Archer in 1851 and was usecl during the Franco-
Prussian War in 1870 for mass copying of manuscript letters by Prudent R. Dagron, After that single large scale use in
1870, microfilming was little used for a period of about fifty years, although it was not entirely forgotten and was oc casionally mentioned in the literature of the early twentieth century.
The nineteenth century story of the invention and application of microfilming can be clearly enough traced to
Dancer, Archer, and Dagron. The twentieth century re- invention of microfilming, however, cannot so clearly be traced to one individual or to a group of individuals. The untangling of the story of the re-invention of microfilming also presents some interesting sidelights on the problems of communication of scientific and technological information, for the evidence indicates an initial period during the re-discovery of micro filming when a number of individuals almost simultaneously came to the conclusion that microphotography could be applied advantageously to record material. They did not, however, adequately disseminate their re-discovery of this fact to other interested parties.
Administrative aspects. Since the administration and management of the various microfilming projects in the Federal agencies discussed was closely interwoven with the general pattern of administration, attention will be focused on the administrative and managerial aspects of these projects. An analysis will be made of some administrative problems inherent in the use of this new technique, such as the placement of responsibility for microfilming activities within the adminis trative structure of an agency, the provision of facilities for use of microfilm by the public, fiscal management, and the administrative attempts of one agency to control and direct the microfilming of other agencies. In a separate chapter the influence of administrative decisions and practices in hindering or promoting the development of microfilming will be evaluated.
Microfilming as a tool of archives management. The potential role of microfilm as a tool of archives management will be analyzed. In particular, the question of whether
American archivists exploited as fully as possible the poten tialities of microfilming will be explored.
The history of the application of microphotography to records reveals a struggle between opposing points of view about this new technique. An outstanding proponent was
Robert C. Binkley, who felt microphotography to be a panacea for many of the archivist's problems.
The camera's ability to reduce images lends it an importance as great as that of the printing press in the history of Man's efforts to use and store the wisdom of the past. The minute films it produces can be duplicated easily and cheaply, transported con veniently, and distributed widely. The camera plays a bright and important role. It has brought order out of chaos among government records. Private enterprise as well is making use of it. The 6
trained WPA workers will form the vanguard of a growing camera army. 1
Outside of the United States, however, particularly in Great
Britain, there has been the feeling that:
A policy of substituting copies and destroying the original documents runs counter to the principles of Archives Administration as these have been hitherto accepted. No copy can fully replace an original and it is the duty of the Archivist to insist that pro vision should be made for the preservation of all Documents which the competent authority has found to be of permanent value and interest. 2
No such sweeping statement appears to have been made by
American archivists, although there is among American scholars some underlying sentiment against photocopies, especially against the use of photocopies of early manuscripts including codices.^
What follows is intended to supply a historical
framework within which to view the development of micro
photography in the Federal Government; to present the history of its major microfilming activities as a chapter in the
history of the administration of archives; and to analyze the
Robert C. Binkley, The Moving Picture Camera Aids the Nation, National Archives Record Group 69, Records of the Work Projects Administration, Ohio. Hereafter records in the National Archives are indicated by the symbol NA, followed by the record group (RG) number. 2 Great Britain. Committee on Departmental Records, Report (London, 1954) , 64.
3William A. Jackson, "Some Limitations of Microfilm," Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 35:281-288 UMTT.------—— story of microfilming by Federal agencies in terms of the
historical development of the application of an invention,
the public administration implications of the adaptation of a
new technique, and the success or failure to exploit fully
this technique.
SCOPE OF STUDY
Chronological limits. The period covered by the study
was determined by historical events. The beginning date of
1928 marks the first use of microfilm by the Library of
Congress in its program of copying materials relating to
American history in European archives. The terminal date of
1945 marks the end of an era in the history of micro
photography, for by that date the technique of microfilming
had been well developed and the uses of microfilm had been
thoroughly investigated. A possible exception is the use of
microfilm to save space in record storage. Finally, by 1945
most of the men who had pioneered in this new technique had
died or gone on to other interests. What followed was a period
of refinement in techniques, of improvements in equipment, and
of better planning and integration of the use of microfilm in
records management activities. These improvements and
refinements represent only a proliferation of detail that
adds nothing significant to the basic story of the development
of microfilming of records. 8
Jurisdictional limits. This study is essentially confined to the microfilming activities of the agencies and departments of the Federal Government of the United States.
Major activities of commercial firms involved in the invention and development of microfilm equipment used by the Federal agencies are indicated, however, along with occasional examples of the microfilming activities of individuals or non-
Federal institutions, because they indicate the milieu in which Federal activities took place, because they show parallels to Federal activities and are useful for purposes of explanation or comparison, or because they influenced or were influenced by Federal activities. The main focus is, nevertheless, on
Federal agencies.
Subject limits. The study is further restricted to the microfilming of records produced by government agencies in the course of normal business. These include not only the records of United States Government agencies, but in some instances the records of states, counties, and local governments in the United States, and the records of gov ernments at the national and lower levels in foreign countries.
The main emphasis throughout is on the filming of bodies of records of archival value. Inevitably some of the projects cited were concerned with fiscal or other records not of permanent value, but the projects given emphasis are those that resulted in filmed records eventually housed in the National Archives or the Library of Congress and, thus, preserved for use by future historians.
TERMINOLOGY
Microfilming. The term microfilm, that is "fine-grain, high resolution film containing an image greatly reduced in 4 size from the original image ," derives from the word micro
photography, a word which has been the subject of some controversy. Under the influence of German terminology, some authors have used the word "microphotography" to refer to the enlargement by photography of minute objects with the aid of a microscope. Such users of the term reserve the word
"photomicrography" to describe the reduction of textual matter 5 to minute size by photographic means. English-speaking photographers differed in their usage of the term micro
photography between 1840 and I860, with the preponderance of
usage in such journals as Photographic News favoring the presently accepted meaning. The French also appear to have
used the term varyingly during the 19th century, and Prudent
_ f f - R, Dagron, a French businessman who used microphotography on
4 National Microfilm Association, Glossary of Terms for Microphotography and Reproductions Made from Micro-Images CAnnapolis, 1962), 30. 5 W. J. Luyten, "Micro-photography or Photomicrography?" Science, n.s., 85:242 (March, 1937); and William T. Hall, Photomicrography and Microphotography: Reply to W. J. Luyten, ibid., 85:520 (May, 1937), 10 a commercial scale as early as 1868, uses the words "depeches g photomicroscopiques” to describe his microfilms. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the issue appeared to have been settled in favor of ”microphotography,,r so far as the English language was concerned, but the issue was shortly thereafter revived by scholars familiar with German scientific literature. Dr. William T. Hall noted that in 1912 he was warned by the editor of Chemical Abstracts, for whom he was translating and abstracting German technical articles, that in English the term “microphotography” was reserved for the process of photographic reduction of a large-size original and was not to be used in describing photographs made with 7 the aid of a microscope.
During the next two decades the specific term dropped out of widespread usage in this country in favor of general terms. Binkley, in his first edition of Methods of
Reproducing Research Materials, used the term "filmslide g photography” to describe microphotography, and librarians met the issue by using the terms “reproduction of manuscripts
0 Prudent R. Dagron, La Poste par pigeons voyageurs (Tours, 1870-1871), passim. 7 Hall, “Photomicrography and Microphotography,” 520. g Robert C. Binkley, Methods of Reproducing Research Materials: A Survey Made for the~JoTnt Committee on hiaterials for Research of the Social Science Research Councir~and the American Council of Learned Societies (Ann Arbor, l93l) , 8 i ff. 11 and printed matter" to include microphotography along with 9 other photographic processes. American and British dictionaries and encyclopedias after 1930 are commonly in error in assigning to the word "microphotography" two meanings, that of reduced photographs of large matter, and also that of enlarged photographs of microscopic matter. The tendency was to give as the preferred meaning "a photographic process by which an object is reproduced in minute size,"10 with a secondary meaning of "a photograph of a microscopic object on a magnified scale: photomicrograph."*^ The present trend in
English appears towards a proper distinction of the two terms as follows: "microphotograph, A minute photograph of a
large object. Sometimes it is incorrectly employed as the 12 equivalent of photomicrograph. (q.v.)"
The terminology of microphotography still lacks standardization. The National Microfilm Association in 1956 found it desirable to appoint a Committee on Terminology and to sponsor a Glossary of Microfilm Terms "in the belief that a commonly understood and accepted terminology is basic to
^Library Literature 1921-32 (Chicago, 1934), passim.
^ Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Lang'u'age'; Unabridged (.Cleveland^ 1956), I",~T0"6.
^ Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 1933), VI, 414,
12The Encyclopedia Americana (Chicago, 1956), XIX, 34. 12 lO the welfare and progress of the microreproduction industry."
The definition of microphotograph given in the preliminary
edition of this glossary is; "A photographic reproduction
generally so small that optical aid is necessary to read or 14 view the image. Not to be confused with photomicrograph."
In his work on Modern Archives, Dr. Theodore R. Schellenberg offers the following definition of microfilming:
Microfilming is a method of preserving records in another medium or form. It is the technique of making photographic copies that are too small to be read without magnification. When a microphotographic copy of a record is consulted> a microfilm reader is usually used to magnify the image to readable pro portions on a viewing screen.15
Several important elements in the definition are to be noted.
First, the copy is photographic. Second, the copy is reduced
greatly in size from the original. Third, some device for
magnification— that is, a reader— must be used in consulting
the reduced size copy. Since this definition best expresses
the major considerations involved in microfilming, it is
within this context that the term is used throughout the
remainder of this study.
13 National Microfilm Association, Glossary of Microfilm Terms (Syracuse, 1956), 1.
l^lbid., 13. 1 ^ Theodore R. Schellenberg, Modern Archives, Principles and Techniques (Chicago, 1956), l06. 13
Records. The word records is used as defined in the
Federal Records Act of 1950 which states:
The word records includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, or other documentary materials regardless of physical format or characteristics made or received by an agency of the United States Government in pursuance of Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data contained therein. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibit purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for con venience of reference and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included within the definition of records.16
The term "records" as thus defined is deliberately used to
exclude programs for the microfilming of traditional library
materials such as newspaper and periodical files and col
lections of printed books. It is not intended, however, to
exclude the activities of one agency in niierofilming records
in the custody of another agency or the microfilming of
records in the custody of foreign governments. Thus the
activities of the Library of Congress in microfilming manu
scripts relating to American history in the archives of various
European governments fall within the scope of this study, but
the Library's extensive programs for the microfilming of news
papers do not.
1644 U.S.C, 366. 14
Identification of types of microfilm applications. The literature pertaining to microfilming of records contains little over-all discussion of the rationale of microfilming, or of the uses to which it may be put by records managers and archivists. An exception is an article by Mr, Bertrand Gille of the Archives Nationales of France, The following enumeration of the uses of microfilm, based on Mr. Gille's work, distinguishes the categories of use, the application of which will be shown throughout the remainder of the study. This enumeration also establishes a framework of terminology to be used in later discussion, and identifies those types of use which are beyond the scope of the present paper. Mr, Gille categorizes the principal uses of microfilm by archivists as:
"A) Le microfilmage de substitution (Substitution microfilming)
B) Le microfilmage de securite (Security microfilming)
C) Le microfilmage de complement (Acquisition microfilming)
D) Le microfilmage V but scientifique" (Scholarly microfilming)17
17 Bertrand Gille, "Esquisse d'un plan de normalisation pour le microfilmage des archives," Archivum, 3:87 ff, (1953). The chapter on "Microfilm" by Michel Francois in Charles Samaran (ed,), L'Histoire et ses m^thodes (Brussels, 1961), 783-801 follows GilleTs terminology but eliminates the category of scholarly microfilming. Generally speaking, government agencies do not use microfilming for scholarly purposes since by definition such use of microfilm is a sub stitute for the taking of manuscript notes relating to a more or less narrow topic under study by an individual scholar. The term is used in this study mainly in the following chapter where reference is made to the use of microfilm by individuals as a phase in the historical development of microfilming. 15
These categories, with some minor modifications and additions, have been adopted as a convenient rubrication under which specific applications may be considered for pur poses of comparison. To the above categories should be added the broad categories of publication microfilming, and managerial microfilming. None of these categories are mutually exclusive, since microfilming of a body of records can meet several purposes.
Substitution microfilming is that filming which takes place when the intent is to dispose of the original documents after the film has been made and thenceforth to depend en tirely upon the film copy. An example of such substitution microfilming is described by Mr. Carl J. Kulsrud, 18 who in
1950 supervised the microfilming of 3,000 cubic feet of annual reports of the field offices of the Department of Agriculture’s
Extension Service. After giving to state historical societies and to other agencies such of the originals as they were interested in receiving, the National Archives destroyed the remainder and depended solely on the film copies for future use. 19 Substitution microfilming, as Mr. Gille points out, demands consideration of such matters as the faithfulness of
1 n Carl J. Kulsrud, "National Archives Microfilm Project," American Documentation, 1:29-91 (October, 1950).
Gille, "Esquisse d ’un plan de normalisation pour le microfilmage," 88, 16 reproduction of the external characteristics of the original document (color of inks, type of paper, watermarks, etc.), the admissibility of film copies as legal evidence, and the relative costs of microfilming vis-a-vis the cost of storage of originals.
Security microfilming, which poses fewer problems, can be divided into three main types. First, security micro filming can be used to make a copy to be preserved in a location distant from the originals, as a safeguard against total destruction by such major disasters as war or fire. Such security microfilming is widely practiced by business firms in this country and, since the issuance of Executive Order
10346 in 1952, has been employed by all agencies of the Federal
Government.
A second type of security microfilming may be described as preservation microfilming. The objective here is not to protect against disaster but to preserve records in danger of loss through deterioration. When the archivist is able to specify the quality of paper and inks to be used by record- producing agencies, this type of filming may not be required; but there are already in existence records in various stages of deterioration. Preservation microfilming has been widely applied by librarians and others in an attempt to preserve newspapers on wood pulp stock, and there is now a national program for the preservation of newspapers in this country, as well as a project of the British Museum Newspaper Library
to microfilm more than 1,500 newspapers published in the 20 United Kingdom. Such preservation microfilming of news
papers involves elements of both substitution microfilming
and managerial microfilming. In most cases the original news
papers are discarded after filming, and copying saves the cost
of binding (which alone is often higher than the cost of
filming), saves space, and eliminates servicing of heavy and
unwieldy volumes.
A final type of security microfilming relates to
frequently used records which suffer from wear and tear at
the hands of genealogists and other researchers. Security
microfilming to provide reference copies was practiced at the
National Archives, for example, to help preserve certain
records of the Bureau of the Census.
Acquisitions microfilming has been widely used not only
by United States Government agencies but by agencies in other
countries as well, Belgium filmed entire series of records 21 related to her history in the Archives of Lille and Dijon;
a Commission of the Swedish General Staff filmed documents in
German Archives relating to the Thirty Years' War; and the
20 U. S. Library of Congress, Union Catalog Division, Newspapers on Microfilm (Washington, 1953), iii, 21 Gille, "Esquisse d ’un plan de normalisation pour le microfilmage,u 90. 18
Deutsches Auslandsinstitut in Stuttgart filmed church records 22 relating to persons of German descent. A reversal of this type of microfilming occurred as a result of a pact of
August 1, 1949, between France and Italy, providing for the return to France of records relating to Savoy and Nice in the
Archives of Turin. The Italian Government decided that the most important of these documents should be microfilmed before 23 they were returned, and over a million exposures were made.
Scholarly microfilming has been most frequently used by individuals as the means of gathering a variety of materials from numerous sources for their own research. The research staff of the National Park Service used microfilming for 24 this purpose in 1936 and 1937.
Publication microfilming is not included by Mr. Gille in his categories of archival use, but for American archivists this has become one of the most important uses of microfilm.
The Microfilm Publication Program initiated by the National
Archives in 1940 had by 1953 filmed more than 3,000,000 pages and made positive prints of these available to individual
22 Heinz Lieberich, Rechtsfragen zum Problem Archive und Dokumentation," Archivalische Zeitschrift, 47:53 (1951). 23 * Congres International Des Archives. 1st, 1950. "Seance pleniere consacr^e aux archives dans leurs rapports avec la microphotographie," Archivum, 1:92-94 (1951).
^Alvin P. Stauffer, "Microphotography in the National Park Service," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 1:172-177 (Summer, 1938). 19 25 scholars and to institutions at reasonable cost.
In numerous other instances, institutions having a common interest in securing microfilm copies of a series of documents have cooperated in sharing the cost of making a negative in order to secure a positive print at reasonable cost. An example of such a cooperative project is that initiated by Dr. Benton H, Wilcox and sponsored jointly by the Wisconsin State Historical Society and the Library of
Congress for the microfilming of the James K, Polk correspondence in the Library of Congress. More than 42,000 exposures were made and the twelve cooperating libraries were able to purchase the positive prints for $425.00 apiece, or slightly less than 26 one cent an exposure.
Managerial microfilming has as its primary aim administrative convenience. The most common example is to be found in commercial banks where the microfilming of checks has become a part of office management routines. Similar microfilming of checks has been carried out by the United
States Treasury. Some managerial applications of microfilming, such as that carried out by the Social Security Administration,
25 U, S. National Archives, Microfilm Publications, 1953 (Washington, 1953), v.
^ s,The James K. Polk Correspondence,” Microfilm Clearing House Bulletin, 57:1 (December, 19557^ 7Appendix to Librar^T"of Congress Information Bulletin, December 19, 1955.7 20 have been made an integral part of the mechanization and routinization of the entire office procedures of the agency.
The Social Security Administration1 s program of microfilming started in the late 1930’s as a relatively simple effort to conserve space and to make data more accessible. Fifty-two million Social Security account number applications were so reduced in size through microfilming that they could be stored in approximately one-hundredth of the space required to house 27 the originals.
Microfilm resulting from such operations serves a temporary use and is destroyed after that use has been served.
Such managerial applications of microfilm were relatively few prior to 1946 and certainly unsophisticated as compared with more recent applications.
The above categories of microfilming provide convenient headings under which microfilming projects may be grouped for purposes of comparison. The consistent use throughout the remainder of this study of such terms as acquisitions microfilming, as defined above, will make for greater ease in discussing microfilming projects involving a multiplicity of
purposes and in categorizing single-purpose microfilming
projects.
27 George A. Schwegmann, Jr. , 11 Microfilm in Business and Industry,” Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 3 :147-148 (September, l S ^ O T CHAPTER II
HISTORY
INVENTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MICROPHOTOGRAPHY IN GREAT BRITAIN
The technique of microphotography is more than a century and a quarter old. The earliest known microphotograph was made by John B. Dancer, an English optical instrument maker, toward the end of 1839.^ The subject of this photo, made on a daguerreotype plate, was a document about twenty inches long reduced by 160 diameters to a length of about .125 inches.
Dancer found daguerreotype plates too coarse for reproducing such minute detail and suspended his experiments until the collodion wet plate was introduced in 1851 by Frederick S.
Archer. Noting that the deposit which forms the picture in the collodion process was much finer than in the daguerreotype,
Dancer thus concluded that "photographs can now be taken con taining more than one-hundred portraits in a surface one- 2 hundredth of an inch square."
Knowledge of Dancer's technique spread rapidly. It soon became the means of distributing pornographic pictures embedded in items of jewelry, much to the dismay of reputable
1 Frederic Luther, "The Earliest Experiments in Micro photography," American Documentation, 2:167 (Summer, 1951).
^John B. Dancer, "/Letter to the editorZ," Photographic News, 7:491 (October, 1865"). 22 photographers. "Our art is prostituted to delineating sub jects which shame decency, and pander to the most ignoble and 3 nasty of depraved tastes,” complained one anonymous editorial
writer. The new technique was also used for more acceptable
purposes though perhaps on a smaller scale. An Australian photographer employed in the Land Office in Melbourne
reduced the fifty-two folio pages of the Colonial Land Act 4 of 1865 to a piece of paper the size of a banknote, and
A. Rosling, Treasurer of the Photographic Society of London,
in 1853 exhibited to the members of the Society a microphoto
graph of a page from the Illustrated London News reduced to 5 the eight-hundredth part of the original size, The
technique of microphotography also spread rapidly to the
Continent, where the production of jewelry containing micro
photographs became big business. Prudent R. Dagron, who later
successfully exploited the skills he had learned as a jewelry
manufacturer to reproduce correspondence on microfilm during
the Siege of Paris, was one of the largest of such entrepreneurs, 6 with a staff of one hundred and fifty workers.
Micro-photographsibid, , 3:372 (July, 1864).
^"Microscopic Photography," ibid. , 9:431 (September, 1865). The photographer is identified only as Mr. Moone. PL Luther, "Earliest Experiments in Microphotography,” 169. Q M. Girard, "Microscopic Photography," Photographic N e w s , 6:18 (January, 1862). 23
Microphotography was not applied by archivists during the nineteenth century, although there had been speculation as early as 1853 that the archivist might find this a useful means of preserving records. The English astronomer Sir John
Herschel was credited with having conceived the idea "of preserving public records in a concentrated form on microscopic 7 negatives," but no application of his proposal was made at that time.
DAGRON'S PIGEON POST
Perhaps the best known and most extensive use of micro photography in the nineteenth century was in the pigeon post established by the French government and operated by Dagron during the Siege of Paris in 1870. Dagron's own account of
g this operation has come down to us in the form of a pamphlet,
^John Stewart to Sir John Herschel, July 9, 1853, cited in J. W, F. Herschel, "New Photographic Process," Atheneum, 831 (July, 1853), and quoted in Luther, "Earliest Experiments in Microphotography169. 8 Prudent R. Dagron, La Poste par pigeons yoyageurs, souyenir du si^ge de Paris, spfeclmen identique d 1une des pellicules de depecEes portees A !Paris (Tours-Bprdeaux, 1670-1571), Photographic H i m S’ xTJ" “cm. laid in. The two copies of this pamphlet in the Library of Congress contain speciments of Dagron's microfilm, still in excellent condition. Some years ago, Dr. Lodewyk Bendikson, then in charge of photographic reproductions at the Henry E, Huntington Library, San Marino, California, secured a copy of Dagron's pamphlet and made positive enlargements of the microfilm, which was inserted in each copy of the work. From the quality of the original film and the clarity of the enlargements, Dr. Bendikson concluded that microfilms made in the 1930's would still be useful in the year 2,000. Lodewyk Bendikson, "How Long Will Reproductions on 35-millimeter Film Last?" Library Journal, 60:145 (February, 1935). 24 but a more detailed account of the techniques employed and
the numbers of messages sent appeared in a contemporary 9 British journal. In all, about 100,000 dispatches were sent
and about half of these reached their destination. To minimize
losses, as many as forty copies of each dispatch were made.
Dagron had agreed to reproduce daily on film two hundred
squares of printed matter of about 1,000 words each. The
squares were first photographed on glass plates and the plates
placed in an apparatus which made film exposures of up to
twenty plates at a time. The films were rolled and placed in
a quill tube which was attached to the tail feathers of a
carrier pigeon. On arrival in Paris the film was flattened,
placed between glass plates, projected onto a screen for
copying by a battery of clerks, and finally forwarded to the
addressee. The system was chiefly used for official dis
patches, but private citizens could also send messages of a
dozen or so words for one franc. The system was somewhat
similar to the much larger scaled system used in sending
V-Mail or airgraphs during World War II, in which aircraft
substituted for carrier pigeons and positive paper prints
constituted a great improvement over hand-copying by a battery
of clerks. Dagron lived until 1900 but did not again see
9 H. Baden Pritchard, "On the Preparation of Micro photographic Despatches on Film by M. Dagron's Process," Photographic News, 15:605-606 (December, 1871). microphotography used on the scale he had employed during the
Franco-Prussian War.
OTLET AND GOLDSCHMIDT'S CONTRIBUTION
The technique of microphotography was not lost,
although there are only scattered references to it during the 10 first two decades of the twentieth century. In 1907 Paul
Otlet and Robert Goldschmidt, in an article remarkable for
its foreshadowing of developments in the post-1930 period,
proposed that books be produced by microphotography.^
Pointing out that the growth of printed matter made it
mandatory that some means be found for compact storage and
ease of consultation of books, they predicted that the book
of the future would have to be:
1. De faible poids et de volume reduit; 2. de dimensions uniformes; 3. de substance inalterable; 4. de prix modique; 5. ^de conservation facile; 6 . de consultation aisee; 7. de production continue, c'est-a-dire dont les exemplaires ou duplicata puissent %tre confectiones au fur et a mesure de la demande.12
Dr. Amandus Johnson of the American-Swedish Historical Museum experimented with the technique as early as 1910 but did not publicize his work until 1938. Cf. Amandus Johnson, "Some Early Experiences in Microfilming," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 1:9-19 (Winter, 1938).
^*Paul Otlet and Robert Goldschmidt, "Sur une forme nouvelle du livre," Institut International de Bibliographie, Bulletin, 12:61-69 (TW7T-
1 2 Ibid., 63-64. 26
This concept of books that could be reproduced in small editions in accordance with demand is strikingly similar to
the ideas of Binkley about the reproduction of research materials. Even more prophetic is the concept of Otlet and
Goldschmidt of a microcard containing 72 miniature pages of
text on a standard 12| by 7^ cm. library card, on which the
author, title, and universal decimal classification number 13 would be printed in type legible to the naked eye. This concept was conceived independently by Dr, Lodewyk Bendikson 14 of the Huntington Library in the 1930's and still later 15 adopted by Fremont Rider. Otlet and Goldschmidt also ad vanced many of the arguments in favor of microphotography which were later to become standard weapons of its proponents:
low initial cost, saving of the cost of binding, and saving
of storage space. Basing their calculations on the then
newly constructed Konigliche Bibliothek at Berlin, the authors speculated that storage of a million books would
require 13,700 cubic meters of space whereas the same works in microcard form could be stored in catalog trays occupying 75
cubic meters. The problem of providing adequate reading equipment for such microcards— which still remains a problem—
13 lb id. , 65. 14 Lodewyk Bendikson, "When Filing Cards Take the Place of Books," Library Journal, 18:911-913 (November, 1933), 15 Fremont Rider, The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library (New York, 1944). 27 was glossed over with the note that microscopes or magic lantern projectors might be used. Among the most perceptive of the observations of Otlet and Goldschmidt was that the use of positive film in long strips for the projection of moving pictures pointed to the type of film material which might be 16 available for use in the future.
INVENTION OF THE LEICA
T h e prediction of Otlet and Goldschmidt proved correct, for a fresh impetus to micro photography came with the intro duction and popularization in the 1920*s of the so-called miniature camera which used 35 mm, motion picture film. Most popular of these cameras was the Leica, invented by Otto
Barnack before World War I but not commercially distributed 17 until the 1920's, Although relatively expensive, the Leica was compact, had a- high quality lens, and used a small film surface (24x36 mm.) for each exposure. The Leica was used
1 C Otlet and Goldschmidt, "Sur une forme nouvelle du livre," 6 6 -6 8 , 17 Vernon D. Tate, "Microphotography,M The Complete Photographer, 7:2530 (1943), From the 1920fs on roll film designed' to suit the needs of the motion picture industry rather than sheet film or some other form developed specifically to meet the requirements of archivists was used in the microfilming of records. In the past decade, however, the use of sheet film has increased, especially in Europe, and with the availability of improved cameras it may ultimately be used for mass projects to microfilm Government records. 28 for the experimental copying of newspapers in the Hoover
Memorial Library on War, Peace and Revolution at Stanford
University as early as 1926, and was also used at about that 18 same time by Dr, Bendikson at the Huntington Library,
One of the most interesting documents concerning the potential use of the miniature camera for microfilming of public records appears in the Proceedings of the Convention of the National Association of State Libraries for 1922. At that convention John M, Hitt, State Librarian of Washington, examined in detail the possibility of using microfilm as a tool in records management. He stated:
A patented process has been found for filming official papers in consecutive order, showing clearly the serial numbers and also the pages of books on a single film. These occupy very small space, not larger than a single motion picture scene.19
He proposed to seek the required legislation in the following session of the Washington State Legislature and to start filming materials in order of receipt rather than to keep a consecutive series for each agency. Access to individual documents was to be made possible by a card index. Hitt emphasized that:
Robert C. Binkley, Manual of Methods of Reproducing Research Materials: A Survey Made Tor the JoinT Committee on MateriaTs for fte'searcE" of the Social Science Research CouncIT and' the American Council- ofrLearned Societies (Ann Arbor, T33T6y7"lB'3-165.------
^ J o h n M. Hitt, ’’Care of Archives in the State of Washington/ 1 National Association of State Libraries Pro- ceedings and Addresses, 25th Convention Detroit, June 21-30, 1922 "," 2 7 ------29
No papers of a distinctly important and historical character such as original charters, constitutions, commissions or the like will be filmed; or if filmed at all will not be destroyed. It is thus hoped to keep the main collection within reasonable bounds, and to have room for really historic matter that ought to he preserved as it should be. ^
This proposal did not come to fruition possibly because the equipment and film available to Hitt at that time would not have been adequate to the work he hoped to accomplish.
Application by individual American scholars. Individual scholars were not long in adapting the Leica camera to their need for a rapid and accurate means of transcribing information.
