Submit Comment

show all (0)
There are no comments. Click the text to your left to make a new comment.
1 0

As an indirect result of World War II, library interest expanded and documentation activities took on a new dimension. Remarkable developments were taking place in scientific information management and bibliography, and in the developing area of mechanized information retrieval. A few people were embarking on the quest for a theoretical foundation of information work. These developments would mandate fundamental changes in the ADI. The first — and long forgotten — major impact on the institute, however, came from a few men who wanted to participate in the new world of international librarianship.

2 0

Leading American librarians who had taken on significant assignments during the war and had led the effort to construct a national plan for developing library collections now wanted to play a meaningful role in the shaping of UNESCO. They became interested in reviving ADI when it appeared that the way to become involved with UNESCO was through the fragile but respected FID. FID, however, did not have a U.S. base, and ADI was the logical organization to represent the country.

3 0

At the end of the war, ADI’s operations were limited to the Auxiliary Publication Service, cooperating on translations with the Alien Property Custodian, and copying long runs of serials, which provided some income for the institute. The ADI also provided some information clearinghouse functions and served as contact for foreign and international organizations concerned with documentation.

4 0

At the first postwar annual meeting in January 1946, Davis talked about ADI having been “a pioneering force,” willing to turn over its operations to other agencies “when that appeared to be the best procedure.” He suggested several projects related to microfilm activities and proposed that ADI cooperate “in the government program

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 151

of issuance of reports on scientific war researches and investigations,” in “the ordering and reordering of international channels of information and documentation,” and, in cooperation with international organizations, in distributing scholarly and scientific information abroad.1

5 0

The board of trustees, which did not meet until the following year, did not follow up on Davis’s proposals or on his later suggestion that the ADI serve as the U.S. agent and clearinghouse for contact with FID.2 Although Davis’s ideas had merit, embarking on and carrying out such projects in the early postwar confusion, in this much more complex scientific information world, would have required a more determined leadership and dynamic organization than the ADI had.

6 0

NEW INTEREST IN FID

7 0

The newly established UNESCO caught the interest of the most dynamic American scholarly and scientific administrators. In 1946, no one knew how the agency was going to function, although rumor had it that UNESCO was going to work through established international organizations, such as FID.

8 0

When the ADI was organized in 1937, Duyvis, secretary general of FID, was eager for the institute to become a national member of FID, but, preoccupied with other matters, the trustees of ADI did not even discuss the issue. Nor did they discuss it in 1946, and Davis did not pursue the matter.

9 0

In the summer of 1946, when Duyvis visited the United States, Waldo Leland, director of the American Council of Learned Societies and an advisor to UNESCO, together with Solon Buck, organized a dinner meeting at the Cosmos Club. Buck, who had a strong hand in organizing the ADI in 1937, was now the archivist of the United States. Before the war, archivists had worked closely with librarians in exploring the possibilities of microfilm, but by now the chasm between the two groups had widened. In Buck’s view both archivists and librarians were documentalists with different functions: librarians served and represented the users, while archivists were the servants and representatives of the organizations that created the documents and official records that had been placed in their custody.3 Buck was instrumental in organizing the International Council of Archivists (ICA). FID had always represented archival interests, but with the growth in importance of archival materials during the war, archivists wanted to affirm their sense of identity and establish their own international organization. The new ICA, IFLA (International Federation

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 152

of Library Associations), and FID, representing documentation, formed a trinity of related international organizations.

10 0

Leland invited representatives of several “scientific institutions” to the Cosmos Club meeting, which Duyvis considered “the most important interview” of his U.S. tour. The ADI was hardly mentioned during the evening, and Davis apparently had not been invited. At the meeting it was suggested that a committee or research council be organized, “composed of representatives of three research councils” — the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Research Council, and the Social Sciences Research Council and other institutions, including the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the U.S. Patent Office, the ALA, SLA, Association of Research Libraries, the Lake Placid Educational Foundation, the American Standards Association, and the ADI.

11 0

As much as Duyvis wanted the United States to join FID and as pleased as he was that influential Americans were interested in FID, he did not urge them to make a fast decision, and he did not feel it proper to suggest how U.S. documentalists should be organized. Duyvis considered the documentation situation in the United States to be quite different from that in Europe and believed that “if an American group is to act effectively in the international organization, it should also fulfill a function in American intellectual life” and should be broadly representative of the country.4 When asked, Duyvis could indicate what role the United States might play in FID, but he found it more difficult to answer the question — which was to be raised repeatedly in later years — of what the United States would gain by joining the federation.

