American Library Association.— Buffalo meeting, August 14-17, 1S83. 
H E M .A. 33, K S 
ON 
LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION. 
BY WILLIAM P\ POOLE, 
Librarian of the Chicago Public Library. 
TO WHICH IS APPENDED 
AN EXAMINATION OF MR. J. L. SMITIIMEYER’S PAMPHLET 
ENTITLED, “SUGGESTIONS ON LIBRARY ARCHI- 
TECTURE, AMERICAN AND FOREIGN.” 
CHICAGO: 
JANSEN, McCLURG & CO. 
1884. American Library Association.—Jiuffalo Meeting, August 14-17, 1883. 
H E M .A. H K S 
ON 
LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION. 
BY WILLIAM 3F. POOLE, 
Librarian of the Chicago Public Library. 
TO WHICH IS APPENDED 
AN EXAMINATION OF MR. J. L. SMITHMEYER’S PAMPHLET 
ENTITLED, “ SUGGESTIONS ON LIBRARY ARCHI- 
TECTURE, AMERICAN AND FOREIGN.” 
CHICAGO: 
JANSEN, McCLURG & CO. 
1884. CHICAGO LEGAL NEWS CO., PRINTERS REMARKS ON LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION. 
AT BUFFALO, AUGUST 15, 1883. 
Our thanks are due to Mr. Edmands for the very able and 
interesting report to which we have just listened. Its views 
on the subject of library architecture are in harmony with 
opinions and resolutions which, without a dissenting voice, 
have been expressed at the last three meetings of this Asso- 
ciation, where it has been freely discussed. In the wide range 
of topics relating to our profession which have been consid- 
ered at our meetings, perhaps there is no one on which there 
is such a unanimous concurrence of opinion as on this,—that 
the typical style of constructing library buildings in this 
country and abroad is very faulty, and needs to be reformed. 
The discussions we have held have directed public attention 
to the subject, and the reform has already commenced. No 
committee or board of trustees, who now have the charge of 
erecting a library building, would take their architect to Bos- 
ton, New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington or Cin- 
cinnati, and reproduce what they there found. Those build- 
ings are all in the old conventional style,—a mediaeval Gothic 
structure, with empty nave and galleries from four to six stories 
high filled with books. At Boston, Judge Chamberlain 
would say to the committee: “Do not copy our plans; they 
will vex you as they have us. We have abandoned them 
ourselves in the new building we are about to erect.” At 
Cincinnati, my friend, Mr. Merrill, would say, as he has often 
said : “ Make your building as unlike ours as you can, and 
you will not make a mistake.” 
The problem of library architecture is not a difficult one 
to solve if we will abandon conventional and mediaeval ideas, 4 
and apply the same common-sense, practical judgment and 
good taste which are used in the construction of houses to live 
in, stores to do business in, and hotels to accommodate tran- 
sient visitors in. We want buildings for doing the work of a 
library in ; for giving readers the best facilities for study; for 
storing books in the most convenient and accessible manner, 
where they will be secure from fire and heat, and for doing in 
the best manner whatever pertains to the administration of a 
library. The architect is not qualified to decide what the 
requirements of a library are, for he knows nothing about the 
details of its administration. The librarian should study out 
the design of the original plan, and the architect should take 
his practical suggestions, harmonize them, and give to the 
structure an artistic effect. It would be well if librarians gave 
more attention to library construction. If left to architects 
alone, the business will run in the old ruts. 
The conventional style of library architecture has come 
down, through the centuries, to our day under the supposition 
that it was beautiful. Committees start out with the single 
idea, and seldom get beyond it, that a library building must 
be, in any event, picturesque. It may be objected that a build- 
ing constructed on the practical and utilitarian ideas which 
have been promulgated of late through this Association will 
not be aesthetic. Beauty is that which is pleasing to the sight 
or gratifying 1o the other senses. That only is really beautiful 
which answers the purpose for which it w'as designed. Dif- 
ferent persons have different aesthetic ideas as to. the same ob- 
ject. A stranger entering the Cincinnati Public Library, and 
gazing aloft at the ornamental skylight and at the upper gal- 
leries filled with books, regards the design as beautiful; but 
the assistant, who is obliged to climb four flights of stairs to 
get a volume, sees no element of beauty in the arrangement; 
and when Mr. Merrill, on a summer day, finds that the sun 
streaming through that ornamental skylight has raised the 
temperature in the upper galleries to 140°, and that the bind- 
ings of his books are crumbling because they have been 5 
burned up by this excessive heat, the sight does not appeal 
to his aesthetic faculty. No person who has had experience 
with buildings of this class will say they are beautiful, and 
for the reason that they do not meet the legitimate wants and 
conditions of a library. 
We have naturally an interest in the plans which will be 
adopted in the construction of the two great library buildings 
soon to be erected in Boston and Washington, and chiefly be- 
cause they will indicate the progress, if any, in library archi- . 
tecture. Mr. Edmands has given us such information con- 
cerning them as he could obtain, which is not very definite. 
With the plans for the Washington library we have an espe- 
cial interest, because it is the National Library. If this 
American Association of practical librarians is good for any- 
thing, it would seem that it ought to have some influence, by 
the way of advice, in determining what those plans shall be. 
Hitherto its advice has been wholly ignored by the Congres- 
sional committee on that subject. The committee’s plans 
were exhibited and explained by its architect, at our meeting 
in Washington, in February, 1881, and by resolution they 
met the disapproval of every member. They were in the old 
conventional style, with open nave, alcoves five stories high, 
and skylights. They were condemned again the next year, 
at our Cincinnati meeting. No notice was taken of our ac- 
tion ; and the question of adopting those plans coming before 
Congress, the bill was defeated, on a motion of Mr. Holman, 
of Indiana, that the expense of the building (estimated by 
some architects at about ten million dollars) should not exceed 
two millions. The question will doubtless come up again in 
the next session of Congress. Mr. Spofford, in his letter to 
the Association, which Mr. Edmands has just read, says it 
appears to him “ that the Association should take measures 
to make its views on the matter of library construction more 
widely known, and its influence felt in a more definite and 
emphatic manner.” This is the very thing we have been try- 
ing to do, and with very little success. “ And it is quite cer- 6 
tain,” he adds, “that with the prestige we [the Association] 
have, it is possible for us largely to give direction to public 
thought on the subject, and through the public to the action 
of Congress.” I think we ought to heed this good counsel 
and to suggest that we be heard by the committee when the 
subject next comes up for consideration in Congress. 
I regard the adoption of Mr. Holman’s resolution as a for- 
tunate circumstance, for it makes the construction of a build- 
ing on the plans adopted by the committee, an impossibility, 
and indicates that the members of Congress propose to give 
to the matter some consideration. It affords the librarians 
of the country, also, an opportunity to express their views. 
As to what shall be the architecture of the exterior, this As- 
sociation has no interest, and hence has expressed no opin- 
ion; but with the construction and arrangements of the inte- 
rior it has, by unanimous votes, expressed and reiterated 
decided opinions, first at Washington, in 1881, just after the 
committee’s plans had been exhibited and explained to the 
Association, and in these words :— 
*‘ Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Association, the 
time has come for a radical modification of the prevailing 
typical style of library building, and the adoption of a style 
of construction better suited to economy and practical 
utility.” 