Professor Kirsopp Lake of Harvard University "used a Leica extensively in photographing manuscripts in the Near East" and Professor James A. Barnes at Temple University was another "pioneer" in the use of the Leica for scholarly 21 research, Rozelle Parker Johnson, Professor of Greek and
Latin Classics at Brown University, first conceived the idea of using a miniature camera "in a conversation . . . with
Dr. Mortimer Graves of the American Council of Learned 22 Societies . . . in December 1932." Despite the discouraging comments of fellow scholars who expressed doubts as to the
20 T1, , e Ibid., 6.
^Binkley, Manual on Methods of Reproducing Research Materials, 164,
^Rozelle Parker Johnson, "The Use of a 3 5-Mil lime ter Camera in European Libraries," Library Journal, 60:293 (April, 1953), 30 availability of negative film, the lack of proper electrical current for flood lamps, and, above all, the lack of cooperation
it was assumed would be met in European libraries, especially
the smaller ones, Professor Johnson spent the summer of 1934 in
Europe photographing manuscripts in library collections and
returned with over 5,000 negatives. Only at the Bodleian
Library at Oxford was permission to make films denied because
of a contract between the library and a commercial film for
all photographic work. Professor Johnson's European films were eventually supplemented by reproductions on 35 mm, film 23 of about 200 pages purchased from Yale University Library,
Binkley was convinced that this new technique,
substituted for laborious and perhaps inaccurate hand-copying, would be the amanuensis of the scholar of the future, for;
Just as each scholar works out his own note system, combining typescript and longhand notes, so the scholar of the future will make his combinations of typescript, longhand, photographs on paper and photographs on film. Microcopy as a technique in the hands of a man who does hia own work of photography and processing, is reduced to its bare materials cost,24
Leica inadequate for mass copying. Although the Leica
and other similar cameras admirably fitted the needs of
individual scholars, it held only five feet of film and was
consequently ill suited to the filming of long runs of materials,
23Ibid., 294-295,
24Binkley, Manual on Methods of Reproducing Research Materials, 159, 31 a requirement for practical application of microphotography by archives staffs. One of the earliest archival users of microphotography, Dr, Grace Lee Nute of the Minnesota His torical Society, complained that the Leica called for scores of film chambers for every day’s labor and involved the additional work of inserting film chambers every few minutes, winding short lengths of film, and cutting ends of film to fit the Leica trackway, A Photorecord camera, introduced in 1937, had the advantages of ''automatic advances of film, control of light, and shutter release. In general the advantages may be summed up by saying that our best day’s work with the
Leica was 200 feet, whereas with the Photorecord, on a later installment of the same piece of work, the record was 500 fe e t . " 25
THE RECORDAK CAMERA
In the same period during which the miniature camera was coming into scholarly use, microphotography was being developed for business purposes as a means of record making and accounting. An instrument that became known as the
Recordak was developed during the period 1922-1925 by Mr.
George P. McCarthy for reproducing bank checks on 16 mm. film.
Grace Lee Nute, "Microphotography at the Minnesota Historical Society," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 2;111 (June, 1941). The BocieTy, which purchased its first camera in 1932 for copying documents relating to Minnesota not in its collections, was probabl'y the first iustitution outside the U, S, Government to attempt to use acquisitions microfilming on a relatively large scale. 32
The first field installation of Recordak equipment was made in 26 New York City on May 1, 1928, This type of equipment, with
its rotating drum which conveys before the camera Zens the
item to be copied was later used extensively in copying
newspapers, library catalog cards, and hearings on the
National Industrial Recovery Act,
SPREAD OF THE USE OF MICROFILM
By 1933 microphotography had become well established
as a tool for the individual scholar and for the business man,
and many libraries had installed laboratories in which micro- 27 reproductions could be made at the request of researchers.
From 1933 through 1938, the Committee on Public Documents of
the American Library Association sponsored annual meetings at
which papers on the subject of microfilming of public records
and library materials were presented. The papers presented 28 at these meetings were published in annual compilations.
In addition articles about the use of microfilm appeared from
time to time in the professional journals of librarianship.
The availability of suitable equipment also made possible
such major projects as that of the Utah Genealogical Society
OC John K, Boeing, ’’Recordak," ibid. , 3:224 (September, 1940), 27 Edward A, Henry, "Films Versus Books," Library Journal, 58:239 (March, 1933), 2S American Library Association, Public Documents (Chicago, 1934-39). ~ " 33 29 begun in November 1938.
After its founding in 1936 the Society of American
Archivists occasionally discussed microfilm at its annual meetings and published items concerning the use of microfilm in the American Archivist. A Committee on Equipment and
Mechanical Techniques under the chairmanship of Binkley, and with Dr. Vernon D. Tate and Mr. Arthur E. Kimberly as members, chose to function mostly by the participation of its members in the activities of allied organizations. After the death of
Binkley in 1940 the Committee was allowed to lapse. The subject of microphotography was regarded as well taken care of by The Journal of Documentary Reproduction, which was edited •an and largely written by Dr, Tate.
Microphotography was invented in Great Britain in
1839, was applied on a large scale in France during the Franco-
Prussian War, received fresh impetus with the widespread commercial distribution of the Leica camera during the 1920's, and was used to copy records by numerous American scholars and several historical institutions during the decade from
29 Archibald F. Bennett, "The Record Copying Program of the Utah Genealogical Society," American Archivist, 16:227-232 (July, 1953), The Society microfilmed millions of pages of vital records and in 1953 was continuing to microfilm at the rate of 100,000 pages per day. 30 "News Notes," American Archivist, 4:53 (January, 1941). 1930 to 1940, It was against this background that the micro filming of records by agencies of the United States Government was conducted. CHAPTER III
THE USE OF MICROPHOTOGRAPHY BY THE
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 1928-1945
The Library of Congress was the first agency of the
Federal Government to use microfilm. The earliest microfilm made for the Library was produced in France in April, 1928.
Since that time the Library has microfilmed for its col lections a variety of materials including not only public records but also newspapers, books, magazines, and even still photographs,
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS "PROJECT A"
The first phase of the Library of Congress program for securing copies of documents relating to American history in foreign depositories covered the period 1905-1927. In initiating this copying program the Librarian, Dr. Herbert
Putnam, sought the advice of the Department of Historical
Research of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and of the
Council of the American Historical Association. The work of hand transcribing was initiated in the British Museum and the hiring and supervision of workers was performed by B. F.
Stevens and Brown, booksellers of London. Copying was also undertaken in France and in Spain beginning in 1914, and in
1919 in Mexico, The Carnegie Institution's Guides to historical materials in foreign archives and libraries were compiled 36 partly in order to provide the necessary framework for these copying projects. During the twenty-three years from 1905 to
1927 some 300,000 manuscript, typewritten, or photostat copies were made of documents in foreign archives,^ The costs of acquiring these transcripts were m e t from the regular appro priated funds of the Library of Congress and, at the slow rate at which work was progressing, it was estimated that perhaps a century more of effort would be required. Following lengthy investigation by his advisers, John D, Rockefeller, Jr. was persuaded that this task of copying manuscripts merited financial support; accordingly a grant of $450,000, to be expended over a five-year period, was made available for a comprehensive and systematic copying program beginning in September 1927.
The expanded program of copying was under the general direction of J. Franklin Jameson and St, George L, Sioussat,
Jameson1 s successor as Chief of the Manuscript Division of the
Library of Congress. The mission in Europe was initially directed by Dr, Samuel F. Bemis, who had been granted a
U. S, Library of Congress, Report of the Librarian of Congress for the Fiscal Year Ending J u n e 307" 192H (.Washington, 1929)~ 728-5)31. This annual report will fnT cited hereafter as U. S, Library of Congress, Annual Report. Information about the Libraryts program of h a n d transcribing is found in the Annual Reports for the period 1905-1928 and in Dr, Roscoe R. Hill's American Missions in European Archives (Mexico City, 1951), Dr^ John B, ftigg's unpublished dissertation, The Acquisition of Foreign Archival Sources for American History to the Year 1940 (New Haven, 1955) also contains data on this subject. Unfortunately Dr, Riggs refuses to make his work available to the public, 37 two-year leave of absence by George Washington University, and later by Worthington C. Ford, With the initiation of Project A, a change from the former method of hand-copying was made; transcripts were discontinued, and photocopies, either photo- 2 stats or photofilms (and enlargement prints), were substituted.
Initial use of photostat in Britain, The first photo copying of manuscripts carried out under Project A was done at the British Museum using an Eastman Kodak Co, #4 Photostat
Machine that was installed on November 19, 1927, This machine and another photostat machine were donated to the 3 project by James Wilbur, a long-time benefactor of the
Library of Congress, who had been in England during the summer of 1927 and had negotiated for their installation with the understanding they would be left as a gift to the institution in which installed upon the termination of the project. The nucleus of a staff, the manual transcription staff, was already available in London; this was expanded to permit the selection of the greater number of documents needed
^Grace G, Griffin, "Foreign American History Mss,t Copies in Library of Congress," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 3:5 (March, 1940). 3 Wilbur's largest single gift to the Library was the sum of $192,671.63 donated in 1925 for the purpose of repro ducing "manuscript source material in European archives bearing on American history," U. S. Library of Congress, Annual Report, 1925 (Washington, 1926), 6 , Income from the Wilbur Fund Was used to continue photocopying in Europe after the termination of Project A. 38 to keep the photostat cameras operating. No difficulties were encountered in securing the necessary permission to photocopy documents. Indeed, the Public Record Office made its files available down through the year 1878. During the first two years of Project A, an average of 30,000 documents a year were photostated in the Public Record Office, and approxi mately the same rate was maintained for the remaining three years of the Project. This total was admittedly a "rather small fraction of all American material in the Public Record
Office,” but was nevertheless thought to be the most useful of the material relating to American history.
Lemare microfilm camera in France. In France, Dr.
Bemis learned of a microfilm camera that had been designed by g Paul Lemare, a Paris optician. Dr, Bemis grasped immediately that this "miniature film technique” constituted a "new 7 departure in library work,” The Project made a contract with
4 Samuel F, Bemis, First Annual Report on European Operations of Project A. Library of Congress Manuscript Division Project A Records. Hereafter records in this col lection are cited as LC Project A Records, 5 J+ Franklin Jameson to Worthington C. Ford, October 8 , 1929, ibid.
6Thoraas P. Martin, "Microphotography at the Library of Congress," Micropnotography for Libraries: Papers Presented at the Micvqphotography Symposium at "the 1936 Conference of the jTmer'ican li'ibrary Association (.Chicago^ 1936), 80,
^Samuel F* Bemis to W. C. Ford, Memorandum, August, 1929, LC Project A Records. In January, 1963 the author wrote 39
Lemare who installed two cameras, one at the Archives Nationales
and the other at the Ministry of Foreign'Affairs. As Binkley described the equipment, it consisted of a pictorial camera manufactured by Krause and Company of Paris with accessories
designed and manufactured by Lemare which adapted the basic
camera for document copying. Unperforated 35 mm. film in
lengths of 16,5 feet was used. One hundred exposures could
be made on each length of film, and loading of the camera had
to be done in a darkroom. In 1930 the cost of a complete Lemare outfit, which included the camera, frame, manuscript box, and g lights, was 4,061 francs or $165,00, The cost to the project
of work contracted by Lemare was nine cents per photograph.
This included "one small negative and one enlarged positive 9 print," The mission furnished the paper for the print, and
Lemare furnished the film for the first photograph. Dr* Bemis
regarded the Lemare apparatus as so useful that it was later
installed in the British House of Lords on contract with the
photographic firm of Monger and Marchant, as well as in the
Hague, in Rome, in Seville, and in Madrid, Later an additional
Lemare outfit was purchased and shipped to Ottawa, Canada, for
to Dr. Berais asking if he had any knowledge of microphotography prior to his visit to Paris in 1928. Dr. Bemis replied that he had not had any particular interest in photography and that this was the first time microfilm had come to his attention.
g Binkley, Manual of Methods of Reproducing Research Materials, 164, Q Samuel F. Bemis to W, C. Ford, Memorandum, August, 1929, LC Project A Records. 40 use in copying records. Dr. Bemis thus helped promote the development of microphotography. In his opinion it had the
following marked advantages over the photostat technique:
"1. It will operate with daylight equally well with electric light. This has great advantage in countries where no electric light is allowed in archives buildings (Spain, Italy).
2. A negative and an enlarged positive is obtained at the same cost as one photostat negative.
3. The miniature negative on cinema film (safety non-inflammable film in all cases should be required) can be used without enlargement, by projectors or even by a magnifying device. If used in this form they cost only about one fifth of what a photostat negative costs,
4. The films, without enlargements, can be packed in very small compass for shipment through ordinary mail. This has advantages not only for shipment to the United States but it has great advantages for loan arrangements within the United States.
4. a, A central, cheaply operated, enlargement laboratory at L.C.
5. It is possible to run off long series of docu ments in quick order, and to decide later whether it is desired to enlarge the same at convenience.
6 . In cases where archives demand duplicates of all work photographed, as in Spain, duplicates of the films can be furnished at one fifth cost of furnTshing duplicate photostat prints.
7. The whole apparatus, together with enough film for 25,000 pictures costs only $250 as compared with Photostat machine cost of $2,500 up without sensitized paper.
8 . The apparatus is readily portable in an ordinary large valise provided for the p u r p o s e . "10
Dr. Bemis also summarized the disadvantages of the
Lemare apparatus:
10Ibid,, 3-4 41
"1, The machine is not adapted to doing isolated single sheets because it is loaded with a film that is not to be developed until one hundred, approximately, exposures have been made,
2. The photographs being in series on a film they are not so mobile (for filing) until enlargements of same are made.
3. The operation of enlargement is separate from that of the original act of photography and development,
4. In case the enlargements are to be made in Washington, great care must be exercised to see that the photography is sufficiently sharp for enlargement before the films are allowed to be sent to Washington; this requires the maintenance of continual vigilance on the part of the research director."H
The first Lemare apparatus was installed in April, 1928 at the Archives Nationales, where Dr, Berais had been given
"unrestricted permission to make facsimiles or otherwise copy all material relating to American History, insofar as such material did not remain deposited under restrictions of a 12 particular department of the Government," Subsequent nego tiations brought permissions from the several Ministries
(Colonies, Marine, War, Foreign Affairs) to photograph docu ments down to the date 1814.
Administrative difficulties in Spain, Matters were not so easily settled in Spain, and difficulties there absorbed a disproportionate amount of the time and energy of Dr, Bemis
11Ibid,) 4-5. 12 Samuel F, Bemis, First Annual Report, 15, ibid. 42 during his two years with the Project, On August 12, 1927, prior to the initiation of the Project, a decree had been promulgated in Spain forbidding the copying of series of documents, except with the permission of the King. Dr, Bemis initiated negotiations with the Spanish authorities in
December, 1927, for a relaxation of the prohibitory decree.
With the advice and help of the United States Embassy in
Madrid, he approached the Conde de las Infantas, Director
General de Bellas Artes, whose office had issued the decree.
Dr. Bemis reported that the Conde told him:
Specifically, on December 8 , that we should be given every privilege in Spain which we receive in England and France; that all I needed to do was to make a formal request in writing and he would answer it with the required consent,13
He was further informed that the objective of the decree was not to prevent legitimate research but to prevent the abuse and "commercialization" of the archives.
Without mentioning her name specifically, the Conde de las Infantas and other Spaniards connected with the archives criticized the work being done by Irene A. Wright, As
Dr. Bemis described her activities in a letter of May, 1928 to Dr. Putnam:
She came here about fourteen years ago as a student in the archives. She soon hit upon documents the desirability of which, in transcript form, would be
13 Samuel F. Bemis to Herbert Putnam, December 12, 1927, ibid, 43
valuable to various institutions and individuals in America, the West Indies, England, and the Netherlands. She wrote to such institutions and individuals really soliciting them as clients just as she wrote to the Library of Congress many times asking for work to do. She installed a machine, hired an operator, and set up a staff of 3 or 4 other people. Over all this work she presided with great ability, but with great demands on the limited staff of the archives. It became evident that she was making a good thing financially out of it, and that her status was really that of a business woman rather than a genuine student bent on making historical investigations, 14
Further, it was the opinion of Ogden Hammond, U, S.
Ambassador to Spain, and of his subordinates, Blair and
Grummon, that Hiss Wright had not helped matters any by being "too vigorous in her protestations, by conversation, letters and a public letter to the press against the Spanish 15 decree," Under the circumstances the best that Dr, Bemis could do was to secure a series of temporary permissions "to make photographic copies of certain stipulated groups of 1C documents in the Archivo Historico Nacional etc," Fortunately for the project a change in January 1930 in the Government of
Spain resulted in the appointment of the Duke of Alba as
Minister of Public Instruction, with jurisdiction over the administration of archives. It was the belief of Dr. Bemis t h a t :
14Ibid., 1.
15Ibid.
16Samuel F, Bemis to Herbert Putnam, May 26, 1928, ibid. 44
The sympathy which the Duke of Alba has manifested with the photocopying enterprise of the Library of Congress, in his conversations with me in Madrid in 1927 and 1928, and his informal intervention on our behalf, suggests that— so far as one can deduce on this side of the Atlantic, and subject to review by better informed persons abroad, particularly Dr. Ford, now is the opportune time to appeal to him (Alba) as a responsible minister for the amelioration of the L.C. privileges in Spain.
From early 1930 on conditions in Spain improved considerably, and it was possible to attain an adequate rate of production during the final two and one half years of the project.
Various European archives copied. The list of archival depositories in which records were copied during the life of the project resembles a guide to major European archives.
Photocopies were made in England at the British Museum, the
Public Record Office, the House of Lords, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; in France at the Archives
Nationales, the Bibliotheque Nationale, and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs; in Spain at the Archivo de Indias in Seville and at the Archivo Historico Nacional in Madrid; in Germany at the Staatsarchiv in Bremen, the Preussisches Staatsarchiv in Kiel, and the Preussisches Geheimes Staatsarchiv in Berlin-
Dahlem; in Sweden at the Riksarkiv, Stockholm; in Norway at the Riksarkiv, the Department for Sociale Saker, the Universitets- bibliothek, the Deichmanske Bibliothek, the Historiografisk
17 Samuel F, Bemis to Herbert Putnam, Memorandum, January 30, 1930, ibid. Samling, and the Emigrantkontor in Oslo; in Italy at the
Vatican Archives and the Archivio di Stato in Naples; in Austria
at the Haus-, Hof-und Staatsarchiv, Vienna; in Russia at the
Tsentralnyi Gosudarstenyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv in Moscow; and
in Czechoslovakia at the University Library in Prague, In all
of these institutions microfilm or photostat cameras were set
up for longer or shorter periods of time. These institutions,
in many instances , borrowed on behalf of the project important
materials in other repositories in order that the filming could
be done in a centralized location. A whole generation of
European archivists and scholars aided in this microfilming and
photostating work. Particular acknowledgement was made to
Dr. Ernst Posner for assistance at the Geheimes Staatsarchiv in 18 Berlin-Dahlem; to Alfred E. Stamp, Deputy Keeper of Records,
Public Records Office, London; Charles Langlois, Director,
Archives Nationales, Paris; R, Fruin, Chief Archivist, the
Riksarchief, the Hague; Dr. Fritz von Reinohl, Archivist, of
the Haus-, Hof-und Staatsarchiv, Vienna; Cristobal Bermudez
Plata, Jefe del Archivo General de Indias, Seville; and
Joaquin Gonzales, Jefe del Archivo Historico Nacional in Madrid.
During the five years’ duration of the project, more
than 2 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 manuscript pages were microfilmed or photostated 19 in Europe, in Mexico, and in Canada. For more than half of
18 U, S. Library of Congress, Annual Report, 1929 (Washington, 1930), 89.
1 9 Ibid., 1927-1933, passim. these pages either direct photostats or enlarged positive paper prints from microfilms were made. There still remained, however, hundreds of thousands of items available only in the form of negative microfilms, and fortunately these proved to be as useful for most scholarly purposes as were the enlargements.
Final report and evaluation of Project A, In his final report, the Director of Project A, Worthington C. Ford, emphasized the savings in time and money to the individual scholar resulting from this amassing of copies of source material. The scholar, he noted:
Will have been saved the cost of making his first studies abroad and will thus be more free to engage in the supplementary investigations in foreign archives. In no other country has such a general undertaking been made to provide a center of source material obtained from foreign lands, and in this unique feature together with the results in repro ductions will be found a full justification of the project, 2 0
Although Dr, Bemis had remarkable insight into the direction in which the technique of microphotography was developing, many others connected with the project saw in microfilm only an intermediary step to obtaining a positive paper print blown up to the full size of the original document
Extensive tests of the probable durability of photostat paper were made by the U. S. Bureau of Standards on behalf of the
2 0 Ibid., 1932, 72, 47
Project. There is no evidence that such tests were made of the durability of the microfilm, although Dr. Bemis suggested the desirability of such a test in his departing memorandum to
Ford. "Durability of the Film itself for permanent record remains undetermined," he wrote. "Some analysis of films is 21 recommended."
Dr. Bemis's successors committed themselves to paper enlargement prints, and only lack of time and funds kept them from producing positive paper enlargements of all negative microcopies made by the Project, Jameson’s attitude was stated in a letter to Ford:
Films have been made in the Swedish Archives to the extent of about 1900, Mr. Sellman made films only of these; but Bemis had an optional contract with him for enlargements of the films. In favor of now having the enlargements made in Sweden this might be said: (1.) It is a great relief to have the work done outside the Library of Congress whenever practical; (2#) We have no experience to tell us how long films may be kept in perfect condition against a possibility of deterioration; (3,) When the enlargements are here they are much more practical to use than f i l m s . ^2
While the activities of Project A thus greatly stimulated the development of the technique of microphotography, it was perhaps an unfortunate chain of circumstances which led to the retention of the older, more cumbersome technique of photo stating for much of the work. If Wilbur had not made
^ S a m u e l F. Bemis to W. C. Ford, Memorandum, August, 1929, LC Project A Records, 22 J. Franklin Jameson to Worthington C. Ford, October 8 , 1929, ibid. arrangements for the installation of expensive photostating machines in London Just before the Project got under way, if
Dr, Bemis had started his activities in Paris rather than in
London, or if Putnam, Jameson, and Ford had been younger and perhaps a little more imaginative, the technique and use of microphotography may have developed more rapidly in the years
1927-1932, As it was, much progress was made and the experience gained with microfilming became widely known to a rising gen eration of archivists and scholars in Europe and in the United
States. Microfilming was unknown in many European archives until introduced by the personnel of Project A. This was the case at the Staatsarchiv in Berlin, for example, where a then new building had made no provision for microfilm facilities.
As a result of the Project A experience such facilities were 23 installed. It seems particularly unfortunate that Dr. Bemis*s suggestions that some attempt be made to test the durability of microfilm and establish standards were not carried out, and that some steps were not taken toward developing adequate 24 machines for the reading of microfilm,
23 Interview with Ernst Posner, June 5, 1964. 24 The author examined numerous reels of microfilm made by the staff of Project A in June 1960 and again in June 1964 and found no evidences of deterioration. Many of the films remain in the state in which they were received— rolled tightly in 16.5-foot lengths and wrapped with a strip of paper secured with a now deteriorated rubber band. The films were wrapped so tightly that some effort is required to unroll them. The fact that many of the films have not been unrolled in the twenty years since receipt in the Library indicates the lack 49
The real value of the project rests, however, not so much in its success in promoting the uses of microfilm but rather in its long-range usefulness to historical research.
European filming subsequent to termination of Project A .
When the funds provided by the Rockefeller bequest were ex hausted in 1933, the rich mine of source materials relating to
American history had by no means been exhausted. Fortunately supplementary funds in the form of two additional bequests from Rockefeller and small amounts from the annual appro priations for the increase of the Library's collections were available to continue the work, although on a much smaller scale. The progress made during this final phase may be traced in the Annual Reports of the Librarian of Congress for the years 1933 through 1943, the date when acquisitions ceased to be listed in the report, and from 1944 on in the
Library of Congress Quarterly Journal of Current Acquisitions.
The work was continued chiefly in London, Paris, and Seville,
In London, Miss Ruth Anna Fisher, a member of the Library's
of regular procedures for periodic inspection of microfilm owned by the Library and the absence of reader use of the film. The former is verified by an Interview with Paul Edlund, June 10, 1964. The latter undoubtedly results from the failure to publicize adequately the availability of the microfilms. It is unfortunate that this lack of knowledge is perpetuated in such works as Daniel H, Thomas and Lynn M. Case, Guide to the Diplomatic Archives of Western Europe {Philadelphia, 1959) , which menlft oils' only1 a part of tKe micro film holdings of the Library. 9 R U. S. Library of Congress, Annual Report, 1941, 104. staff, selected the documents to be filmed and the copying was done by a photostat operator using the equipment at the Public
Record Office, Work in London was suspended at the beginning of September 1941, when Hr, E, A. Thompson, the photostat operator retained by the Library for this work at the Public 26 Record Office, was called to service in the Royal Air Force,
The former arrangement was resumed briefly after the end of
World War IX, but in recent years the Library has had no employees of its own in London and has placed orders for materials directly with the microfilm laboratory of the appropriate archival repository or has depended on the services of commercial microfilm establishments.
With the termination of Project A, the work in Spain was again put into the hands of Miss Wright, who seemed to have survived her difficulties with the Spanish authorities, and there was a change from microfilm back to photostat 27 copying. Miss WrightTs work was interrupted by the Spanish
Civil War, and has not since been resumed on any large scale.
The work in France continued under the direction of M, Abel
Doysie, who copied manuscripts mainly in the Archives Nationales ' \ 28 and the Archives des Affaires Etrangeres, Photocopies were received from him as late as 1941,
2 6 Ibid., 1942, 99,
2 7 Ibid,, 1933, 36, 28 Ibid. , 1933-1940, passim. 51
In the years following World War II, some microfilming activities in Europe were resumed. Miss Fisher was stationed at the Public Record Office for a number of years to select materials for microfilming paid for with money from the Wilbur
Fund, and some small amounts of microfilming were done in
Spain. Attempts to secure permission to microfilm archives in 29 France, Italy, and Burma were unsuccessful, however. In the past several years, personnel of the Manuscript Division of the
Library have shown increasing interest in expanding present programs for microfilming. It seems unlikely, however, that future projects will be on the same scale or have the same importance as Project A.
THE STATE RECORDS MICROFILM PROJECT
The State Records Microfilm Project, initiated in 1941 under the joint sponsorship of the Library of Congress and the
University of North Carolina and financed by a Rockefeller grant, was a large-scale operation for copying materials in archives and collections in the United States in many ways comparable to the operations abroad under Project A. The scope of the project was originally limited to "reproducing the legislative proceedings of the American Colonies, Terri tories, and States," but was later extended to include statutory laws, constitutional records, administrative records, executive
29 Ibid., 1946-1963, passim 52 records, court records, some local records (county and city), records of American Indian Nations, records of rudimentary 30 states and courts, and a group described as "Miscellany,"
Under the direction of Professor William S. Jenkins, of the University of North Carolina, the project began by compiling a master checklist of state documents from the bibliographical works of Douglas C, McMurtrie, Adelaide R,
Hasse, and Grace E, MacDonald. The objective of this biblio graphic search was to locate as much of the material as could be found in printed form, and to attempt to fill the gaps by
locating manuscripts where printed versions of the early records were not available. The gaps in the printed record proved so great that it was necessary to film large numbers of manu script records in the various state archives of the United
States.
Professor Jenkins, mainly with the aid of a single assistant who did the actual photographing, made expeditions to each of the then forty-eight states, traveling more than
60,000 miles. He used a Recordak Model E Portable Camera carried in the trunk of his car. Most of the materials vere photographed with this camera in the various archives and
libraries in which found in vhe states, but seme of the printed materials were filmed from copies in the collections of the
30 U. S, Library of Congress. Photoduplication Service, A Guide to the Microfilm Collection of Early State Records X"Washing ton~ TO 50) , vii. 53
Library of Congress or lent to it for copying in Washington*
A total of about 180,000 feet of film was exposed. Since items
in the same series were often copied in various locations, it
was necessary to cut and splice the negative film in 38,500
places to bring the items on the film into a logical
arrangement.
THE BRITISH MANUSCRIPTS PROJECT, 1940-1945
The American Council of Learned Societies British
Manuscripts Project was not, properly speaking, a project of
the U, S. Government. There was, however, a very close
involvement of officials of the Library of Congress and of
the National Archives in the formulation and direction of the
project. The microfilm resulting from the project now forms
a part of the collections of the Library of Congress, and the
Library of Congress has attempted to supplement the project
by microfilming related materials at its own expense. In
view of these facts a brief consideration of the project is 32 warranted.
