ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


101

Seventy-First Meeting of the Association of 
Research Libraries

Rutherford D. Rogers (Stanford University 
libraries), President of the Association of Re­
search Libraries, opened its program session 
at 2 p.m. by introducing Frederick Burkhardt, 
president of the American Council of Learned 
Societies (ACLS) and recently acting chair­
man of the National Advisory Commission on 
Libraries (NACOL), who spoke on “Prob­
lems and Prospects of the Research Library.” 
He intended to summarize the comprehensive 
report, “On Research Libraries,” that ACLS 
had made to NACOL, Dr. Burkhardt said. 
When he accepted ARL’s invitation, he had 
supposed that the report would be public in­
formation by January. Since it had not yet 
been released by the commission, however, 
his remarks would have to be considered “priv­
ileged information.” He pointed out that he 
was not a librarian and was not speaking as 
one. He also emphasized that ACLS’s report 
differs from the commissions report. It is ex­
pected that the commission will publish the 
ACLS report, but it will bear a NACOL dis­
claimer to the effect that while it is a valuable 
report, the commission does not necessarily 
subscribe to all of it.

Dr. Burkhardt recalled briefly some of the 
history of the move for a national commission 
on libraries, including ACLS’s interest in such 
a body. After the National Advisory Commis­
sion on Libraries was established by President 
Johnson in September 1966, Dr. Burkhardt 
suggested to the commission’s chairman, Doug­
las Knight, president of Duke University, that 
ACLS might help by preparing a report on 
research libraries. This offer was later ac­
cepted, because NACOL decided to work by 
commissioning reports on broad areas of con­
cern, and the proposed ACLS study was one 
of the areas of the commission’s interest.

Members of the ACLS Committee on Re­
search Libraries, of which Dr. Burkhardt was 
chairman, were William O. Baker, Bell Tele­
phone Laboratories; Kingman Brewster, presi­
dent, Yale University; T. Robert S. Broughton, 
Paddison professor of classics, University of 
North Carolina; Douglas W. Bryant, university 
librarian, Harvard University; Lyman H. But­
terfield, editor-in-chief of The Adams Papers; 
William Dix, librarian of the university, Prince­
ton University; Herman Fussier, director of 
the library, University of Chicago; Warren 
Haas, director of libraries, University of Penn­
sylvania; Chauncy D. Harris, professor of geog­
raphy, University of Chicago; James D. Hart, 
professor of English, University of California,

Berkeley; H. Field Haviland, Jr., director of 
Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution; 
Gordon N. Ray, president, John Simon Gug­
genheim memorial foundation; Robert G. 
Vosper, university librarian, University of Cali­
fornia, Los Angeles; Herman B Wells, chan­
cellor, Indiana University; Walter Muir White- 
hill, director and librarian, Boston Athenaeum; 
Gordon R. Williams, director, Center for Re­
search Libraries, Chicago; Edwin Wolf 2nd, 
librarian, Library Company of Philadelphia; 
Louis B. Wright, director, Folger Shakespeare 
library; and staff director, Thomas P. Brock­
way, ACLS, former professor of history and 
dean of the faculty of Bennington College. 
Several small groups within the committee 
dealt with major problems and prepared drafts 
of reports, which were worked over by the 
committee. Some of the subjects studied, and 
on which reports were made, were the growth 
in publication, scope of research-library ser­
vices, increase in demand for services, con­
trol of publications—acquisitions and catalog­
ing, speed of communications, lack of staff, 
rising costs, and especially the application of 
computer technology to research library prob­
lems.

The time available for the study was short 
—March-November 1967—but, if there were 
to be any solutions to national library prob­
lems, the ACLS committee was convinced that 
there had to be greater participation by the 
federal government. It made eleven recom­
mendations, which Dr. Burkhardt summarized, 
but like LC’s 63-page report to NACOL, the 
content must be held confidential until re­
leased by the commission.