This resolution was repeated at Cincinnati, with some addi- 
tional resolutions, among which were the following:— 
“ Resolved, That the plans submitted to this Association at 
the Washington meeting, by Mr. J. L. Smithmeyer, and 
adopted by the Joint Committee of Congress, embody princi- 
ples of construction which are now regarded as faulty by the 
whole library profession; and therefore, as members of the 
American Library Association, we protest against the erec- 
tion of the building for the Library of Congress upon those 
principles. 
“ Resolved, . . . That it is of great importance to the library 
interests of the country that the old and conventional errors 7 
of construction be avoided in the interior plans of this build- 
ing.” 
As these are the views on library construction which this 
Association has uniformly expressed, they must be the views 
which Mr. Spofford wishes “ the Association to make more 
widely known, and its influence felt in a more definite and 
emphatic manner.” I certainly am not inclined to shirk my 
share of this duty. 
The only information we have as to the plans which are 
now in contemplation for the Congress library building is 
contained in Mr. Spoflord’s letter which has just been read. 
In it he “regrets the vote of the Association condemning an 
interior plan, assumed by those who passed it to have been 
fixed upon definitely, when it was merely provisional and de- 
signed to get some kind of a building from Congress.” We 
were not told that the plans submitted to us for .our informa- 
tion were provisional, and did not mean anything; and we 
never suspected that the committee had adopted plans simply 
“ designed to get some kind of a building from Congress.” 
Asking Congress for an appropriation, which involved an ex- 
pense of some ten million dollars in carrying them out, had 
the appearance of business and serious intentions. We are 
now told that the interior arrangements, as well as the mate- 
rials, were to be ultimately agreed upon by the commission, 
“ with the understanding that the librarian’s judgment would 
be carried out as to details.” It was not to the details, but to 
the general plan, that we objected. Hon. C. B. Farwell, of 
Chicago, who was a member of the committee, said to me 
that he was as much responsible for the adoption of the plans 
as any member. I asked him whether, in case Congress had 
enacted the committee’s bill and made the appropriation, the 
commission could have essentially changed Mr. Smithmeyer’s 
plans. “ Not at all,” he replied; “ the bill carried the plans 
with it, and was drawn so intentionally.” 
So much for the past; now what of the future? A build- 
ing contrived for show, such as the late committee proposed, 8 
can not be built for $2,000.000; but one sufficiently commo- 
dious, adapted to the practical wants of the National Library, 
and architecturally an ornament to the city of Washington, 
can be built for about that sum. No committee will be likely 
again to go before Congress with plans which have not been 
duly considered, If they consult the librarians of the coun- 
try and give any weight to the advice they receive, their 
plans will in some measure represent the views which this 
Association entertains and has expressed. The Librarian of 
Congress, who is one of our members, ought to have, and 
will have, much influence in determining what those plans 
will be. He was, when we met at Washington, cordially with 
us in condemning the conventional style of library buildings, 
and we have had no intimation, until we listened to his letter 
which has just been read, that there had been a change in his 
opinions. Recalling, Mr. President, the views he expressed 
to us when, with Mr. Cutter, we partook of his generous hos- 
pitality after the Washington meeting, I am surprised at the 
statement of his present views of what the interior of a Na- 
tional Library should be. It seems like falling back on Mr. 
Smithmeyer’s plans. He says :— 
“ I. A grand central hall, sufficiently impressive in height 
and proportions to show at once, by its well-lined walls, the 
wealth of its literary stores, and to appeal to public taste as 
something worthy of the country.” 
Not a word or intimation is given as to the use to be made 
of this grand central hall, except that it impress the public as 
a show-room. Are there not show-buildings enough in 
Washington ? A library is for the use of students and schol- 
ars, and not for sight-seers. It is the last institution which 
should to be housed in a show-building. This central hall is 
to be of great height, and its walls lined with books, in galle- 
ries, of course, of which there are five tiers in Mr. Smith- 
meyer’s plans. Possibly this number may be increased in a 
room of the height proposed. What is the purpose of all 
this ? It is not a convenient mode of shelving books and 9 
making them accessible ; and it is well known that the bind- 
ings of books stored in galleries are destroyed by heat. Mr. 
Spofford here proposes to repeat and perpetuate the injury to 
books from heat which he experiences in his present library 
rooms, and which he so vigorously condemned at the Wash- 
ington meeting. He said : “ If you go into the upper gal- 
leries of the Library of Congress on any day of the winter, 
and take a book from the shelves, the chances are that it will 
almost burn your hand. It has often occurred to me that, if 
these warped and shriveled and overheated volumes were not 
inanimate beings,—if they could only speak,—they would 
cry out with one voice to their custodians, ‘ Our sufferings 
are intolerable.’ ” Mr. Spofford now thinks that this arrange- 
ment “ will appeal to public taste as something worthy of the 
country.” To ignorant people who come to gape and stare, 
it will be impressive ; but to well-informed and educated per- 
sons it will be anything but an appeal to public taste. It will 
be pitiable, and positively discreditable to the Nation. If 
these be really Mr. Spofford’s present views of what the Na- 
tional Library ought to be, I regard his comments on some 
plans of library construction which I proposed at Washing- 
ton as positively complimentary to them. “ In any case,” he 
says, “ the scheme proposed by Mr. Poole would be wholly 
unsuitable to a National Library building.” My scheme has 
certainly a very different purpose in view from his; and that 
I regard as its chief merit. The delectation of strangers and 
casual visitors is not the primary purpose of a library building. 
The Washington Monument, five hundred and twenty-five 
feet high, will soon be completed, and visitors from the rural 
districts can do their gazing and wondering there. They can 
now roam through the Capitol (which is a show-building), 
and with delight look aloft in the rotunda. They can visit 
the Smithsonian Institution, the Patent-Office, the President’s 
House, and admire the marble columns around the Treasury 
Building. With these opportunities at sight-seeing, the Na- 
tional Library ought not to be constructed for their special 10 
accommodation, in preference to convenience, common-sense, 
the quietude of readers, and safety of the books. 
If I had not taken so much of your time, I should like to 
comment on some other features in the scheme of a National 
Library building which Mr. Spofford has laid before us. It 
seems hardly necessary, as my criticisms would be in the 
same line as those I have already made. I leave the subject 
here, hoping that the views of this Association will be repre- 
sented in the plans which Congress in its wisdom shall adopt; 
and that the new National Library building will mark an era 
in the healthful progress of American library architecture. 
Extracts from the letter of Mr. A. R. Spofford, which 
were read by Mr. Edmands, as an addendum to his report: 
“ As matters now stand, and in special reference to the pro- 
posed new building for the Library of Congress, it appears to 
me this Association should take measures to make its views 
on the matter of library construction more widely known, and 
its influence felt in a more definite and emphatic manner. 
And it is quite certain that, with the prestige we have,* it is 
* The organization of the Association for the current year is as follows : 
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 1S83-S4. 
President—Justin Winsor, Librarian Harvard University. 
Vice Presidents—Ainsworth R. Spofford, Librarian of Congress. 
William F. Poole, Librarian Chicago Public Library. 
Henry A. Homes, Librarian New York State Library. 
Lloyd P. Smith, Librarian Philadelphia Library Company. 
Secretary—Melvil Dewey, Librarian Columbia College, New York. 
Assistant Secretary—C. Alex. Nelson, Astor Library, New York. 