31 The project continued operations beyond the terminal date of this study. In 1950 the Library of Congress issued an 800-page Guide to the Microfilm Collection of Early State Records. In July 1556 the University of Korth'Carolina announced the establishment of a Bureau of Public Records Research and Collection, headed by Professor Jenkins and having the objective of facilitating the use of the microfilm and planning other microfilming projects, 32 An excellent history of the project from its genesis in May 1940 to its termination in 1945 appears in Dr. Lester K, Bornfs British Manuscripts Project: a Checklist of the 54
The project originated in the Conference on Micro copying Research Materials in Foreign Depositories held in
Washington on June 5 and 6 , 1940. A continuation committee of the Conference called the Committee on Microcopying
Materials for Research included Mr, Archibald MacLeish and
Mr* George Schwegmadn of the Library of Congress, and Dr. Tate of the National Archives. Herbert A. Kellar, Director of the
McCormick Historical Association, became chairman of a
Subcommittee on the Selection of Materials and was responsible for the compilation of lists of recommendations for materials to be copied, lists solicited from scholars throughout the
United States. The lists for materials in the British Isles were felt to constitute a manageable project, and these lists were used as the basis for a successful request to the
Rockefeller Foundation in December 1940, The original
Rockefeller grant was supplemented by an additional $100,000
grant from the Rockefeller Foundation so that a total of
$130,000 was expended during the five-year life of the
Microfilms Prepared In England and Wales for the American Council of Learned Societies,' 1941-1945 (Washington, 1955), UnpublisKed materials', Including t)r, Tate*s summary proceedings of the meeting at which the project originated, are found in the files of the Secretary's Office of the Library of Congress. Published accounts of the project include the following: William J. Wilson, ’'Manuscripts in Microfilm,” Library Quarterly, 13:212-226, 293-309 (1943); D. H. Daugherty, "The Current Microcopying Program in England,” Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 4:207-221 (1941); Eugene B, Power, "The Manuscript topying Program in England,” American Archivist, 6:28-32 (1944). 55 project. In addition to regular copying in black and white:
A carefully selected sample of illuminated manuscripts was reproduced on color film* In all the Project copied the equivalent of nearly five million pages, which have enriched the resources available to scholars in the United States to a degree that cannot be measured in quantitative units.33
The experience gained in the technique of microfilming
prior to 1946 has been used by the Library of Congress in
carrying out a variety of major microfilming projects in the 34 post-War years.
The early microfilming programs of the Library of
Congress served to spread knowledge of the technique of micro
filming in Europe and the United States and to make vast
amounts of research material available to American scholars.
At the same time, however, the Library of Congress profited
from advances in microfilming techniques introduced by other
Government agencies.
33 Born, British Manuscripts P r o j e c t , xi, 34 A summary account of some important Library of Congress microfilming projects since 1946 appears in "Planning for Scholarly Photocopying," PMLA, 79 part 2:77-90 ( September, 1964). CHAPTER IV
MICROFILMING BY THE WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION
The program of records management by the Work Projects
Administration, which later included large-scale microfilming activities, was initiated when Mr. Lloyd Eno, a statistician, was appointed on October 31, 1938 to work on the problem of inactive relief agency, field, and central office records."^
Shortly thereafter he was named chairman of a Records Committee and eventually became Chief of the Division of Records and
Microphotography of the Work Projects Administration’s central office in Washington, D. C. His first proposal for the use of microfilming recommended that instructions for microfilming in the field be incorporated into the procedures then being prepared for maintenance of field records. He pointed out that the proposed record procedures would provide for the disposition of between 70 and 80 per cent of the CWA records but would, nevertheless, leave remaining an enormous volume of inactive records. Indicating that past experience showed that even though the records were put in good order, they would not remain that way long when problems of space or filing equipment arose, he estimated the cost of microfilming all
^Katherine H. Davidson, Records of the Federal Relief Agencies (unpublished typescript), 32. 57
CWA, FERA and WPA records warranting permanent preservation would amount to $65,000, exclusive of costs for labor but 2 including the costs of materials and rental of equipment.
During the spring of 1939 Mr. Eno discussed with various members of the staff of the National Archives his proposals for organizing, weeding, and microfilming the records of the relief agencies. Before a nationwide project could be initiated it was necessary to secure the sponsorship of a
Federal agency other than WPA* The National Archives was asked to serve as sponsor and was willing to do so on the condition that Dr, Luther H, Evans, Director of the Historical
Records Survey, supervise the field work through members of his staff. These conditions were accepted and on April 27, 1939 3 the National Archives formally agreed to sponsor the project.
The results of Mr. Eno*s efforts during his first months in dealing with the problems of inactive records are incorporated in a letter of July 10, 1939 from Mr, F. C.
Harrington, Commissioner of Work Projects, to all State Work
Projects Administrators. The greater part of the letter con sisted of instructions for the maintenance of paper records of the Civil Works Administration, so that it would be pos sible eventually to "microfilm the records and store the
o Lloyd Eno to Emerson Ross, Memorandum, March 13, 1939, NA, RG 69. WPA Division of Records and Microphotography, 3 Davidson, Records of the Federal Relief Agencies, 34-37. 58 resulting films in Washington*11 Administrators were instructed to provide in their project applications sufficient labor and non-labor funds to microfilm important CWA records after these records had been placed in good order. The letter went on to state:
The average cost of several microfilming processes, exclusive of labor, is one-tenth of a cent per document. This includes machine rental, film cost and processing charge* No specialized skill is required to operate these machines so that project employees in the inter mediate clerical grade could be used for the work, provided, of course that competent supervision is supplied.^
PILOT PROJECT
Under Mr. Enofs direction a project to mierofilm the records of the New York City Surplus Clothing Project using
Pathe cameras was initiated in June 1939 and served as a pilot project and testing ground for later microfilming activities. The first films made were ’'unacceptable" and showed some of the following defects:
1. Uneven illumination 2. Scratches and blemishes 3. Crooked and folded documents 4* Stretches and contractions 5. Cross streaks, light struck from slow action of cut-off 6 . Friction marks 7. Torn documents 8 . Insufficient contrast and density
Work Projects Administration, General Letter No. 267, July 10, 1939, NA, RG 69, Instructions on Disposition and Microfilming of Records. 59
9. Defective processing
a. Great over-all fog b. Edge frills c. Warped film— two ways d. Dye streaks e. Scratches and blemishes f. Appearance of image having been reduced after development.
During the first several months of filming light streaks were a problem. These were attributed to ’’the drag on the lights g caused by the motor," a problem it was felt would be solved when the project moved to new quarters where two direct lines, one of 220 volts for the lights and one of 110 volts for the motor, would be available.
Films made by the project were submitted to the Bureau of Standards for testing and were approved for satisfactory residual hypo content, but the Bureau did not care to render an official decision as to the general suitability of the film for archival purposes, since no such standards had yet been established. It was, however, the informal opinion of the
Bureau of Standards "that a considerable improvement would probably be necessary to meet satisfactory archival standards."
Lacking such standards, it appeared that WPA would have to determine administratively whether the film was suitable for its purposes and would also have to assume responsibility for
5 H. T, Cowling to Lloyd Eno, Memorandum, June 20, 1939, ibid. WPA Finance Division, Memoranda, 1935-1940, on Micro- FiTming.
6Lloyd S, Meyer to H. T. Cowling, August 8 , 1939, ibid. 60 certification to the National Archives when the original 7 records photographed were "submitted for disposition.11
The final progress report for the project indicated that 63,844 documents were filmed on 197 rolls of film and that it had been necessary to retake photographs of 44,406 8 of the documents.
On the basis of experience with this first large- scale project, Mr. H* T. Cowling, Technical Assistant with the Washington office of the Work Projects Administration, formulated "recommended standards and practice for film 9 record archives." Mr. Cowling*s recommendations were later incorporated in the specifications for bids on the machines and services to be furnished on a nationwide basis and in the
Technical Instructions for the Microfilming of Records in the 10 Custody of the Work Projects Administration. These instructions indicated that nationwide contracts for the installation of microfilm-cameras and viewers were to be let from Washington, and asked each State Director to supply
7 Lloyd Eno to David Holmes, Memorandum, October 9, 1939, ibid.
g Federal Works Agency* Work Projects Administration. Surplus Clothing Warehouse, Report of Progress: 10-20-39, ibid. Q H. T. Cowling to David A. Holmes, Memorandum, August 25, 1939, ibid*
10Dallas Dort to All State Work Projects Administrators, Memorandum, January 6 , 1940, Instructions on Disposition and Microfilming of Records, ibid. 61 information on the amount of equipment needed on the following basis:
Average output of 15,000 documents (sheets) per machine, per full work-day of seven hours. Requiring approximately three months to photograph one million documents with one machine, or six weeks with two machines predicated on the documents being delivered to the machine operator and taken away in a continuous operation, ready for photographing and with "targets" inserted in place.ll
THE LEGALIZATION OF MICROFILM COPIES OF RECORDS
Since one of the major objectives of the program was
to release space through destruction of useless records and
of records that had been placed on microfilm, it was essential
that steps be taken to ensure passage of a law which would
give microfilm copies the same legal status as originals. Mr,
Eno drafted such a bill in April 1940^ and the bill became 13 law a few months later. In the letters drafted by Mr, Eno
transmitting the draft bill to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and to the Vice President, the advantages of
microfilm were described as follows:
"1. Extreme compactness of resulting film files.
2. Less danger of loss of important records.
13Tbid. , 5. 12 A Bill to^ Provide for the disposition of certain PhotograpKed Records of the United States Government. U. S., ?6 th Congress, 33' Session, H.B. 10026, 13 54 Stat, 958. An account of the reaction of the National Archives to this law is given in pages 148-152t infra. 62
3. Film files constitute much less of a fire hazard than original papers.
4. Permanency of record data is assured.
5. Duplicate copies of these film records or full size paper copies of each individual records may be made readily and economically,11
Mr. Eno concluded that:
Aside from other factors, the immediate tangible advantage of the technique to the government appears in t h e enormous savings in storage costs that result when essential Federal records are permanently preserved on microfilm instead of in original paper form. These savings begin to accrue to the government only when the filmed papers can be disposed of and file storage space released. The proposed legislation is designed to facilitate the disposition of such filmed papers and the release of space required to house these p a p e r s , 14
The Act permitted government agencies to dispose of "filmed
papers by methods prescribed by law upon obtaining approval
of the Archivist of the United States." A second section of
the Act confirmed the acceptability of photographic copies of records when presented in evidence in court "equally with 15 the originals thereof," On this point, the Attorney
General of the United States assured the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget that the "admissibility of photographic or microphotographic copies in evidence in the courts of the
United States would be governed by the proposed statute if it
14 John M, Cariaody to William B. Bankhead, April 29, 1940, NA, RG 69. Series 107* AAAA.
1 5 54 Stat. 958, 63 16 became law.11 In the judgment of one authority, passage of
this bill was probably the most significant and lasting 17 accomplishment of the WPA microfilming activities.
MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL ASPECTS
Mr. Enofs early estimates of the percentages of records
requiring permanent preservation and those which might properly
be destroyed proved reasonably accurate in the light of further
experience. An attachment to a progress report of November 5,
1941 indicates that about 17 per cent of the total body of
WPA records would be photographed and retained on microfilm,
and that the remainder of the records would be destroyed.
It was estimated that the Work Projects Administration and
its former agencies had accumulated approximately 2,500,000,000
records through June 1939 and that, when microfilming operations
had been completed, approximately 425,000,000 images would have
been placed on film. This film would constitute the essential
archives of the Civil Works Administration, the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration and the Work Projects Adminis
tration. The original 2,500,000,000 records were stored in
the equivalent of 143,000 four-drawer steel file cabinets
occupying approximately 430,000 square feet of space* These
^Attorney General of the United States to Director of the Budget, May 23, 1940 /cop^/, NA, RG 69, Series 107, AAAA.
17Interview with Daniel F. Noll, December 22, 1962. 64 record retirement activities released for other purposes about
429,000 square feet of space. As of November 5, 1941
41,080 reels of film had been made in the states and the central office had made 2,675 reels of film. The states had disposed of 493,605,000 documents and the central office had disposed of 22,000,000 documents. In the process of filming and dis posal the states had released for other use 8,800 4-drawer cabinets and 141,030 transfer cases. This equipment had 18 occupied 115,000 square feet of floor space.
In all of the microfilming activities of the Work
Projects Administration, labor costs for preparing the records for filming and for feeding the documents to the camera constituted a large share of the costs in keeping with
the philosophy of an agency designed to provide work for the maximum number of people with a minimum expenditure for items 19 other than personnel. After some months of experience,
Mr, Eno arrived at some generalized estimates of the cost of
labor as compared with other costs on the projects to film
the WPA records. He noted that conditions of the records
varied but that record procedures called for complete reorganization and rearrangement of certain existing files and that these procedures resulted in "record projects being
■^Nationwide Accomplishment of Record Retirement Activities as of November 5, 1941, NA, RG 69, WPA Division of Records and Microphotography, 19 Cf. Robert E, Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate HTstory (New York. 1950), ST. 65 set up on a basis of 90% of the total cost being expended for .20 labor and approximately 10% for non-labor. He estimated that a typical six-months record project, in which 4,000,000 documents were handled and 25 per cent or 1,000,000 of these documents microfilmed, would cost $15,580. The total costs were broken down as follows:
OVERHEAD COST PERCENTAGE UNIT COST
Supervisor Timekeeper $1 ,0 0 0 . 6.4 Trave1 Transportation 250. 1.6 Supplies 2 0 0 . 1.3 Utilities 100. 0.6
$1,550 9.9 .00038
LABOR CHARGES COST PERCENTAGE UNIT COST
Inventoring (sic) $3,600. 23.7 ,0009 Segregation 4,400. 28,2 .0011 Rearrangement 2,600. 16,3 .00065 Indexing 1 ,200 , 7.7 .0003 Target Preparation 600, 3.8 .00005 Photographing 600, 3.8 .00005
$13,000 83.5 .00305
NON-LABOR
Microfilm and supplies $ 890. 5.7 Rental of equipment 140. 0.6
$ 1,030 6.6 .00101
Total Cost of Project $15,580. 1 0 0 . .00443
20 Lloyd Eno to Dallas Dort, Memorandum, March 30, 1940, NA, RG 69. WPA Division of Records and Microphotography. 66
The above figures are cited in detail not because the costs of labor, equipment, and film in 1940 are of any relevance today but because they represent one of the earliest attempts to itemize the costs involved in microfilming. It should be noted, however, that some of the major cost factors cited— such as inventorying, segregation, rearrangement, and indexing— are frequently not charged to microfilming, because these activities are a part of the normal record keeping activities of the originating agency* Since the purpose of the
Work Projects Administration was to provide employment for the maximum number of persons with minimum expense for materials, there was a tendency to emphasize labor costs. In the WPA project to microfilm CWA individual earnings cards, labor costs were deliberately inflated by requiring the microfilm staff to complete the posting of earnings of individuals on the cards from payroll sheets even though the need for this information to uncover payroll padding in the form of duplicate 21 payments had long passed*
WPA FILMING FOR OTHER AGENCIES
As the WPA accumulated experience with the micro filming of large bodies of records it was increasingly called upon to assist other agencies of the Government in the filming of their records. Such agencies included the Bureau of
^Interview with Daniel F. Noll, December 22, 1962. 67
Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, the United States Housing
Authority, and the Office of Indian Affairs.
The project for the Bureau of Reclamation resulted in the microfilming of 1,325,000 documents at a cost of $2,200.
Completed in February 1941, this project released the use of
76 file cabinets occupying 215 square feet of space and 22 requiring 168 square feet of surrounding space as work area.
At the request of the Corps of Engineers, the WPA undertook to microfilm on 35 mm, film "horizontal and vertical geodetic control data from original records located in the
Control Section, U. S, Geological Survey, Interior Building, 23 Washington, D. C," The purpose of this project was to provide a film from which the Corps of Engineers could later make paper prints to meet its own heavy demands for the material.
The WPA was also called upon by the United States
Housing Authority and the Office of Indian Affairs to survey their records, to recommend disposal programs, and to estimate the costs of microfilming the records worth preserving; but 24 there is no indication that these projects were initiated,
22 Lloyd S. Meyer to G. S. Ellsworth, February 14, 1941, NA, RG 69. WPA Division of Records and Microphotography,
William F. Barck to Lloyd Eno, November 23, 1940, ibid.
OA ^Correspondence and memoranda in Interior Department, Indian Affairs and Housing Authority folders, ibid. EXTENT OF WPA PROGRAM
At the peak of operations in late 1941 and early 1942,
the WPA operated 52 separate projects, These projects were
engaged principally in the arranging, disposal, and micro
filming of the CWA-WPA records. It was anticipated that by
June 30, 1942 at least "75% of the projects now in operation
will have completed the work involved in processing and micro- 25 filming our inactive records,11 A report of January 9, 1942
on "Nation-Wide Accomplishments of Record Retirement Activities’
indicated that the 52 projects employed 2,451 persons, that
101 Recordak commercial cameras were in operation, that
548,413r,000 documents remained to be processed, and that
52,000,000 of these should be microfilmed. By that date
80,673,946 documents had already been filmed.
In all, these microfilming projects produced some
128.000 reels of microfilm, which were offered to the National
Archives in June 1951, At that time the National Archives
accessioned the films for the project and administrative
files, which amounted to 9,680 reels of PWA materials and 27 17.000 reels of WPA materials, "financial and miscellaneous"
Lloyd S. Meyer to Solon J. Buck, January 12, 1942, NA, RG 69. Series 107. AAAA. 26 Attachment to letter cited above,
2 7 0, W. Holmes to T. R. Schellenberg, Memorandum, June 12, 1951, NA, RG 64. Transaction Dossier, 451-172, 69 materials were sent to the Regional Records Center in
Alexandria, and 63,581 reels of personnel records were sent 28 to the Federal Records Center, St. Louis,
MICROFILMING BY THE HISTORICAL RECORDS SURVEY
The Historical Records Survey, a relief agency with the objective of providing employment for white collar workers in projects to put in order and inventory state, county, and
local records, used microfilming in only a few instances.
According to Mr. Dan M< Lacy, originally Director of the
Historical Records Survey in North Carolina and later Deputy
Director of the national organization, the use of microfilm by
the Historical Records Survey did not constitute a significant or important part of the agency1 s work in connection with 29 record material.
Projects for the filming of county or state records were carried out by the Historical Records Survey in Indiana and New Jersey, In Indiana the records of 16 different counties, mostly vital statistics amounting to over 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 pages, were filmed and the films were deposited in the Indiana State
Library. One year later the original records were ’’destroyed
OQ U. S, General Services Administration. Federal Records Center, St, Louis, Guide to Microfilm Personnel Records of Civil Works Administration (St. Eouis, 19&3). 29 Interview with Dan M. Lacy, June 8 , 1964. 70 30 in the disastrous floods of 1937." In New Jersey the records filmed included materials of the Colonial and
Revolutionary periods, as, for example, the Minutes of the
New Jersey Supreme Court for the period 1704-1783 and deeds- patents for the period 1666 through 1682, Under the pro cedures adopted, the Historical Records Survey furnished the cameras and the labor and local institutions supplied the funds for the raw film and the cost of processing two copies, a negative and a positive. The positives were retained by the local institutions and the negatives deposited with the 31 American Documentation Institute,
The Historical Records Survey did make significant use of microfilm in copying card catalogs and indexes for use in the American Imprints Inventory, a record by place and date of books printed in the United States before 1876; in compiling union catalogs of library holdings; and in 32 projects to preserve files of deteriorating newspapers.
Such projects, despite their importance to libraries and
q f\ "Microfilm Program of the Historical Records Survey," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 1:60 (Winter, 1938). 31 Luther H, Evans, "Recent Microfilming Activities of the Historical Records Survey," ibid., 2:48-49 (March, 1939), 32 Information concerning these microfilm programs of the Historical Records Survey is found in the following: Luther H. Evans, WPA Fashions New Tools for Research (New York, 1938); William H. Hermann, "Microphotographing Bound Milwaukee Newspapers," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 2:11-20 (March, 1939); Hober t" CT^inkTey, "Newspaper Indexing for WPA Project," ibid., 2:46-47 (March, 1939). 71 significant as they may have been as a means of transmitting the microfilming experiences of the federal agencies through out the United States, are outside the scope of this study.
SIGNIFICANCE OF WPA MICROFILMING PROGRAM
The microfilming program of the Work Projects Adminis tration was an integral part of a pioneer program of records management. It is unfortunate that the program did not achieve wide contemporary publicity and that the accomplishments of the WPA in this area have not yet been properly recognized.
In part, this lack of recognition may be due to the skepticism of officials of the National Archives about the quality of the microfilm produced by WPA. Dr. Tate is of the opinion 33 that the microfilm is not of archival quality, Mr. Daniel
F. Noll recognizes defects in the film but believes it usable 34 and useful. The author examined numerous rolls of WPA microfilm in June 1960 and concludes, as does Mr, Noll, that, despite occasional cases of over or under exposure and scratches on the film, it does serve adequately as a source of information and presents no particular problems of use.
What is perhaps most remarkable about the WPA program of records management was the emphasis on developing special equipment and techniques for microfilming, standardized work
33 Interview with Vernon D, Tate, May 15, 1963,
^Interview with Daniel F. Noll, December 22, 1962. 72 routines, and an attempt to install quality controls. In view of the fact that the work involved the training of unskilled workers as well as the development of new techniques,
the accomplishments are remarkable. At the beginning of the program every effort was made to develop new and specialized photographic equipment designed for the task at hand. The
program of records retirement was integrated with the filming
program. Prior to filming the records were weeded, non- essential records disposed of, and the remainder arranged for
filming. As a matter of good management it was always required that the records be ready for filming before they were delivered to the operator, whose only task was to feed
the camera. It was also an operating principle of the projects
that developing the film should be left to commercial firms
to avoid the establishment of a large number of small and
inefficient film processing establishments. Still other
accomplishments of the projects were the encouragement of
legislation assuring the legal acceptability of microfilmed records, the development of standardized targets, the use of
filmed indexes, and the emphasis upon standards for raw film
and elimination of residual hypo content in the processed
film.
The use of microphotography by the Work Projects
Administration, however, has frequently obscured the fact
that the WPA was the first Government agency to attempt a
planned program for the disposition of its records. The new 73 technique and equipment were only a part of the solution.
Mr, Noll estimates that for every sheet of paper photographed two or three sheets were discarded as "extra copies" or as records of insufficient value to be retained longer in either 3 5 paper or film form. The new photographic technique supplied the glamor to make the program news-worthy to an extent that the orderly, planned disposal of excess records could never attain. It is perhaps unfortunate that the program became known as the "WPA microfilming program," As the costs and difficulties of successfully reducing the records to rolls of microfilm came to be recognized, other solutions were explored and the fundamentals of modern paperwork management began to be developed. The War Department was among the first of the other Federal agencies to benefit from the WPA's pioneering in its struggle with the paperwork explosion of the relief era of the 1930*s.
3 5 Ibid. CHAPTER V
THE BUREAU OF CENSUS MICROFILM PROGRAM
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT
The Bureau of the Census in 1935 anticipated that the normally heavy use made of population schedules for "the purpose of establishing age for pensions, annuities, retire ment, working papers, and citizenship, or genealogical or other purposes," would increase greatly as a result of the passage of the Social Security Act.^ To help preserve the original volumes two steps were proposed. The first was to initiate a Work Projects Administration project to index the schedules for 1900 according to the Russell Soundex system; the second was to plan for "methods of reasonable, permanent, photographic reproduction of the other most used schedules" in order to assure the "permanent preservation of these irre placeable original documents," and also to make them "more easily accessible for use and materially reducing the storage 2 space required for their current use."
In 1936 a program of records preservation was begun.
Volumes with broken bindings and torn pages were repaired by employees of the Bureau and of the Government Printing Office;
^U. S. Department of Commerce, Annual Report of the Secretary, 1935 (Washington, 1935), 29^ Hereafter tills annual report is cited as U. S, Department of Commerce, Annual Report.
2 Ibid., 1935, 30, 75 some of the older and more fragile volumes were reproduced in the form of photostats to be used in lieu of the originals, and plans were made to microfilm the schedules for 1880 and other censuses which were most heavily used. Contracts were awarded for microphotographic equipment thought to be the most complete in the United States for purposes of record preservationThe equipment consisted of six 16 mm. cameras with continuous drum feed for documents not exceeding 10-J inches in width; two 35 mm. cameras with drum feed and a maximum document width of 24 inches; two special bound-book cameras
(35 mm.) with the capacity to film pages as small as 8 ^ by 11 inches or as large as 26 by 32 inches; and 40 reading pro- 4 jectors equipped for either 16 or 35 mm. film. The micro filming program was soon under way, and in January 1937 the
Director of the Bureau of the Census invited the Archivist of the United States to visit the Bureau and to observe the project which, he explained, used four cameras "especially designed and constructed for the Bureau by the Eastman Kodak 5 Company."
The annual reports of the Secretary of Commerce after
1936 include an account of the microfilm work accomplished
3 Ibid., 1936, 28.
4 Ibid. , 1936, 29.
5W. L. Austin to R. D. W. Connor, January 26, 1937, NA, RG 64. Microfilming Photographic Archives Series 1935-. 76 during the year* Each year more census schedules were filmed and in 1938 the additional task of copying the index to the 0 schedules for 1900 on 16 mm. microfilm was accomplished. In this instance the purpose of the microfilming was to conserve space, for the original cards were housed in 1 , 2 0 0 standard card-cases occupying approximately 7,000 square feet, while the films would require only 12 standard filing cabinets 7 occupying approximately 50 square feet of space*
For a time the microfilm existed in only a single negative copy, a matter of some concern to Dr, Tate who wrote:
If the microfilms are accessioned /By the National Archives/1, I feel that it would be essential to print positive microfilms as soon as possible in order to preserve the negatives from further damage through consultation. As they are now being used there is grave danger of their deterioration by improper handling by readers, etc.®
Apparently Dr. Tate’s warning was heeded; eight years later
Mr. Noll found that the Bureau of the Census had a master negative of all schedules for the years 1840-1940,
Positive film prints of these schedules were sold to the public, and the Bureau had made positive film prints of the
1880 and later schedules for use by the Personal Search
6 U, S. Department of Commerce, Annual R e p o r t , 1 9 3 8 , 33* 7 Vernon D, Tate, The Year*s Progress in Microphotography, NA, RG 64. Microfilming Photographic Archives Series 1935-*
®Vernon D, Tate to Director of Records Accessioning and Preservation, Memorandum, May 14, 1943, ibid. 77
Section maintained by the Bureau. A positive copy of the index to the 1900 census was not made. The cards in original 9 form were retained and used for all searching operations.
DECISION TO MAKE MICROFILM THE PERMANENT RECORD
The National Archives meanwhile had available in its
Central Search Room photostat copies of the 1800 through 1830
schedules, and had also made a master negative of these schedules from which it was producing positive microfilm prints for purchase by the public. Mr, Noll found the film to be surprisingly well made. It had been supposed that as a
result of carelessness by the camera operators, who might unwittingly have turned two pages instead of one, and of
later carelessness by the film inspector, who might have
failed to catch the error, there would be a number of missing
pages. However, a test made by Mr. Noll in a sample of 3,500
pages showed no pages missing. He concluded that even if a
normal error rate of .001 existed and one page per thousand
were missing through carelessness in filming, this loss would be no greater than the inevitable loss of paper pages through
improper handling and misfiling. He was, however, critical of
the conditions under which the Bureau of the Census was
9Daniel F. Noll, A Study of the Need for Retaining Census Population Schedules in Both Paper and Microfilm Form, November 15, 1951, NA, RG 04. Transaction Dossier III- NIR-16. 78 storing its negatives, which were kept in non-air conditioned buildings and in film storage cabinets with inadequate humidity control. The 35 ram, film was found to be in good condition, but the 16 mm, negative of the 1900 Soundex file appeared to be brittle. Mr. Noll therefore recommended that the negatives be transferred to air conditioned storage in the National
Archives and that for the 1950 schedules, then being filmed as a security measure, the original schedules be destroyed and the records be retained in film form only. His study of the existing microfilms had convinced him that the problems of making satisfactory microfilm copies of population censuses had been solved. Mr, Noll also took into consideration the fact that the later Census Enumeration Sheets were largely useless without indexing. Such indexes had been made by WPA workers for the 1900 and 1920 censuses but no future indexing projects appeared likely. Furthermore, he took the position that after 1920, when better birth records were being kept in the United States, bulky statistical source data should not be kept for non-statistical purposes.10
Later, in appraising the offer of the Bureau of the
Census to transfer to the National Archives the positive microfilm of the population census schedules for 1840 through
1870, Mr, Victor Gondos of the National Archives staff argued
for a future policy of destroying the paper records and
10Interview with Daniel F. Noll, December 22, 1962. 79 retaining only the microfilm copies for all censuses after
1930. In his argument he cited Mr. Noll's findings and added
some conclusions of his own:
For several reasons the retention of such schedules in the microfilm medium only, for schedules originating in 1930 and thereafter, appears to be the most prac tical solution because (1) the volume of each decennial census grows by geometric proportion (2 ) the schedules of the later censuses, those of 1940 and 1950 in particular, are no longer properly bound making their physical handling highly incon venient and difficult, and (3) the development of competent microfilming techniques and products renders feasible the retention of such bulky materials in the microphotographed medium.
These recommendations were adopted and in 1956 the Archivist of the United States wrote to the Director of the Bureau of the
Census that "the master set of negative microfilm to be
transferred shall be preserved as the permanent records of 12 the decennial population census schedules."
