Aveust 6, 1897. ] 
Heller thought it not practicable for the 
purpose and favored the remission of the 
whole question to the committee. Professor 
Mach stated that as soon as he had 
thoroughly learned the Dewey system he 
had become a supporter of it and was of 
the opinion that some modification of the 
decimal system would be the best. Pro- 
fessor Dziatzko asserted that the Dewey 
system was not practicable even for large 
libraries. M. Otlet then spoke in favor of 
the Dewey system and explained the reason 
for its adoption by the Brussels Biblio- 
graphical Bureau. 
Dr. Billings then spoke on the subject, 
delivering the longest address of the Con- 
ference. He said that the decimal system, 
known as the Dewey system, was a device 
for putting books in order on the shelves 
and a rapid method of finding them. It 
was simply a shorthand method of finding 
abook. The application of it to system- 
atie catalogues was a different proposition. 
He asserted that the Dewey system is not 
accepted in any government library in the 
United States, or in any university library 
in the United States except Albany and 
Columbia, in both of which Mr. Dewey has 
been librarian. He said that less than 100 
libraries were using the Dewey system and 
only about 32 the Cutter system. The 
Dewey system, however, was likely to grow 
because many young women who had been 
trained in Mr. Dewey’s library school had 
taken charge of the catalogues of the smaller 
libraries in the United States, and the Li- 
brary Bureau which had been founded by 
_ Mr. Dewey was providing a large series of 
useful appliances for librarians. He added: 
‘“T, for one, am disposed to award the great- 
est credit and admiration to Mr. Dewey, 
not only for the ingenuity which he has 
shown in this and other matters pertaining 
to library economy, but also for the cease- 
less energy, zeal and persistence in getting 
the matter before the world and in having 
SCIENCE. 
195 
his ideas adopted as far as possible. I like 
to see a man believe himself, and in his own 
opinions, and do the best he can to put 
them into operation.”” Headded, however, 
that the New York libraries, the Boston 
Publie Library and the Boston Athenzum 
did not use the system and that it was not 
practicable for a systematic catalogue, even 
admitting its usefulness for the arrange- 
ment on the shelves. 
Professor Schwalbe pointed out that even 
for library work the decimal system had 
many opponents, and he thought that some 
alphabetical system would be found the most 
practicable. Dr. Gill, representing Cape Col- 
ony, said that while the motion had brought 
out a good deal of condemnation of the 
Dewey system he had noticed that no 
other system had been put forward as per- 
fect. Professor Armstrong said in reply 
that he did not think any other system was 
perfect, but that the object of the resolution 
was to put the matter in such shape as to 
leave entire freedom for action. Some con- 
siderable discussion followed without re- 
sult, and Dr. Billings suggested that he 
would like to have a resolution of more 
practical value than the mere condemna- 
tion of one particular man’s system. A long 
discussion followed on this point without 
result until Dr. Billings suggested that his 
object was to “ get a declaration on the part 
of the conference that minute classification 
by means of symbols is not desirable in a 
catalogue. It is my opinion that no ar- 
rangement of the decimal system which you 
can propose, whether formed by Dewey or 
by others, is desirable.”’ After some further 
discussion it was decided to adjourn until 
the next day, and on the morning of July 
17th the resolution of the previous day was 
withdrawn and the following substituted : 
“The Conference, being unable to accept 
any of the systems of classification recently 
proposed, remits the study of classification 
to the Committee on Organization.” This 