12 0

Participation in international activities demanded considerable effort and time and, immediately after the war, also imposed considerable hardship. Scholars and librarians working in the international arena were justly hailed for their contributions and leadership but were also criticized for promoting their own careers, wanting an opportunity for travel, for basking in self-importance, and for monopolizing the field.

13 0

The Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation supported— and carefully monitored — international scientific, scholarly, and educational activities. It was David Stevens, director of humanities of the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, who suggested that Charles W. David, a medieval historian and the newly appointed director of the University of Pennsylvania library, represent the ACLS at the first postwar FID conference in the fall of 1946; Eugene Power was the second delegate.5

14 0

Charles David first thought that with FID’s lackluster record and slender resources and Unscrew’s potentially great ones, “it would be

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 153

just as well if F.I.D. should go into a kind of permanent eclipse and [UNESCO] should take its place.” In Paris, however, he was surprised by the formalities of the official receptions, which created an impression “of an international event of very considerable importance.”6

15 0

Paris was still suffering from the effects of the war. The meeting rooms were uncomfortable and the meetings were so poorly planned that they were “a perfect example of how not to organize an international conference; yet the sessions were successful”; David and Power considered the conference distinctly worthwhile.

16 0

As a new supranational organization of official government representatives, UNESCO was expected to take over some of the international activities that had been carried out by individuals, professional societies, and international nongovernmental organizations, such as FID.7 The Soviet Union had not yet joined UNESCO, and it was uncertain how well different countries would cooperate. David and Power learned that most likely UNESCO would work through existing agencies and make use of FID rather than take over its role.

17 0

The FID council was eager to involve Americans. David, an outsider, was appointed to the prestigious committee of eight that was to revise the FID constitution. By the end of the conference David had become an ardent proponent of U.S. participation in FID. He came to the conclusion that, if the United States were to play an effective role in connection with UNESCO in the area of international documentation, “we ought to do what we are asked to do, namely to proceed at once to set up a good representative organization to be the American chapter or committee of F.I.D., accept appointments on important committees, and take our full share in the future development and activities of this organization.”

18 0

Unscrew’s meetings took place after the FID congress in Paris. Starting with President Truman, many officials had high hopes for the organization. Beyond the pomp accompanying official ceremonies, much work was accomplished in committees and also at various social events that provided opportunities for delegates to talk, to get to know one another, and to test out ideas.

19 0

The United States had compiled several program proposals for libraries, which were accepted. These programs included rehabilitation and promotion of public libraries throughout the world, assistance in the interchange of publications between all countries, and stimulation of the production of bibliographies, indexes, abstracts, and union catalogs needed to facilitate the use of the publications “of all nations in all nations.”9 Another recommendation was to study and reduce barriers to the free flow of information. The charge for UNESCO, however, was so far-ranging — from education in remote parts of the

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 154

world to scientific interchanges and strengthening of institutions — that no definite plans could be set at the Paris conference.

20 0

Eugene Power was impressed that only a year after the hostilities ceased, scholars were able to get together “for their mutual benefit and give up their feeling of nationalism.” He was also moved by a statement of Charles Wilson, deputy director of UNESCO, who said that libraries, museums, and archives can play a fundamental role “in creating that enlightened public opinion and point of view which is so essential to permanent peace.”

21 0

The Princeton Conference

22 0

A week after the UNESCO meeting, a select group of Americans gathered at Princeton University to review the opportunities and challenges for librarians in the postwar situation. They addressed a wide spectrum of interrelated topics: bibliographies and classification, cooperative acquisition, and specialization; international exchange of documents, interlibrary loans, and photographic reproduction; libraries and commercial exchanges; exchanges between countries and barriers to such exchanges; international exchange of personnel; and rehabilitation. The ADI and Davis’s documentation-related work were recognized in the preliminary memoranda that formed the basis of discussion.

23 0

The meeting was called by Keyes Metcalf and Robert B. Downs, director of the University of Illinois library, both chairmen of two key ALA committees. Participants received carefully prepared memoranda on some of the issues that were to be discussed; stenotypists recorded the discussions, and their notes were condensed afterward for publication.