Positive microfilm copies of the schedules from 1800
through 1880 are presently sold to the public by the National
Archives,^
ctor Gondos, Jr. , Appraisal Report on Transfer Offer, Job No. III-NIR-16, September 30, 1952, NA, RG 64. Transaction Dossier III-NIR-16, 1 o Wayne C, Grover to Roy V. Peel, October 10, 1956, ibid.
^Prices for the 1800 to 1830 schedules may be found in the List of National Archives Microfilm Publications, 1953, and the prices of the film copies of the 1840 through i860 schedules are separately listed in the publication Federal Population Census, 1840-1880; a Price List of Microfilm Copies of the Original Scfiedules," "published~Sy the National Archives in 1955V 80
The Bureau of the Census microfilm program is an out standing example of the way in which microfilm can meet a variety of needs. Initiated as a managerial project aimed at saving storage space and providing easier access to the records, the microfilm at the same time served the purpose of preservation by making the handling of the originals unnecessary.
Later the microfilm of census records became a security copy to be preserved against the possibility of destruction of the originals. Finally, the film served as the means of producing multiple copies available for sale in a microfilm publication 14 program. The microfilm of census records has served these various purposes because of the character of the original records for which there has been a wide and continuing public demand, and because the Census project was carried out in a workmanlike fashion which resulted in film of good quality.
It should be noted that the role of the National
Archives in its relations with the Bureau of the Census was
In more recent years the Bureau of the Census has used microfilm for the additional managerial purpose of automatically transferring data from questionnaires filled out by census enumerators to magnetic tapes for use with electronic computers. The microfilm made originally for the purpose of being read by electronic scanners later serves all of the purposes mentioned above. This process first used on a large scale in tabulating the 1960 decennial census of population is described in detail in M. L. Greenough's article, "New Uses of Uicrofilm with Electronic Scanners, a Progress Report on FOSDIC 111," Proceedings, National Microfilm Association, Detroit, H7273-SJB5 U 9 3 3 T : ------81 essentially a passive one. The initiative in developing the program came from the Department of Commerce, and only after the program was well started was the Archivist of the United
States invited to view the results. Since the National
Archives was newly-born when the Census microfilm project was initiated in 1935 its initially passive role seems only natural. At a later date the staff of the National Archives advised improved steps for protection of the master negative and eventually it was decided to accept the microfilm as a substitute for the paper records. This action constitutes one of the few examples of a decision by the National Archives to accept film of a major body of records as a substitute for the original. CHAPTER VI
MICROFILMING AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Other agencies had gained considerable experience with microfilming before the National Archives was established in
1934, but much remained to be done in establishing micro
filming standards and in finding ways of adapting microfilming
to the needs of archivists.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A DIVISION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION
The first annual report of the Archivist of the
United States announced the establishment of a Division of
Photographic Reproduction and Research which was activated with the appointment of its Chief, Dr, Tate, on May 1, 1935,
The major functions of the Division were:
To plan and carry through a series of studies of duplicating and photographic techniques in relation to the preservation, restoration, and use of documents transferred to the National Archives; to duplicate materials prepared in the National Archives for its own use and for circulation; to photograph rare or unique documents in order to reduce the frequent handling of the originals; to make for purposes of preservation reduced photographic copies of official documents of possible future value but not considered of sufficient historical interest to warrant the preservation of the originals; to establish and maintain an efficient and economical service for scholars and other accredited persons wishing photo graphic or photostatic copies of documents; and to initiate, develop, and carry through scientific research projects in photographic processes dealing with the application of microcopying to the problems of the National Archives, 1
*U. S. National Archives, Annual Report of the Archivist of the United States for the Fisca'X year Enairig~June 3u, i&fiT 83
The first task of the Division was to photograph accumulations of records in various Federal agencies to show the conditions under which they were stored; the second was to carry out the duplication of card files of various sizes which might he 2 required for use in the National Archives. Actually, the first year of the Division was devoted to the "preliminary and basic work incident to its establishment as a part of the 3 National Archives organization," Personnel was recruited and basic equipment acquired, including a continuous photostat machine with two mercury vapor lamps and a Recordak rotary copying machine employing 16 mm. single perforate film used for card copying*
COPYING OF INDEXES AND ADJUNCTS TO RECORDS
During the first several years microfilm was used to copy the Veterans Administration Index, the Mereness Calendar of Material in the Federal Archives in Washington relating to the Upper Mississippi Valley, a Department of State Index to
Indian Treaties, a Library of Congress guide in card form to the making of subject heading cross-references, known as the
"Refer-From File,'1 for use by the Library of the National
(Washington, 1936), 19, This annual report will be cited hereafter as U, S, National Archives, Annual Report,
2 Ibid., 19351 37. 3 U. S. National Archives. Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research, Annual Report, Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1936. NA, RG 64. Annual Report Series. 84
Archives, and the working manuscript of the codification of
Federal administrative law prepared by the Codification Board.
Microfilm was also used to copy records in private hands
supplementing records in the custody of the National Archives.
Veterans Administration indexes. The work of repro ducing the Veterans Administration Index was first undertaken
by transfer of the cards to the National Archives, This
proved too slow and expensive in time and labor, and later
a crew of five operators was transferred to the Veterans 4 Administration building to finish the work there. The micro
film of the index, still in use in the National Archives,
comprises four sections: the first one, the Old War Index,
reproduces 25,248 cards; the second, the Mexican War Index,
reproduces 51,304 cards; the third, the Indian War Index,
69,292 cards; and the fourth, the General Index, 2,447,042
cards. This was a pioneering project and much thought and
effort were devoted to making the indexes in microfilm form
as easily usable as possible. The original card files were
supplemented by revised guide cards prepared by the Division
of Cataloging of the National Archives and inserted in the
original file at one hundred card intervals prior to the
microfilming. These guide cards were prepared for filming
in the following manner:
4 Ibid., 1936, 4-5. 85
A strip of black paper the width of the card (i.e, , the width of the original 3x5 inch cards) but equal to about three times the length of each card, has gummed to it the letters corresponding to the divisions introduced by the Division of Cataloging, The fact that the lettering was in white on a black background causes them to appear in the photographic negative as black on white. This forms a very valuable system of locating the material readily. It should be noted that regardless of the rapidity with which the film is passed from the film carrying spool to the takeup spool, a distinct "flash*’ will be seen as the large white surface passes over the projection s c r e e n , '
As a further aid to the user the guide cards on each reel of film were serially numbered and a numbered list of these guide cards appeared on the box containing each reel. It was proudly proclaimed that "cataloging experts state that this method of locating cards on film is as rapid as the use
g of the ordinary card index,"
In 1942 the microfilm of the Veterans Administration
Index was used to test the ease of searching microfilmed records. The Bureau of the Budget reported that a controlled test by the Veterans Administration and the National Archives, using the simplest kind of a file-search operation, showed
that it took seventeen minutes for a Veterans Administration clerk to obtain from the original alphabetized name index cards the case file numbers of twenty-five Civil War veterans,
while it took fifty-three minutes for a National Archives
5 Utilization of the Card Files on Film of Veterans Administration Index, NA, HG 64, Microfilming Photographic Archives Series 1935-.
^U, S, National Archives, Annual Report, 1937, 62, 86
Assistant to find the same case file numbers from the micro- 7 filmed copy of the Veterans Administration name index* From this test it was concluded by the Bureau of the Budget that searching of original records is more than three times faster than searching a microfilmed copy of the same records. Dr.
Tate’s reply to this criticism was that:
The control test is not a fair example in that the card file serves as an index; only one item, usually a file number is required. Thus the time spent in placing a roll of microfilm on the reader is chargeable to a consultation lasting a fraction of a second. If the microcopies are to be consulted as documents not indexes, the apparent disparity would tend to disappear,8
The Bureau of the Budget had improperly applied to the whole field of microfilmed records a test of the speed in the use of microfilmed card indexes. On the other hand, it seems quite clear that card catalogs or indexes are not as speedily consulted in microfilm form as in the original form, and that this use of microfilming must be justified in terms of securing a duplicate copy of a file needed for use in two locations or of reduction of the large amount of space needed for voluminous card files.
^J, L. Keddy to the Director, Bureau of the Budget, Memorandum, March 19, 1942 /Photostat Cop^/, NA, RG 64. Transaction Dossier 144-1077'
8Vernon D. Tate to the Archivist, Memorandum, March 19, 1942, ibid. 87
The Mereness Calendar of Material in the Federal
Archives in Washington Relating to the Upper Mississippi Valley.
This calendar, the result of twenty years of research by
Dr. Newton D. Mereness, was available in only a single copy in card form in Urbana, Illinois, Personnel of the National
Archives were sent to Urbana where rented high-speed rotary cameras were used to microfilm the 280,000 cards on 6,000 feet of 16 mm. film at a reduction ratio of 17 to 1, Storage of the film required only five-ninths of a cubic foot of space as contrasted with the 85 cubic feet required to house the catalog cabinets in which the original cards were stored, 9 The entire cost of the project was less than $500, Since the
Mereness calendar provided an index to materials in process of transfer to the National Archives, it came to serve as a comprehensive subject guide to a mass of material housed in 10 a single location.
The Index of Indian Treaties. The microfilming of the
Index of Indian Treaties, a small file of 2,430 cards providing
a guide to the Indian Treaties that had by then been trans
ferred from the Department of State to the National Archives, proved to be very inexpensive. Portable 35 ram, equipment was
Q U. S. National Archives, Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research, Report for the 3rd Quarter of 1937, NA, RG 64. Annual Report Series,
^U, S, National Archives, Annual Report, 1938, 24. 88 used and a staff member of the National Archives 1,made the original film in five hours elapsed time, including time off for transportation to and from State and a luncheon 11 period,"
The Library of Congress 11 Refer-FromM File, The Refer-
From File at the Library of Congress was a file of 3x5 inch cards listing the cross-references required in a library catalog which followed the Library of Congress subject heading system. This file was started in 1925 and was 12 intended for eventual publication. Since the National
Archives was in process of establishing a new library, the information in the Refer-From File was needed by the library staff engaged in cataloging. The microfilm made by the
National Archives in 1936 served the agency*s library staff until the data in the file became available in published form in 1943.'L3
Codification Board. A quite different and possibly entirely original use of microfilming was made in conjunction with the work of the Codification Board, which had been
^U. S* National Archives, Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research, Report for the 3rd Quarter of 1937, 3, NA, RG 64, Annual Report Series.
^ I n t e r v i e w with Richard S. Angell, August 3, 1964.
■*"3 U. S. Library of Congress, Subject Headings Used in the Dictionary Catalogs of the Library of Congress, 4tE edition tWashington, HF43T. 89 established to codify the administrative issuances of the
Federal Government, To accomplish its work the Board had requested from each agency three copies of all rules and regulations. It was intended that the first copy would con stitute a working copy to be edited and annotated and that the manuscript annotations would be later transferred manually to
the other two copies. One annotated copy was to be retained
in the National Archives as insurance against loss, and the
other was to be used by the printer in final preparation of
the index. It was found, however, that the manual transcription of the notations, alterations, and additions made by the
Codification Board to the duplicates would require a large
staff and a considerable amount of time. As neither time nor
money was available for this purpose, microfilm was substituted 14 and the original was copied on 35 mm. film. The original
copy was then used by the Government Printing Office as
printer's copy while the microfilm was retained in the National
Archives as a security copy against loss by the printer. Later
this single negative film was used, in conjunction with one of
the copies that had not been annotated, for the task of indexing.
During this same early period the original ship*s
papers of Rear Admiral Lavallett were offered for sale and the
U, S, National Archives, Division of Photographic Archives and Research, Report of the Chief for 1938/39, NA, RG 64. Annual Report Series. 90
National Archives was allowed to make for itself a positive copy of the originals in return for supplying the owner with 15 a negative film copy.
MICROFILM PUBLICATION PROGRAM
While the idea of using microfilm as a means of issuing
publications which would make available at a distance the
resources of the National Archives was held by a number of
persons during these early years, it was not until 1940 that X 6 the first File Microcopy publications were issued. The
time lag is attributable to the fact that the tasks of
recruiting staff, establishing an organization, and accessioning
and putting into some order large masses of records occupied
much of the time and energy of the relatively small staff of
the National Archives during the first five years of its
existence. During these years substantial amounts of material
were copied for institutions or individual scholars, but in
nearly all cases the purchaser of the film was given the
negative and no film copy was retained by the National
Archives.
Early proposals. Among the earliest documents in the
files of the National Archives suggesting use of microfilm as
U. S. National Archives. Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research, Report for the Fourth Quarter of 1937, 2, ibid. 16 Kathryn Murphy, The File Microcopy Program of the National Archives (unpublished Master’s thesis, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. , 1951), passim. 91 a means of publication is a letter from Dr. Dallas D. Irvine, writing in his capacity as Provost of the American Military
Institute, to Dr. Tate, stating that the American Military
Institute had come to realize that the establishment of the
National Archives had created an unusual opportunity for the
"publication" of complete archival series in microfilm form*
Dr. Irvine suggested that any person or organization in possession of a master film copy of an important series of records could sell positive prints at a price greater than
their material cost and thereby regain the cost of producing
the negative plus some profit. He further speculated that if
a project were begun for which enough subscribers were obtained,
the amount of capital needed would be reduced to that
"necessary for executing one small part of the project at a time.
In such case, the small amount of capital would constitute a 17 revolving fund," In order to make sure that his ideas were widely known, particularly in the National Archives, Dr. Irvine sent copies of his letter to Dr. Philip C, Brooks, Solon J*
Buck, and Dr. Waldo G. Leland. According to Dr. Irvine, the
■^Dallas D. Irvine to Vernon D. Tate, June 12, 1939, NA, RG 64, Committee on File Microcopies Series. The records of the National Archives concerning the File Microcopy Program are divided into a number of overlapping series. The series bear the following designations: Committee on File Microcopies Series, File Microcopy Committee Series, File Microcopies Series, Microfilming Photographic Archives Series 1935-, Transaction Dossier 049-77, Transaction Dossier 048-T1, and Transaction Dossier 050-88, 92 ideas proposed were not original with him but were widely current at the time, partly as a result of the work of
Binkley, and, particularly in the immediate area of the
District of Columbia, as a result of the work of Dr. Watson 18 Davis and his Science Service.
At about this same period Dr. Tate was advocating a publication plan using microfilm as a means of lowering the net cost to the ultimate consumer. He pointed out that the demand for microfilm copies of certain important files was such that the National Archives was in the position of copying the same materials several times in response to these requests.
He suggested that this wasteful repetition of work could be avoided if the National Archives were to retain the negative and place a notification of the availability of positive prints in the leading scholarly journals. Dr. Tate also noted that it would be possible to edit documents precisely as though they were to be printed and in effect to publish on film. The National Archives, he stated, "is the first to date to consider this process of sub-publication for archival materials, and it is believed that if this plan is placed in effect it will be a decided contribution to 19 scholarship."
18 Interview with Dallas D. Irvine, April 1, 1960. 19 U. S. National Archives. Division of Photographic Archives and Research, Report of the Chief for 1938/39, NA, RG 64. Annual Report Series. 93
An undated and unsigned memorandum, probably written by 20 Dr. Tate prior to 1938, outlines some of the reasons for initiating such a publication program, proposes some methods of operation, and details some inherent difficulties. This memorandum states that it had hitherto been the practice of the National Archives to prepare complete new negatives in response to each order and to deliver these to fill the order.
In many cases the documents filmed were fragile or encased in fragile bindings and the process of photography subjected the originals to a certain amount of wear and tear. This wear on the documents should be eliminated and the author accordingly proposed that the National Archives retain all microfilm negatives of complete volumes in such cases where the film negatives may:
1 . be used in subsequent orders, 2 . assist in preservation of the originals, 3. be useful for research, reference, and for other purposes in the National Archives and 4. serve as an insurance policy on the records themselves. 21
The memorandum further proposed that records active in a historical sense whose reproduction had been requested should be considered for wider dissemination. The first step would
on The technical language and style of the memorandum are similar to that used in other memoranda signed by Dr, Tate. Attached to the memorandum is a handwritten note saying "Prior to the Microcopy Committee 1938-39." 21 Retention of Original Microfilm Negatives and a Possible Sub-Publication Plan, NA, RG 64. Committee on File Microcopies Series, 94 be preparation of both a negative and a positive print to meet
the original request. Following this the custodial division
concerned would prepare a report incorporating a history of
the agency in which the records were created, the purposes
for which they were intended, and an indication of related
records in the National Archives, This report would constitute
an introduction to the filmed file, and once edited and approved
by the Division of Publications would be microfilmed and spliced
onto the film. Thus a publication would be created. It was
suggested also that the possibility of publicizing checklists 1, of proposed projects for microfilming be circulated and that
the program be thus made responsive to known demands, The
law, however, required that all moneys received from the sale
of microcopies be deposited in the United States Treasury,
and under this system the more orders that were received the
greater the drain upon the appropriations made directly to
the National Archives, with no provision for compensation.
The memorandum suggested two possibilities: first, a law
providing for the automatic reappropriation of all amounts
received in one year for use in the following fiscal year,
and second, the passage of a law permitting the use of a
revolving fund into which moneys received could be deposited
and made immediately available for reuse.
In June 1940, Buck, as Chairman of the Committee on
Publications, suggested to the Archivist a means of carrying 95 out a microfilm publication program through the existing 22 administrative organization. He proposed that the Director of Publications be instructed to compile a tentative list of materials in the National Archives suitable for publication and that this list, together with estimates of the cost of making microfilm negatives for each item, be submitted to the
Archivist for his consideration. Buck also recommended that the Chief of the Division of Photographic Archives and
Research be instructed to notify the Committee on Publications whenever he received an order for microfilm copies of a con siderable body or important unit of archival material for which the National Archives did not already hold negative microfilm, so that these materials could be considered for inclusion in the publication program. Finally, he recommended that the Director of Publications be authorized to give suitable publicity to the availability of microfilms as publications.
Committee on File Microcopies. Some of Buck's suggestions were adopted, but it was thought better to establish a new mechanism for handling the details of the program. A
Committee on File Microcopies was therefore established on
September 20, 1940. The memorandum establishing the Committee
named as its first members, Buck, Chairman, Mr, Marcus Price,
22 Solon J. Buck to the Archivist, Memorandum, June 27, 1940, ibid. 96
Assistant Director of Archival Services, Dr. Philip M. Hamer,
Chief, Reference Division, and Dr. Tate, and the "chief of the custodial division which has the custody of the material 23 under consideration for microfilming." In addition to in corporating the suggestions made by Buck, this memorandum instructed the Director of Publications to arrange for the preparation of the necessary editorial data for the items to be produced as edited microcopies.
The first action of the Committee on File Microcopies was to address a memorandum to the chiefs of the custodial divisions of the National Archives requesting notification of records that seemed appropriate for microfilming. The memorandum stated:
In forming its judgment with regard to any particular series, the Committee will need to know the nature and physical form of the series, the approximate number of pages involved, the method of arrangement, the time that would be required to perfect the arrangement of the material and the reasons that prompt you to believe that a file microcopy should be made.24
Only two memoranda were received in response to the request for recommendations* The first of these, a memorandum from
Roscoe R. Hill, Acting Chief of the Division of State
Department Archives, noted that "the registers in this Division appear to fall in the scope of the plan of your memo; however,
23 U, S, National Archives. Committee on File Microcopies for 1940-41, Memorandum, No. A-132, September 20, 1940, ibid. 24 U. S. National Archives. Committee on File Microcopies to Chiefs of Custodial Divisions, Memorandum, December 11, 1940, NA, RG 64. File Microcopies Series. 97 25 a study of use indicates not enough to warrant copying."
Mr, P. W. Edsall pointed out, however, that in the case of the registers microcopying was the only practicable means by which the conflicting needs of the "custodial Divisions and the
Division of Reference can be met. Some of these records have begun to deteriorate with use, and for these microcopying seems doubly desirable."^® The advice of the chief of the custodial division was in this case not followed, for the microfilm of the State Department Registers of Correspondence, 1870-1906, on seventy-one rolls is advertised as available for $513 in the 1953 list of National Archives Microfilm Publications.
Dr. Oliver W. Holmes, on the other hand, responded enthusiastically, saying that any opportunity or excuse to film various series of records should be seized "when it presents
itself. The receipt of special orders, the size of available
funds, and the availability of personnel for whatever arrangement work is necessary are the factors which should determine precedence.
The program initiated, 1941. Initiation of the program was announced in the annual report of the Archivist for 1941:
25 Roscoe R. Hill to Committee on File Microcopies, Memorandum, January 9, 1941, ibid.
W. Edsall to Solon J. Buck, Memorandum, July 8, 1941, ibid. 27 01iver_W, Holmes to Solon J. Buck, Memorandum /January, 1941?/, NA, RG 64. Microfilming Photographic TTrchives Series 1935-. 98
The program was launched by the preparation of file microcopies for three groups of material for which it was thought that there would be future orders. An edited microcopy of the documents in one of these groups, the Colorado series of State Department Territorial papers, with 33 pages of introductory matter was completed during the year. Considerable work was done on a calendar and an index for an edited microcopy of the letters received by the Michigan Superintendency of Indian Affairs, 1819-35, and some introductory materials were compiled for an edited microcopy of the records of the Oregon Superintendency of Indian Affairs, 1848-73, A study of the desirability of 28 other proposed file micro copy projects was made toward the end of the year with a view to planning a program for the future,28
Program disrupted by WorId War II. The File Microcopy
Program was scarcely under way when the United States entered
World War II and trained personnel and photographic supplies and equipment were diverted to other uses. For a time the program was continued on the grounds that it seemed appro priate "because such distribution of microfilm copies of valuable records is one means of insuring the continued 29 existence of some of the cultural resources of the Nation,"
As the War progressed and the danger from enemy bombing seemed more and more remote, however, it was no longer possible to justify continuing the program on the grounds of security.
Further shortages of trained personnel for editing and filming the material became even more acute and resulted in a
28 U. S. National Archives, Annual Report, 1941, 35.
2 9 lbid., 1942, 33, 99 substantial reduction of the work done. Production dropped to 131 rolls of file microcopies made in 1944 and stood only at 164 in 1945. A catalog of file microcopies available as of January 31, 1945 listed 1,211 rolls that had been made as 30 of that date.
An analysis of this wartime product of the file micro copy program by Dr. James R. Masterson indicates that there was some sacrifice of editorial quality in order to produce as much film as possible. In selecting materials for filming, preference was given to series of letter books and to other series which, because of uniform binding and filing, could be filmed with maximum rapidity and minimum editorial work.
Introductory notes were reduced to stereotypes; general introductions were prepared with the least practicable amount of research. Further, he pointed out, the program was in the paradoxical position of being least expensive when least successful. Advertisement of the valuable records already available through microcopy might conceivably "bring so many 31 orders that the program would perish by its own success.”
3 Q Ibid., 1945, 25. O I James R. Masterson to Oliver W, Holmes, June 30, 1944, NA, RG 64, Transaction Dossier 049-77. The National Archives Trust Fund Board Act (62 Stat, 1026) approved July 7, 1941 contained authorization for establishment of a revolving fund to be used for purposes "including but not restricted to the preparation and publication of special works and collections of sources,” The reasons for the failure to use this authority to resolve the fiscal problems described by Masterson are not 100
The difficulty, as previously indicated, was that all funds received in payment for positive copies of file microcopies were required by law to be paid back into the Treasury of the
United States.
In a later analysis of the program, Mr. Noll was sharply critical of the great waste of film caused by the fact that one roll of film was equated with one original volume. Mr. Noll also suggested the desirability of insti- tuting a film rental service for the benefit of institutions or scholars not having a permanent need for film copies. Such a rental service would, he felt, be a means of augmenting the 32 revolving fund of which he was strongly in favor.
The National Archives produced relatively little microfilm during the period under review. In the early years microfilms were made of a number of indexes which provided an
approach to paper records in custody of the Archives. The
File Microcopy Program was scarcely under way when World
War II intervened, and it was not until the post-War period 33 that the major problem of funding this program was resolved.
clear from the record. Mr. Noll stated in an interview of August 1, 1964 that there was a difference of opinion in the National Archives and the Archivist took the view that additional specific legislation was required to establish a revolving fund in support of the File Microcopy Program. 32 Daniel F. Noll, File Microcopy Program, May 19, 1949, ibid. Transaction Dossier 048-T1. 33 A grant from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1948 made possible the establishment of a revolving fund so that income from sales of microfilm could be used to replenish stocks of 101
If the amount of microfilm produced seems small and the accomplishments relatively few, it is only fair to remember
that the microfilm activities of the National Archives were not intiated until May 1935, that a variety of administrative problems had to be solved in connection with the establishment
of the National Archives as a new agency, and that the entry of the United States into the War followed only a few years
after 1935, Despite these difficulties, the initial period saw the establishment of laboratory facilities with complex microfilming equipment, the training of staff, the solution
of technical problems, and some attention to the uses to which microfilm might be put. The major application was in publication microfilming; there was a smaller amount of managerial and
acquisitions microfilming. So far as can be determined, the
staff of the National Archives never gave serious consideration
during these years to a possible program to preserve the
Agency's own records on microfilm.
photographic supplies needed for the production of additional copies. Documentation concerning establishment of the revolving fund is found in ibid. Transaction Dossier 050-88, CHAPTER VII
MICROFILMING IN WORLD WAR II
By the start of World War II, microfilming equipment and techniques were developed to a point where the military services were able to use microfilm for a large number of managerial, record keeping and other purposes. Enthusiasm for microfilming ran high in the military, and an anonymous article by an Army officer presented a glowing account of the benefits to be derived from the use of microfilm,’*' Even before the start of the War, the major emphasis of WPA micro filming projects had shifted from work for the civilian agencies of Government to a major project to sort, index, and microfilm World War I draft records for the War Department.
As the War progressed, increasing amounts of film, supplies, and technically trained personnel were absorbed by the military, and despite a greatly increased production of photographic equipment and supplies, Government requirements were so great 2 that little was left for normal civilian use. The largest
*Col, Micro /pseud.7\ "Microfilm Goes to War,1' Army Journal, 48:27-29 (Tune, T941). Col. Micro was identified as Li, CoT. J, M, Scammel by Daniel F. Noll in an interview of January 20, 1963. Scammel was a staff officer in the office of the Director of the Historical Records Survey. In November 1940 when Work Projects Administration funds were allocated for War Department microfilming projects, he was given a temporary assignment as WPA liaison officer with the War Department. 2 Donald C. Holmes, "Wartime Photographic Activities and Records Resulting Therefrom,M American Archivist, 10:288 (July, 1947). 103 wartime filming project, that of V-mail, required the filming of millions of exposures. Both the War and Navy Departments microfilmed large masses of older records. Large-scale managerial uses included the microfilming of railway bills of lading, the use of film copies of drawings of naval ships and planes, the provision of security copies of daily intel ligence reports mailed in the original from such key State 3 Department posts as the American Embassy in Stockholm, the 4 copying of confidential files of censorship intercepts, and the copying of payroll records for use in making war bond deductions.
WAR DEPARTMENT MICROFILMING
With the advent of the national emergency the WPA changed its policy concerning the percentage of funds to be spent on non-labor items in projects for military agencies.
Under this new policy the sum of $480,000 for non-labor costs was allocated in 1940 to a War Department project designated as the National Defense Research and Clerical
Assistance Project (Official Project 165-2-00-3). A list
3 Interview with Daniel F. Noll, January 23, 1963. 4 Byron Price to General James A. Ulio, August 9, 1943. Records of The Adjutant General's Office, Records Management Branch. 5 (AG0-1). These are current files in custody of the Records Management Branch and are cited hereafter as AGO followed by the designation of the series in which a particular item is to be found. g Wayne C. Grover, War Department Records Administration Program (Washington, 1948),34. 104 of sub-projects approved by the WPA in November, 1940 included the following: sorting, indexing, and microfilming of 1917-18 draft records; sorting, indexing, and microfilming of post, camp, and station records; and microfilming of unpublished
War College studies.
World War _I draft records. The project to microfilm
World War I draft records was started with a pilot project to film the records of the Adams County, Illinois, draft boax’d, considered to typify the records of the some 5,000 draft boards throughout the country. The film of the Adams County records was completed within a few months. An analysis of costs of this trial project indicated the total cost for the filming of the records of all boards would be $50,000 for materials alone, and from 2 to 4 million dollars in labor 6 costs, depending upon the degree of accuracy expected.
Consideration was given to abandoning the entire project at this point, but at the insistence of Army officers the project was carried out but reduced in size by filming only the records of men who had been inducted into the services and by destroying the records of those men who had not been inducted. The records had by then been moved from storage at Fort McNair to the newly completed District of Columbia
National Guard Armory, where a crew of about 100 WPA workers
6Ibid., 35. 105 were engaged in separating and arranging for filming the records of inducted men and handing on for destruction the records of non-inducted men. The project was described by the Washington
Post as the "biggest destruction project of its kind in all history," The microfilming of the cover sheets of the files of inducted men went on for two years, before it was found that the Veterans Administration, the agency presumed to have 8 a use for the records, had no use for them. In 1948 the destruction of some of the microfilm resulting from this project was recommended and carried out on the grounds that 9 these films were experimental and had no further use.