In the discussion that followed, Vemer W. 
Clapp (consultant to the Council on Library 
Resources and a member of NACOL) com­
plimented Dr. Burkhardt on the quality of 
the supporting studies, including that on the 
new technology, which he termed “permanent/ 
durable.” Dr. Fussier, also a member of 
NACOL and of the ACLS committee, pointed 
out that some of the committee studies over­
lapped some commissioned by NACOL; this, 
he said, was done deliberately to obtain various 
points of view. W. Stanley Hoole (University 
of Alabama library) spoke of hearings on 
public libraries held around the country by 
members of NACOL and of the recommenda­
tions repeatedly received—the needs, for ex­
ample, for training, adequate funding, and 
publicity. Sir Frank Francis, director and 
principal librarian of the British Museum, who



102

was a special guest, commented on the simi­
larity of the United Kingdom’s research library 
problems and raised the question of form— 
the hind of service research libraries are giv­
ing. “Is it adequate to the new demands being 
made upon libraries,” he asked, “or is there 
the chance that we as librarians think that we 
know what the new users need, whereas we 
may not?” This was kept in mind, Dr. Burk­
hardt responded, and “felt needs” were often 
discussed by the committee, especially the in­
formation system concept and what it, as 
well as traditional library services, have to 
offer.

The question was also raised as to whether 
NACOL identified on the part of scientists any 
special disenchantment with libraries. If all 
they want are serials and abstracts, is not the 
need for the large research library overstated? 
Dr. Burkhardt said that he personally doubted 
that the research library is outdated or not 
needed by the scientist, but rather that scien­
tists may be having a kind of “cliche reaction.” 
But, he said, “We actually do not know the 
facts about research-users of libraries.” Dr. 
Martin M. Cummings (National Library of 
Medicine) felt that there was no data to sup­
port the allegation that scientists do not use 
general research libraries. As past-president of 
of Association of College and Research Li­
braries (ACRL) Ralph Ellsworth (University 
of Colorado libraries) inquired whether there 
was a “feeling of guilt” on the part of college 
presidents because there is “no planning for 
centralized service to avoid duplication.” Dr. 
Burkhardt said that, expecially in area studies, 
thought is being given to such matters as 
centralized acquisitions and cataloging and 
the use of cataloging data prepared in other 
countries, and that there are, for example, 
national musicology and national language 
programs.

Reports on the intensified cooperative pro­
grams undertaken by the three national li­
braries were also on the afternoon program. 
Dr. Cummings gave an over-all report on the 
Task Force on Automation and Other Coop­
erative Services announced by the three na­
tional libraries on June 26, 1967, during the 
San Francisco Conference of ALA. Mindful 
of the need of research libraries for improved 
bibliographic control, the Task Force and its 
working groups have concentrated on machine- 
readable data formats, character sets, com­
patible subject headings, main entry and au­
thority file problems, descriptive cataloging 
practices, and the cooperative National Serials 
Data Program, Dr. Cummings said.

Under the chairmanship of Stephen R. Sal­
mon of LC’s processing department, the Task 
Force, with Bella E. Shachtman representing 
NAL and James P. Riley representing NLM,

held seventeen meetings during the first six
months of its existence. (A progress report
was published in the Information Bulletin of
November 30, 1967, and the report is an
attachment to LC’s processed report to ARL
of January 7, 1968, which was distributed to
members.) When Mr. Salmon was required
full-time for work on the mechanization of LC’s
catalog card distribution service, he was suc­
ceeded by Samuel Lazerow, chief of LC’s
serial record division, who, Dr. Cummings
pointed out, has had the unique advantage of
serving in all three national libraries. Before
the ARL meeting, a total of twenty-one work­
ing sessions of the Task Force had been held,
reports and interim recommendations to the
heads of the three national libraries had been
made, and a number of desirable products and
services had been identified, such as off-line
book catalogs and catalog cards, machine-
readable catalog data on tape, off-line and
on-line bibliographies, and on-line information
on specific materials.

The concept of a central data bank versus
other possibilities is being examined and with­
in the next few months there should be a
formal statement of the system’s objectives,
Dr. Cummings said. There are many research
areas to be identified and there is much work
to be done. Not even the three national li­
braries have the funds to do all that is nec­
essary; a full-time head of the Task Force
may be necessary; and an able, cooperative
successor to Foster Mohrhardt, who retired
from his position as NAL Director to become
program officer of the Council on Library Re­
sources is essential. [Since the ARL meet­
ing, John Sherrod, assistant director for sys­
tems development at the Atomic Energy Com­
mission, has been named to succeed Dr. 
Mohrhardt.] Dr. Cummings asked for ARL’s 
continuing suggestions and criticisms and in­
vited the association to name a representative 
to the formal advisory group, representing five 
major library associations, that is being formed. 
The “real significance of the effort is that we 
are working effectively together” to improve 
bibliographical control and that “we are com­
mitted” to this, Dr. Cummings concluded.