24 0

The Princeton conference is hardly mentioned in the professional literature, yet contemporary American librarians with international leanings or those who took a broad view of librarianship considered this meeting to be highly significant. Setting aside petty differences and institutional rivalries, the elite of the profession came together to examine the important issues of the day. Most of the thirty or so people who attended were directors of important libraries — among them, Julian Boyd of Princeton, Charles David, Luther Evans, Ralph Shaw, Keyes Metcalf, and Robert Downs. A few academicians, and representatives of the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Social Science Research Council, rounded out the list.

25 0

Downs and Metcalf wanted the United States to assume leadership in the international arena while Unscrew’s program was still in the planning stage. The participants agreed that the free interchange of

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 155

cultural, scientific, and educational information is one of the most critical needs of the world today and that “society’s progress depends upon the extent to which scholars and scientists make use of information and research.”10

26 0

In the midst of postwar social and national readjustment, and with the portent of Cold War on the horizon, the flare of optimism was still burning; this was a remarkable, dynamic time “when unicorns were still possible.”11

27 0

The conference participants drew up a series of recommendations designed to strengthen library collections internationally, develop national bibliographies, and assure the free flow of information; they also drafted recommendations for UNESCO activities. There was, however, no single institution in the country to carry out all the recommendations or even bring together all the organizations that had to cooperate in carrying them out. A “national cultural, educational, and scientific authority” was needed, with a broad enough charge to do for the country what UNESCO was doing for the world. Boyd proposed that a “National Documentation Authority” be established — although documentation was not a term used in the United States — and that the organization be supported by both the government and the private sector.

28 0

Charles David reported on the FID conference, the uncertainties of Unscrew’s role, the general agreement at the conference “that FID ought to be radically reorganized, enlarged, and rejuvenated,” and the Europeans’ wish for strong American participation. Ralph Shaw later broached the question of FID membership. Shaw at that time was evaluating the current structure and analyzing the future role of ALA in international affairs. With the increasing international acquisitions of the USDA library, Shaw’s international interests had expanded and resulted in extended European contacts.12

29 0

After visiting Duyvis at the FID offices, Shaw concluded that the ADI “(on a somewhat different basis than at present) might well be the agency through which the associations work with F.I.D.”13 The ADI was a documentation organization representing the interested bodies. Thus Shaw was inclined “to recommend broadening its activities, so that it may serve all the interested groups as a chapter of FID.” The ADI had been restricted to microfilm programs, but “if the A.L.A. and others want it done, the A.D.I. base can be broadened” and even removed from the aegis of Science Service, “though I do not think it necessary,” Shaw added. At the Princeton conference, Shaw pointed out that FID interests cut across so many areas that the ALA alone could not serve as the U.S. chapter of the organization. This chapter would not take the place of the proposed National Documentation Authority, Shaw said; he proposed instead that the ADI be

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 156

reconstituted under the ALA, the ARL, the ACLS, and the Social Science Research Council and be made the U.S. chapter of FID. This proposal was incorporated in one of the recommendations of the conference.

30 0

As David wrote to Leland, it was on Shaw’s insistence that this proposal was made by the Princeton conference: all of Shaw’s opinions “are so positive and he defends them with such vigor” that he seems to dominate everything he touches. “There is not much to do in working with him except to follow along.”14

31 0

By now, however, other alternatives were being considered: Metcalf and Tate — both trustees of ADI — were thinking of a “brand new American chapter” for FID, and the national documentary authority that Boyd had proposed “in rather vague terms” at the Princeton conference was another possibility.15

32 0

Leland, who in the previous year wrote in another context that the ADI “had not justified its existence” and who thought that it best “be supplanted by something more scientific and more forward looking,” now questioned whether a reorganized ADI could serve “all the purposes” that a chapter of FID would have to serve. The ADI could be the operating agency, but the chapter should be “a broader grouping of interests.”16

33 0

CONTEMPLATING A NEW ORGANIZATION FOR DOCUMENTATION

34 0

Having met with Donker Duyvis earlier to discuss U.S. participation in FID, in December 1946, Leland now met informally with David, then with Tate and Power. Tate was about to start his new job at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) library and Leland, who had organized the American Council of Learned Societies nearly two decades earlier, was about to retire as its director.