Treasurer—James L. Whitney, Ass’t Librarian Boston Public Library. 11 
possible for us largely to give direction to public thought on 
the subject, and, through the public, to the action of Con- 
gress. 
“ Both plans embodied the exterior plan of the building 
adopted by the committee, drawn by Mr. J. L. Smithmeyer, 
which is in the Italian renaissance style of architecture, with 
central rotunda and skylight, corner pavilions, very slightly 
projected, to break the monotony of a long facade in one 
style, and a generally modest and plain treatment throughout. 
The interior was to be of iron and stone; the arrangements 
of reading-rooms, copyright department, shelf system, and 
alcoves, as well as the selection of the materials, whether 
granite or marble, to be ultimately agreed upon by the Com- 
mission, with the understanding that the Librarian’s judgment 
would be carried out as to details. 
Finance Committee—Samuel S. Green, Librarian Worcester Public Library. 
J. N. Larned, Librarian Young Men’s Library, Buffalo, N. Y. 
Daniel Beckwith, Librarian Providence Athenaeum. 
Co-operative Committee—Charles A. Cutter, Librarian Boston Athenaeum. 
Wm. C. Lane, Harvard University Library. 
C. B. Tillinghast, Massachusetts State Library. 
COUNCILLORS—John S. Billings, Librarian National Medical Ltbrary. 
Mellen Chamberlain, Librarian Boston Public Library. 
John N. Dyer, Librarian St. Louis Mercantile Library. 
John Eaton, United States Commissioner of Education. 
John Edmands, Librarian Philadelphia Mercantile Library. 
Weston Flint, Librarian United States Patent Office. 
Daniel C. Gilman, President Johns Hopkins University. 
Reuben A. Guild, Librarian Brown University. 
Caroline M. Hewins, Librarian Hartford Library. 
Frederick Jackson, St. Paul, Minn. 
John W. M. Lee, Librarian Baltimore Mercantile Library. 
Fred. Leypoldt, Publisher of the Library Journal. 
Karl A. Linderfelt, Librarian Milwaukee Public Library. 
Chester W. Merrill, Librarian Cincinnati Public Library. 
Stephen B. Noyes, Librarian Brooklyn Library. 
Lucy Stevens, Librarian Toledo Public Library. 
Addison Van Name, Librarian Yale College. 
James W. Ward, Librarian Grosvenor Library, Buffalo, N. Y. 12 
“ This brings me to say how greatly I regret the vote of the 
Association condemning an interior plan, assumed by those 
who passed it to have been fixed upon definitely, when it was 
merely provisional, and designed to get some kind of a build- 
ing from Congress. Of course you could never get architects 
to agree upon what would be the proper interior; and, unless 
I greatly mistake, an agreement of librarians would be almost 
equally difficult to reach. In any case, the scheme proposed 
by Mr. Poole would be wholly unsuited to a National Library 
building in many particulars. Unlike the wants of a mere 
collection of books open to students, a National Library must 
embrace,— 
“ i. A grand central hall, sufficiently impressive in height 
and proportions to show at once, by its well-lined walls, the 
wealth of its literary stores, and to appeal to public taste as 
something worthy of the country. 
“ 2. An Art Gallery, at least 300 feet in length, for the 
proper arrangement of the 30,000 specimens of the arts of 
design already received under the copyright law, and those 
which are to follow. 
“ 3. A Map room of large dimensions, in which many 
thousand maps can be systematically arranged on spiral- 
spring rollers, to illustrate, by a complete and magnificent 
series, the entire cartography of America. 
“ 4. Copyright record rooms, ample for the large clerical 
business and accumulated folios of a national office of public 
records. 
“ 5. A spacious hall for bound newspapers, of which more 
than 12,000 volumes are already accumulated. 
“ 6. Committee rooms and offices in adequate number and 
dimensions. 
“ 7. Students’ rooms for special investigations. 
“ 8. All needful appliances of packing, binding, heating, 
and quick communication throughout the entire building. 
“ These being provided for and assured, and every reader 
furnished with a desk protected from his neighbor, and quiet 13 
in the main library hall secured by diverting the great sight- 
seeing public to the art-gallery floor, where they can look 
down upon the reading-room, and aloft to the graceful dome, 
I am ready to introduce all the economics of storage which 
the stack system or the most utilitarian scheme proposed by 
any of my very respected colleagues may involve. Until 
these objects are secured , I am not willing to have the interior 
plans of a library building of national importance dwarfed to 
the dimensions of a prolonged series of packing-boxes.’’ 
An Examination of Mr. J. L. Smithmeyer’s Pamphlet En- 
titled “ Suggestions on Library Architecture.” 
Since the meeting of the American Library Association, at 
Buffalo, Mr. J. L. Smithmeyer, “Architect,” who has made 
plans for the new Congressional Library building, and is 
soliciting Congress to adopt them, has issued a pamphlet en- 
titled “Suggestions on Library Architecture, American and 
“ Foreign, with an examination of Mr. Wm. F. Poole's Scheme 
“for Library Buildings." Washington, 1883, 31 pp., 8vo. It 
seems proper that I should append to the preceding remarks 
a response of this “ Examination.” The “ scheme ” which he 
examines was set forth in a paper on “ Library Construction,” 
which I read at the meeting of the American Library Associa- 
tion, held at Washington, in February, 1881, and was printed 
by the United States Bureau of Education (Circulars of In- 
formation, No. 1, 1881); in the Library Journal (vol. 6, p. 
69); and American Architect (vol. 10, p. 131). 
Mr. Smithmeyer seems to regard my views on library con- 
struction as an obstacle to the adoption of his plans by Con- 
gress ; and hence his pamphlet. The attitude of the examiner, 14 
therefore, is not that of a disinterested critic; and in treating 
the subject he has found it convenient to make statements, 
and give impressions which are widely erroneous. One of 
these is that my paper was intended as a criticism of his plans ; 
whereas it was read at Washington before he made his plans 
public, and when I was wholly without information concern- 
ing them, or, indeed, of the fact that he had any plans. When 
later he put forth his plans to the public, it is not strange— 
inasmuch as he had adopted every vicious and antiquated 
principle of library construction, which I, in common with the 
American Library Association, had specifically condemned— 
that he should regard my paper as a criticism on him and 
them. 
Secondly. He would have his readers understand that the 
scheme of library construction which I submitted to my as- 
sociates in the Library Association was intended as plans for 
the Library of Congress; and he takes frequent occasion to 
mention something peculiar to the needs of that building 
which I had omitted. There was no such intention, and no 
intimation was expressed in the paper that I was planning for 
any specific library. They were professedly general plans, 
intended simply to outline and illustrate principles, and es- 
pecially “ in the construction of larger buildings than we have 
“ had experience with.” He says I “ forgot to provide sepa- 
“ rate rooms for Senators and Members of the House of Rep- 
“ resentatives.” He might have added that I forgot to locate 
a hat-rack and door-mat. 
Thirdly. While claiming that he is wrestling with a great 
problem, he says: “Mr. Poole has doubtless in view the 
“ smaller libraries of the country, and libraries built for spe- 
“ eific purposes, such as law, medical and circulating libraries.” 