L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress, 
assured ARL that LC would release the chair­
man of the Task Force for full-time work on 
it whenever this proves desirable. Meanwhile, 
LC is devoting much staff time to the Task 
Force and its working groups.

In reporting on MARC II, Dr. Mumford 
emphasized that the design of the new format 
has been based on the experience gained in 
the MARC Pilot Project. Because of the rec­
ognition of the need for a standard to transfer 
bibliographic information in machine-readable 
form, the new design places primary emphasis

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 



103

on the concept of communications. The for­
mat is structured to be an efficient means of 
representing all forms of bibliographic de­
scription and to transfer data between libraries 
and information centers. If a receiving in­
stitution must retain its own local format, the 
communications format can easily be con­
verted for local use.

The result of the acceptance of a communi­
cations standard is that each institution need 
concern itself with only two translation pro­
grams, one to convert from the communica­
tions format to the local format on receiving 
data and one to convert from the local format 
to the communications format when trans­
mitting data. If all bibliographic information is 
structured in one format, the costs of computer 
software will be minimized and one basic re­
quirement for effective networks will be 
achieved.

Recognizing the importance of standards, 
the Library of Congress has been working 
closely with a number of groups, in addition 
to the Task Force of the three national li­
braries, to have MARC II accepted as such a 
standard, Dr. Mumford reported. On Novem­
ber 28 the American Library Association’s In­
formation Science and Automation Division 
convened a committee, made up of representa­
tives from ISAD, the Resources and Technical 
Services Division, and the Reference Services 
Division, to study the MARC II format for 
acceptance as an ALA standard. James E. 
Skipper (Princeton) represented ARL. The 
committee unanimously agreed to recommend 
to their respective divisional boards that the 
MARC II format be accepted by ALA as an 
American library standard.

Under the leadership of the British National 
Bibliography, a United Kingdom MARC Pilot 
Project is being planned. LC staff members 
have worked with BNB staff and the MARC 
II format will be adopted for the UK project. 
The MARC II format has also been coordi­
nated with the Committee on Scientific and 
Technical Information, Sub Panel on Transfer 
of Bibliographic Description by Magnetic Tape, 
and a proposed COSATI standard is in draft 
form. The United States of America Standards 
Institute Committee Z-39, Subcommittee on 
Machine Input Records, is presently drafting 
its proposed standard based on the MARC II 
format. In addition, the International Atomic 
Energy Agency meeting in Vienna during 
December 1967 considered the MARC II for­
mat for the International Nuclear Information 
System (IN IS). The National Agricultural Li­
brary and the National Library of Medicine 
have also studied the format and LC’s pub­
lished report on MARC II, expected to be 
available from the Government Printing Office 
in March, will reflect their requirements.

By July of 1968, LC expects to make avail­
able to all interested libraries, through sale by 
the Card Division, tapes in the MARC II for­
mat of its entire cataloging output on English- 
language monographs. French and German will 
be included as soon as it is possible to do so, 
Dr. Mumford announced.

Another major area of cooperation among 
the three national libraries is the Serials Data 
Program. Dr. Mumford reported that, under 
the supervision of Mrs. Elaine Woods, three 
others in LC’s Information Systems Office are 
working full-time on this program; they also 
have assistance from Mrs. Henriette Avram 
of ISO and from the staff of the serial record 
division.

The first task was to compile a comprehen­
sive list of data elements that could be used 
in the Serials Data Program. To accomplish 
this, existing work was first reviewed. This in­
cluded analyzing other automated serials sys­
tems, traditional methods of serials cataloging, 
and work being done on special projects relat­
ing to serials control. Approximately two hun­
dred formats from institutions involved in 
some stage of serials automation were analyzed, 
particularly for data elements used. To these 
data elements, those used in serials cataloging 
were added. This yielded a base of data ele­
ments which was then augmented by others 
deemed necessary for serials control. The data 
elements were structured to include a defini­
ion of each, examples or codes to clarify the 
efinition, problems associated with the use of 
ach data element, and alternative ways of 
andling the data elements.
On November 30, this material was turned 

ver to Nelson Associates, which will conduct 
he user survey, the second task in the pro­
ram. Nelson Associates was also supplied with 
 list of forty institutions where in-depth inter­
iews are to be conducted. A report of this 
ask is due on May 31.