35 0

Leland, Tate, and Power agreed that the ADI in its present form could not serve effectively as the documentation organization for the United States and that a new organization was needed, in which the ADI could also participate. They decided to consult first with various Washington groups and then hold a larger conference in March 1947 to organize “an effective central group for documentation” in the United States and to consider affiliating this group as the American chapter with FID, which then would become “an operating entity for UNESCO in the United States.” To discuss the proposed organization, to be called The American Council of Documentation, the men considered inviting a broader group than discussed earlier: the four research councils — for science, social science, education, and the

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 157

humanities — the major library organizations, the ADI, the Society of American Archivists, the Association of American Museums, and the Bibliographical Society of America. The group also wanted to invite several national institutions and individuals with special interests: the major government libraries, the Smithsonian Institution, the Department of State, and also the National Commission for UNESCO. The individuals included Robert Lester of the Carnegie Corporation, representatives of the Rockefeller Foundation, David, Metcalf, Boyd, Power, and Tate.17

36 0

Several small meetings were held in January that led up to a coup. It is difficult to establish the true motives behind the intrigue. Some believed that the insurgents had a hidden agenda: European travel, gaining prestige, and participation in international meetings. When interviewed in 1981, Metcalf did not recall events relating to ADI’s reorganization three decades earlier. In those years, he said, his main interest — besides the Harvard University Library — was to establish cooperative acquisitions, cataloging, and storage.18

37 0

Nonetheless, Metcalf was one of the proponents of the change that was about to happen. Watson Davis, who had not been at the Princeton conference, was unaware that a group was contemplating major changes in ADI until he heard about it at an informal dinner meeting of the ACLS only one week before ADI’s annual meeting was to take place at the end of January 1947. Metcalf chaired this Cosmos Club meeting, which was attended by an influential group from the library and archival community: Davis; Leland; David; Tate; Power; Shaw; Buck; Verner W. Clapp, director, Acquisitions Department of the Library of Congress, who sat in for Luther Evans; Richard Shryrock, the acting director of the ACLS; Carl Milam; and Marion A. Milczewski, who had taken over ALA’s Washington Bureau from Lydenberg.19

38 0

Representing Documentation or Documentalists?

39 0

No effective U.S. agency existed to serve as a national focal point for studies of documentation or for cooperation with international documentation groups, Leland remarked. He recalled the groups that had been active “in various phases of documentation” before the war as a biologist might describe empty shells, which could become the home for a different creature. There was the Joint Committee, started under Buck and later chaired by Binkley; the Committee on Scientific Aids to Learning under National Research Council auspices, which ceased when its executive secretary, Irvin Stewart, had become deputy director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development; the ACLS committee on microphotography, with Metcalf as chairman,

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 158

which had concentrated on the reproduction of manuscripts in danger of destruction during the war. The fourth and still existing organization was the currently inactive ADI.20

40 0

David and Power stressed the importance of Americans participating in FID. Most Europeans believed that the war had isolated them and that “shortages of money, minds and leadership” now handicapped their professional efforts. Shaw, whose views had shifted since he had been to Europe, now stated that with the growing interest in classification, the United States “can gain fully as much as we contribute.”

41 0

Milam and Leland reviewed the UNESCO-FID situation, while Milton Lord, of the Boston Public Library, advocated bringing FID and IFLA together to strengthen the two weak international organizations — an idea raised repeatedly but not carried out in the decades that followed. At this Cosmos Club meeting the discussion soon shifted to definition of documentation and documentalists.

42 0

Librarians, attempting to determine the overlapping interests of IFLA and FID, could not quite understand what documentation was, even after examining the Journal of Documentation, Milam reported. But Milam himself viewed documentation in operational terms and defined it as “the work that special librarians have done beyond the work of regular librarians plus the collection, organization and use of documents” — the work being carried out in the new information and documentation agencies.

43 0

Buck probably had the broadest view of documentation, as he had in 1937 when the ADI was organized. He favored a broad definition for the organization and wanted it “to render service to business on records management.” He also pointed out what others had been hesitant to say, namely, that “documentalists serve[d] a clientele” that “lacked the background for organizing projects in documentation” — which, in the past, had been a problem for ADI. Therefore, an organization of documentalists “should coordinate the activities of specialists in library, archival, museum, documentary reproduction, publication and like fields, promoting desirable projects and undertaking overall activities that transcend the detail.”