In my criticism on the “conventional American library build- 
ing” I specified by name the buildings of the Boston Public 
Library, Boston Athenaeum, Astor Library, Cincinnati Public 
Library, Baltimore Peabody Institute, and Library of Con- 
gress. Can he mention larger American libraries than these? 15 
Concerning my scheme of construction, I said: “In the plans 
“ I now lay before you, I propose, on a lot of ground 200 feet 
“square, the construction of a building for a reference library 
“ of one million volumes; and in order that the library may 
“ grow, I expect, upon the same lot, without cramping the space 
“ for storage, or changing anything which has been construct- 
“ ed, to provide for two million, and later for three million vol- 
“ umes. By doubling the size of the lot (200x400 feet) six 
“ million volumes can be provided for.” (Bureau of Educa- 
tion Circular, p. 16.) I later showed how the plan could be 
extended to provide for twelve million volumes on a lot 
400x450 feet. Was this treating “ the smaller libraries—law, 
medical and circulating libraries?” If I had been discussing 
trivial matters, why did he think my views came in conflict 
with his? Time and patience will not suffice for me to reply 
in detail to the scores of misstatements with which his ram- 
bling and slip-shod pamphlet abounds. I need discuss only 
a few of the main topics. 
To find some method to remove the destructive effects of 
heat upon the bindings of books stored in the galleries of our 
conventional library buildings was one of the motives which 
led me to study the subject of library construction, and to 
prepare the paper read at Washington. If it had any merits, 
one of them was in setting forth a sure and effective remedy 
for this deplorable injury to books. The remedy was in 
abolishing galleries altogether. Mr. Smithmeyer, however, 
writing three years later, and professedly examining my 
paper, has never heard of any remedy. He says : “ The real 
“cause of alarm among students of library architecture and 
“ custodians of large and valuable collections is caused by the 
“ fact that an extensive destruction of books in the large 
“ libraries is constantly going on in the upper stories and 
“ galleries. While it is now ascertained that the accumula- 
“ tion of heat and its intensity is [are] the cause of it, no reli- 
“ able remedy seems to be known?' Mr. A. R. Spofford, the 
librarian of the Congressional Library, knows of such a rem- 16 
edy, though Mr. Smithmeyer, the architect, whose plans have 
been accepted by the Joint Committee of Congress on the new 
library building, says he does not. In the discussion which 
followed the reading of my paper, Mr. Spofford said: 
“If there were no other cause, Mr. President, why we should all be grateful 
to our veteran colleague from Chicago, whose lucid and interesting paper has 
been read, than its suggestions for preventing the overheating of books and 
libraries, that alone would entitle him to a high meed of praise.” He then viv- 
idly described the deplorable effects of heat upon books and bindings in his 
library, and continued his remarks as follows: “ Now by the simple and ingeni- 
ous expedient, graphically represented before you by our Chicago colleague, all 
the deleterious effects of overheating are got rid of. By the mere method of 
construction the lofty upper stories are abolished; each floor for the storage and 
arrangement of books being only sixteen feet high, all the books are within easy 
reach from the floor, and the upper half of every library room is devoted, not to 
the concentration of heat, but to its dispersion or ejection, which is effected by 
windows that supply at once a maximum of light and of ventilation. * * * I 
look upon this information and discussion as of the first importance among our 
labors in this convention, and, whatever might be our conclusion as to the details 
of the scheme, I hail the special improvement of which I have spoken as oxte of 
great practical value.” (Bureauof Education Circular, pp. 22,23.) 
It is a public misfortune that the Architect of the Congres- 
sional Committee couid not have conferred with the Congres- 
sional Librarian, and got from him some information and some 
ideas on library construction. Mr. Smithmeyer’s plans em- 
body the same old faults of construction which are sure to 
entail the evils complained of by Mr. Spofford in his present 
building, and they ignore the remedy so highly commended 
by him. Mr. Smithmeyer in claiming for himself the sole 
credit for his library plans, deems it necessary to explain why 
he has not conferred with Mr. Spofford. He says: “The 
“ time of the Congressional Librarian is always fully occupied. 
“ Information on this matter was very scarce, and I had to 
“rely principally upon my own observation and such interviews 
“with individual librarians as I was able to obtain ; but such 
“information I found I could make little use of in designing 
“ a work of the size, character and requirements called for in 
“ a Congressional library.” We are therefore to understand that his scheme, when not copied from old conventional 
forms, was evolved from the inner consciousness of a person 
of very ordinary capacity, who never had any library experi- 
ence, and takes pride in the assertion that he has had no help 
from the professional librarians of the country. Of the men 
who constitute the membership of the American Library 
Association he has a very low estimate. He says of them: 
“ They can not be expected to be, and certainly do not appear 
“ to be, competent to judge either upon questions of archi- 
“ tectural science, or upon the needs of a great national 
“ library.” The Librarian of Congress is a prominent member, 
and first Vice-President, of the American Library Association. 
It may gratify Mr. Smithmeyer to be assured that the leading 
librarians of the country have as poor an opinion of his library 
plans as he has of their knowledge of architecture and their 
competency to judge of the needs of a great national library. 
This opinion they have publicly and unanimously expressed 
on two occasions ; and would doubtless, if he requested it, 
furnish him their votes engrossed on parchment. 
Mr. Smithmeyer further assures us that “the entireAmeri 
“can Library Association has been able to discover no 
“ effectual remedy ” for the deterioration and destruction of 
books by heat; and yet he would not leave us in despair. 
He is simply, by this painful recital, preparing our minds for 
a cheerful surprise in the announcement that he has discov- 
ered the remedy himself! His remedy is the “ vacuum or 
down-draft system.” Now this system, with a new name, is 
a very old device, and is described in every standard treatise 
on ventilation. It is nothing more than ventilating a room 
through an opening near the floor, and increasing the normal 
draft by means of an exhaust fan, or fire in the stack. His 
knowledge of the history and principles of pneumatics is on a 
par with his knowledge of library construction. “ Vitiated 
air,” he says, “ has a greater gravity than pure air of the 
same temperature.” That depends on what the vitiating sub- 
17 stance in the air is. If it be carbonic-acid gas, produced by 
respiration or combustion, such air is heavier; but if it be 
sulphurated hydrogen, the exhalation from human bodies, the 
fumes of stale tobacco, bad breath and other noxious odors 
freely given off in a mixed assembly, the air is lighter. Rooms 
are therefore properly ventilated where the air is exhausted 
both at the floor and at the ceiling. The foulest air will escape 
at the ceiling. 
One statement of Mr. Smithmeyer is fortunately correct: 
“ The coldest air in a room is always found at the floor.” 
The converse of this proposition he omitted to state for our 
edification, namely: that “ the hottest air in a room is always 
found at the ceiling.” It is too much to expect that he would 
know the rate at which temperature in a room increases from 
the floor to the ceiling. If he had been possessed of this ele- 
mentary information he would have withheld it, inasmuch as 
it would alarm his readers. In a room where the air is not 
disturbed by cold currents from without, or agitated by me- 
chanical means, the rate of increase is one degree for every 
foot; so that in a room sixty feet high, as his plans indicate, 
a temperature of 70° at the floor means 130° at the ceiling, 
or 120° in the upper gallery, where he proposes to shelve the 
books of the Congress Library. In about a year their bind- 
ings would be ashes and powder. Perhaps he does not know 
that “ books can not live where men can not live.” Why 
should he know? He has never had any library experience, 
and disdains to take information from practical librarians. 
