1914-07-06abb

The Hamilton Public Library rarely received negative attention from Hamilton’s newspapers, but in July, 1914, a scathing rant against a situation at the library appeared on the front page of the Hamilton Spectator under the headline “ ‘Common Sense’ Book Might Be Purchased : Of the Thousands of Volumes in Public Library, One Has Been Overlooked : If the Board Secured One, Perhaps Some One Who Needs It Might Read It.”

          The issue which prompted the article concerned a small room, in a corner of the Main street library building which the Spectator reporter discovered was “used for the housing of such books as the librarian and the board do not consider good reading for the public at large.”¹

               ¹ “ ‘Common Sense’ Book Might Be Purchased : Of the Thousands of Volumes in Public Library, One Has Been Overlooked : If the Board Secured One, Perhaps Some One Who Needs It Might Read It.”

          Hamilton Spectator. July 6, 1914.

          The books kept in that small room, the reporter noted, were “books of fiction of a sensational color and also dramatic works, which in the eyes of the library censors, are supposed to be too spicy for general consumption.”¹

               It seemed that a few weeks previous, the reporter had wished to look at a volume of dramatic works by George Bernard Shaw, and was told by the library staff member on duty that the book in question was not owned by the Hamilton Public Library.

          Pressing the matter, the reporter was able to get the staffer to admit that the book was indeed in the building, but the reporter would not be allowed immediate access to it:

          “At the time, the reporter did not know of the peculiar system the library board had of placing in a secret place certain books, although, possibly, if a reserve card had been put in, the book in question would have been forthcoming at the end of four or five days without the reporter being any the wiser as to the modus operanti”¹

               When the reporter had made his experience in trying to get access to the Shaw book public in an article, he was, in his own description:

 “Severely taken to task by the librarian, Adam Hunter, who said that the article, as published, had done harm to the library, as a number of young girls had been inquiring after the book mentioned

“Mr. Hunter said that any citizen over the age of 18 or 19 had the privilege of entering and selecting for himself any book in the office.”¹

The reporter had, the previous Saturday afternoon, asked for access to the small room but had been refused:

“On being asked why, the attendant explained that Mr. Hunter wasn’t in, and the reporter could not be admitted. The reporter argued and explained and offered credentials, but to no avail. Entrance to the office was refused.

“It is for Mr. Hunter to explain, if he can, how this fits in with his statement that any citizen could have access to the office and the books there.”¹

The reporter then proceeded to detail how the Hamilton Public Library was entirely maintained by the ratepayers of the city. The library board was the recipient of half a mill on the entire property assessment in the city, which along with a special one-time grant the board had received, brought the 1914 total of financial received by the Hamilton Public Library to a total of $33,590.

The Spectator reporter then ended his article with a prolonged diatribe, filled with numerous questions posed to the board of the Hamilton Public Library:

“Is there any justifiable reason why the librarian and his colleagues should make a selection of books and place them out of reach of the general public? If a book is too obscene to be placed on the open shelves of the library, should the public money be expended on its purchase? If the public demands a book – no matter what its character, and public money has purchased it, should not every citizen have the right of access to that book with the least possible effort? Should not books of questionable character that at present are housed in the office, either not be purchased at all, or else be placed within reach of every patron of the institution? Is not the idea of a little corner filled with sensational literature for the reading of a select few an imposition and insufferable?

“Many people who patronize the public library of the city snatch ten or fifteen minutes out of a busy day to seek some book they require. Should not every department of the institution be so run that the seeker can have the volume he is after (provided that it is in) with the least possible delay? Should he not be able to get it for himself, thus saving time and energy, instead of spending both in a fruitless search for a book that under the present system probably reposes in the library office?”¹