44 0

FID’s activities were unclear even to Clapp, who thought of FID as operating mainly in library fields. But Buck pointed out that FID activities were common to many disciplines and that libraries had changed and taken over functions common to other disciplines.

45 0

The discussion now shifted to the role of ADI and whom the organization was to serve. Leland considered the ADI an operating unit, too narrow to become the agency to cooperate with FID. Admittedly, the ADI’s main functions had been the Bibliofilm Service and Auxiliary Service operations, but the ADI “was set up to serve the

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 159

consumers of documentation, not those engaged in documentation work,” such as librarians or archivists, said Buck, supporting Davis’s protest. Shaw favored restructuring the ADI instead of starting a new organization: ADI may have been too closely identified with microfilm, which could be changed, but ADI was “a going concern” with a representative membership.

46 0

Leland now proposed that the new council, and the trustees named by the council, be selected from both consumers and documentalists.21 But the proposed council lacked a feature that Shaw considered a strength of FID, namely, “non-academic members, government agencies, business men and the like.” Furthermore, two documentation organizations would be confusing, especially since documents distributed by the Auxiliary Publication Service were widely known as ADI documents.

47 0

Clapp made several points that hit the target but were ignored by the group: the structure of the proposed council was similar to ADI’s, thus the council would very likely have some of the same problems as ADI; there was a need to cooperate with FID, but “the need for a local body has not been convincingly shown”; and if funds were provided, a variety of agencies existed that could carry out the task. Clapp alone noted that it was an information clearinghouse that was really needed.

48 0

The group, however, considered only two alternatives: organizing a new council or “recasting” ADI. When it came to a vote, Davis and Clapp abstained when the group voted that an American Council of Documentation be approved in principle.

49 0

A few days after the meeting Tate wrote to Davis that he was “not at all happy about the meeting.” The group had reached the decision it wanted to make and put Davis “in a very uncomfortable position which seemed a shame” after all he had done. “I am sorry but I must go on and say that I agreed with the group that, with the whole situation in mind, it was probably better to start over again.”22

50 0

The 1947 Annual Meeting

51 0

Announcements of the January 30, 1947, annual meeting of the API gave no indication that the tenth annual meeting would be different from earlier ones: a business meeting at the Science Service building, then a congenial luncheon at the Mayflower Hotel, followed by reports on the ADI and discussions of recent developments in the various areas of interest. Over forty members and guests attended, more than usual.

52 0

This time, however, the proposition to create an American Council of Documentation became the main issue. Davis recalled that the

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 160

organization “has been in operation for a decade under the name of ADI” but represented “two decades of work upon documentation since the initial efforts by Science Service in 1926 toward the development of what later was to be called ’microfilm.’”23

53 0

Then, possibly as a countermove to the opposition, he proposed that the institute start a journal for documentation and create a series of committees to reactivate the ADI. He even broached the possibility of opening up ADI membership — without voting power — to individuals, institutions, libraries, and commercial concerns.

54 0

The American Council of Documentation would duplicate some of the general objectives of ADI, Davis said in his report. Two of the trustees of ADI, Tate and Metcalf, had participated in meetings to discuss the council, although Davis became aware of it only a week before. The need for a U.S. chapter of FID was being revived after the war, arid “the possibility of getting foundation grants for this purpose seem to motivate this new organization, of which Dr. Waldo G. Leland is organizing secretary.” Davis expressed concern that the governing body of the council would be much smaller and less representative than those of ADI’s nominating agencies. “There is a desire to have primarily ’documentalists’ or librarians in control,” stressed Davis, which did not provide for “major representation of the ’users’ of documentation, the scholars and scientists.”

55 0

Charles David presented the council’s proposal to the annual meeting. The participants were divided. Some saw no reason to start a new organization, while others thought two organizations — one for the users of ADI services and a new organization “controlled by documentary people” — would be feasible. In that case, however, ADI should be more than a five-thousand-dollar-a-year organization; it should become an organization of the users, and the added financial support should come from them.24

56 0

Representatives of the Special Libraries Association saw no need for a new organization. E. J. Crane, editor of Chemical Abstracts, who represented the American Chemical Society, said he was unhappy that the proposed council included ACS in its plans and he paid tribute to Davis as a pioneer in documentation.