The proposition for cooling the air in the upper galleries 
which is to surprise us by its originality and effectiveness, and 
perpetuate the name of Smithmeyer as a discoverer, is this: 
By exhausting the coldest air in the room through an open- 
ing near the floor, and supplying its place by hot air from 
the heating apparatus in the sub-basement, admitted at “ the 
desired height” (he omits to state where the desired height 
is), the upper strata of air, some sixty feet above the opening, 
will be cooled. Any person who has the slightest knowledge 19 
of the natural laws of heat will see the absurdity of this propo- 
sition. The hot air from the furnaces, wherever admitted, 
entering at a temperature considerably above that of the 
room, rises in a mass, like a balloon, to the ceiling, and main- 
tains in the upper strata of air a high temperature, which 
diminishes in the lower strata at the rate of one degree for 
every foot. Exhausting air from the lower parts of the room 
brings down the column of air to supply its place; but the 
column maintains the relative proportions of heat in its differ- 
ent strata. Such exhaust does not cool the air in the upper 
parts of the room, because the cold air exhausted at the floor 
is replaced by hot air which makes its way to the ceiling. In- 
creasing the exhaust by means of a fan, or fire in the ventilating 
stack, does not change these conditions, as it increases in the 
same ratio the amount of hot air brought into the room from 
the furnaces. 
Unfortunately, the natural laws of air and heat have not 
been adjusted to meet Mr. Smithmeyer’s ideas of library con- 
struction. Hot air is lighter than cold air, and will rise. 
The higher the column of air, the greater will be the dif- 
ference of temperature between the top and bottom of the 
column. My plan of obviating the overheating of books is 
in not having high rooms, and not shelving books in galle- 
ries. Mr. Smithmeyer, on the other hand, proposes no 
other remedy than the one he has discovered, which has 
been considered and found to be a failure. 
He might dispose of his hot air by several methods which 
he has not even hinted at. He might take off the roof, or 
leave the upper windows open. The hot air would then es- 
cape in a hurry. The trouble then would be that the temper- 
ature of the lower parts of the room would be reduced in the 
same proportion, and there would be no possibility of heating 
the room at all. If not inclined to adopt heroic remedies 
like these, he might abate the destructive effects of heat upon 
books by having his windows badly fitted in their frames, so 
that hot air could escape from some, and cold air be admitted 20 
at others. Cold drafts descending from the upper windows 
would partially equalize the different strata of air in the room. 
These conditions maybe found in several library buildings of 
the old conventional style, of which reports have been given 
of the temperature in different galleries which do not agree 
with tests made in rooms which are tight. The principle of 
abating heat in the upper galleries by this crude arrangement 
is the same as taking off the roof, or opening the upper win- 
dows, although the process of cooling the air is more grad- 
ual. The same remark applies to them all: Heating air 
merely to let it escape, or to cool it, is waste in its simplest 
form. Ventilating a room in winter more than is necessary 
to maintain the purity of the air, is another form of waste. 
The fuel which is thus squandered in the furnaces had better 
be left on the wharf, and distributed to the poor. 
The results of what Mr. Smithmeyer claims to be twelve 
years of study on heat and ventilation are singularly lacking in 
freshness and originality. He might have proposed to abate 
the temperature of his upper galleries by mixing up the dif- 
ferent strata of air in his rooms by mechanical means ; and, 
at the same time, have contributed to the leading idea on 
which his plans are contrived, namely: that the building 
should be “ a museum,” “ a show-place,” something “ made 
for the pleasure and curiosity of the mere spectator;” for 
“provisions,” he says (p. 11), “will have to be made for the 
hosts of visitors and curiosity-seekers.” What would more 
inspire the awe and admiration of the casual visitor, or more 
administer to “ the pleasure of the mere spectator,” than 
furnishing each of his rooms with a rotary fan, forty feet in 
diameter, ornamented with Japanese dragons, and impelled 
by steam power? It would, indeed, be “a curiosity,” and 
attract visitors from far and near. Whether it would be 
agreeable for a student to pursue his studies amidst a crowd 
of admiring and loquacious spectators, and a whirl of air- 
drafts laden with dust, is a matter not worth considering, pro- 
vided the building be a “ museum ” and “ show-place.” 21 
If in winter the effects of heat upon books and bindings 
stored in galleries are, as Mr. Spofford expressed it, “ simply 
deplorable,” what shall be said of the effects of summer heat 
in the rooms where Mr. Smithmeyer proposes to place the 
books of the National Library ? The direct rays of the sun 
are admitted to these rooms through skylights which form 
the roof. What the direct rays of the sun in midsummer are 
at Washington, residents and even persons who have spent a 
few days in that torrid region during the summer months, 
can best appreciate. When the thermometer in shaded local- 
ities registers among the nineties, the mercury stands in the 
sun from 140° to 1600.* Metals become so hot that they can- 
not be taken in the hand without pain. Washington and St. 
Louis are in about the same latitude. Mr. Dyer, Librarian 
of the St. Louis Mercantile Library, says that in his galleries 
during the summer months the mercury, two feet below the 
ceiling, frequently registers 140°, and he has no skylights. 
The temperature of Mr. Smithmeyer’s rooms, with skylights, 
can readily be imagined as something fearfully destructive to 
books. If a breeze was stirring, and these rooms had con- 
tact with the natural air currents, this overpowering heat might 
be somewhat abated by opening the windows; but Mr. 
Smithmeyer has carefully provided against the contingency 
of ever getting air into these rooms. He has placed them 
inside a quadrangle surrounded by high buildings which cut 
them off from contact with the outward world and its natural 
currents of ventilation. In the center of this enclosed quad- 
rangle he has placed also the main reading room, one hun- 
dred feet in diameter, wholly shut out from the outer air. In 
this pit students are expected to pursue their studies. If the 
architect had in mind to plan a Tophet for the purpose of 
burning up the books of the National Library and their read- 
ers, his designs would deserve credit for originality and effect- 
iveness. 
There are ample accommodations for books and readers in 
*Report at the Naval Observatory, July 18, 1873, 162°; on a lew dales 165°. 22 
the structures which form the four sides of the quadrangle. 
There they would have access to the outer currents, and read- 
ers could get a breath of air to cool their parched tongues. 
But no : those rooms have been assigned to the architect’s 
special hobby, and to what he deems the higher functions of 
a library building, namely : to museum purposes and show 
places. The casual visitors and tramps, who are always first 
in Mr. Smithmeyer’s mind, have been well provided for; but 
the books and their readers—for which and whom he seems 
to have the same regard which Mr. Vanderbilt has for the 
public—he shuts up, without a breath of air, in his Gehenna. 
It is a singular fact that, neither in the pamphlet under con- 
sideration, nor in the paper he read before the American Li- 
brary Association, is there an estimate of the cost of his 
building, or of its capacity for storing books; and yet 
Congress is asked to adopt his plans and to begin the erec- 
tion of the building without any information on these most 
essential points. Would any individual or corporate institu- 
tion do business in this way ? The House of Representa- 
tives, at the last session of Congress, voted by a decisive ma- 
jority that the cost of the building should not exceed two 
million dollars. Does Mr. Smithmeyer propose to erect a 
building on his plans for the sum named? He says nothing 
about the cost, and for the obvious reason that the sum, if 
named, would alarm Congress and the country, and defeat his 
, scheme. Congress is to be led into a reckless and extrava- 
gant expenditure of money with its eyes shut. The estimates 
of architects who have examined the crude and ill-digested 
drawings which have been printed, vary from ten to twelve 
millions, and some place the cost as high as fifteen million 
dollars. The objections which the librarians of the country 
have to the plans are not based on the needless and reckless 
expense involved, for that is an extravagance which this great 
Nation can stand; but they are based on the fact that the 
building, when completed, will be wholly unadapted for the 
uses of a library, and hence will be a discredit to the Nation. 23 
It will be a monstrosity which intelligent Americans will be 
ashamed of, and foreigners will sneer at. 