Central Microfilming Plant. During this same period a Central Microfilming Plant was established by General
Brehon B. Sommervell, Chief of the Construction Division, who brought to Washington personnel formerly employed in WPA microfilming projects, The Central Microfilming Plant, starting in the summer of 1941, undertook with an initial appropriation of $1,600,000 the microfilming of records of completed construction projects, amounting to some 1 2,000
7 "Search for Office Space Leads to Destruction of World War Draft Records," Washington Post, November 14, 1941, Q Grover, War Department Records Administration Program, 35.
^Commanding Officer, Records Administration Center, Adjutant General's Office to Chief, Administrative Services Division, Memorandum, March 29, 1948, AGO. 5-(AG0-l). 106 file cabinets and of the records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers for the period 1894-1923, In the filming of the construction records the originals were refiled by color of paper in order to facilitate the process of microfilming.10
The result was that the General Accounting Office auditors found the film useless for their purposes. The method of microfilming the records of the Office of Chief of Engineers was questioned by the staff of the National Archives. ^
Because of these dissatisfactions, the projects to microfilm construction records were terminated. Most of the staff and equipment of the Central Microfilming Plant was transferred to the Adjutant General’s Office in the early summer of 1942,
The unit thus formed was named the Microfilming Branch. At the end of the war, $1 ,200,000 of the initial allocation of 12 $1,600,000 was returned to the Treasury,
Shortly after its founding the Microfilming Branch initiated a project to microfilm the Muster Rolls and Rosters for the period November 1, 1912 to December 31, 1939. The group of records to be filmed occupied 980 file drawers with an estimated 3,000 documents in each drawer. The micro filming of these records was terminated in November 1942,
■^Interview with Roland Langelier, January 18, 1963.
^Grover, War Department Records Administration Program, 49.
^Interview with Daniel F. Noll, January 23, 1963. 107 after 289 drawers of records had been filmed. It was recom mended in 1944 that the project be completed on the grounds that the original records were deteriorating and could be best preserved by filming, and also because extensive tests had shown that searching the film was more rapid than searching the original records. Further, a study of the costs of storage of the originals versus the costs of filming indicated that filming presented a marked cost advantage. The tests of the time required to search the film showed that an average time of 8 minutes 12 seconds was required as opposed to 8 minutes
48 seconds average time for a search of the originals*
An estimate of the cost of microfilming the remaining records versus the cost of storage indicated a cabinet of records could be microfilmed at a total cost of $6 8 , 0 0 while the cost of equipment for storage of the originals, plus the cost of space to house them at 90 cents per year a square foot, amounted to
$140 over a 20-year period. Costs of filming were broken down 13 as follows:
Equipment rental 2.66 days @$1.00 $ 2.66 Film 6 reels @$2*20 13.20 Labor, records prep. 2,66 days @$5.62 14.95 Labor, Camera Operat. 2,66 days @$5.62 14.95 Labor, Film inspection 1.33 days @$5.62 7.48 Labor, typist 2.66 days @$5.62 14.95 Total cost per cabinet $68.19 Equipment cost for storage of originals $32.00 6 square feet @$5.40 x 20 years $108.00
Buford T. Daugherty to Chief, Demobilized Records Branch, Memorandum, November 23, 1944, AGO. 5-(AG0-l). 108
In view of the factors in favor of film the question remains, "Why was the project not carried to completion as recommended?" The available records give no clear indication but hint that the failure to film all of the records in each
cabinet and a resulting reluctance to rely on the microfilm 14 alone may have been a primary factor. On the other hand,
as Mr. Noll pointed out in a memorandum of February 22, 1945,
a missing document or a slight illegibility of names on a
particular roster is "not serious because one only need look 15 in next month’s roster." In an interview some years after
the event he suggested that perhaps the basic fault lay with
those in charge of the records program; they failed to insist
that the films rather than the original records be used by
the clerks making searches in the files, despite the clear
evidence that the film could be more readily used than the 16 original. At any rate the microfilming project was never
completed. The film was for a time stored under adverse
conditions of temperature and humidity and became so brittle 17 that some rolls tore in later use. The 598 rolls of film
were finally destroyed in 1950. The recommendation for
14 C, K. Heuser to Chief, Administrative Services Division, Memorandum, March 10, 1950, ibid. 15 Daniel F. Noll to Chief, Records Management Branch, ibid. 16 Interview with Daniel F. Noll, January 23, 1963, 17 Interview with Roland Langelier, January 18, 1963. 109 destruction included the statement that "any future project
for microfilming these records would require refilming of that 18 portion already on film,"
Microfilming of payrolls for War Bond Office. Both
the Microfilming Branch and its predecessor the Central
Microfilming Plant met with better success in their efforts
to serve as a service agency and microfilm jobbing shop for
other branches of the Army than they did in the records man
agement programs of their parent agencies. For a period of
months early in the war the Central Microfilming Plant pro
vided assistance to the Army War Bond Office by furnishing
copies of all civilian and military payrolls containing bond 19 deduction statements. A more dramatic instance of copying
payrolls involved the microfilming and making of enlargement
prints of the original civilian and military payrolls brought
out of Corregidor when it fell to the Japanese forces. The
original documents were required by the General Accounting
Office; the War Department also needed copies of these records
as the best source of information about the last known status
of American personnel. The original plan was to photostat
these payrolls, but enlargement prints from microfilm could
be made less expensively and two initial sets of such
18 C. K. Heuser to Chief, Administrative Services Division, Memorandum, March 10, 1950, AGO. 5-(AG0-l), 19 Daniel F. Noll, Notes for History, ibid. 110 enlargement prints were made by the Microfilming Branch at a total cost of $2,500, By the end of the war an additional five sets of prints were made for use in this country and by 20 the armed forces re-occupying the Philippines,
Microfilming of bills of lading for Finance Office.
In still another project the Central Microfilming Plant pro vided microfilm as a substitute for paper records in the work of the Transportation Division of the Finance Office of the
U. S. Army. Prior to September 1942, the Washington Office received duplicate copies of all bills of lading and trans portation requests. These duplicates were placed in suspense files arranged by carrier and sub-arranged by bill of lading or transportation request number. When the carrier's invoice accompanied by the original supporting documents was received by the Washington office, the duplicate supporting documents were removed from the suspense file and attached to the copy of the voucher to be retained. The space occupied by the required paper records amounted to some 100,000 square feet.
After the inaguration of the microfilm program, payments were made on the basis of the carrier's original vouchers.
All original vouchers and attached supporting documents were microfilmed in voucher number sequence and the microfilm served as the disbursing officer's retained file. This use
20Ibid., 13. Ill of microfilm enabled the Transportation Division to handle a doubled work load with no increase in personnel and at the same time made possible a reduction in the average time 21 required to process payments from 30 days to 14 days.
Company Morning Reports. A program to preserve the
Company Morning Reports in microfilm form was initiated in the fall of 1943 and suspended in mid-1944. An essential feature of the program, the use of punched cards in the mechanical production of an index to the microfilmed records, proved so successful that its use was continued when the program was resumed in 1946.
In August 1943, the Army adopted a new form of Morning
Report to record the location, strength of reporting unit, and names of personnel joining or leaving the unit and other data. Each day's report was made in triplicate on thin manifold paper. The original was forwarded daily to a machine record unit in the field and at the end of each month these originals were forwarded to the Adjutant General as the official record of changes in duty status of all personnel.
Since each sheet was only about 4 x 8 inches in size, copies of Special Orders on 8^ x 14 inch mimeograph paper were
attached to the smaller manifold sheets when more space was
needed. It was recognized that neither the flimsy manifold
B* Hale to Daniel F. Noll, Memorandum, March 21, 1944, ibid. 112 paper nor the mimeograph paper would have a life expectancy of much more than 6 years and that the hundreds of thousands of bundles of reports could hardly be maintained in proper sequence for any length of time. It was therefore decided to microfilm these basic records and destroy the paper originals.
During World War II reports from more than 100,000
Army units ranging in size from detachments of 2 or 3 men to regiments were sent daily to machine record units in the field where they were used to compute the strength of all organiza tions and to record changes in the duty status of the personnel assigned to each organization. At the end of each month the original reports were forwarded to the Adjutant General's
Office, These originals were the only record admissible in courts martial or other formal proceedings. Each set of reports was wrapped like currency in bundles and an IBM card duplicated from the decks of cards maintained in each field record unit was inserted under the paper band of each bundle.
As the reports were microfilmed in order of receipt, the next
Item Number in the sequence was stamped on the accompanying
IBM card, and the card was photographed at the start of the set of reports. After the reports and cards had been micro filmed, the IBM cards were mechanically sorted and interfiled.
At six month intervals summary cards were punched and were 113 22 used to reproduce mechanically an. index in book form.
The program of microfilming Morning Reports was sus pended in June 1944 because it was not considered of sufficient
importance to the then current war effort. When the program was resumed in 1946, the backlog of records accumulated since
June 1944 were microfilmed as well as the current monthly 23 reports from 1946 onward.
In the judgment of Dr. Wayne C. Grover, the failure of
the major projects to microfilm the World War I records of
inducted men and the Muster Rolls and Rosters "indicates very
little with regard to micro!ilming, except the state of 24 confusion and lack of policy surrounding its use," Although these projects failed as projects, and as failures did little
to advance the cause of microfilm, they provided the data and opportunity for one of the most important single developments
A detailed and illustrated description of this system of indexing microfilmed records is given in U, S, Department of the Army, Microfilming of Records (Washington, 1955), 42-44* 23 The information in the above account is based on an interview with Daniel F. Noll on January 20, 1965. According to Noll the microfilming of the Morning Reports continues at the rate of 8 or 9 million items per year. Precise figures on the amount of microfilm made prior to 1946 are not available. An indication of the size of the program can be gained from a History of the Photo Process Section, AGO Records Center, prepared by Major Scott, 18 July 1950, AGO. 5-(AG0-l) which states that 32,000 rolls of microfilm containing more than 81 million images were made during the period from August 1943 through December 1949* 24 Grover, War Department Records Administration Program, 59. 114 in the use of microfilm during the period prior to 1946.
A manual of microfilming practices was completed by Mr. Noll 25 and made available in printed form by the War Department.
This manual with its detailed information on preparing records for filming, on indexing film, on techniques of filming special types of material, and on inspection of completed film, brought together a mass of information based on the accumulated experience of a number of agencies with microfilming records to that date. A revised version of the manual, issued in 1955, is still used as the basic guide in the Defense
Department's microfilming operations.
NAVY DEPARTMENT MICROFILMING
Security microfilming. A major Navy project early in the War was concerned with the microfilming as a security measure of some two million pages of manuscript holdings of 26 the Office of Naval Records and Library, Cameras and other equipment owned by the National Archives were used for this project which was carried out under the direction of Dr, Tate.
Managerial microfilming of correspondence. Microfilm was also used by the Navy Department to control incoming
25 U, S. War Department, Records Administration— Micro- f ilming of Records (Washington, 1946. Technical Manual Iff"257). 26 Vernon D, Tate, "Microphotography in Wartime," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 5:129-138 (September, 1942). 115 correspondence received by the Bureau of Aeronautics, the
Bureau of Ordnance, and the Bureau of Ships. These three
Bureaus received about 6,000 pieces of correspondence each day
of which about half were judged important enough to be logged
in and placed under control. After an initial review the
correspondence of lesser importance was routed immediately to
the appropriate person or unit. Each important piece of
correspondence was marked with the name of the unit to which
r it was routed and labelled with appropriate subject headings
before it was microfilmed. After the microfilm was made the
original documents were forwarded for action. The microfilm
was then used to make paper photocopies by means of V-Mail
printers. The paper photocopies were used to form a subject
control file. The microfilm was retained as a record of
incoming correspondence by date of receipt. Thus it was
possible to search for a piece of incoming correspondence by
subject or by date of receipt. Following the war the incoming
original correspondence and the paper photocopy subject files
were destroyed. The microfilm thus became the permanent
record. 2 7
Microfilming engineering drawings. Perhaps the most
important contribution of the Navy to the development of
microfilming lay in the field of filming of engineering
drawings. Such use of microfilm came early in the war when
27 Interview with George H. Hamp, August 4, 1964, 116 many of the detailed plans of warships damaged at Pearl
Harbor were microfilmed and flown to Honolulu, Transportation of the "originals would have required several transport planes or a surface vessel. Valuable time was saved and material vitally needed for other uses was released through the use of 28 microphotography," Later, microfilm of engineering drawings provided a means of saving paper— for example, the Corsair F4U fighter alone required some 15,000 engineering drawings— production time and ship transport. Microfilms of drawings of aircraft, with equipment for reading and reproducing the drawings, were distributed to some four hundred and fifty naval air activities by the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics. The
Bureau of Aeronautics also supplied field installations with technical notes, notifications of aircraft changes, and flight medicine notes in microfilm form. The Bureau of
Ships supplied fleet installations with drawings and 29 technical notes in similar fashion,
The Navy thus found microfilming useful as a means of controlling incoming correspondence and of producing multiple copies of engineering drawings in greatly reduced size. Some use also was made of microfilm as a means of providing security
copies of older records. Despite these successful applications
^Tate, "Microphotography in Wartime134. 29 Donald C. Holmes, "Wartime Photographic Activities and Records Resulting Therefrom," American Archivist, 10:287- 293 (July, 1947). 117 microfilming was apparently not considered an important tool
in records management, for a summary article written by the
commanding officer in charge of records management for the
Navy towards the close of the War makes no mention of micro-
filming. 3 0
V-MAIL
The V-Mail system, called "Airgraph" in Great Britain,
"was developed by the British Post Office in collaboration 31 with Kodak and introduced in 1941." Service to the British
forces in Egypt was initiated on April 17, 1941 with the first
reel of film including a message from Sir John Dill to 32 General Wave11. The first airgraph delivery from forces in
the field, a shipment containing films of some 50,000 letters
from forces in the Middle East, was received in Great Britain 33 on May 13, 1941. The airgraph was put into use because
"sea communication was slow and the demand was very great for 34 the use of aircraft capacity for war purposes," The
30 Emmett J. Leahy, "The Navy’s 'Record* in the Second World War," ibid., 8:233-40 (October, 1945). 31 Herbert W. Greenwood, Document Photography: Individual Copying and Mass Recording (London, 194377 137 32 Norman C. Baldwin, British Airmails, 1784-1946: A Chronology and Priced Catalogue of Aviation and Air Mall Souvenirs Flown Within and From Great Britain and Ireland (Sutton,England" 1947)7 ToTT
33 Ibid., 104. *34 Howard Robinson, Britain*s Post Office: A History of Development from the Beginnings to the Present Day (London, 1953), 273.------118 photographic work was done by Kodak Limited under contract to the Post Office, Kodak equipment for the filming of outgoing
letters was housed in the Foreign Section of the Post Office.
Microfilm received from abroad was developed and enlarged at 35 the Kodak works at Harrow.
The procedures for handling airgraphs appear to be much the same as those adopted a year later for use in the
United States in handling V-Mail. The outgoing letters
written on special forms measuring 11 by 8 inches were sorted
by the various arms of service and theaters of war and hand-
stamped with consecutive numbers so that any airgraph lost or
damaged in transit could be identified and replaced. The
letters were photographed on reels of 16 mm. film 100 feet
long. Each 100-foot reel contained 1,700 airgraph photographs
and, including the small metal container in which it was coiled,
weighed 5^ ounces, "If these letters had been sent by
ordinary letter-post and in their original form, they would 36 have weighed 50 pounds." At the receiving end the films
were projected onto continuous sheets of photographic paper,
the rolls of paper were developed and trimmed, and the in
dividual letters, now in form of a photostat reproduction,
were folded by a machine developed by John Dickinson and Co. ,
35Ibid. , 274.
3®Ian Hay, The Post Office Went to War (London, 1946), 45. 119 a British firm of envelope makers. In addition to the first processing station at Cairo, by June 1943 centers had been established at Nairobi, Johannesburg, Bombay, Melbourne,
Wellington, and Toronto. A total of more than 350 million
letters were sent in this fashion. After 1943 use of airgraph
steadily declined as air transport improved, and the service
entirely ceased at the end of July 1945, three months after the 37 end of the war in Europe.
Use of V-Mail by the United States armed services was
initiated in March 1942. Both 16 mm. and 35 mm. film were 38 used and the forms on which the original letters were 39 written measured 8^ by 11 inches. Two stations for the
handling of outgoing mail, one in New York and the other in
San Francisco, were established. The letters were photographed
by military personnel and the exposed film processed by the 40 Eastman Company under contract to the U. S. Government.
Processing in overseas installations was handled entirely by
military personnel. In the case of the War Department a
combination of Army Postal Service and Signal Corps personnel
was used, while in the Navy the work was performed by the
3^Hobinson, Britain * s Post Office, 273, 3ft Donald C. Holmes, "Wartime Photographic Activities," 288-289. 39 y U. S. War Department, Photomall Operation (Washington, 1945), 2.
^3,IV . . . Mail," Fortune, 26:72 (November, 1942). 120
Navy Postal Service. Reciprocal arrangements were made so
that V-Mail for Army personnel was handled by Navy controlled
V-Mail service in the absence of Army installations and vice 41 versa.
In an effort to control quality and improve operations
the War Department issued a number of technical manuals. These
included:
TM-11-2300 (Enlarger PH-542/UF (V-Mail) . TM-11-2302 Paper Cutter. (V-Mail). TM-11-2304 Projector PH-513/GF (V-Mail) . TM-11-2313 Developing Machine PH-512/GF (V-Mail). TM-11-2309 Reader PH-284 (V-Mail).
Efforts to control quality were also made by separating the
original letters into groups according to reproduction quality.
Thus, typewritten letters and those written in ink were in one
group, letters written in pencil in another, and letters con
taining enclosures, damaged, or not thought reproducible, 42 put into a third group for direct mailing. Despite these
efforts the quality of V-Mail reproduction sometimes left
much to be desired, and in the opinion of one present day
microphotographer, the use of dirty lenses, poor exposures,
and general lack of quality control gave microfilming a 43 "black eye from which it has been a long time recovering.”
41 U. S. War Department, Photomail Operation, 2.
4 2Ibid., 36.
^Interview with Donald C. Holmes, March 14, 1960. 121
In the beginning public acceptance of V-Mail was somewhat slow. This was due perhaps to the poor quality of the film, but more likely to the widespread rumor that V-Mail, being on motion picture film, was read by being projected onto a camp movie screen for all to see. Another rumor of some currency was to the effect that V-Mail letters were subjected to the curious scrutiny of dozens of persons in the 44 course of processing. It has been suggested also that the
V-Mail copy was not psychologically an entirely acceptable substitute for the original and tended perhaps to give the recipient an increased sense of isolation from friends and 45 family. Despite these difficulties V-Mail ultimately gained wide popularity and by the time the service was terminated on November 1, 1945, 648,108,066 communications had been sent overseas, of which 614,822,846 had been received by individuals in the Army alone. During this same time, the Navy and Marine Corps processed an additional two 46 million official communications using the same technique.
One might assume that the relative cheapness, speed, and savings in transportation inherent in V-Mail would have resulted in the peacetime continuation of an equivalent of
V-Mail, Instead, as we have seen, both airgraphs and V-Mails
44,t V-Mail ,ft Fortune , 72. 45 Interview with Lester K. Born, August 1, 1964,
AC. Holmes, "Wartime Photographic Activities," 293. 122 were dropped abruptly at the end of the war. The seeming
lack of logic may have resulted in part from a dissatisfaction
with the quality of reproduction but more likely was the result
of the complex system of subsidizing commercial carriers of
both air and ocean mail.
At the end of the War the V-Mail service and the major
microfilming projects of the War Department were terminated.
The Navy continued to microfilm incoming correspondence and
engineering drawings but on a greatly reduced scale. Trained
technicians and equipment were thus released for use by the
civilian agencies of the Government. PART B
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS CHAPTER VIII
PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The technique of microfilming differs radically from older methods of reproducing, storing, or copying records.
Microfilming is a photographic technique requiring specialized equipment, facilities, space, and trained technicians. In microfilm, the written or printed image is reduced to a size so small that it cannot be read by the naked eye. Consequently special equipment and quarters are required to permit readers to use it. Microfilming, as a photographic process, makes possible the production and distribution of multiple copies of records. An administrative mechanism and facilities are required for producing and distributing microfilm whether single copies are made and sold on demand or microfilm is used as a means of publishing multiple copies. These factors give rise to a number of administrative problems in the areas of organization, staffing, policy making, and budget.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS IGNORED BY CONTEMPORARIES
The published accounts of microfilm programs unfor tunately contain little discussion of the administrative difficulties arising from the application of this technique to records management. Such important writers as Binkley 125 and Dr. Tate* concentrated on the development and improvement of techniques and equipment with less attention to the contents of the records filmed and almost no attention to administrative details. Dr. Herman Fussier, Director of Libraries at the
University of Chicago, wrote of the administrative problems faced by the librarian in his employment of microfilm but, while this work is of interest, the orientation is not toward 2 the problems encountered in microfilming records.
Administrators and microfilm practitioners themselves tended to solve the problems arising from microfilming on an ad hoc basis, taking problems piecemeal as they arose rather than treating them as a unified group of problems meriting extended consecutive attention, discussion, and documentation.
The lack of concentrated continuous attention to the formu lation of administrative policy regarding microfilm may, in
Binkley’s major work, the Manual on Methods of Repro ducing Research Materials, is concerned exclusively with equipment and techniques. The Journal of Documentary Repro duction , edited by Dr. Tate from its beginning in 1938 to its end in 1942, contains descriptions of a number of microfilming projects but no discussion of administrative problems. Dr. Tate’s own voluminous writings are concerned primarily with technical problems. By 1945 there was a considerable body of literature on the subject of microfilming* Unfortunately much of this literature is repetitious and badly written. Such writings may have served to popularize the technique of microfilming but did not constitute original or significant additions to knowledge of the subject, 2 Herman Fussier, Photographic Reproduction for Libraries; a Study of Administrative Problems (Chicago, T 5 ZTT. ------126 part, be attributed to the normal difficulty which any over worked operating official has in finding the time required 3 to devote to administrative planning.
GOVERNMENT FAILURE TO MEET DEMANDS OF PUBLIC
To avoid the administrative problems which might be caused by demands for service, an agency must either ignore the demands or else permit individuals or groups outside the agency to meet these demands. The latter course was essen tially the solution adopted in the beginning by the Public
Record Office in England, the Archives Nationales in France, and the Library of Congress. It was also the solution to the problem of making and distributing the records of the Agricul tural Adjustment Administration and National Recovery Act
Hearings held in 1934. This method of making photographic copies available is typified by the service provided at the
Library of Congress prior to the establishment of its Photo duplication Service.
Beginning in the early 1920fs, the Library of Congress provided space on one of the decks of what is now the main library building for a photostat camera owned by a Washington,
D. C. firm. Those wanting to purchase photocopies of materials
“*In 1946 the National Archives established a special staff position for evaluation of microfilm projects and long- range planning of a future program. This position, called Consultant in Microphotography in Records Administration, was first filled by Mr. Noll on his return to the National Archives following the War. 127 in the Library of Congress collections sent their orders to the commercial firm which twice a week sent a man to the
Library to make the required exposures. The result was a private commercial transaction between the individuals using the service and the commercial firm. No charges were levied by the Library for space or electricity used by the commercial firm; the camera operator was treated as any other user coming to the Library, in that the books were brought to him as requested; and the Library assumed no responsisibility for the quality of the photostats. Microfilm was adopted as a means of reproduction during the final years of this arrangement, but the Library continued to serve only as the source of the 4 materials being copied.
Such an arrangement parallels the commercial arrangement with private individuals for the making of handwritten copies of manuscript materials in the Public Record Office and elsewhere in Europe which prevailed prior to the introduction of photostating and eventually microfilming techniques.
The shift from handcopying to photocopying, whether photo stating or microfilming, meant that instead of having to provide only the usual reader space and service, the host institution had to provide a special space and electrical current for cameras. One may well ask whether it is, strictly
4 Interview with George A, Schwegmann, Jr., January 21, 1964, 128 speaking, entirely proper and legal for an agency of government to provide space, facilities, and services to a commercial profit-making firm, The alternative would have been to forbid any such arrangement and thereby penalize members of the public who could secure copies in no other way unless they went to the considerable expense of making a trip to the insti tution and making the desired copies themselves. Dr, Fussier suggests that such arrangements are improper because they permit commercial profit at the expense of scholarship, because a franchise is given to a single commercial firm, and because most such commercial firms at the time he was writing did not specialize in the production of copies of book and record material and consequently could not provide first class 5 service.
Joint Committee on Materials for Research. Some of
Dr. Fussier's objections are met by arrangements such as those made by the Joint Committee on Materials for Research, an organization sponsored jointly by the American Council of
Learned Societies and the Social Sciences Research Council, which employed Dr. Schellenberg to arrange and film the voluminous record of hearings of the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration and the National Industrial Recovery Act. The project was a complicated cooperative arrangement involving
5 Fussier, Photographic Reproduction for Libraries, 48-49. 129 the Federal Government, the Joint Committee on Materials for
Research, the Recordak Corporation, and the libraries and institutions purchasing the finished microfilm. The Federal
Government provided the space and electricity for the camera; the camera itself was provided by Recordak which processed the exposed film and manufactured copies. Dr. Schellenberg's salary was covered by the Joint Committee, of which he was then Executive Secretary, and the costs of the raw film and processing were borne by the subscribing libraries.
To arrive at the cost to each subscribing library, the base cost of making the negative, including some profit for the manufacturer, was calculated, and each subscribing library paid a part of this base cost in addition to the entire cost of its own positive. Since the cost of the negative remains fixed, the share to be borne by each subscribing library 0 depended upon the number of participants. In this case the commercial firm was selected by negotiation and the quality of the work was controlled by a scholarly group. This arrange ment, nevertheless, also involved profit and the fact that a
Federal agency provided space and services, not normally provided for the public, to a special group.
Fiscal problems. These difficulties would not have existed had it been possible for the agencies concerned to
^Theodore R. Schellenberg, "The N.R.A. and A,A.A. Code Hearings on Films," Public Documents (Chicago, 1936), 202-206. 130 use funds specifically appropriated for providing microfilm service. Such fiscal arrangements were not made, and it was
not until the National Archives and the Library of Congress were able to establish microfilm services, financed in large
part from grants of money from private foundations, that many 7 of the problems were solved, at least for these two agencies.
Even after the major record holding agencies of the
government, and, specifically, the National Archives had established and equipped sizable microfilming laboratories,
thus eliminating the need to rely on commercial firms, there
remained a number of substantial problems in relation to
producing multiple copies of microfilm for sale to the public.
ORGANIZATION OF READER FACILITIES
Once Federal agencies had started to acquire microfilm
from outside sources or to produce microfilm of their own,
there was need to provide adequate reading machines to enable
the staff and the public to use the film. In most agencies
the use of microfilm is generally limited to staff members,
7 The problem still existed for some agencies of the Federal Government as recently as 1964, a case in point being the Joint Publications Research Board, which had funds neither to permit the printing of sufficient copies of its translations from Russian and Chinese to meet demands nor to establish its own facilities for providing microcopies. A partial solution was to deposit one of the few sets of mimeographed copies in the Library of Congress so that those interested could order either microcopies or Xerox prints through the Library's Photoduplication Service. Interview with Charles G. LaHood, January 22, 1964, 131 and reading equipment is needed only for inspection of finished film as it comes out of the laboratory and for the use by the unit which has custody of or works with the film. At the
Social Security Administration, for example, the microfilm records are utilized by the Federal Old Age Insurance Division unit, and the reading machines as well as the film are in the custody of that unit.
A different dimension is added when an agency has as its primary mission the provision of a reference and reading service to the general public, as is the case with both the
Library of Congress and the National Archives. Such agencies have great masses of diversified material in their custody and have developed staffs of highly specialized subject experts to deal with materials in their original form. For such agencies provision of adequate reading machine service involves a decision as to whether a central unit, which has custody of all microfilm and provides supervision of the reading machines used by the public, should be established, or whether the microfilm and the necessary reading machines should be assigned to reference divisions having custody of related original materials.
In the early months of the National Archives the few reading machines available were in the custody of the Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research. Within a very short time it was decided that better service to users could be provided by placing the machines in the specialized 132 records divisions, with the result that the same staff members who provided service on original records also helped readers with the use of related microfilm* Equipment sufficient for the inspection of microfilm was left in the laboratory of the
Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research and the remainder scattered throughout the Archives. The point of heaviest concentration and use was in the Search Room, where records and microfilms useful in genealogical research were 8 used.
For the Library of Congress the situation was more complicated because of the diversity of format and subject matter involved. Among the first reading machines were those in the Manuscript Division, acquired in the early 1930's shortly after the first films produced in Europe arrived at the Library. Both staff and public used these machines.