57 0

Shaw, however, who just the previous week had suggested a reorganized ADI as the U.S. Committee for FID, now stated unequivocally, “It is definite that we are going to have an American Council of Documentation.” When Shaw, as chairman of the nominating committee, presented a single slate, the trustees, Davis, Crane, Leland, Metcalf, and Tate, were, as customary, unanimously elected. But three of the five members of the newly elected board had been planning the formation of the new council. Davis therefore offered a resolution to the meeting instructing the board “not to take steps leading to the

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 161

dissolution or curtailment” of ADI activities. The resolution was passed.

58 0

The meeting then proceeded as previous annual meetings had, with reports of documentation activities. There was news about improved microphotographic equipment; Scott Adams reported that a new journal, Pathologie, was being published in Paris exclusively on microfilm; and George Schwegman told of Microkopie, in Germany, developing a microfilm camera and reader that used a flat four-by-six-inch film.

59 0

The election of officers was postponed, and the trustees of ADI were instructed “to work out a plan of coordinating activities” of ADI and the proposed American Council of Documentation.

60 0

David wrote to Metcalf that “the food, drink, and hospitality could not have been finer” in Washington, making it difficult to go through with his presentation. Davis called for and received some democratic discussion from the membership, but no alternative plan emerged. Shaw had been very helpful, and David hoped that Davis was not “filled with serious resentment” against him.25

61 0

CHANGING LEADERSHIP, CONTINUING STANDSTILL

62 0

Two months later, Waldo Leland, by then director emeritus of ACLS, called the Conference on Documentation, which was held at the elegant Whittal Pavilion of the Library of Congress with lunch provided by ACLS. Thus, even though the meeting was not sponsored by either ACLS or the library, it appeared to have the blessing of both. About twenty representatives attended. Evans, the Librarian of Congress, did not participate in the conference but kept in close touch, as he did with other developments on the documentation front, through Verner Clapp.26

63 0

The structure of the proposed organization was very much like ADI’s, but also had a provision for individual members who could join the council without vote. After lengthy discussions the representatives concluded that there was no need for a new council of documentation and that “the purposes in mind could best be served” by the ADI, provided its program could be sufficiently extended.27

64 0

As soon as the conference closed, Leland convened a meeting of the board of trustees of ADI. Metcalf, Tate, and Davis were present; Crane, a staunch supporter of Davis, had not attended the conference and had not been notified earlier of the meeting of the board. The board of trustees, without much ado, elected Leland president, Crane vice-president, and Davis secretary-treasurer.28

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 162

After a decade as president, Davis was forced to step down. The ADI seemed to be continuing its normal existence, but control of the organization had now passed out of Davis’s hands. For what he considered “an interim transition period,” he was authorized as secretary-treasurer to continue the service activities of ADI, but as he himself recognized, Leland, Metcalf, and Tate were now making decisions regarding the institute.29 And, indeed, so problematic was this change that Leland found it necessary to tell the 1948 annual meeting of ADI that it was actually at Davis’s insistence that Davis’s term as president came to a close.

65 0

The board of trustees discussed possible changes in ADI, the need for funding, publication of a new journal to be called American Documentation, the need for an executive director to develop a wider program for ADI, and the ADI representing documentation activities in the United States.

66 0

As agreed at the Conference on Documentation, Metcalf appointed five advisers to ADI’s board of trustees to accomplish the necessary changes. He picked men who represented the library community, as well as a broad range of scientific and scholarly interests: Scott Adams, acting director of the Army Medical Library, who years later was to become president of ADI; Charles David, librarian of the University of Pennsylvania library, executive secretary of ARL, and a representative of the Mediaeval Academy; Guy Stanton Ford, executive secretary of the American Historical Association; Raymund Zwemer, chief executive officer of the National Academy-National Research Council; and Luther Evans, the librarian of Congress, who later asked that Clapp be appointed in his place.30

67 0

Leland and Metcalf led the group that wanted a new organization to replace ADI. Leland’s motive in launching a new organization and agreeing to serve as ADI’s president is open to speculation. He was a respected “grand old man,” a scholar who had advised President Roosevelt on the selection of a new librarian of Congress, and was an adviser to UNESCO. But in 1947, as he was becoming director emeritus of ACLS and losing the administrative support of his organization, Leland was not charting the future in terms of the new problems U.S. libraries and information centers had to face. The new approaches to document management and its economics were beyond him.31 Leland, who had actively promoted international cooperation among scholars and their institutions, wanted to establish a strong organization that would become a national committee for FID and that could marshal the resources permitting it to participate in international activities. Leland might well have agreed to lend his name to give credibility to the organization and to the effort to establish an active group.