Another very singular fact is, that, withholding his own 
estimates, Mr. Smithmeyer is very free to comment on the 
estimate of cost and storage capacity of the theoretical plan 
which I have proposed. I welcome criticism on these points 
from whatever source it may come. Under the head of 
“ Economy,” my critic becomes eloquent on “ the excessive 
“waste of space in Mr. Poole’s plan,” because I did not have 
galleries in rooms sixteen feet high, and carry the bookcases 
to the ceiling. This space was left empty for a specific pur- 
pose, and if a person be foolish enough to fill it with books, 
he can do so ; but he will ruin the books shelved on the upper 
tier of cases by heat, and will cut off the light which, by this 
vacant space, is diffused through the room. He claims that 
my rooms will hold twice as many books as I have estimated. 
This hardly looks as if I had wasted the space, when a person 
of Mr. Smithmeyer’s caliber can fill it so readily. The space 
is there, and only awaits a first-class ignoramus to use it for 
storing books. Again my critic says : “ There can not be 
“ any other reason assigned for this stupendous zvaste of space 
“than pure ignorance.” Mr. Spofiford, of the Congressional 
Library, is not an ignorant person, and he commends the 
arrangement. He knows why the space above one tier of 
cases was left empty, and could have told the writer of the 
above quotation, if the latter could have got at him. As I 
have, on p. 16, quoted the whole paragraph from Mr. Spof- 
ford’s remarks on my plan, I will again quote only one sen- 
tence which covers this point: “All the books are within 
easy reach from the floor, and the upper half of every library 
room is devoted, not to the concentration of heat, but to its 
dispersion and ejection.” 
The constant assertion of ignorance on my part is one of 
the means by which Mr. Smithmeyer seeks to make his 
pamphlet lively and entertaining. The charge he varies, 
when it gets to be monotonous, by the use of such express- 24 
ions as “ shallowness,” “ random assertions,” “ pretentious 
claims,” and “ utter want of knowledge.” It is very evident 
that the critic is greatly disturbed by my paper, now three 
years old, which made no reference to him, or to the future 
Congressional Library building, but simply discussed general 
principles of library construction. He was present when it 
was read at Washington, and might have replied to it then and 
there. He kept silent, and heard the Librarian of Congress 
and other eminent librarians commend its “ shallowness ” and 
“ pretentious claims.” He had also the satisfaction of read- 
ing his own paper on the same occasion, and displaying his 
own plans, which his auditors, the leading librarians of the 
country, promptly condemned by a unanimous vote. Not a 
voice except his own was heard in their defense. Why he 
should have thought it necessary and appropriate, so long 
after, to get excited, and to discuss my ignorance and that of 
my associates in the library profession, it is for him to ex- 
plain. Ignorance is an infirmity which experience and pro- 
tracted study often cure. There is always hope for an 
ignorant man, and hence I take courage. I regret to see no 
evidence in Mr. Smithmeyer’s pamphlet that he has learned 
anything useful or practical in the principles of library 
architecture since I listened to the reading of his paper, and 
heard him explain his plans, in February, 1881. He in- 
spires amazement when he tells us that he has made a 
special study of heat and ventilation, as well as of library 
architecture, for the past twelve years; has traveled in Eu- 
rope for the purpose ; that he has “ omitted to acquire noth- 
ing {sic) which might enrich my [his] knowledge of library 
architecture ” (p. 9); and that the plans he lays before us 
are the results! Was there ever such an instance of misdi- 
rected effort? He has, however, now exhibited qualities 
which three years ago I did not suspect. I then saw that he 
was a charlatan in the matter of library architecture, and sur- 
mised that he was tricky ; but did not suspect that he was dis- 
honest. In his pamphlet he does not scruple to change my 25 
drawings, and then to use his own falsifications as evidence 
to prove that I did not understand what I was writing about; 
that I could not even multiply figures. This point will be 
sufficiently illustrated by the following specimen of his 
method : 
My paper was first printed in the Library Journal, and the 
ground plan of the proposed structure, set up roughly with 
printers’ rules, gave the dimensions of each room, with its 
book-capacity. On the side opposite the main entrance, four 
rooms were indicated, and the dimensions of the two middle 
rooms were 45 x 50 feet, each with a book-capacity of 45,000 
volumes, which was a correct estimate. When later the pa- 
per was printed by the Bureau of Education, an architectural 
drawing on wood was made of this ground plan, which 
showed the same number of rooms and the same general ar- 
rangement. The space, however, was differently subdivided, 
in order that some of the rooms might be larger and others 
smaller. The size of the two middle rooms opposite the 
main entrance was reduced from 45 x 50 feet to 28 x 53 feet, 
and the space taken from them thrown into the adjacent 
rooms. No estimate of book-capacity for the separate rooms 
was given ; but the total capacity for the whole story was cor- 
rectly estimated as 505,000 volumes. Mr. Smithmeyer has 
been at the trouble and expense of copying this wood-cut 
into his pamphlet, and he has inserted in each of the small 
rooms mentioned (28x53 feet) “45>00° books,” which was 
the capacity, on the other plan, of the larger rooms (45 x 50 
feet). He has also inserted erroneous capacities in other 
rooms. His purpose in committing this fraud was that he 
might make the following note, which he prints below the 
plan, (p. 25): 
“ N. B. Tt will be seen that in the above plan Mr. Poole, in the rooms at 
the opposite end of the building from the main entrance, which measures 28x53 
feet and contains 1,484 square feet each, proposes to put 45,000 volumes per 
room, while in the rooms to the right and left of the area, measuring 45x50 feet 26 
and containing 2,250 square feet each, he proposes to place only 40,000 volumes 
per room. 
These discrepancies scarcely speak well for Mr. Poole’s excellence as a com- 
puter. Such looseness in arranging details as is indicated by this one may ac- 
count for many of the mistakes and errors so evident upon the face of Mr. 
Poole’s plan.” 
Comment of the above statement is unnecessary. Another 
of my “ mistakes ” was in estimating the cost of the building 
proposed at one fourth the amount which my critic says it 
ought to cost. The estimates were not mine, but were made 
by an experienced architect whose name I mentioned (p. 21), 
and whose professional reputation is well known. They were 
not made on the basis of the cubic foot of internal capacity, 
as my critic makes his estimates, taking his unit of cost from 
buildings wholly unlike the one proposed in purpose and 
design. They were, on the other hand, careful and detailed 
estimates based on the precise requirements of the plan and 
the prices of labor and materials in Chicago at the time. 
Contracts could then have been made in Chicago for erecting 
the building and putting it in complete readiness for occupa- 
tion for the sum named, $640,000. This sum, by the way, my 
critic does not mention until he has rung all the changes he 
can upon $530,000. Here his trickery, if not dishonesty, 
again comes in. Professing to quote what I said about ma- 
terials and cost, he omits the words I have put in italics : 
“ The cost of the building complete, including the steam ap- 
“ paratus for heating, but not including the shelving and furni- 
“ tune, will be $530,000. The shelving, which zvill be of hard 
“wood, with the furniture, will cost $110,000, making the entire 
“ cost of the building in readiness for occupation, $640,000.” 