In the initial stage, the gathering of data 
lements was predicated on what seemed de­
irable for serials. Therefore, the Working 
roup took the approach that it did not want 

o be constrained by the MARC II format 
ntil all elements needed for serials were iden­
ified. Studies are now in progress to see how 
hese serials data elements can be fitted into 
he MARC format. In concluding, Dr. Mum­
ord pointed out that the Serials Data Pro­
ram has a much larger and complicated prob­

em to solve than did MARC, because it has 
o develop the basic record itself, while MARC 
uilt on an existing record, the LC catalog 
ard.

Douglas W. Bryant, chairman of ARL’s 
ommittee on the Preservation of Research 
ibrary Materials, summarized his report, out­

ining the history of the committee. It came

t
d
e
h

o
t
g
a
v
t

e
s
G
t
u
t
t
t
f
g
l
t
b
c

C
L
l



104

into being at the June I960 meeting of ARL 
in Montreal. Its major contributions to date 
have been three studies, which it proposed and 
monitored and which the CLR supported with 
grants. The first was an attempt by the Re­
search Triangle Institute to estimate the mag­
nitude of the problem by a sampling of the 
National Union Catalog; the Revised Final Re­
port on this study was issued on May 25, 1962, 
and a summary of it appeared in CRL, No­
vember 1962. The second study, made by 
Gordon R. Williams, was entitled The Preserva­
tion of Deteriorating Books: An Examination 
of the Problem with Recommendations for a 
Solution, September 1964; its approach was 
adopted in principle at ARL’s January 1965 
meeting. The third study is the Pilot Preserva­
tion Project conducted by LC, which has un­
dertaken a leadership role in a national pro­
gram, to (1 ) develop routines for comparing 
titles in the LC brittle book collection with 
the same titles in other libraries; (2) obtain 
an estimate of the work ( and thus of the costs) 
required for LC to identify such “best” copies 
and for the libraries participating in the pro­
gram to locate the volumes requested and to 
prepare the necessary reports of their physical 
conditions; (3) collect data during the course 
of the project, as a basis for estimating the 
usefulness of the National Union Catalog in 
identifying the location of a deteriorating book; 
and ( 4 ) determine the extent to which libraries 
may have discarded their brittle or deteriorated 
books.

These are substantial contributions, Mr. 
Bryant pointed out, and current research at 
the University of Chicago may point the way 
to practicable methods for the large-scale 
deacidification of books. But additional research 
on several other problems, such as storage con­
ditions, will be necessary; administrative prob­
lems, such as who will store the preservation 
copies and where, must be resolved; and, most 
important of all, substantial funds will be re­
quired for a national program.

Mr. Bryant proposed that ARL adopt a res­
olution supporting LC in its negotiations with 
the Government Printing Office to advocate 
the use of permanent/durable paper for the 
most important Government publications. This 
was adopted. Warren J. Haas succeeded Mr. 
Bryant as chairman of the Preservation Com­
mittee.

Only a brief discussion of the preservation 
problem was possible before adjournment for 
dinner, but the possibility was suggested of 
compiling a list of research books that have 
deteriorated. There was objection to this be­
cause such a list would be “a sitting duck” for 
reprinters and for reproduction in microform, 
and, unfortunately, the editorial standards, 
the quality of the paper, and the methods of

reproduction do not always meet the standards 
necessary for research libraries.

The business session was opened by ARL 
President Rogers at about 7:30 p.m. As a re­
sult of ballots cast by members at this meeting, 
Thomas R. Buckman (University of Kansas 
libraries), Martin M. Cummings (N LM ), and 
Edward B. Stanford (University of Minnesota 
libraries), were elected to the Board of Direc­
tors. [In accordance with a change previously 
made in the bylaws, the Board now elects the 
Vice President and President-Elect of ARL, 
and, at its January 8 meeting, Douglas W. 
Bryant was selected for the post.]

David Kaser (Joint University Libraries), 
chairman of the Committee on Training for 
Research Librarianship, announced that Neal 
Harlow, dean of the graduate school of library 
service at Rutgers would direct a study of the 
future personnel and training requirements of 
research (university rather than college) li­
braries and that a project proposal was being 
presented to the U.S. Office of Education. The 
objective would be to analyze existing services 
and personnel and to “state the steps necessary 
to take us from where we are to where we 
should be ten years from now,” Dr. Kaser said. 
The Association formally approved the project.