Since the machines were available only in the Manuscript
Division, for a brief period they attracted to that Division small amounts of microfilm of non-manuscript material to gether with its limited reading public* As it became
g This was the situation in 1936 and 1937 as described by Mr. Holmes, then on the staff of the Division of Photo graphic Reproduction and Research, and this in effect is the situation today. The use of microfilms of records of genealogical interest has become so great that the entire East Search Room is occupied by microfilm reading machines, and these undoubtedly constitute a greater proportion of the total machines in the National Archives than was the case in earlier years. Interview with Donald C, Holmes, January 5, 1964. 133 apparent that greater amounts of microfilm of other than manuscript material were being acquired, plans were made to
set up a separate Microfilm Reading Room as a common point
for the custody and service of the bulk of the Library's microfilm collections. It was decided, however, that the
microfilm of manuscript material would constitute a special
case, and that such film should remain in the custody of the
Manuscript Division where it could be best handled by the
specialists accustomed to dealing with related original
materials. ^
The experiences cited indicate that for agencies
having microfilming activities related to normal line
operations, microfilmed records together with the required
reading machines may best be integrated into the unit performing
the line functions. For agencies giving reference service on
a diversity of records and, perhaps, also printed materials,
readers may initially be placed in the unit first receiving
or producing microfilm, but it may later prove necessary and
desirable to distribute microfilm and reading machines
throughout the agency in a pattern based on the organizational
structure of the agency. For an agency like the Library of
Still later the decision was made to give custody of microfilms of such specialized materials as Slavica and Orientalia to the subject Divisions responsible for original materials of similar content, and a similar decision was made with regard to microfilms of newspapers which were placed in the custody of the Newspaper Reading Room. Interviewiwith George A, Schwegmann, Jr., January 21, 1964. 134
Congress, where a core collection is maintained and serviced by a central Stack and Reader Division, the major collection of microfilm and the majority of the reading machines may be placed in that unit. As greater numbers and more varieties of films are received, more reading machines are required.
At some point it may become desirable to decentralize slightly, preferably to the same extent and in the same way that service on original material is decentralized. Microfilms of materials, such as those in Oriental languages, are then serviced by the same staff members who specialize in the handling of materials segregated by language characteristics, and microfilms of such materials as newspapers are handled by a special staff developed to handle originals placed into a special collection because of bulky format.
Regardless of the method used to disperse microfilm reading equipment, the problem of queuing still remains.
While every effort may be made to distribute the available machines in proportion to the amount of microfilm used in each custodial unit, there are always times when a reading machine in one division is unused while readers wait for an available machine in another division. Barring the unlikely availability of unlimited budget and space for reading machines, some readers must suffer the inconvenience of long delays or of arranging to use an unoccupied reading machine 135 at some distance. There appears to be no ready solution to
this problem.
PLACEMENT OF LABORATORIES IN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The organization and administration of the micro
filming laboratories in which the film is produced would seem
to present no peculiarly distinct administrative problems not
found in the administration of any other activity. To the
contrary, to some extent the nature and extent of equipment
and facilities required encourage centralization and specializa
tion while at the same time the process of filming encourages
rational organization of the units of record materials to be
filmed and a logical flow of work. In both the Library of
Congress and the National Archives the placement of microfilm
activities within the organizational structure of the agency
presented some problems because of an uncertainty in the
beginning concerning all of the functions to be carried out by
the units charged with microfilming. Both the Library of
Congress and the National Archives were undergoing drastic
over-all organizational changes in the 1930's and 1940's, and
the organizational history of the units responsible for micro-
filming is inevitably closely interwoven with these over-all
changes.
The Library of Congress. The Photoduplication Service
of the Library of Congress was established March 1, 1938.^
^ U , S, Library of Congress, Annual Report, 1938, 312. 136
Mr. Archibald MacLeish, who became Librarian in the following
year, described the organization of the Library prior to his
arrival as follows:
The Library of Congress in 1939 was not so much an organization in its own right as the lengthened shadow of a man— a man of great force, extra ordinary abilities, and a personality which left its fortunate impress upon everything he touched. Only a man of Herbert Putnam's remarkable qualities could have administered an institution the size of the Library of Congress by direct and personal supervision of all its operations, and only he if his administration were based upon the intimate familiarities of forty years,H
The Photoduplication Service conformed to this organizational
pattern, and the Chief of the Service reported directly to
the Librarian of Congress as did all other responsible
officials of the Library.
The first Chief of the Service, Mr. George A.
Schwegmann, Jr. , continued to serve also as Chief of the Union
Catalog Division. Mr. Schwegmann was assigned the additional
task of supervising the Photoduplication Service because he
was the individual in the Library who had kept himself best
informed about developments in microphotography.
When in the Summer of 1940 Mr. MacLeish organized the
Library into major departments for better administrative
control, the Photoduplication Service was placed in the
11 Archibald MacLeish, "The Reorganization of the Library of Congress, 1939-44," Library Quarterly, 14:3 (October, 1944). 137
Reference Department, the Department concerned primarily with service to the general public.12 The initial internal organiza tion of the Photoduplication Service was haphazard. The pro duction of photostats, which might logically have been assigned to the Photoduplication Service, remained a function of the
Chief Clerk of the Library whose office controlled the supplies of photostat paper used to meet official Library of Congress requirements for photostatic copies. The photostat service was not combined with the Photoduplication Service until the 13 Summer of 1940. Receipt of orders for reproductions and
preparation of bills was handled in the office of the Chief of the Photoduplication Service, much of the time with staff borrowed from the Union Catalog Division. Other staff members
of the Union Catalog Division carried out the tasks of finding
the materials to be filmed and transporting the material to
the cameras. Laboratory operations were under the direct and
close supervision of Mr. Schwegmann in his capacity as Chief
of the Photoduplication Service.
The arrangement by which the Chief of the Union Catalog
Division administered the Photoduplication Service in addition
to his other duties was termined in 1945 when a full-time
12U. S. Library of Congress, General Order 964, June 29, 1940. In a further reorganization of the Library in 1946 the Photoduplication Service was placed in the Adminis trative Department where it remains still. U. S. Library of Congress, General Order 1275, Spring, 1946. 13 U. S. Library of Congress, Annual Report, 1941, 41. 138
Chief was paid from savings. The position was later made a
regular budgeted position, the initial justification to the
Appropriations Committee of the House being that the arrangement
for a part-time director sufficed when the "Service was in
its infancy and the staff number only 4. Today it numbers 14 36, none of whom is charged to appropriated funds."
By 1944, when the staff of the Photoduplication Service
numbered in the thirties and some specialization of the function
had developed, a more formal organization was required. The
staff was then divided functionally into three units: a
Business Office, the Laboratory, and a Special Services
Section. The Business Office was responsible for receipt
of orders, price estimates, billing, and receipt of payments.
The Laboratory was charged with the technical task of pro
ducing photocopies. The Special Services Section located
materials in the Library's collections, delivered the books
and other materials to the Laboratory, and maintained custody
of the negative microfilms owned by the Library as well as of
special collections of negatives on deposit, such as those 15 owned by the American Documentation Institute.
The Photoduplication Service was financed from its
beginning in 1938 with funds provided by a grant from the
Rockefeller Foundation, The terms of the grant stated that
14Ibid., 1947, 320.
"^Interview with Charles G. LaHood, April 23, 1964, 139 the ’’funds were to be used for purchase of new equipment and installations and for a revolving fund for salary of expert operators and materials for microfilm copying.” A revolving fund for materials was undoubtedly necessary and justifiable because under normal government procedures money received from the sale of microcopies would have to be paid into the Treasury of the United States. Stocks of chemicals and raw film would then have to be replenished from funds appropriated on a yearly basis. As the demand for microcopies increased, increasingly larger appropriations for restocking of supplies and materials would have been required each year, and Congress might have refused to increase appropriations sufficiently to keep pace with the demand for microcopies.
Whether or not Congress would have provided funds for the initial purchase and installation of equipment and salaries for the required staff is problematical. The use of a mixture of funds from a grant and from appropriations raised interesting policy questions. Why, for example, should the salary of the Chief of the Division be paid from appropriated funds when all other staff members were paid from the revolving fund? Why should users of the service be required to pay for the costs of locating and delivering material, a service normally provided without charge to readers who came to the
Library in person? Even more complex policy considerations
1 f* . U. S. Library of Congress, Annual Report, 1947, 20. 140 were introduced when one considers the question of the pro priety of charging Government agencies, including the Library of Congress itself, at a rate slightly more favorable than that charged to the general public but still high enough to add some margin of profit to the revolving fund. Such income from Government sources often amounted to substantial sums of money. In fiscal year 1943, for example, the amount added to the revolving fund was abnormally high because it included reimbursement for 200,000 feet of microfilm printed for the
Interdepartmental Committee for the Acquisition of Foreign
Publications pending installation of microfilm printing 17 facilities in the Office of Strategic Service Laboratory.
By 1945, the balance in the revolving fund amounted to
$15,146, with an additional balance of $22,256 in accounts 18 receivable. The amount was not exorbitant since a reserve was needed to purchase essential replacement equipment that had not been available during the War. Given these circum stances, there seems no ready solution to these policy questions.
The National Archives. At the National Archives the situation was somewhat different. The costs of equipment and staff were met entirely from appropriated funds and a grant
17 Ibid., 1944, 120,
18 Ibid., 1945, 123. 141 from the Rockefeller Foundation m s used to replenish stocks of photographic materials for the File Microcopy Program, The question here was why appropriated funds should be used to subsidize publication by traditional techniques of printing and a large share of the cost of publication by microfilm be charged to the consuming public.
The unit in the National Archives responsible for microfilming underwent several administrative changes and changes in duties reflecting changes in attitude toward micro filming within the National Archives, When first founded as one of the original divisions set up within the National
Archives, the Division of Photographic Reproduction and
Research was regarded as one of the "administrative divisions" 19 charged with housekeeping functions. This original division was abolished on June 1, 1938, and some of its functions were "reallocated to a new professional Division of Photo- 20 graphic Archives and Research," In the course of the reorganization of which this change was a part, the division
dropped its administrative function of performing duplicating
services for the whole agency and placed greater emphasis on
responsibility for the custody and reference work connected
with the collections of still photographs. Under the
reorganization the chief of the division, like the chiefs of
1 q U. S. National Archives, Annual Report, 1935, 13,
2 0 Ibid, , 1938, 3. 142
the other professional divisions, reported to the Director of
Archival Service* In a further reorganization of the Archives
several years later the custodial divisions were reorganized
into departmental records divisions and special records
divisions under a Director of Records Accessioning and
Preservation. The Division of Photographic Archives and
Research, along with the Division of Motion Pictures and
Sound Recordings and the Division of Maps and Charts, con- 21 stituted the group known as the “special records divisions,"
Still later, on November 7, 1945, the Divisions of Photographic
Archives and Research and of Motion Pictures and Sound
Recordings were consolidated in a Photographic Records Office, 22 headed by a Director of Photography. This division along
with the departmental records divisions reported to the office
of the Director of Operations,
The organizational pattern throughout was such that
the chief of the division primarily responsible for micro
filming was assigned duties which were logically related
because they involved techniques of photographic reproduction.
But these related duties involved the evaluation, sorting,
and accessioning of large masses of material and required the
design and provision of new types of storage facilities and
2 1Ibid,, 1942, 39.
22Ibid,, 1946, 41. 143 the control and use of specialized projection equipment,
These responsibilities drained away the time and energy of the division chief and left him little opportunity to work with the various government agencies on the problems of applying the technique of microphotography to archives. More over, because such microfilm as the various agencies produced was in the custody of the departmental records divisions, which were responsible for evaluation and accessioning of all records including microfilm, the Chief of the Division of
Photographic Reproduction and Research and its successor divisions tended to serve as consultant to divisions of the
National Archives itself and only infrequently served as direct consultant to other agencies of Government. Adequate leadership and coordination at the level immediately above the divisions could perhaps have helped to solve the lack of direction caused by this split in responsibility. Unfortunately such leadership and coordination was not forthcoming,
The general administrative picture at the Library of
Congress and the National Archives prior to 1946 thus presents an example of what ought not to be done rather than a model worthy of emulation. It should be reiterated, however, that both agencies throughout the period under review were under going drastic reorganizations and were concerned with a great number of administrative problems in which those relating to microfilming formed only a minor part. Furthermore, the war was responsible for the temporary loss of key personnel
in all Government agencies and this lack of personnel
seriously affected both formulation and execution of plans
and policies. Under the circumstances the lack of
decisiveness, planning, and skill in reorganizing agencies
to better perform their basic functions is at least
understandable. CHAPTER IX
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
AND CITHER AGENCIES
One result of the administrative deficiencies described in the preceding chapter, in particular the establishment of an organizational structure which did not leave the Chief of the Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research free to concentrate his attention and energy on the problems of microfilming, was the failure by the National Archives to exercise initial control over the mici’ofilming projects of other agencies of government. Still worse, there was an apparent breakdown of communications within the National
Archives itself with the result that microfilm projects completed by other agencies were not always properly evaluated.
Miss Josephine Cobb, Acting Chief of the Division of
Photographic Records and Archives during Dr. Tate’s absence on military duty, expressed alarm at the tendency of records divisions to consider the microfilming of records as a decisive factor in making recommendations for disposal. She felt that the fact that records had been microfilmed should not dictate decisions as to their value or disposability, and cited the records of the National Unemployment Census of
1937 which were reported for disposal on the grounds that they had been microfilmed, In this case the filming of the records 146 was apparently never completed, the films received in the
National Archives were not in order, and, in Miss Cobb’s opinion, the film copies were worthless. The microfilm itself was reported for disposal in order that the film could be salvaged and the spools, of which there was a scarcity, could be reclaimed. Miss Cobb therefore concluded:
The counsel of experience therefore is to neglect the fact that records have been microfilmed in considering their disposal unless special factors exist and then only when the microfilming has been well conceived and well executed from the stand points of usability and permanence. 1
This situation could not be attributed entirely to improper administrative organization and faulty coordination.
If other adequate administrative devices, such as a manual or a series of instructions setting forth in detail standards, policies, and procedures for handling microfilming projects, adequate legal controls over microfilming by the various agencies, or control over microfilming activities through the budget process had been used, such a situation might have been avoided. The National Archives did in fact concern itself with some of these administrative controls,
MANUAL OF MICROPHOTOGRAPHY PROPOSED
Dr. Tate suggested in 1941 that a manual of micro photography would be one means of providing advice and some
1 U. S, National Archives. Division of Photoeraohic Records and Archives, Annual Report, 1944, NA, RG 64. Annual Report Series. 147 element of control during the planning stages of agency micro filming projects. He pointed out that an increasing number of requests were being received from agencies wanting to carry out microfilming projects, as permitted by the Act of 2 September 1940, and suggested that the National Archives should prepare a manual in order to achieve some measure of uniformity in the microphotographic activities of the Federal
Government. The contents of the proposed manual he described as follows:
This manual should contain complete information about the attitude of the National Archives toward indexing and reference use; preserving the legal status of the records; technical details on film stock and required tests, etc. Copies of targets, indexing media, and sample certificates, forms, work organization layouts, etc. should be appended. In short the manual would be a concise guide for administrators. Its use would not be compulsory but optional, and copies could be supplied as a part of our regular advisory s e r v i c e . 3
Dr. Tate personally undertook to prepare a manual in addition
to his regular duties and special war work. He accumulated considerable material and left some sections in draft form at
the time he entered the Navy late in 1941, No one remaining
in the Division finished the study, however, and although
Dr. Tate expressed a desire to complete the manual while in 4 the Navy he was never able to do so.
^54 Stat. 958. 3 Vernon D. Tate to Assistant Director of Archival Service, Memorandum, December 9, 1941, NA, RG 64. Box 165. 4 U. S. National Archives. Division of Photographic Archives and Research, Annual Report, 1944, 5. Ibid. Annual Report Series. 148
THE PROBLEM OF LEGISLATION
A strong law relating to microfilming by federal agencies with adequate provision for controls by the National
Archives in the initial stages of microfilming projects could have done much to improve the situation. The impetus for a federal law relating to microfilming came not from the
National Archives but from the Work Projects Administration, which needed legal authority tu substitute microfilm for original records. The first federal law relating to micro filming was drafted by Mr, Eno, Chief of the Division of
Records and Microphotography of the Work Projects Adminis tration, and was aimed at meeting the particular needs of 5 that agency. The resulting law was quite different from that which might have been drafted by the National Archives and was deficient in its lack of adequate provisions for control by the National Archives,
The act drafted by Mr, Eno provided that:
Whenever any agency of the United States Government shall have photographed or microphotographed all or any part of the records kept by or in the agency in a manner and on film that complies with the minimum standards of quality approved for permanent photo graphic records by the National Bureau of Standards, and whenever such photographs or microphotographs shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provision made for preserving, examining, and using the same, the head of such agency may, with the
5 See supra, page 61 ff. for an account of the drafting and passage of the law (54 Stat. 958), 149
approval of the Archivist of the United States, cause the original records from which the photographs or tnicrophotographs have been made to be disposed of according to methods prescribed by law, providing records of the same specific kind in the particular agency have been previously authorized for dis position by Congress.®
A second section of the law provides for the admissibility of such photographs or microphotographs in evidence in place of the originals* The Act did not make mandatory the reporting of microfilming projects to the Archivist and the Archivist was not specifically authorized to establish standards for microfilming.
In order to compensate for some of these deficiencies and to make best use of the law, supplementary action on the part of the National Archives was required. Immediately after passage of the Act a draft letter to all agencies was drawn up by Dr. Brooks of the National Archives staff. The draft, never sent out, stated:
The Archivist interprets this Act to mean that before giving his approval to disposal, whether or not he is required to submit reports in a particular case to Congress, he must be satis fied that the photographs or microphotographs have been, as the Act provides "placed in con veniently accessible files and provision made for preserving, examining and using them." To be conveniently accessible for administrative or research uses expected of any records, those to
g 54 Stat, 958, No hearings were held on the bill in either the House or the Senate. The Report of the House Committee on the Disposition of Executive Papers, 76th Congress, 3rd Session, House Report No. 2560, indicated that a number of agencies including the National Archives had no objections to the bill. r 150
be photographed must be so handled that the order in which they were originally filed is preserved intact and clearly indicated. This is important because the original arrangement of the records represents the functions in which they were created and itself gives valuable information. Convenience of access as well as the cost of large scale photographing also requires the elimination of any material which does not have permanent value before the copying is done, and a selection process is therefore essential. The Archivist has a staff of experts in the arrangement of records and in their selection for preservation and disposal, and also in the technical aspects of photography. He is thus in a position to consult with the agencies in these matters with a view to making the photographic program as effective as possible.7
Later, in a further attempt to clarify the provisions of the Act, the National Archives Council adopted regulations on July 14, 1943 which included the following provisions:
The standards for the reproduction of records by photographic or microphotographic process with a view to the disposal of the original records shall be as follows:
(a,) The records shall be photographed in such order that the integrity of the file will be preserved.
(b. ) All photographic film or paper used and the processing thereof shall comply with the minimum standards approved by the National Bureau of Standards for permanent photographic reproductf a of records authorized for disposai after the lapse of a specified time.
(c.) The reproductions shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and adequate
7 Philip C. Brooks to All Agencies Relating to Miro- film Act;, September, 1940, NA, RG 64, Transaction Dossier 144-107, The draft letter bears no indication of the reason why it was not sent out. 151
provisions shall be made for preserving, examining, and using them*®
Finally, the National Archives in two circulars issued in the Fall of 1943 explained that the mere fact that a body of records had been microfilmed was not to be construed as 9 grounds for scheduling the disposition of the originals.
An Amendment to the 1943 ''Act Concerning the Disposal of Records," approved July 6 , 1945, provided for the reporting of completed microfilm projects to the Archivist. According to Section 3 of the Ac t :
The head of each agency of the U, S. Government shall submit to the Archivist of the United States, in accordance with regulations provided in Section 2 of this Act (1) lists of any records in the custody of the agency that have been photographed or micro photographed in accordance with the said regulations and that as a consequence thereof, do not appear to have sufficient value to warrant their further preservation by the Government.10
The regulations referred to, as appearing in Section 2, require the National Archives Council to establish "standards for the reproduction of records by photographic or micro photographic processes with a view to the disposal of the original records." This law, therefore, provided only for
8 U. S. National Archives Council, Regulations Adopted July 14, 1943 /Washington, 19437. g U. S. National Archives, Official Circular No. 44-26, September 30, 1943 and Official Circular No. 44-29, October 5, 1943,
1057 Stat. 380-383 as amended by 59 Stat. 434, sect. 3. 152 the reporting of completed projects and not specifically for control or advice by the National Archives during the planning of microfilm projects.
An examination of Congressional Hearings relating to the Library of Congress, the National Archives, and the
Bureau of the Census during this period indicated an almost complete lack of Congressional Interest in developing a policy for the control of microfilming programs. During the appro priations hearings for the National Archives for the years
1939 and 1942,11 James M. Fitzpatrick, Congressman from New
York, asked brief questions concerning the permanency of microfilm and the steps taken to ensure the completeness of
the microfilm copy. On the former point the Archivist,
Robert D. W. Connor, answered that the Bureau of Standards had indicated that microfilm was as permanent a record as could possibly be made. To the latter question the Archivist answered that the agency producing the microfilm was required 12 to certify as to its completeness. These brief questions by Congressman Fitzpatrick might have led to an extended discussion of policy questions, but neither the Committee nor
the Archivist chose to pursue the matter.
U. S. Congress, House. Committee on Appropriations, Independent Offices Bill. Hearings, 1939 (Washington, 1939), 416.
12Ibid., 1942, 431. 153
ATTEMPTED CONTROL THROUGH BUREAU OF THE BUDGET
In theory at least, it would have been possible to amend the law so that it would have been mandatory to consult the staff of the National Archives during the initial planning stages of every project to microfilm federal records. An alternative would have been to use the powers of the Bureau of the Budget to make such initial consultation mandatory.
This latter approach was suggested by Dr. Tate. In March,
1942, he proposed that the solution to the difficulties would perhaps be found in the "creation of a Board of Review for microfilm projects. The National Archives could supply technical information while the Bureau of the Budget could 13 exercise the necessary authority." Several years later,
Mr. Lacy of the National Archives staff indicated that when disposal lists of photographed records were presented to the
National Archives for review in accordance with the Federal
Records Disposal Act of July 7, 1943, one or more of the following was found to be true:
1. The records filmed could have been disposed of without filming. 2. the records were not put in proper order or provided with proper indexes. 3. the films were technically unsatisfactory. 4. the project was not planned for economy hence the cost was excessive.14
13 Vernon D. Tate to the Archivist, Memorandum, March 19, 1942, NA, RG 64. Transaction Dossier 144-107. 14 Dan Lacy to Harold D. Smith, Prepared March 6 , 1944, Not Sent, ibid. 154
A later, undated memorandum from Mr. Lacy to Dr, Brooks explained that the draft of this letter, addressed to the
Director of the Bureau of the Budget, was not sent because oral arrangements were made with the Bureau at that time, according to which the Bureau undertook to clear with the
National Archives, before the Bureau approved funds for micro filming, any proposal made for microfilming of records with a view to their disposal, A few cases were cleared in this manner, but the process was never formally regularized and
1 C the arrangement soon fell "into desuetude.1'
Whether or not the proposed arrangement with the
Bureau of the Budget could have been fruitful is open to question. Some members of the staff of the Bureau were con vinced as early as 1942 that the cost of microfilming ex ceeded the cost of construction of storage space for original records plus maintenance and staffing for a period of a hundred 16 years. This estimate was questioned by Dr. Tate, who believed the construction costs underestimated and the costs of microfilming inflated by the inclusion of such costs as weeding and editing, which are not properly chargeable to the filming process.
15 — — Dan Lacy to Philip C. Brooks, Memorandum, /undated/. This memorandum is attached to the draft letter cited in ibid, 16 J, L. Keddy to Director, Bureau of the Budget, Memorandum, March 19, 1942 /Photostat cop^7, ibid. 17 Vernon D, Tate to the Archivist, Memorandum, March 19, 1942, ibid. 155
The staff of the National Archives was not particu
larly pleased with the results of its efforts to control
or encourage properly planned projects to microfilm federal
records. The question was raised as to whether the basic
law, which might have been a means of accomplishing this,
had not in fact done more harm than good. Mr. Noll, in a
study completed in December 1946, pointed out that, while
in the 1930’s members of the staff of the National Archives
were usually consulted when a microfilm project was under
consideration, the situation deteriorated following
passage of the act of September 1940. According to Mr,
Noll, agencies frequently proposed the filming of records
of such marginal value that the staff of the National
Archives tended to encourage destruction without filming
and as a result developed a reputation for ultra
conservatism or even hostility to film, Mr, Noll reported
that existing archival and budgetary controls were in
effective in 1946 and that there was "too much emphasis
by the staff agencies on devising new controls and not
enough on collating, publicizing, and analyzing accumulated 18 experience of the operating agencies,'1
■^Daniel F. Noll, Control and Proper Use of Micro photography in the Federal Government, Report, December 1946, unpublished typescript, ibid. 156
EFFECTS OF WORLD WAR II
It is idle to speculate on what might have happened had not World War II intervened. There is no question, however, but that the war had a deterring effect on attempts to develop programs for the control of microfilming; for, on the one hand, the materials and machines which normally might have been used for microfilming records were absorbed by the war effort, and on the other hand, key personnel who might have influenced the course of events left the Archives to go into military service. Buck described the impact of the war on the use of microfilm as follows:
The possibilities of this new technique had not been fully explored when the outbreak of the war shut off most of the necessary supplies and equipment, but enough progress had been made to make it certain that the physical bulk of many bodies of records can be greatly reduced without losing any of the record content.
In the opinion of Mr. Lacy, the efforts of the staff of the National Archives to control microfilming projects of other agencies were a failure until the period immediately following the War. Then the "Archives staff saved the
Government tens of millions of dollars by persuading the war time agencies to carry out orderly programs of records weeding and disposal rather than preserving all of their records on 20 microfilm."
^Solon J, Buck, "Lets Look at the Record," American Archivist, 8:112 (April, 1945). 20 Interview with Dan M. Lacy, June 18, 1964. PART C
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER X
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
This study is divided into three parts: Background and History, Administrative Implications, and Summary and
Conclusions, The first part of the study presents a brief historical description of the development of microfilming from its invention in 1839 through 1939 and traces agency by agency the microfilming programs of the United States Govern ment from 1928 through 1945. The second part describes some of the administrative problems caused by the introduction of this technique into Government agencies and relates the attempts of the National Archives to control and guide the programs of other agencies to microfilm record material.
The third part summarizes and makes generalizations that may have significance for future microfilm programs.
The introductory chapter delimits the scope of the study and defines the terms used. The beginning date of
1928 is the year in which the Library of Congress first used
microfilm in copying records relating to American history in
French archives. The terminal date of 1945 marks the end of
the initial period of experimentation and development of the
technique in microfilming records. This study is restricted
to the microfilming of records by agencies and departments of the United States Federal Government. Microfilming by other institutions or by individuals is mentioned only when it provides background knowledge important to an understanding of the activities of the Government. The definition of the term "records" used is that given in the Federal Records Act of 1950.1 This definition encompasses documentary materials created or received in connection with the transaction of public business but excludes library or museum material made or acquired for purposes of reference or exhibition. The term microfilm, as well as its derivatives, is used as defined by the National Microfilm Association. "Microfilm is a fine- grain, high resolution film containing an image greatly 2 reduced in size from the original image," In order to photograph records at greatly reduced size and preserve them in the form of film, special equipment and techniques are necessary. The resulting images are so small that they cannot be read with the naked eye and a microfilm reading machine
is required. In order to analyze and compare various micro filming projects, a standard terminology relating to the
purposes of such projects is used. The basic terms substi
tution microfilming, security microfilming, and acquisitions microfilming have been adapted from the writings of
157 Stat. 380.
^Nat^onal Microfilm Association, Glossary of Terms. 1962, 30. 160 3 4 Bertrand Gille and Michel Francois. Substitution micro filming occurs when, with the intent of preserving deteriorating records or of conserving space, the objective is to discard the original records after filming. Security microfilming projects have the objective of providing a copy of records to be preserved against the possibility of accidental destruction.
Acquisitions microfilming is a means of securing a copy of records preserved in other institutions. These terms are not always mutually exclusive, since a film made for acquisitions purposes may also serve as a security copy. The United
States Government has also made significant use of publication microfilming and of managerial microfilming, categories not mentioned by either Gille or Francois.
Historical background 1839-1939. The inventor of microphotography, John B, Dancer, made his first micro photograph in 1839 and realized from the beginning that this technique could be used for the reproduction of records. A catalog of Dancer's microphotographs indicates that one of the earliest documents he reproduced was the U. S. Declaration of Independence and that he also reproduced a "Brief History of Micro-photography" and correspondence from Sir David
3 Bertrand Gille, "Esquisse d'un plan de normalisation pour le microfiImage des archives," 87 ff.
^Michel Francois, "Le Microfilm," 783-801. 161 5 Brewster relating to microphotography in this form. During the mid-nineteenth century and later Sir John Herschel and others speculated on the possibility that microphotography could be profitably applied to large bodies of public records, but the primary use of the technique was to manufacture , t jewelry, in which photographs of scenes or persons were incor porated, until Prudent R. Dagron's application of micro- photography to the reproduction of letter mail carried by pigeon post during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
From the 1870's until the mid-1920's there is a gap of some fifty years in the large-scale application of micro photography, accompanied by a diminution of speculation about eventual uses, broken in 1907 by a significant article by
g Paul Otlet and Robert Goldschmidt.