He then comments on my shelving as being of hard wood, 
while his is of iron, giving the impression that the entire cost 
was intended to be covered by the sum of $530,000. He 
later mentions the sum of $640,000, but not in a connection 
which corrects in the reader’s mind the impression already 
made. 27 
Now a word as to my critic’s estimate that “ Mr. Poole’s 
building will cost $2,160,000, instead of $530,000, or 
$1,630,000 in excess of his estimate.” He makes the esti- 
mate by comparison, per cubic foot of internal capacity, with 
the New York City Post Office building; a government build- 
ing at Knoxville, Tenn.; and another government building at 
Omaha, Neb. There is no resemblance or analogy between 
the buildings compared. This sort of estimate may serve for 
the latitude of Washington, but it is not used by any reputa- 
ble architect with whom I have an acquaintance. Why he 
did not include in his estimate the cost per cubic foot of the 
Chicago Post Office building, which, from its inception, has 
been the occasion of quite as much scandal as has the New 
York Post Office building, does not appear. Is the cost of all 
government buddings a matter of public scandal ? and for this 
reason did he select only government buildings for the com- 
parison ? Is there to be the same old, old story in the erec- 
tion of a building for the Library of Congress? Let us hope 
that one public building, dedicated to literature, science, art, 
and the highest culture, can be erected without a scandal. I 
beg to inform Mr. Smithmeyer that in the estimate of $640,000, 
as the cost of the building proposed, there were included 
no jobs, no pickings, no stealings; no soft tidbits for the arch- 
itect and contractors; nothing for the eminent citizen in pub- 
lic or private life who facilitates the acceptance of the plans 
by the committee and their passage through Congress ; noth- 
ing for his nephew or cousin; nothing for the mob of lobbyists; 
nothing in compensation for the folly and extravagance of 
beginning the structure before its details are decided upon, 
and with the expectation of changing the plans as the work 
goes on ; nothing, in short, which would not have been in- 
cluded if the owner had been a private citizen and knew how 
to conduct his business on the square. If we had been esti- 
mating the cost of a government building at Washington, we 
should have applied to a Washington architect for informa- 
tion as to the cost of the items which we did not include. 28 
Now if Mr. Smithmeyer will give estimates of the cost of his 
building by the same rule which he applies to mine, it will be 
a curious piece of information, and serve as the basis of some 
curious arithmetical problems. If he will give his estimates 
by any rule, he will be a public benefactor. Estimates on 
his own plans he carefully avoids; it is more convenient for 
h m to criticise mine. He avoids also giving dimensions on 
his drawings or in his letter-press, and hence he expects that 
the absurdities of his plan will escape detection. On the 
elaborate picture of his plan, delineated on page io, there is 
not a single dimension in feet or inches, in meters or centi- 
meters, and only one in the letter-press. He could not with- 
hold the boast that his central reading room is “ 100 feet in 
diameter like the London reading room,” which, by the way, 
is 140 feet in diameter. Assuming this information as a pro- 
portional standard for other dimensions, the nave of his book 
rooms—the books being stored in the aisles—is only eight 
feet wide, and through this narrow slit he expects to light his 
five tiers of alcoves mainly from skylights in the ceiling. 
The side light he gets is from areas, which are shafts or pits 
twenty-five feet wide and sixty or more feet high. He will 
have plenty of heat; but what sort of light will he get from 
such conditions ? He nevertheless questions the quantity of 
light I get from an uninterrupted outlook on the outside of 
my rooms, and from an open area eighty-three feet square, on 
the inside. 
For the administration of the library he has assigned two 
rooms, each about 20x40 feet in dimensions, which is not 
enough for a library of one fourth of its size. The adminis- 
trative department of a large library includes not only the 
special work of the Librarian, but the office duties of many 
assistants, the cataloguing department, the searching of book- 
lists and making orders for the purchasing department, and 
space for the receiving, arrangement and classification of 
books and pamphlets. No place seems to be assigned for the 
more general and miscellaneous administrative work of a 29 
large library, where persons may come and make inquiries 
without knowing precisely what they want, and hence need 
information; where intelligent assistants can verbally give 
the information ; and where talking can be done without dis- 
turbing readers. If it be intended that this miscellaneous 
business is to be done in the great reading room “ ioo feet in 
diameter, like the London reading room ”—where, by the 
way, no talking is allowed, and no person is admitted unless 
he has a reader’s ticket—it will be a serious annoyance to 
readers. In my plans I thought it necessary, in a library of 
two million volumes, to assign more than ten times as much 
space for the administrative department as Mr. Smithmeyer 
has done, and that students should have opportunities for 
quiet study where they would not be disturbed by the miscel- 
laneous business of the library. But why should I spend 
time in pointing out defects of this kind in Mr. Smithmeyer’s 
plans, when their name is legion, and it is the boast of the 
architect that he is not planning a building for special use as 
a library, and for the convenience to students and readers, but 
as a show-place for curiosity-hunters and sight-seers ? 
If any reader expects to get from Mr. Smithmeyer’s 
pamphlet an idea of the distinctive features in my scheme of 
library construction, he will be mistaken; and it is not my 
purpose here to recapitulate them. My paper has been 
printed for gratuitious distribution at the expense of the 
Government, and can be had on application to the Honorable 
Commissioner of the Bureau of Education. 
It is a singular fact that amidst the superfluity of self- 
laudation over his own plans and the announcement em- 
blazoned on every page, that in the judgment of a Committee 
of Congress his plans were superior to those of forty-one other 
competitors, there does not appear the commendation of a 
single librarian of this or any other country. Setting aside 
the claim of being one of the number, I may say there are 
librarians in the United States whose opinions on such matters 
are worth having; who, in foreign countries, are recognized as 30 
authorities and whose names are household words in the 
British Museum, the Bodleian at Oxford, the Advocates’ at 
Edinburgh, and the National libraries at Paris and Berlin. 
They are all interested in library construction, and would be 
the first to recognize and commend a good thing in that line 
as soon as they saw it. Why has not the Committee of Con- 
gress, at some time, asked the views of some of these library 
experts as to the plan of a building for the Library of Con- 
gress? Why have they consulted only an army of architects, 
some of them eminent in their own specialties of work, but 
having no technical knowledge of the wants of a library? The 
committee has, quite likely, from the want of such assistance 
as the librarians could have given, selected one of the worst 
designs which were offered, simply because it made a pretty 
drawing on paper. Mr. Smithmeyer has not quoted the com- 
mendation of any librarian for the reason that he could not 
secure one. The librarians have publicly expressed their views 
in a series of resolutions, unanimously adopted at a meeting of 
the American Library Association, in Cincinnati, May 26, 
1882, two of which were as follows : 
Resolved, That the plans submitted to this Association, at the Washington 
meeting, by Mr. J. L. Smithmeyer, and adopted by the Joint Committee of Con- 
giess, embody principles of construction which are now regarded as faulty by the 
whole library profession; and, therefore, as members oi the American Library 
Association, we protest against the erection of the building for the Library of 
Congress upon those principles.” 