President Rogers summarized the actions of 
the Board at its January 6 evening and Janu­
ary 7 morning meetings. He announced that 
ARL would participate with ACRL in a Joint 
Committee on University Library Standards; 
CLR had made a grant for a study on light­
ing, to be conducted by Keyes D. Metcalf 
(librarian emeritus, Harvard University); ARL 
members should report all microform masters 
to the National Register; a review in respect 
to new members would be made every two 
years, next in 1969; members should check on 
the quality of the microfilm of the New York 
Times received recently; the next survey of 
salaries (July 1968) would cover all profes­
sionals, subject specialists as well as technical 
librarians, and would be divided into three 
categories—academic libraries, federal govern­
ment, and all others; report forms for Academic 
Library Statistics would be sent out in August 
and the data would be published in Decem­
ber; the executive director was authorized to 
engage legal counsel; a project proposal for 
an East European Bibliographic and Documen­
tation Center, prepared with COCOSEERS, 
was reviewed, revised, and approved; a new 
Committee on Federal Relations was estab­
lished, with Robert Vosper (UCLA) later 
being named as chairman, and William S. Dix, 
Stuart Forth, Benjamin E. Powell, and Ruther­
ford D. Rogers as members; a resolution of 
thanks was voted for the services performed 
by Donald F. Cameron as interim executive 
director; and a resolution calling upon Con­



105

gress to vote the necessary funds to proceed 
with a third building for the Library of Con­
gress was approved.

The text of the resolution as transmitted by 
President Rogers to the Speaker of the House, 
the President of the Senate, the Chairman of 
the Coordinating Committee on the Madison 
Building, Senator B. Everett Jordan, and to 
Representative George H. Mahon and to Sen­
ator Carl Hayden, the Chairmen, respectively, 
of the House and Senate Appropriations Com­
mittees, is as follows:

Resolved, That the Association of Research 
Libraries urge the United States Congress to 
take action at the earliest possible oppor­
tunity to appropriate funds for the next nec­
essary steps leading to the construction of 
the Library of Congress James Madison 
Memorial Building. In view of constantly 
rising construction costs and the cost of 
rental space, it seems in the interest of 
economy to move forward on the third build­
ing at the earliest possible date in order 
that services to the nation’s libraries and 
their users, especially the scholarly commu­
nity, not be impeded.

Stephen A. McCarthy, who took office as 
executive director of ARL on November 1 ex­
pressed his thanks to his predecessors, Messrs. 
Skipper and Cameron, who had been very 
helpful to him. He reported that during the 
short time he had been in Washington he had 
been engaged on problems in connection with 
the Center for Chinese Research Materials and 
the East European Center, support of the 
extension of the Higher Education Act, the 
revision of the interlibrary loan code to be 
sent to members before next June, and the 
report on statistics, which was not published 
in November because changes kept being re­
ceived. More staff and more space will be 
needed as ARL’s programs expand, he warned, 
and he urged that topics for study be sug­
gested to him at any time. After thanking 
CLR for the grant that made possible the 
Pilot Preservation Project at LC, Dr. McCarthy 
noted that 1967 was the last year of the 
National Science Foundation grant for the 
establishment of a Washington office of ARL 
and he expressed the association’s great appre­
ciation for this assistance, appreciation that 
was then voted by the Association in a resolu­
tion of thanks to NSF.

William S. Dix, chairman of the Shared 
Cataloging Committee reported briefly, refer­
ring to LC’s report to ARL. Despite lack of 
full funding for Title II-C, LC, he said, has 
managed to get a great deal done and he 
complimented those in charge of the program. 
He stressed LC’s continued need for catalog­

ed, as well as the necessity—for ARL’s use 
in seeking extension of the program and ade­
quate funding—of full and accurate statistics 
from cooperating libraries. Richard H. Logsdon 
(Columbia University libraries) succeeded Dr. 
Dix as chairman of this committee.

Philip J. McNiff (Boston public library) 
reported that P. K. Yu, professor of Chinese 
History at the University of Hong Kong, has 
been selected as director of the Center for 
Chinese Research. It is hoped that he can 
assume his duties in the spring. An Advisory 
Committee has been named, consisting of three 
teacher-scholars and three librarians, including 
LC’s Warren Tsuneishi, and with Mr. McNiff 
as chairman.

Written reports had been submitted by 
chairmen of other committees and these were 
not discussed.

