Correspondence. 293 i t must be borne in mind, refers to the Cotgreave indicator, and I leave it t o all fair-minded persons whether it is right for Mr. Brown to sit in judg- ment on an indicator which he has already prejudged and so emphatically condemned. The second question is : " Is it an advantage or otherwise for a library staff to be brought into frequent contact with readers ? p Give reasons in support of your opinion." Mr. Brown, by abolishing the indicator, has brought his staff into frequent and direct contact with readers. In the article already quoted from London he lavishes unqualified praise on his new system and refers to " the wisdom of my commissioners in making the change." It must then be perfectly obvious to any disinterested looker-on that Mr. Brown's mind is quite biassed in favour of his own system of " bringing the staff into frequent contact with the readers," and I contend therefore that Mr. Brown is utterly out of place in acting as examiner on such questions. I am, yours truly, JOHN FROWDE. [We have printed this letter because the pages of THE LIBRARY are open to all librarians for the airing of grievances, as well as for pleasanter communications, but we strongly deprecate both the tone and the matter of Mr. Frowde's letter, which, had good taste been considered to say nothing of proper professional feeling should have been addressed to the Council of the L.A.U.K. ED.] PUBLIC LIBRARY LEGISLATION. SIR, The Act which you printed in THE LIBRARY for August, amend- ing the Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act and which extends to Scotland the provision contained in Sir Francis Powell's Amending Act for last year which transferred the power to adopt the Acts from the rate- payers to the " library authority " raises a doubt in my mind as to whether it would not have been better, while giving the " authority " the power of spontaneous adoption, to have left to the ratepayers the power they held as an alternative to be used in cases where reactionary authorities refuse to adopt the Acts. Now that the power is in the hands of the " library authority " there no longer exists any reason why Parliament should restrict the rate to id. any more than it should restrict the water rate or the Sewer rate. The only reasons for the limitation of the rate originally were(i) to give com- munities some kind of incentive to the adoption of the Act, and (2) not to give the voters at large the power of assessing an unlimited tax ; but the transference of the power to local authorities has completely obviated the necessity for such optional conditions. If a town or district has so much regard for its own public library as to wish to spend on it a larger amount than Parliament allows there seems no logical reason why it should not do so. In view of the proposed amendments on the law, particularly as regards exemption from rates, I should be glad to see in the pages of THE LIBRARY opinions from library authorities as to the propriety of introducing further legislation to abolish the limitation of rating powers. X. Y. Z.