The growth of the motion picture industry, which brought about the development of 35 mm. roll film, and the invention of the Leica camera in the 1920's, made available equipment and supplies which gave a new spurt to micro photography. Numerous isolated instances of small scale use of microphotography in the copying of manuscripts by individuals occurred during the 1920*s. Such individuals
^Frederic Luther, Microfilm: a History, 1839-1900 (Annapolis, cl959), 179-183 gives a catalog of existing Dancer microphotographs. 6 Paul Otlet and Robert Goldschmidt, "Sur une forme nouvelle du livre," 63 ff. frequently used makeshift equipment and were essentially employing microphotography as a substitute for the laborious process of taking lengthy notes by hand. The work of such individuals and the more extensive microfilming activities of state and private institutions and of Government agencies from 1928 on were publicized by the American Library Associ ation in a series of annual volumes called Public Documents, by articles in the Journal of Documentary Reproduction edited by Dr, Vernon D. Tate, and by the writings and speeches of
Robert C. Binkley. The Society of American Archivists dis played an interest in microfilming in its early years but in 1940 disbanded its Committee on Equipment and Mechanical
Techniques because of the emergence of the Journal of
Documentary Reproduct ion, Occasional articles and newsnotes on microfilming appeared in the American Archivist, but the
Society failed to provide a sustained and carefully considered approach to the problems of microfilming in the period prior to 1946,
Use of microfilm by the Library of Congress, 1928-
1945. The earliest identifiable use of microphotography for the mass copying of public records is to be found in the
Library of Congress project for the acquisition of source material relating to American history carried on during the years 1928-19L.&.
The first use of microphotography by the Government of the United States was carried out at the Archives Nationales of France under the direction of Dr. Samuel F.
Bemis, who, as overseas director of the Library of Congress project for copying source materials, arranged for the installation of equipment manufactured by Paul Lemare of
Paris, This equipment was first put into use in April 1928 and microphotographs as well as enlargement prints were furnished to the Library by Lemare under contract. As a result of this project microfilm copies of more than
2,500,000 manuscripts in European repositories were added to the Library's collections* Later large-scale projects by the Library of Congress included an emergency project for the microfilming of British manuscripts during World War II, and the State Records Project sponsored jointly with the
University of North Carolina and initiated in 1941* The latter, completed finally in 1950, filmed printed records primarily but resorted to manuscript sources for material which had never been printed or which was no longer extant in printed form. The major use of microfilming by the
Library of Congress up to 1946 falls into Gille's category of acquisitions microfilming.
Microfilming by the Work Projects Administration. The records management program of the Work Projects Administration in which substitution microfilming played a major part was
initiated in October 1938. Actual filming started with a pilot project carried out by the New York City Surplus Clothing Project in June 1939. As a result of the experience gained from the pilot project, procedures for filming were developed in detail and specifications for microfilm cameras were drafted. Since the objective of the program was to substitute microfilm for the original records, it,seemed essential that a law be passed making the film an acceptable substitute for the originals. It was largely through the efforts of Mr. Lloyd Eno that the Elliot Bill was drafted and became law in September 1940. Eventually an estimated 15 per cent of the records of the Work Projects Administration and related agencies were microfilmed. The remaining original records, along with those that had been filmed, were destroyed.
In addition to filming its own records, the Work Projects
Administration filmed records for other agencies. The largest such project was for the War Department, and later the personnel and equipment (of WPA were transferred to the
War Department where they became the nucleus of that
Department's War-time filming program. The Historical
Records Survey microfilmed small bodies of county records, but did not engage in major programs to microfilm record i materials.
The Bureau of the Census Microfilm Program. The
Bureau of the Census started to microfilm Census records in
1935. The objective was to utilize managerial microfilming 165 to preserve the earlier records from wearing out through frequent handling by genealogists and others and to save the expense of rebinding the bulky volumes in which the records were contained. The Bureau of the Census program was initiated when the National Archives had scarcely been born; furthermore, the National Archives had no jurisdiction in the matter because destruction of the paper records was not originally contemplated. For these reasons, experts from the Archives were not initially consulted about the project.
Later, however, the microfilm was examined by the staff of the Archives and found satisfactory as a substitute for certain of the original records and copies of the microfilm were sold to the public through the File Microcopy Program of the
National Archives.
The use of microfilm by the National Archives. The
Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research of the
National Archives was initiated with the appointment of
Dr. Tate as its first Chief in May 1935. The immediate tasks facing Dr. Tate were to acquire and install the necessary microfilming equipment and to work in collaboration with experts at the National Bureau of Standards in estab
lishing standards to ensure the permanency of microfilm
copies. Experimental microfilm projects carried out by the
staff of the Archives included the filming of the Veterans
Administration Indexes and tests of the time required to use 166 the material in film form. A microfilm publication program
called the File Microcopy Program was begun in 1941. The
first group of records to be included in the program was the
Colorado Series of the State Department Territorial Papers.
Unfortunately, the File Microcopy Program was scarcely
under way when World War II intervened with the result that
trained personnel moved from the Archives to defense agencies
and supplies of raw microfilm and chemicals were no longer
available for civilian use.
Microfilming in World War 1I. Shortly before the
entry of the United States into World War II, most of the
trained personnel and microfilm equipment of the Work Projects
Administration were assigned to a projectto microfilm World
War I draft records under the sponsorship of the War
Department. The initial intent was to apply substitution
microfilming to all draft records. Later it was decided that
only the records of the men actually inducted need be copied.
The project was abandoned after two years when it was dis
covered that the Veterans Administration, the agency presumed
to have a need for the microfilm, would have no use for these
records. The WPA staff and equipment were then absorbed as
the core of a War Department Central Microfilming Plant later
transferred to the Adjutant General's Office and renamed the
Microfilming Branch of that office, A project of the Micro
filming Branch to film the Muster Rolls and Rosters was never 167 completed. The film that was made was stored under adverse conditions of temperature and humidity and was destroyed as useless in 1950. The War Department was more successful in minor projects to microfilm waybills as a means of saving additional paperwork for the Office of Finance, and in using managerial microfilming as a means of providing multiple copies of such vital records as the payrolls of the troops isolated on Corregidor. The most significant permanent result of the War Department’s microfilming program was Mr. Daniel F.
Noll’s manual Records Administration— Microf ilmlng of Records , completed before he returned to civilian life. The Navy
Department microfilmed certain of its older records as a security measure and devised and carried out an extensive program to microfilm engineering drawings of ships and aircraft. The Navy Department also used managerial micro filming to control incoming correspondence.
V-Mail, a procedure by which original letters were microfilmed in this country and the film sent to overseas stations for enlargement and forwarding to the addressees, was initiated in March 1942, By the end of the War, more than
648,000,000 pieces of correspondence had been transmitted to individuals in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps in this fashion.
Relatively little of the microfilm produced during
World War II remains. The major microfilming projects of the 168
War Department were abortive, except for the Morning Reports project started during this period but not completed until after World War II. For V-Mail, microfilm was used only as an intermediate step. The security microfilm of older Navy records and the microfilm resulting from the Navy's managerial microfilming of engineering drawings and of incoming corres pondence have, however, been preserved.
Problems of organization and administration. The introduction of the technique of microfilming, requiring specially trained personnel, complex photographic equipment, and machines to permit reading of the film by users, resulted in a complex of administrative problems. In the Library of
Congress microfilm reading machines were in the beginning concentrated in the Manuscript Division where the films resulting from Project A were stored. In the National
Archives the first reading machines were housed in the
Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research. Later as the result of experience both found it desirable to house microfilm with related original materials and to provide reading machines at the points throughout the agency where the film was stored.
Both the Library of Congress and the National Archives were undergoing administrative reorganizations during this period before 1946. The administrative units charged with responsibility for microfilming were shifted to various 169 points within the administrative structure as these reorgan izations took place. The Photoduplication Service of the
Library of Congress was first under the jurisdiction of the person also responsible for direction of the National Union
Catalog, and personnel from both units performed a mixture of duties. The Photoduplication Service later became an inde pendent division of the Library. The Division of Photographic
Records and Research at the National Archives was responsible for custody of still photographs and motion pictures, and in the early days of the Archives even had responsibility for centralized multilithing services. This mixture of functions may have diverted the Division from its primary function concerning microfilm, and may have prevented the Chief of the
Division from solving some of the problems concerning micro film.
Relationships between the National Archives and other agencies. The National Archives was in a potentially key position to guide other agencies of Government in developing their microfilming programs. Such guidance could have come from a manual outlining policy, p: ocedure, and techniques for carrying out microfilm programs. Strong legislation providing for review of all proposed microfilm projects by the staff of the National Archives, or an agreement with the Bureau of the
Budget providing for joint review of proposed projects prior to authorization of funds for microfilming, would have been 170 beneficial. A manual of microfilming was proposed by Dr.
Tate in 1941, but unfortunately he could not complete such a manual before entering the Navy, and no one on the staff of
the Archives completed and edited the sections and material he left.
The Act of September 1940 legalizing microfilm, passed
at the instance of the Work Projects Administration, did not
adequately provide for review and clearance of microfilm
projects by the National Archives, with the result that some
agencies carried out extensive microfilm projects involving
records not worthy of permanent retention. Although efforts
were made to establish a procedure for joint Archives-
Bureau of the Budget review of proposed microfilm projects,
the procedure was never formalized and was stopped after a
very brief trial period. The failure of the National Archives
to provide guidance to other agencies was due largely to the
relative inexperience of the Archives itself and in part to
the crippling effects of World War II.
CONCLUSIONS
From this study some conclusions may be drawn con
cerning the identification of the individuals most responsible
for the growth of microfilm of records in the United States,
and the potential and actual role of microfilming as a tool
of archives management. In addition, this study reveals certain
unresolved questions as of 1945 concerning microfilming. 171
Identification of individuals responsible for development of microfilming in the United States. Since
Dancer himself had used microphotography for the preservation of his correspondence relating to the technique and Dagron had applied microfilming to masses of records, no American of the twentieth century can be credited with the invention of the technique of microfilming records. It is important, however, to recognize the key part played by Dr. Samuel F. Bemis in serving as the essential link between the European experience and his American colleagues.
Dr, Bemis, when he went to France as Director of
Library of Congress Project A, was unaware of the attempts by various individual scholars to use Leica equipment to photo graph manuscripts in lieu of taking handwritten notes. He grasped immediately the possibility of using microfilm as a substitute for the photostat process used at the Public
Record Office in Great Britain, Interestingly enough there appears to be a link between Dancer and Dagron to Dr. Bemis through Goldschmidt, whose patent was used by Lemare in the manufacture of the French camera employed by Dr. Bemis. The
link then proceeds from Dr. Bemis through the Library of
Congress to Dr, Tate and to the National Archives, Dr. Bemis
has thus far been the forgotten man in the history of micro
photography. There are no published articles concerning his
contribution, and it seems probable that most of those who
profited from the Library of Congress experience are unaware that it was he who grasped the importance of the technique and decided to use it on a hitherto unprecedented scale. While he served as the vital connecting link between the older European experience and subsequent development in America, his interest in microfilming ceased after his few years of employment by the Library of Congress and he was not sufficiently concerned with or aware of the potential development of microphotography to publicize the results of his own work. It was therefore necessary for others to concern themselves with refinements in the technique of microfilming and with publicizing the ways in which microfilming could be useful to archivists, librarians, and scholars.
The spread of the knowledge of microfilming can be traced from Dr. Bemis to Dr, Tate who was employed early in his career by the Library of Congress to microfilm manu scripts in Mexico, Dr. Tate’s role and influence were of extreme significance and have not yet been properly recognized.
Dr, Tate worked directly with such men as Mr, Donald C, Holmes, who went from the Archives to the Navy Department to the
Library of Congress, with Mr. Daniel F. Noll, who had a major responsibility for the microfilm programs of the War Department, and with Mr. George A, Schwegmann of the Library of Congress staff. Dr. Tate's function in disseminating the knowledge of microfilming was broadened greatly with the founding of the
Journal of Documentary Reproduction in 1938. This Journal, edited and in some part written by Dr. Tate, served as a 173 means of reporting new applications of microphotography and
newly devised equipment. During his early years at the
National Archives Dr. Tate worked prodigiously in establishing
and organizing a microfilming laboratory, in developing tech
nical standards in collaboration with the Bureau of Standards,
and in advising and consulting with men within and without
the Government on the best uses of microfilm.
Binkley had an amazing grasp of the technical details
and potentialities of microphotography despite his lack of
practical experience. His studies of costs of reproducing
research materials, conducted on behalf of the Joint Com mittee on Materials for Research of the Social Science
Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies,
led him to conclude in 1931 that microfilm was "the process
that promises the most sweeping changes in the cost level at 7 which research material can be reproduced." The first
edition of his study on the costs of reproducing research materials presented detailed figures on the costs of making
microfilm copies and on the possible reduction ratios which
could be used, as well as careful descriptions and listings
of the equipment then available. An expanded version of his
s+udy published in 1936 presented additional and more detailed
cost,figures, an examination of the problems of copyright, and
7 Robert C. Binkley, Methods of Reproducing Research Materials, 81. 174
some criteria for adequate reading machines, as well as
drawings and photographs of microfilming equipment. This
second edition, which is still useful for a broad picture
of the field of microphotography as it existed in 1936,
served librarians and archivists for a decade or more as a
basic technical manual in certain aspects of microphotography.
Like Dr. Tate, Binkley spread the knowledge of microfilming
through participation in meetings of such groups as the
Society of American Archivists and the American Library
Association, through personal contact with a wide range of
persons, and through his writings which appeared in a number
of journals as well as in book form.
The contributions of Mr, Noll consisted of pioneer
work in setting standards for the identification and targeting
of microfilms, standards for certification as to the
completeness and accuracy of film jobs, ;and studies of the
problems of legal acceptability of microfilm. The lack of
recognition of Mr. Noll's contribution stems partly from the
fact that his Manual on Microfilming was published as an anonymous Government document.
Role of microfilm as a tool of archives administration.
By the end of 1945 most of the potential applications of
microfilming had been successfully made or were well on the
way to success. Two types of microfilming have been particu
larly successful: acquisitions microfilming and publication 175 microfilming. The usefulness of microfilm as an acquisitions tool was adequately proved by the Library of Congress project to acquire copies of manuscripts in European archives relating to American history. The microfilm publication program of the National Archives was a success from the very beginning and left no doubt that publication of important groups of records on microfilm could serve to extend the services of an archival agency to users in many locations. The U. S,
Navy project at the start of World War II to provide security copies in microfilm of important documents serves as an excellent example of this use. The use of microfilm copies of frequently used Census records as a means of assuring the security of the originals against wear from frequent handling provides an example of a slightly different type of security microfilming. The Library of Congress State Records Project, and the use of microfilm to assemble source materials from a number of repositories by the National Park Service, both provide instances of the use of microfilm for scholarly purposes. In the former case the objective was to assemble the complete record of early state documents by utilizing microfilm to bring together both manuscript and printed sources. In the latter case the objective was to bring together from a variety of sources copies of manuscripts 8 relating to a particular problem. The use of microfilm as a
g Alvin P. Stauffer, "Microphotography in the National Park Service," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 1:172- 177 (Summer, 19'5FT 176 substitute for the original documents and the ultimate discard
of the copied originals is represented by the projects carried
out by the Work Projects Administration and by the microfilms
made by the Bureau of the Census both before and after 1945.
This microfilm was not accepted as a completely satisfactory
substitute for the originals until Mr, Noll had made a careful
and thorough study of the completeness and quality of the
film in 1956. Managerial microfilming was used successfully
by the Navy Department during the War to control incoming
correspondence and to reproduce engineering drawings. In
these cases also the microfilm was ultimately accepted as
the permanent record and the original paper records were
destroyed,
The failure to make greater use of substitution micro
filming. The failure to use substitution microfilming
on a wider scale and with greater success is a matter of
some interest, for it would appear that the use of microfilm
as an integral part of a program of records management and
control holds great promise. There was speculation from a
very early date in England, France, and elsewhere that micro
filming might eventually prove the means of solving the problem
of preserving and storing in greatly reduced size large masses
of public records. In the United States, John M. Hitt,
State Librarian of Washington, as early as 1922 drew up a
plan for preserving the bulk of the records of his State in 177 microfilm. It is evident Hitt’s plans could not then have been put into effect because the cameras, film stock, and reading machines available in the third decade of this century were not adequate for the uses he intended. A decade later microfilm equipment and supplies had improved to a point where schemes such as those of Hitt were feasible. The microfilming program of the Work Projects Administration initiated in 1938 presents an example of substitution microfilming which embodies many of the features of Hitt’s plan. The use of substitution microfilming by the WPA is the only example of successful, deliberate, large-scale use of microfilming in this fashion prior to 1946. The absence of other projects utilizing substitution microfilming, and the failure of the defense agencies to develop the use of substitution micro filming during the war period, are due to a number of complex and interwoven factors including psychological reasons, the relationships between the various Government agencies, the status of legislation, financial limitations, and the more urgent uses for which microfilm equipmei t, supplies, and trained personnel were required during the War.
The substitution microfilming program of the WPA was an integral part of a pioneer program of records management.
The program emphasized the development of lew equipment and
techniques for microfilming, standardized work routines, and
attempted to install quality controls. Prior to filming, the
records were weeded, non-essential records disposed of, and the remainder arranged for filming. As a matter of good management it was always required that the records be ready for filming before delivery to the operator whose only task was to feed the camera. It was also an operating principle of the project that the work of developing the film was left to commercial concerns to avoid the establishment of a large number of small and inefficient ,film processing establishments.
Still other accomplishments of the WPA project were the development of standardized targets, the use of filmed indexes, and an emphasis on standards for raw film and on lack of residual hypo content in the processed film. In spite of the attempts to exercise quality control, the resulting WPA microfilm was not considered of archival quality by some officials at the National Archives. Dr. Tate, in particular, felt that some portions of the film were not sufficiently legible because not enough care had been 9 exercised in exposure and development.
The reluctance of Dr. Tate and others at the National
Archives to accept the WPA microfilm as of archival quality is indicative of the difficulty any agency would have faced in an attempt to produce microfilm acceptable to the National
^Interview with Vernon D, Tate, May 15, 1963. The author examined numerous rolls of WPA microfilm in 1960 and 1961 and concludes that despite occasional cases of over or under exposure and scratches it does serve adequately as a source of information and presents no particular problems of use. Daniel F. Noll in an interview of December 22, 1962 concurred with the author’s judgment. 179
Archives as a substitute for the original records. The attitude of certain officials at the National Archives may have arisen in part from the fact that the use of substitution microfilming was not required as a means of conserving space, because the newly constructed National Archives building provided more than enough room for the records transferred to it prior to World War II. It is possible, also, that because a philosophy of records management had not been fully developed at that time, there was a reluctance on the part of officials at the National Archives to destroy paper records. There may have been a psychological aversion to non-paper records such as microfilm, although there is no positive evidence on this point. These factors may help to explain why the first pro posal for legislation conceiving microfilm came from the Work
Projects Administration rather than from the National
Archives, It was not until 1940 that a law was passed authorizing the substitution of microfilm for the original paper records,^ This law unfortunately did not give the
Archivist of the United States authority to supervise or control microfilming projects while in process, but provided only that he pass on the acceptability of the finished micro film in cases where the destruction of the original paper records was proposed. In the years between passage of the law legalizing microfilm and the entry of the United States
l054 Stat. 958. 180 into World War II, there was not time for the National
Archives to establish an adequate program for providing informal advice to other agencies during the early stages of microfilming projects. It is probable also that any agency other than WPA which might have planned a large-scale program of substitution microfilming would have faced a fiscal problem in providing the manpower to arrange and sort masses of older records prior to filming, for none of the other agencies were in the unique position of WPA of needing to find useful work to utilize the time of large numbers of persons.
With the advent of the War, microfilm personnel, equipment, and supplies were shifted from the civilian agencies to the deiense agencies. The resulting lack of resources made it impossible for the civilian agencies of Government to undertake extensive microfilming programs, and it was only in the War Department that substitution microfilming projects were attempted. The War Department projects were ill- conceived, involving some records such as the World War I draft records which were not of enough interest to warrant permanent preservation, and others were badly executed to the extent that records were taken out of order and refiled by color in order to make the process of filming easier. Apart from the difficulties caused by poor policy judgment and faulty execution of the War Department projects, the lack of enthusiasm for projects involving substitution microfilming 181 may have been due to the fact that It would have been dif ficult to prove that such projects constituted a direct and significant contribution to the war effort. The result was that the WPA experience with substitution microfilming, which might have been applied by other agencies and improved through revisions in technique and procedure, was not utilized fully and did not serve as the model for other projects prior to
1946,
Usefulness of experience through 1945. Viewed from
the vantage point of nearly two decades, many microfilm
projects carried out prior to 1946 were in the main suc
cessful; and there are useful lessons to be learned even
from the failures. The pioneering work carried out in these
first decades of microfilming by the Federal Government
provided a valuable body of experience and of writings which made possible the success of the large scale microfilm
projects conducted in the years following World War II. Such major projects included the continuation of the filming of
Census records, the increasing growth and success of the
National Archives program of microfilm publication, the
filming of captured German archives prior to the return of
the originals to Germany, a similar project of filming the
Japanese Foreign Office Archives, and a Library of Congress
project to publish the papers of the Presidents of the
United States in microfilm form. It should be noted that all 182 of these projects involve uses of microfilm which had been
exploited prior to World War II. Such refinements and im
provements as are found in these projects are minor tech
nical improvements, such as increased reduction ratios and
film of improved sensitivity, An exception to the above is
the Bureau of the Census microfilming, which has in recent
years used microfilm as an intermediate stage between the 11 original records and electronic data processing equipment, a development which may ultimately point the way to a new
stage in the use of microfilm for information storage and
retrieval. Prior to 1946, however, Congress displayed almost
no interest in policies concerning the use of microfilm and
there was no Government-wide planning of microfilming projects.
A Government-wide approach to the problems of microfilming is
lacking still.
Areas for further study. Certain areas beyond the
scope of this study appear to merit detailed future examination.
These include the study of microfilming by the United States
Government from 1946 on, in particular the growth of microfilm
publications programs, the use of recently developed electronic
data processing equipment in conjunction with microfilm, and
some of the major projects to microfilm such bodies of records
^M. L. Greenough, ’'New Uses of Microfilm with Electronic Scanners, a Progress Report on FOSDIC III," Proceedings, National Microfilm Association, Detroit, 6 :27&-2S6 11 9*55------7; as the captured German Archives. The material for such a study is to be found in sources similar to those used in this study. An investigation should also be made of the micro- filming of records by the various State archives. Raw data for a study of this nature is to be found in the records disposal schedules of certain StateSj especially Maryland and
North Carolina. Reliable data concerning the cost of micro filming records versus the cost of building storage are badly needed, A recent study of the costs of microfilming books versus the cost of library-type storage facilities suggests a possible methodology. 12 The results of such a cost study should be given the widest possible publicity so that archivists will have available a body of reliable data on which to base future policy decisions on whether or not to employ microfilm. Finally, certain technical questions, such as the improvement of available cameras and reading machines and the adequacy and permanency of the microfilm base now available, must be subject to continuing review and criticism.
At the present time previously unsuspect microspots recently discovered on existing microfilm are being studied by the
National Archives, the National Bureau of Standards, and certain microfilm manufacturers. These so-called J-type defects are remarkably absent from the microfilm made by the
12 Allan E. Pritsker, T,An Evaluation of Microfilm as a Method of Book Storage,11 College and Research Libraries, 18:290-296 (July, 1957). 184
National Archives, and this fact has led to an investigation 13 of the microfilm processing techniques at that agency.
Since doubts as to the permanency of microfilm will seriously
hinder future prospects for substitution microfilming, it
seems imperative that studies leading to generally acceptable
standards be made as soon as possible. Important as such
factual and technical studies are they will be of little use
unless archivists develop a rationale for the use of micro
photography. Principles for the application of micro
photography to archival purposes still remain to be written.
13 "Microscopic Spots or Defects on Microfilm," American Archivist, 27:142-144 (January, 1964). BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. BIBLIOGRAPHIC AIDS
Beers, Henry Putney. The French in North America: a Bibliographical Guide to French Archives, Reproductions, and Research Missions. Baton R o u g e : Louisiana State University Press, AL957T\
"Bodleian Manuscripts in Colour Microfilm," UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries, 14:289 (November-December^ I960).
Born, Lester K. British Manuscripts Project: a Checklist of the Microfilms Prepared in England and Wales for the* American Council of Learned Societies, 1941-1945. Washington": Library of Congress, 1955.
. "The Literature of Microreproduction, 1950-1955," American Documentation, 7:167-187 (July, 1956).
Unpublished Bibliographical Tools in Certain Archives and Libraries of Europe. Washington: Library of Congress, l9&2.
California. University Library. A Preliminary Index of German Foreign Ministry Archives" 1867-1920, MicroITlmed at Whaddon Hall /England/' lor General Library University of California, Berkeley^ Berkeley, 1954,
France. Archives Nationales. Repertoire des microfilms de complement conserves aux archives nationales et communi cables au public. Baris, Imprimerie Nationale, t w t .------
Kiersky, Loretta J. "Bibliography on Reproduction of Documentary Information, 1955-September 1957," Special Libraries, 48:405-409 (November, 1957).
. "Bibliography on Reproduction of Documentary Information, October 1957-December 1959," Special Libraries, 51:72-77 (February, 1960).
______. "Bibliography on Reproduction of Documentary Information, January-December I960," Special Libraries, 52:132-136 (March, 1961).
. "Bibliography on Reproduction of Documentary Information, January-December 1961," Special Libraries, 53:135-140 (March, 1962). 187
Noll, Daniel F. A Selected Bibliography on Microphotography, Washington: U. S. National Archives, 1948'. (National Archives Publication 49-5.)
______. "A Selected Bibliography on Microphotography," American Archivist, 11:150-153 (April, 1948).
U. S. Library of Congress, Division of Bibliography. Photography and Its Applications: a Selected List of References, Washington: Library of Congress, 1941,
______, General Reference and Bibliography Division. Microfilms and Microcards, their Use in Research, a Selected List of References, comp, by Blanche P. McCrum, Washington: Library of Congress, 1950,
U, S, National Archives, List of File Microcopies in the National Archives. Washington, 1950.
______, Microfilm Publications. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953,
U. S. Office of Scientific Research and Development, Micro film Index. Washington: U. S, Department of Commerce, 1946.
II. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
A . Archives and Current Records
U. S, Adjutant General1 s Office, Records Management Branch. Current Records.
U. S. Library of Congress. Manuscript Division. Project A Records. Secretary1s Office. Current Records. Union Catalog Division, Current Records.
U, S. National Archives. Records of the Bureau of the Census. Record Group 29. Records of the National Archives. Record Group 64. Records of the Work Projects Administration. Record Group 69,
B. Interviews and Personal Correspondence
Mr. Richard S. Angell is Chief of the Subject Cataloging Division of the Library of Congress. Interviewed August 3, 1964. 188
Dr. Samuel F. Bemis, Professor Emeritus of American History, Yale University, was first Director overseas of Library of Congress Project A. Correspondence with the author January, 1963.
Mr. George H. Hamp, Management Analyst, Data Processing Division, Department of the Navy, was a Navy Specialist Photographer during World War II, Interviewed August 4, 1964, J Mr. Donald C, Holmes, Chief, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, served as officer in charge of a Navy microfilm plant during World War II. He was one of the first employees of the microfilm laboratory of the National Archives. Interviewed January 5, 1964 and March 14, 1960.
Dr. Dallas D. Irvine, currently Senior Specialist (Military History), has served in a variety of positions at the National Archives since joining the staff in 1936. Interviewed April 1, 1960.
Mr. Dan M. Lacy, Managing Director, American Book Publishers Council, served in a variety of positions in the Library of Congress and the National Archives including the position of Assistant Archivist of the United States. Before joining the staff of the National Archives, he held a number of positions in the Historical Records Survey including the position of Assistant Director. Interviewed June 8 , 1964.
Mr. Charles G. LaHood, Jr., Chief, Serials Division, Library of Congress, was Assistant Chief of the Library's Photoduplication Service from 1953-1963. Interviewed January 22, 1964,
Mr, Roland Langelier, Records Officer, Records Management Branch, Adjutant General's Office, was responsible for WPA microfilming in New Hampshire and served in the War Department's Microfilm Plant during World War II. Interviewed January 18, 1963.
Miss Nellie Markham, Head, Photoduplication Laboratory, National Library of Medicine, has been employed in teat laboratory for some twenty years. Interviewed July 17, 1956. 189
Mr, Daniel F. Noll, Management Analyst, District of Columbia Government, was employed by a photographic firm in the early 1930Ts, gained further knowledge of microphotography through employment with Federal relief agencies in Chicago, was Microfilm Consultant on the staff of the National Archives, and as a Major in the Army was responsible for much of the War Department's microfilming during World War II. Interviewed January 7, 14, 23, 1963.
Dr. Ernst Posner, Professor Emeritus, The American University, archivist and historian, was on the staff of the Staatsarchiv, Berlin, Germany, for a number of years. Interviewed June 5, 1964.
Mr. George A. Schwegmann, Jr., Chief, Union Catalog Division, Library of Congress, was the first Chief of the Library's Photoduplication Service. He was intimately acquainted with such pioneers in microphotography as Dr, Vernon D. Tate and Robert C. Binkley, Interviewed January 20, 1963 and August 13, 1956.