Under new business, James Skipper, ARL’s 
representative on the Joint Committee on Na­
tional Library-Information Systems (CONLIS), 
said that its report had been sent to the 
National Advisory Commission on Libraries. 
Robert Blackburn reported that the Center 
for Research Libraries has amended its bylaws 
to permit associate membership of all United 
States and other North American libraries; the 
Center now has thirty-two members and its 
budget for acquisitions has doubled. Mr. Clapp 
reported that one of ARL’s members, Fred­
erick H. Wagman (University of Michigan 
libraries), had been named a member of a 
Commission on Obscenity. Dr. Wagman prom­
ised that he would do his best to represent 
ARL’s interest in subject.

As outgoing president, Mr. Rogers remarked 
modestly that he was impressed with the unim­
portance of the president of ARL and with 
the importance of member participation and 
the crucial nature of the position of executive 
director, “which can make or break us.” He 
felt that ARL was “exceedingly fortunate to 
have Scotty Cameron to fill in after Jim Skip­
per left and to have Steve McCarthy accept 
the position.” A motion of thanks to Scotty was 
unanimously adopted. With that, Mr. Rogers 
turned over the gavel to Andrew J. Eaton 
(Washington University libraries, St. Louis), 
incoming president, who quickly brought the 
meeting to a close with the remark that if 
there ever had been an ARL tradition for inau­
gural addresses, it had effectively and finally 
been laid to rest by Rudy Rodgers’ nonaddress 
at the New Orleans meeting in January 1967.

The next meeting of ARL will be held in 
Kansas City on Saturday, June 22, at the 
Linda Hall library. The next Midwinter meet­
ing of ARL, which will be in Washington, 
D.C., on Sunday, January 26, 1969, will be 
preceded by an all-day visit to LC on Satur­
day, January 25.—Elizabeth E. Hamer.



106

Microcαrd Editions 
901-26th Street, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20037

□  Please send .... copies of your latest 
catalog without cost or obligation.

□  Please send…  copies of the Supple­
ment to your current catalog.

Name ................................................................

Title .....................................................................

Organization ........................................................

Address ...............................................................

N O W  A V A I L A B L E
ACTA SANCTAE SEDIS. Vols. 1-41 (1865-1909). (fiche and opaque— 3 x 5) $ 230.00

ALLGEMEINE DEUTSCHE BIOGRAPHIE. Leipzig, 1875-1912. 56 vols. (fiche 
and opaque— 3 x 5)..................................................................................$ 330.00

Camden Society. PUBLICATIONS. Nos. 1-105 (1838-72). (fiche and 
opaque— 3 x 5)..........................................................................................$ 310.00

C O M M ERCIAL AND FIN AN C IAL CHRONICLE. Vols. 1-70 (1865-1900). 
(fiche and opaque— 3 x 5)...........................................................................$ 899.00

DE BOW'S REVIEW. 1846-80. (fiche and opaque— 3 x 5)...................................$ 148.00

Early English Text Society. PUBLICATIONS. Original Series, Nos. 1-147, 
159. (fiche and opaque— 3 x 5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 258.00

THE ECONOMIST. Vols. 1-75 (1843-1912). (fiche and opaque— 3 x 5)..................$1649.00

Faraday Society. TRANSACTIONS. Vols. 1-46 (1905-50). (fiche and 
opaque— 3 x 5)..............................................................................................$ 299.00

G t. Brit. Foreign Office. BRITISH AND FOREIGN STATE PAPERS. Vols. I- 
105 ( 18 12 / 14 -19 12). (fiche and opaque— 4 x 6 ) ..............................................$ 780.00

HSDAP HAUPTARCHIV (Archives of the German Nazi Party). (35mm 
microfilm) ............................................................................................ $1590.80

HISTOIRE LITTÉRAIRE DE LA FRANCE. Vols. 1-32 (1865-98). (35mm 
microfilm)..........................................................................................$ 330.00

JOURNAL ASIATIQ UE. Series l-XI (1822-1922). (fiche and opaque—  
3 x 5 ) ................................................................. $ 767.00

JOURNAL OF THE CHEM ICAL SOCIETY (LO N D O N ), 1847-1950. (fiche 
and opaque— 3 x 5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2014.00

M I C R O C A R D ® E D I T I O N S
901 TWENTY-SIXTH STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20037, 20 2/33 3-6393

IN D U S T R IA L  PRODUCTS D IV I S I O N ,  THE N A T IO N A L  CASH REGISTER C O M P A N Y