68 0

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 163

69 0

Having been impatient with ADI in the past, Leland and the board of trustees proved surprisingly inactive. Metcalf found himself deep in work at Harvard and special projects; Tate’s time was taken up with planning a broad range of services for the new MIT library; and David, who had become interested in documentation activities since the FID meeting in the previous fall, had to combine the heavy work load at his library with that of the executive secretary of the ARL. Busy with other activities, the members of the board of trustees did very little after their initial meeting in March. No proposal for an extended ADI program was forthcoming.32

70 0

The first steps were being taken on Power’s initiative. With his commercial interests as president of University Microfilms, librarians and scholars were suspect of his motives. Nonetheless, in 1947, it was through his insistence that the new machinery created for ADI was set in motion. He met with Tate and Leland to prepare a plan to translate the concept of the “American Documentation Organization” into reality. They drew up a $50,000 annual budget that would allow ADI to have a secretariat, and would cover the expenses of committees and the FID membership.33

71 0

But grants were not forthcoming. After the ADI and the ALA each contributed six hundred dollars to cover Charles David’s expenses for attending the 1947 FID congress in Bern, Davis found it necessary, as secretary-treasurer, to advise Leland that the contribution brought ADI’s net worth down to seven thousand dollars, which he considered a minimum “in view of responsibilities ADI has in connection with auxiliary publication documents.”34

72 0

Besides David and Power, some other Americans attending the FID congress in Bern were representatives of the new documentation interests: Lieutenant Colonel Arnhym, who represented the air force documentation centers, and James Perry, then a library fellow at MIT and a member of ACS’s punch card committee, who worked on encoding and mechanized information retrieval of information. As eager as the American group was to participate actively in FID, David and Power had been instructed to inform the federation that “it was not expedient to invite the FID to meet in the United States in 1948,” as originally planned, and to suggest to the FID conference that annual meetings of FID were not really necessary. These cloaked statements could barely hide the harsh reality that the Americans had no money to cover meeting expenses or even to participate in FID congresses.

73 0

Despite the efforts of Power, Tate, and David over the next few years, the foundations were not ready to fund U.S. participation in FID, although in November 1947, the Rockefeller Foundation granted two thousand dollars directly to FID to cover its deficit. The ADI was in such a financial bind that Davis, usually an ardent supporter of

International Interests and Steps Toward Revival 164

international activities, had to raise the question whether “the international activities of FID and ADI participation in them” were worth “the expenditures of time and energy required.”35 Here and there it had seemed that the rainbow of international activities might lead to some grants that would allow working in the international area. In reality, except for start-up funds for the journal, American Documentation, the institute did not receive foundation support until the late 1950s, when Sputnik, the first space satellite launched by the Soviet Union, sparked life into national science and scientific communication.

74 0

By the end of the war, two groups with different priorities had emerged wanting to make the shell of the ADI into their own house. Pressure was exerted to change ADI into a channel for international cooperation and, more urgently, as Clapp indicated at the January 1947 conference, a clearinghouse for documentation.