Dr, Vernon D. Tate, Librarian, U, S. Naval Academy, was a microphotographer with Library of Congress Project A in Mexico during 1932-33 and was first Chief of the Division of Photographic Reproduction and Research of the National Archives, He served as a naval officer responsible for U. S. Navy microfilm projects during World War II, and has given wide publicity to developments in micro photography by editing the Journal of Documentary Reproduction, American Documentation, and the Proceedings of the National Microfilm Association. Interviewed May 15, 1963.
Mr. Irving K. Zitmore, Management and Budget Analyst, Department of the Interior, was employed on WPA and War Department microfilming projects. Following World War II he founded the firm of Records Engineering, Inc., which specialized in providing consultant services on microfilming problems for industry and Government. Interviewed January 25, 1963.
C . Thesis
Murphy, Kathryn. The File Microcopy Program of the National Archives, Unpublished Master's thesis, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C., 1951, 190
III. PUBLISHED MATERIAL
A . Public Documents
Great Britain. Committee on Departmental Records. Report. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1954.
Grover, Wayne C. War Department Records Administration Program. Washington: Adjutant General's Office, T948.
Hay, Ian. The Post Office Went to War. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office,“1946.
Kansas, Legislative Council Research Department, Microfilm for Public Records. Topeka, 1942.
Records Engineering, Incorporated. Survey of Government Microfilm Operations: a Summary of Reports, February 12, 1954. Washington: General Services Administration, 1554.
Ryan, J. V. and J. W. Cummings. Fire Effects and Fire Control in Nitrocellulose Photographic Film Storage. TuT"S. National Bureau of Standards, Building Materials and Structures, Report 145) Washington, 1956.
U. S. Adjutant General’s Office, Departmental Records Branch. Standing Operating Procedures. Washington, 1954-55,
U. S, Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch. Records Management in the United States Government: a Report with RecommenHatlons"! Washington" Government Printing Office, 1549.
U. S. Congress. House, Committee on Appropriations, Independent Offices Appropriations Bill. Hearings of 1935-1945, Washington: Government Printing bf'f'ice, T33F~T935\
___* . . Legislative Branch Appropriations k* 11 ■ Hearings, 1930-1946. Washington! Government Printing Office, 1930-1946.
______. , Committee on the Disposition of Executive Papers"! Disposition of Certain Records of the United States Government. (7Gth Congress, 3rd Session" House, Report No. 2B60T. 191
U, S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Legislative and Judiciary Appropriations Bill. Hearings, 1939-1945. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939-1945.
______. ______. Committee on Government Operations, Coordination of Information on Current Research and Development Supported by the U . J3. Government. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961.
______. ______, Committee on the Judiciary. Evidentiary Value of Microfilmed Records (82nd Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Report No, 537).
U. S. Department of Commerce, Annual Reports, 1935-1940. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1936-194:U
The Office of Technical Services, What Ft Is; What It Does: How You Can Benefit from the Information It Provides. Washington: Department of Commerce', 1952.
U, S. Federal Civil Defense Administration, Protection of Vital Records and Documents (Civil Defense Technical Bulletin TB-16-S). Washington, l955.
U. S. General Services Administration. Annual Report of the Administrator for the Fiscal Year Ending June 3TT7 195^ Washington: Government Printing Office” 1959.
______. Federal Record Center, St. Louis, Guide to Microfilm Personnel Records of Civil Works Administration etc. St. Louis, /195^A
U. S. Library of Congress. Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1925-1951. Washington; Government Printing Office, 1926-1952,
______. General Order 964, June 29, 1940.
______. General Order 1275, Spring, 1946.
______, Subject Headings Used in the Dictionary Catalogs of the Library of Congress. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1943, 192
U. S. Library of Congress. Manuscript Division. The Presidential Papers Program of the Library of Congress. Washington: Government Printing Office, 195CT.
______. Photoduplication Service. A Guide to the Microfilm Collection of Early State Records. Washington: Library of Congress, 1935.
. . A Guide to the Microfilm Collection of Early State Records"! Supplement-! Washington: Library of Congress, l93ir.
______. Union Catalog Division, Newspapers on Microfilm. Washington: Library of Congress^ 1953.
U. S. National Archives. Annual Report of the Archivist of the United States for the Fiscal Yea rending"June 3Q~, 1935-1946. Washington: Government Printing Office, i m - i w .
. Official Circular. 44-26. "Policy with Eespect to Records Scheduled for Photographing or MicrophotographingSeptember 30, 1943, 44-27. "Appraisal of Photographed or Microphotographed Records Listed for Disposal on National Archives Form 40," September 30, 1943, 44-29. "Policy with Respect to Records Proposed for Disposal as Having Been Photographed or Microphotographed When Such Records are Records of the Same Form or Character as Records of the Same Agency Previously Authorized by Congress for Disposal," October 5, 1943. 44-36. "Amendment of Official Circular No. 40-33 Entitled 'Post-War Planning Activities of the National Archives,'" October 14, 1943. 44-73. "Fees for Reference Service Reproductions of Records,” May 13, 1944. 44-82. "Decentralization of Reference Service and Establishment of a General Reference Division," June 26, 1944. 46-22. "Policies and Procedures Governing Reproduction Service on Records," August 7, 1945. 49-10. "Administration of Reproduction Service," July 16, 1948. 49-11. "Redefinition of Function 12, Reproduction Service," June 16, 1948. 49-18. "Administration of Revolving Funds Available for Financing Reproduction Service," August 19, 1948. 49-48. "Survey of Holdings Suitable for Microphotographic Reductions," May 5, 1949. 50-14. "Increase in Fee Rate for Microfilm Copies of File Microcopies," August 18, 1949. 50-23. "Administration File Microcopy Program," October 6 , 1949. 193
U, S. National Archives Council. Regulations Adopted _ July 14, 1943. /Washington: National Archives, 1943V
U, S, National Historical Publications Commission, A National Program for the Publication of Historical Documents" Washington: Government Printing Office, 1954,
U. S, Statutes at Large. 54 $tat, SFsS- 57 Stat. 380-383 59 Stat. 434 62 Stat. 1026 64 Stat. 583, Sects. 501-511.
U, S. Treaties. Transfer of German Archives: agreement between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany effected by exchange of letters, March 14 and April 18, 1956.
U. S. War Department. Photomail Operation. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1945.
Technical Manual. ii-2302. —"Paper ir Cutter (V-Mail)," 1945. 11-2304. ITProjector PH-543/UF (V-Mail)," 1945, 11-2305. "Developingft Machine PH-512/GF ( V - M a i l ) 1945, 11-2306. "Enlarger41 PH-511/GF (V-Mail)," 1945. 11-2309. "Reader(I PH-284 (V-Mail)," 1945. 11-2310. trRecorders; PH-283, PH-283-Y (V-Mail)," 1945. 12-257. trMicrofilming of Records," 1946. 12-257. "Microfilmingit of Records," 1955,
B. General Reference Works
"Microphotograph," Oxford English Dictionary, VI, 414, Oxford: Clarendon Press” 1§33.
"Microphotograph," The Encyclopedia Americana, XIX, 34. Chicago: Americana Corporation, 1956.
"Microphotograph," Webster1 s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Cleveland": World Publishing Company7 1956.
C . Treatises and Monographs
American Standards Association. American Standards for Reels for Processed Microfilm. New York': American Standards Association^ 1946. 194
Baldwin, Norman C. British Airmails, 1784-1946: A Chronology and Priced Catalogue of Aviation and Air Mail Souvenirs Flown Within and From Great Britain and Ireland, Sutton, England: Field, 194l7,
Bennett, Ralph D, Sheet Microfilm: Advantages, Techniques, Costs. n.p. 1939,
Binkley, Robert C. Manual on Methods of Reproducing Research Materials: A Survey Made for the Joint Committee on Materials for Research of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies . Ann Arbor: Edwards, 1936,
______. Methods of Reproducing Research Materials: A Survey Made for the Joint Committee on Materials for Research of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies. Ann Arbor: Edwards, 1931.
. Selected Papers, edited by Max Fish. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948.
Born, Lester K. Foreign Microfilm Program of the Library of Congress: Presented as a Communication before the First International Congress on Archives in Paris during August, l950. n7p. /lW5C>7~t
______, International Cooperation to Preserve Historical Source Materials. A reprint from American Archivist, 15:219-230 (1$52).
______. A Synthesis on Microfilm at the Library of Congress. A reprint from Journal of Documentation^ 8 :1— 1^ (1952).
Bush, Vannevar. Endless Horizons. Washington: Public Affairs Press" ld46.
Comite National de 1'Organization Fran^aise. Exposition du microfilm et de ^a photocopie, Paris; Musee d'Art Moderne, 1S?50.
Dagron, Prudent Ren£. La Poste par pigeons voyageurs, souvenir du siege de Paris : flpeciiaen identique d ' une des pelTicules ae ct5p6ches portdee fc Paris. Tours - Bordeaux: Typographic Lahure, 1670-1871. (Photographic film 5x3^ cm. laid in.) Facsimile reprint. University Lithoprinters, 194-? t DeSola, Ralph. Microfilming. New York: Essential Books, 1944. 195
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Dokumeatation. Die Dokumentation und ihre Probleme: Vortrage gehalten auf der ersten Tagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft fftr Dokumeatation vom 2l7 bis 24. September 1942 in Salzburg] Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1943.
Eastman Kodak Company, Photomicrography: an Introduction to Photography with a Microscope. Rochester: Eastman,
______. Storage of Microfilms, Sheet Films, and Prints. Rochester: Eastman Kodak, 1946.
Evans, Luther H, WPA Fashions New Tools for Research. New York: Historical Records Survey, 1938,
Fussier, Herman. Photographic Reproduction for Libraries : a Study of Administrative Problems, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,' 1942.
Goldschmidt, Robert and Paul Otlet. La Conservation et la diffusion internationale de la pensee. Brussels: Institut International de Bibliographie, 1925.
Greenwood, Herbert William. Document Photography: Individual Copying and Mass Recording. London: Focal Press,
Gulick, Luther and L. Urwick. Papers on the Science of Administration, New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1937,
Hawkins, Reginald. Production of Microfilms. New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1960.
Hill, Roscoe R^ American Missions in European Archives, Mexico: /Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e Historia, 19517.
Historical Records Survey. American Imprints Inventory: Manual of Procedure. Chicago: The Historical Records Survey, 1938.
Institut International de Bibliographie. Livre microphotographique: Le Bibliophote ou livre a projection. Brussels, 1911. 196
Interagency Records Administration Conference, Washington, D. C. Report of Eighth Meeting, 1946-47 Session, May £, 1947 : Evaluation of Microfilming Projects. Washington: National Archives, 1947.
______Indispensable Records Program in Emergency Relocation Planning. Washington, 1956,
Lewis, Chester M. and William H. Offenhauser. Micro recording : Industrial and Library Applications. New York: Interscience Publishers, 1956.
Luther, Frederic. Microfilm: a History, 1839-1900. Annapolis: National Microfilm Association, 1959,
Muller, S., J. A. Feith and R. Fruin, Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives, translated by Arthur H. Leavitt, New York: WiIson, 1940.
National Microfilm Association. A Glossary of Microfilm Terms (Preliminary Edition). Syracuse: National Microfilm Association, 1956.
______. Glossary of Terms for Microphotography and Reproductions Made from Micro-Images, edited by D. M. Avedon. Annapolis: National Microfilm Association, 1962.
Pfieffer, John. The Thinking Machine. New York: Lippincott, 1962,
Recordak Corporation. Re: Admissibility of Recordak Film Picture Records. New York: Recordak, 1944,
Rider, Fremont, The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library. New York: Hadham Press^ 1944.
Robinson, Howard. Britain* s Post Office: A History of Development from the beginnings to the Present Day. London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1953,
Schellenberg, Theodore R. Modern Archives, Principles and Techniques. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
Shaw, Ralph Robert. The Use of Photography for Clerical Routines: a Report to the American Council of Learned Societies. Wash ington, 19537 Sherwood, Robert E. Roosevelt and Hopkins: an Intimate History. New York: Bantam Books, 1950,
Society of American Archivists, Committee on State Archives. Survey of Microphotography in State Agencies. 1952.
Tate, Vernon D. Microfotografia. Buenos Aires, 1944.
Thomas, Daniel H. and Lynn M. Case. Guide to the Diplomatic Archives of Western Europe, Philaclelphla’: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959.
Vogel, Hermann Wilhelm. The Progress of Photography Since the Year 1879. Philadelphia: Wilson, 1883.
D . Monographic Articles
Arnade, Charles W. "Florida History in Spanish Archives; Reproductions at the University of FloridaFlorida Historical Quarterly, 34:36-50 (July, 1955).
"Attachment Makes Diazo Duplicates of Microfilm," Product Engineering, 27:221 (March, 1956).
Baden-Pritchard, H. "On the Preparation of Micro photographic Despatches on Film by M. Dagron’s Process," Photographic N e w s , 15:605-606 (December, 1871).
Ballou, H. W. "Microfilm Topics; Sheet Microfilm, a Revival Data Processing, 1:12-13 (October, 1960).
__ . "Microfilm Topics: Electrostatic Prints," Data Processing, 1:10, 38 (July, 1960).
_____ . "Microrecording at Work; The Return of Sheet Film, Industrial Photography, 9:32, 79 (December, 1960).
Baptie, Alex L. "Microtape," National Micro-news, No, 3 (1947).
Barnett, Claribel R. "The Bibliofilm Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture Library," Agriculture Library Notes, 11:57-60 (1936).
Ba s t ardie, J. J. "Microcopying Supplement No. 1," UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries, 6:F32-E-35, B14-B22 (1952)
. "Microcopying Supplement No. 2," UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries, 6:E76-79, B52-59 (1952). 198
Baudot, Marcel. "Perspectives d Temploi du microfilm dans les depots dearchives," Archivum, 2:89-92 (1952).
Bendikson, Lodewyk. "How Long Will Reproductions on 35- Millimeter Film Last?" Library Journal, 60:143-145 (February, 1935).
"When Filing Cards Take the Place of Books," Library Journal, 58:911-913 (November, 1933).
Bennett, Archibald F. "The Record Copying Program of the Utah Genealogical Society," American Archivist, 16:227-232 (July, 1953).
Bennett, Edna. "History of 35 mm," Camera 35, 56-67, 80-82 (December-January and February-March, 1960).
Binkley, Robert C. "Newspaper Indexing for WPA Projects," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 2:46-47 (March, 1939).
"Place of Reduced Scale Copying in Library Policy," American( w : ------Library Association,:-- Public Documents, 219-222 Bobb, F. W. "Microfilm in a Records Management Program," National Micro-News, 26:1-13 (October, 1956).
Boeing, John K. "Recordak," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 3:156-158 (September, 1940).
Born, Lester K. "A Program for Enriching American Library Resources," American Documentation, 6:219-225 (October, 1955).
_ . "Les Archives dan leurs rapports avec la microphotographie," Archivum, 1:76-88 (1951).
. "History of Microform Activity," Library Trends, 7T548-357 (January, 1960).
Breaker, E. and P. Dunaway. "Multum in Parvo," Coronet, 4:43-47 (June, 1938).
Buck, Solon J. "Lets Look at the Record," American Archivist, 8:109-114 (April, 1945).
Butterfield, M. "Organizing a Collection of Mss. for Filming," Library Journal, 63:302-304 (April, 1938). 199
Carruthers, R. H. "The First Quarter of a Century of the New York Public Library,11 Proceedings, National Microfilm Association, New York, 9:205-210 (April” i960),
Case, C, T. "Quality and Cost in Textual Filming," F^.D. Communications, 6:C88-C95 (1935).
Clapp, Verner H. "Are Your Microfilms Deteriorating Acceptably?" Library Journal, 80:588-595 (1955).
Col, Micro /pseud/7". "Microfilm Goes to War," Army Journal, 48:27“2?F (June, 1941),
Congres International des Archives. "Seance pleniere consacree aux archives dans leurs rapports avec la microphotographie," Archivum, 1:75-101 (1951).
"The Cost of Microfilm," O. and M. Bulletin, Great Britain. Treasury, 8:34-39 (1953).
Dancer, John B. "/Letter to the Editor/," Photographic News, 7:491 (October, 1863).
Daugherty, D. H. "The Current Microcopying Program in England," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 4:207-211 (1941).
David, Charles W. "The Conservation of Historical Source Material," American Documentation, 7:76-82 (April, 1956).
Davis, Watson, "Microfilm Hailed as New Way to Duplicate Books, Permits Distribution of Unpublished Manuscripts," Science Newsletter, 31:179-180 (March, 1937),
"Microphotographie Duplication in the Service of Science," Science, 83:402-404 (1936).
De Haas, W. "The Microfiche, Step-Camera and Reading Machines," American Documentation, 9:99-106 (1958).
"Le Developpement de la microfiche," Les Cahiers de la documentation, 2:85-86 (September, 1946).
Downs, Robert B. "Libraries in Minuscule," College and Research Libraries, 18:12-18 (January, 193V).
Evans, Luther H. "Recent Microfilming Activities of the Historical Records Survey," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 2:48-49 (March” 1939). 2 0 0
Faherty, B. T. A. MA Work Study of Reproduction Processes," 0. and M. Bulletin, Great Britain. Treasury, 10:36-41.
Franpois, Michel. "Le Microfilm," L'Histoire et ses methodes, Brussels, 1961, 783-801.
Fussier, Herman. "Photographic Reproduction," Library Buildings for Library Service. Chicago: American Library Association, I M 7 . liO-86.
Gille, Bertrand. "Esquisse d'un plan de normalisation pour le microfiImage des archives," Archivum, 3:87-104 (1953).
Girard, M. "Microscopic Photography," Photographic News, 6:18-19 (January, 1862).
Great Britain. Public Record Office. "Microphotography and Archives: Being a Memorandum from the Public Record Office," Archivum, 3:81-86 (1953),
Greenough, M. L. "New Uses of Microfilm with Electronic Scanners, a Progress Report on Fosdic III," Proceedings, National Microfilm Association, Detroit, 8:279-286 (1559)’.------
Griffin, Grace Gardner. "Foreign American History Mss. Copies in Library of Congress," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 3:3-9 (March, 1940/!
Hall, William T. "Photomicrography and Microphotography; Reply to W. J. Luyten," Science, n.s., 85:520 (May, 1937).
Haughton, Sidney H. "The Preservation of Records by Micro photography in the United States of America," Journal of Documentation, 1:156-161 (December, 1945).
Henry, Edward A. "Books on Film, their Use and Care," Library Journal, 57:316 (March, 1932).
"Films Versus Books," Library Journal, 58:237-240 (March, 1933).
Hermann, William H. "Microphotographing Bound Milwaukee Newspapers," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 2:11-20 (March, 1939)':
Herschel, J. W. K. "New Photographic Process," Atheneum, 831 (July, 1853). 2 0 1
"Historical Documents of the Dominican Republic Microfilmed," UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries, 14:289 (November-December, 1960). ------
Hitt, John M. "Care of Archives in the State of Washington," Proceedings and Addresses, National Association of State Libraries" Detroit, 23:4-6 (June, r922).
Holmes, Donald C. "XEROX Photoreproduction in the Library of Congress," D. C. Libraries, 31:61-64 (October, 1960).
______. "Quality in Microphotography," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 2:285-293 (1935),
"Wartime Photographic Activities and Records Resulting Therefrom," American Archivist, 10:287-293 (July, 1947).
Hubert, J. and C. Perrat. "La Photographie au service des archives et des bibliotheques," Archives et bibliotheques, 1:7-28 (1936).
Jackson, William A. "Some Limitations of Microfilm," Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 35:281-288 TT9*TT. ------"James K. Polk Correspondence," Microfilming Clearing House Bulletin, 57:1 (December, 1955). /Published as an Appendix to Library o£ Congress InTormation Bulletin, December 19, 1956V
Janicki, W. "Cost Estimating and Cost Analysis in Reproduction Work," Review of Documentation, 13:C30-35 (1946),
Jenkinson, Hilary. "Microphotography and Archives," Archivum, 3:81-86 (1953).
______and Leonard A. Sayce. "Some Notes on the Application of Microphotography to Archives," Transactions, International Federation for Documentation, 14:156-157 ( 1936) .------
Johnson, Amandus. "Some Early Experiences in Microfilming," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 1:9-19 (Winter, 1938).
Johnson, Rozelle Parker. "The Use of a 35-Millimeter Camera in European Libraries," Library Journal, 60:293-295 (April, 1935). 202
Kulsrud, Carl J. "National Archives Microfilm Project," American Documentation, 1:290-291 (October, 1950).
Leahy, Bnmett J. "The Navy’s ’Record’ in the Second World War," American Archivist, 8:233-240 (October, 1945).
Leroy, E, "Le Developpement du microfilm en France," International Federation for Documentation, Transactions, 14:138-141 (1938).
Lieberich, Heinz. "Rechtsfragen zum Problem Archive und Dokumentation," Archivallsche Zeltschrift, 47:43-79 (1951).
Lothrop, B. F. "Microfilming Materials for Southern History," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 5:91-108 (June, 1939).
Lowenthal, Marvin H. "Too Small to See but Not to Read," Saturday Review of Literature, 22:11-13 (September, 1940).
Luther, Frederic. "The Earliest Experiments in Microphotography," American Documentation, 2:167-170 (Summer, 1951).
Luyten, W, J. "Micro-photography or Photomicrography?" Science, n.s. 85:242 (March, 1937).
MacLeish, Archibald. "The Reorganization of the Library of Congress, 1939-1944," Library Quarterly, 14:1-39 (October, 1944).
Martin, Thomas P. "Microphotography at the Library of Congress," Microphotography for Libraries: Papers Presented at the Microphotography Symposium at the l935~~Conference oT the American library Association, Chicago, 79-82 (19567*7
Masters, Betty R. "The Microfilming of Records, with Special Reference to the Work Recently Carried out at Exeter," Society of Local Archivists, Bulletin, 11 (April, 1953).
Metcalf, Keyes D. "Microphotography and Bibliography," Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 32:65-70 (193877
"Microcopying Material in Libraries and Archives," UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries, 10:39-40 (February-MarchT 1956).
"Microfilm Edition of Adams Papers Completed," Library Journal, 85:520 (February, 1960).
"Microfilm Housed in Plush Cavern," Industrial Photography, 9:49 (October, 1960). 203
"Microfilm Program of the Historical Records Survey," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 1:60 (Winter, 1938).
"Microfilming of Library Catalogs in Europe," UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries, 10:11 (January, 1956).
"Microfilms as News," Publishers Weekly, 132:1312 (September, 1937).
"Micro-photographs," Photographic N e w s , 3:372 (July, 1864).
"Microphotography and Archives: Being a Memorandum from the Public Record Office," Archivum, 3:81-86 (1953).
"Microscopic Photography," Photographic News, 9:43 ( September, 1865).
"Minimum Standards of Quality for Permanent Record Microfilms," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 4:261-266 (1941).
Muller, Robert H. "Microfilming Services of Large University and Research Libraries in the United States," College and Research Libraries, 16:261-266 (July, 1955).
Murphy, T. F, "The Use of Microfilm in the Bureau of the Census," The Journal of Documentary Reproduction , 1:162- 167 (Spring, 193B).
"News Notes," American Archivist, 4:53 (January, 1941).
Noll, Daniel F. "From the Microphotographer's Mail," American Archivist, 11:238-245 (July, 1948).
. "From the Microphotographer's Mail," American Archivist, 11:316-324 (October, 1948).
Norton, Margaret C. "Recent Illinois Records Legislation," Illinois Libraries, 33:427-480 (1951).
Nute, Grace Lee. "Microphotography at the Minnesota Historical Society," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 2:109-117 (June, 193971
Oosterloo, N. "The Direct Possibilities of Microphotography," Revue de la documentation, 16:80-83 (1949).
Otlet, Paul and Robert Goldschmidt. "Sur une forme nouvelle du livre," Bulletin, Institut International de Bibliographie, 12:61-69 '<150777 ------204
Patterson, E. F. "Application of Small-Scale Photography to Library Purposes," Library Association Record, 38:347- 351 (1936).
Pike, N. "The MicrophotographPhotographic Notes, 9:21-23 (1864).
"Planning for Scholarly Photocopying; A Report Prepared for the American Council of Learned Societies," PM LA , 79:pt. 2; 77-90 (September, 1964).
Poindron, Paul. "Microcopy: A Look at the Past and the Future," Revue de la documentation, 27:119-122 (August, 1960).
Posner, Ernst. "The National Archives and the Archival Theorist," American Archivist, 18:207-216 (July, 1955).
Power, Eugene B. "The Manuscript Copying Program in England," American Archivist, 6:28-32 (1944).
Prinet, Jean. "Conservation et lecture des microfilms de long metrage," Bulletin des bibliotheques de France, 2:193-195 (March, 195771
Pritchard, H. Baden. "On the Preparation of Micro- Photographic Despatches on Film by M. Dagron’s Process," Photographic N e w s , 15:605-606 (December, 1871).
Pritsker, Allan E. "An Evaluation of Microfilm as a Method of Book Stdrage," College and Research Libraries, 18:290- 296 (July, 1957).
Reid, J. David. "Microfilm with the 35-mm, Candid Camera," Science, n.s. 91:555-556 (June, 1940),
Remoortel, Andre von. "Le Microfilm en Belgigue," Revue de Fa documentation, 14:98 (1947),
Rider, Fremont, "Archival Materials on Microcards," American Documentation, 1:42-45 (January, 1950).
R o s s e , Edward, "16 mm. Microfilm Reproduction of Records," Proceedings, National Microfilm Association, Washington, D . C . , 1:13-21 (1952) . /First published 1961/7
______. "The Social Security EDP and Microfilm System," Proceedings, National Microfilm Association, San Francisco, 12:229-244 (1963).
Rudd, R. G. "Some Factors Influencing the Quality of Microfilm Images," Proceedings, National Microfilm Association. 2nd Annual Meeting, New York, 44-58 (1953). 205
Saint Rat, L. de. "Le Microfilm dans la vie pratique," F.I^D. Communications, 13:4 (1946).
Sanchez Belda, Luis. "The National Microfilm Service of Spain," UNESCO Bulletin, 10:108-109 (May-June, 1956).
Sayce, L, A. "Microphotography in 1939," Proceedings, Association of Special Libraries and Information bureaus, London, 16:77^83 (193^).
Schellenberg, Theodore R. "Library Applications of Micro- Copy," Library Journal, 60:289-292 (April, 1935).
"Microfilm Copying of Documents," Journal, Society of Motion Picture Engineers, 2 7 :90-93 (1936).
. "The N.R.A. and A.A.A. Code Hearings on Films," American Library Association, Public Documents, 202-206 (1936).
Schwegmann, George A. , Jr. "Microfilm in Business and Industry," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 3:147-152 (September, 1940).
Seidell, Atherton. "Film-strip Copies of Scientific Publi cations," Science, n.s. 81:174-176 (February, 1935).
______. "Photomicrographic Reproduction of Documents," F . 1_.D. Communications, 1:22-25 (1934),
Slamer, H. L. "Assaying the Developer," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 5:142-145 (1942).
/Standardization of MicrocopyingZ, Courrier de la normalisation, No. 122 (March, 1955).
Stauffer, Alvin P. "Microphotography in the National Park Service," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 1:172-177 (Summer, 1938).
Stevens, G. W. W. "Microphotography since 1839," Photographic Journal, 908:149-156 (1950).
Tate, Vernon D. "Hurdles for Microfilm Economics: Technology, Technique and Words," Photo Methods for Industry, 3:82, 84 (April, 1960).
. "Microphotography in Mexico," Proceedings, Inter-American Bibliographical and Library Association, jfiSTYoFE, 3:375-26D"TT940).'-- '------Tate, Vernon D, "MicrophotographyThe Complete Photographer, 7:2530-2556 (1943). New York: Educational Alliance.
______. "Microphotography in Archives," Archives and Libraries Papers Presented at the 1939 Conference^ American Library Association, Chicago, 103-108 (1939).
______. "Microphotography in Wartime," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 5:129-138 (September, 1942),
, "Microreproduction," Photo Methods for Industry, 3 :^2, 24, 83 (December, I960)1
"The Present Status of Equipment and Supplies for Microphotography: A Report Prepared for the Committee on Scientific Aids to Learning," Journal of Documentary Reproduction, 1:1-62 (Summer, 1938).
Taubes, Ernest P. "Microfilm Camera Records Both Sides of Documents," Electrical Manufacturing, 41:76-80, 166, 1 6 8 , 170 (19457
"V . . . Mail," Fortune, 26:72 (November, 1942).
Verry, H. R. "Colour Response in Document Reproduction Processes," 0. and M. Bulletin, Great Britain, Treasury, 8:44-45 (1953).
Warheit, I. A, "The Microfiche," Special Libraries, 51:65-67 (February, 1960).
Willemin, M. "Micro-photography," British Journal of Photography, 12:152 (1865).
Wilson, William Jerome. "Manuscripts in Microfilm: Problems of Cataloger and Bibliographer," Library Quarterly, 13:293-309 (October, 1943).
______. "Manuscripts in Microfilm: Problems of Librarian and Custodian," Library Quarterly, 13:212-226 (July, 1943),