“Resolved, That we reaffirm the resolution adopted at the Washington confer- 
ence, by a unanimous vote, in the following words: 4 That in the opinion of this 
Association, the time has come for a radical modification of the prevailing typical 
style of library building, and the adoption of a style ot construction better suited 
to economy and practical utility.’ ” 
What would be thought of the wisdom of Congress, if, in 
the construction of a national telegraph system, it should 
adopt an old, discarded plan of transmitting messages, against 
the protest of every telegiaph expert in the country? 
Perhaps Mr. Smithmeyer may reply that Mr. Spofiford, 
whom I take pleasure in ranking as one of the leading 31 
librarians of the country, has commended his plans. When 
and where ? I find no evidence of such commendation in 
anything I have seen which Mr. SpofiLrd or Mr. Smithmeyer 
has written. The former was present when the latter read his 
paper and explained his plans at the Washington meeting. 
Mr. Spofford spoke at the same session on the wants of the 
Congr'ess Library, and mentioned the adoption by the com- 
mittee of the Smithmeyer plans, but said not a word either 
for or against them, which at the time was a noticeable and 
significant fact. If they met his approval he could have com- 
mended them freely, and given his reasons; but if he 
did not approve them, he could not express his views 
without giving offense to the committee and the architect. 
The next day Mr. Spofford telegraphed me at Baltimore 
—the last day’s session being held in that city—to retur/i 
to Washington, as his guest, to talk over library plans. 
I found at Mr. Spofford’s house Mr. Winsor of Harvard Col- 
lege Library, and Mr. Cutter of the Boston Athenaeum. We 
four had a long and pleasant interview and exchange of views. 
There was no difference of opinion among us concerning the 
demerits of Mr. Smithmeyer’s plans, though we did not 
wholly agree as to what should take their place. I left Wash- 
ington with the impression that, so far as Mr. Spofford’s 
opinions and influence were concerned, the Congressional 
Library building would never be built on the Smithmeyer 
plans. 
What Mr. Spofford’s present views concerning the Smith- 
meyer plans are, it is not easy to determine. The latest ex- 
pression of them which I find is in his letter to the American 
Library Association, in August last, printed on page io. The 
view he presents of them is not very flattering. He says they 
have been accepted by the committee of Congress, but gives 
them no word of commendation. That he does not accept 
the Smithmeyer plan of the interior—which is the only part 
of the structure in which the librarians of the country have 
any interest—is evident from his statement that it has not 32 
“ been fixed upon definitely,” that “ it was merely provisional, 
and designed to get some kind of a building from Congress.” 
He further states that, certain things being provided for, “ I 
am ready to introduce all the economies of storage which the 
stack system, or the most utilitarian scheme proposed by any 
of my very respected colleagues, may involve.” If the 
changes indicated were made, there would be little or noth- 
ing of the Smithmeyer plan left upon which the first appro- 
priation of half a million could be spent. There are other 
passages in the letter which indicate that he favors some feat- 
ures of the Smithmeyer plan. Now the interior of a building, 
which in this case has not been decided upon, is practically 
the building itself. The “ Italian renaissance style of archi- 
tecture,” which is put forth so prominently in Mr. Smith- 
meyer’s pamphlet, and in the bill before Congress, pertains 
only to the exterior, the shell of the building. Until the de- 
tails of construction for the interior are fixed, how can the 
foundations of the building be laid? Does any prudent indi- 
vidual or corporation begin the erection of an expensive 
building before a definite plan has been prepared? Changing 
the plan of a structure when in process of erection is the most 
extravagant and wasteful of errors in construction. In case 
Congress adopts Mr. Smithmeyer’s scheme, can any substan- 
tial changes be made in his plans without the architect and 
contractors coming into the Court of Claims with a bill of 
damages? The bill before Congress reads as follows : “ The 
" construction of said building substantially according to the 
“ plan submitted * * * by John L. Smithmeyer, in the Italian 
renaissance style of architecture, with such modifications as 
“ may be found necessary or advantageous, without increasing 
“ the cost of the building, shall be in charge of a commission,” 
etc. The bill provides that “ modifications ” may be made in 
the plan—that is, the form of the thing or device may be 
varied ; but nothing is said about “ changes ” being made, by 
which some thing wholly different may be substituted. It is 
not clear whether the ellipsis after “ advantageous ” is to be 33 
supplied with the words “ to the architect and contractor,” or 
“ to the Government.” “ Without increasing the cost of the 
the building” is probably a jocose expression, inasmuch as 
the cost of the building is an unknown quantity, is nowhere 
given in the bill, or hinted at by the architect or committee. 
With reference to the Smithmeyer plans, it is evident that 
Mr. Spofford, who is a sensible and practical man, finds him- 
self in an embarrassing position; that he is not satisfied with 
the interior plan, and is not getting what he wants. He 
hopes, however, if the bill passes, and the construction of the 
building is put into the hands of a commission, of which he 
will be one, that he can make such changes as will be need- 
ful. Whether, under the terms of the bill, any material 
changes can be made, is more than doubtful. As the commit- 
tee has, for some inscrutable reason, planted itself upon the 
Smithmeyer plan, will hear of nothing else, and is determined 
to carry it through against the protests of the leading archi- 
tects and the librarians of the country, it may appear to the 
Librarian of Congress that the plan accepted is the best he 
can get, and that it is wise and prudent to yield to the decis- 
ion of those who have authority over him. A new building 
on a vicious plan will be preferable to the inconveniences of 
his present quarters, and any change will improve the condi- 
tion of his library. 
At the last meeting of the American Library Association, 
held at Buffalo, a resolution was adopted urging Congress to 
take speedy action in the erection of a new building for the 
National Library, and “offering in behalf of the Association 
to furnish any information or assistance in its power which 
may be called for by the Congressional committee charged 
with the consideration of the subject.” The committee has 
asked for no such information and assistance, and hence none 
has been given. Congress has now the subject in its own 
hands, and before launching out into an unknown sea, with- 
out chart or compass, can get from practical librarians and 
architects who have made the subject a special study, the in- 34 
formation it needs. Every detail of construction should be 
settled before the work is begun, and accurate estimates made 
of the cost, in order that the whole building may be put un- 
der contract and completed without needless delay. If the 
plans are to be changed during the process of erection, of 
which there is now every indication, no estimate can be made 
of the controversies, expenditures and delays which will 
occur. 
The librarians of the country have a deep interest in the 
National Library, and in the building which Congress will 
erect for its accommodation. The ground for this interest 
was expressed in the following resolution adopted by the 
American Library Association, at the Cincinnati meeting, in 
1882: 
“ Resolved, That the erection of the new building for the Library of Congress 
affords such an opportunity for improving the architecture of libraries, with re- 
spect to convenience in use and administration, safety of the books and econ- 
omy of construction, as is not 1 kely to again occur; and that it is of great im- 
portance to the library interests of the country that the old and conventional 
errors of constru.tion be avoided in the interior plans of the building. 
In conclusion I will say that in the views expressed I have 
no authority to speak for any one except myself; and where I 
have given the opinions of other librarians, I have taken them 
from the official records of the American Library Association. 
I should not, with my interest in the subject, have discussed 
it at this time, if Mr. Smithmeyer, by his garbled and dis- 
torted statement of my views on library construction, had 
not challenged a rejoinder. 
W. F. POOLE. 
Chicago, Feb. 29, 1884.