75 0

NOTES

76 0
  1. “Annual Report of the American Society for Information Science, 1946 (Mimeographed), SA.
  2. Watson Davis to Board of Trustees of ADI, n.d., memorandum, draft, SA; and E. J. Crane to Davis, 30 March 1946, in the same folder.
  3. Solon J. Buck, “The Archivists One World, American Archivist 10 (January 1947):10.
  4. Duyvis, “Report (see chap. 4, n. 22).
  5. David A. Stevens to Waldo G. Leland, 27 August 1946; Metcalf to Leland, 15 August 1946; Leland to Stevens, 6 September 1946 (Carbon); Power to Leland, 10 September 1946; Power to Leland, 15 January 1947; Leland to Power, 20 January 1947 (Carbon); and Leland to Lester, 20 January 1947 (Carbon). These letters are in the ACLS Collection, Box 15, “Documentation FID.
  6. Charles W. David to the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), 27 November 1946 (Carbon), ACLS Collection, Box 15, “Documentation FED, 10 pp., cited throughout this section; Eugene_ B. Power, “Report on Visit to Europe, October 18-December 7, 1946 (Carbon), E. B. Power Collection, 10 pp. The observations of David and Power overlap and are cited throughout this section unless specifically indicated otherwise.
  7. George N. Shuster, “Can UNESCO Succeed? Chemical and Engineering News 25 (17 Apri11947):1182-83.
  8. David to ACLS, p. 5 (see n. 6).
  9. Power, “Report, p. 8-9 (see n. 6). Also cited in the paragraph below. Conference on International Cultural, Educational, and Scientific Exchanges, ed. Edwin E. Williams (see ch. 7, n. 6). Also cited throughout this section unless specifically indicated otherwise.
  10. John Tobias, “Reflection on a Gift of Watermelon Pickle Received from a Friend Named Felicity, in Reflection on a Gift of Watermelon Pickle, ed. Stephen Dunning, Edward Lueders, and Hugh Smith (New York: Lothrop, Lee Shepard, 1957), 134.
  11. Shaw, “International Activities, 199 (see chap. 6, n. 11).
  12. Shaw to Lydenberg, 9 August 1946, cited in this paragraph.
  13. David to Leland, 10 December 1946, ACLS Collection, Box 15, “Documentation FID.
  14. Leland to David, 9 December 1946 (Carbon), ACLS Collection, Box 15, “Documentation HD; and David to Leland, 10 December 1946.
  15. Leland to Clarence S. Yoakum, 10 September 1945 (Carbon), marked “Copy, E. B. Power Collection, Box 49, “October 1945.
  16. “Notes on an Informal Conference Held at the Cosmos Club, Monday, 31 December 1946 (Carbon), LC Collection, Research Materials 3-5. The notes were written by Tate.
  17. Keyes D. Metcalf, interview with author.
  18. Vernon D. Tate, “Informal Conference on Documentation, Cosmos Club, Washington, D.C., January 22, 1947,“ 3 February 1947, ACLS Collection, Box 15, “Documentation Conference, 1946-47, 10 pp.; Clapp to Evans, “Memorandum on Informal Conference on Documentation, 27 January 1947, 1 p., LC Collection, Research Materials; and “Conference to Consider the Formation of a National Organization on Documentation, n.d. (Mimeographed), 2 pp., SA.
  19. Tate, “Informal Conference.“ All citations about this meeting are from this document; p.4 (see n. 19).
  20. Clapp, “Memorandum“; and Tate, “Informal Conference, pp. 7-9.
  21. Tate to Davis, 25 January 1947, SA.
  22. Watson Davis, “Annual Report of the American Documentation Institute, 1947, SA. Cited also in the next paragraphs.
  23. ADI “Annual Meeting, 1947, SA, cited also in the next few paragraphs.
  24. David to Metcalf, 31 January 1947 (Carbon), W. G. Leland Collection, Box 17.
  25. Waldo G. Leland, “Annual Report of the American Documentation Institute, 1948, SA.
  26. Ibid.
  27. “Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the American Documentation Institute, 28 March 1947“ (Mimeographed), SA (hereafter cited as ADI BT, 1947).
  28. Watson Davis to Betty Joy Cole, 26 August 1947 (Carbon), SA.
  29. ADI BT, 28 March 1947; and Evans to Metcalf, 15 April 1947 (Carbon), LC Collection, Research Materials 6.
  30. Scott Adams, interview with author.
  31. Letters exchanged between Metcalf and Leland, David and Metcalf, Power and Leland, and Tate and Leland from April through June 1947; all are in the ACLS Collection, B36, “Documentation — FID.
  32. Tate to Leland, 11 June 1947 (Carbon); and “Outline of Notes on an American Documentation Organization Resulting from Discussions Held in Washington, D.C., 27 May 1947, between Waldo G. Leland, Eugene B. Power, V. D. Tate (Carbon), 2 pp., LC Collection, Research Materials 6.
  33. Davis to Leland, 25 June 1947, ACLS Collection Box B36, “Documentation.
  34. ADI BT, 6 October 1947 (Mimeographed), SA.