LIBRARY RESERVATIONS.

Southland Times, Issue 25311, 14 June 1935, Page 11

LIBRARY RESERVATIONS.

To the Editor. Sir,—As a subscriber making constant and grateful use of the municipal library, I should like to make a few remarks about the proposal to abolish reservations of books. In the first place I thoroughly sympathize with the feelings of annoyance expressed by councillors who have paid their threepence, or who have asked for a book, only to find a'large list of reserves ahead of them. Not all of us can afford to go off and buy the book. But will the abolition of reserves remedy matters? At present I know that by paying threepence I shall certainly get the book when my turn comes; but with no reservations I shall probably come to the library again and again to find the book gone. My chance of getting it will now depend on the chance of my calling at the library just after the book has been returned. This will give an unfair advantage, if any, to those who live and work- near the library or to “those in the know,” i.e., those who know who has the book and can get him to pass it on to them—a much more unfair state of things than the “favouritism” alleged to exist. But does it exist? It seems that a charge has been made against the library staff and that the council has accepted the truth of that charge without investigation. Is this fair? In the other activities of the council is it not usual to consult the permanent professional head of the department who possesses special knowledge that should not be disregarded by the laymen on the council? Did not the chairman of the Library Committee himself imply this? Reference was made to the insignificant sum, that would be lost by the change, £24. Yes, it means that the library will be poorer by £24 worth of books. Does the Library Committee realize what £24 worth of books means, what pleasure and interest can be provided for that sum? Why accept donations of books so gratefully, but so cavalierly reject £24 of revenue? It seems to me that the subscribers themselves should be asked what they

want. The suggestion to popularize the library by a deposit system is a move in that direction, the democratic one. Why not be consistent and ask file subscribers what they want, and then give it to them? I feel that the council has allowed itself to be moved by the rather forcible expressions of opinion by one or two councillors who cannot be presumed to know what is the wish of the majority of subscribers. There are many of us who rely on the library for much of our intellectual life. It is the only means by which teachers can keep their work fresh and in touch with modem thought, for we cannot afford to buy books these days. As one of them I regret any move that will deprive the library of a single book, let alone £24 worth.—l am, etc., TEACHER.