our association has been invited to participate with that committee. So we are at least conscious of the problem and are doing what we can. Senator MORSE. Were you going to say something?

Mr. LOCKHART. Senator, I was just going to say that it is true that the numbers of women are still not large, but as far as I can see, there is no discrimination whatever either in admissions or in the scholarship funds, even though we recognize that some of them may be thrown away because they will have babies and won't ultimately praetice law. But we certainly have been very conscious of deciding that we pay no attention at all to that fact, and the result is that we are getting more women into the profession.

Senator JAVITS. Will the chairman yield?

Senator MORSE. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. I think we could give a little help ourselves if we appointed more women as Federal judges. We don't have the power of appointment but we certainly can recommend and we certainly can approve and we certainly can encourage. You have given me an idea. I am going to look around in New York and see if we can find another woman or two to put on the Federal bench. That I think is the greatest incentive of all, and to encourage my political organization to give them a better break on State courts, because it seems to me that if women see that more of them are appointed judges, that is very encouraging to them. Woudn't the Chair think that might be very helpful?

Senator MORSE. I think that is very well stated.

Senator JAVITS. Because we in that area can help ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask my old law school dean one question, because I spoke to him privately and I want to get it in the record. May I?

Senator MORSE. Certainly.

Senator JAVITS. Would you feel the same way, Dean McKay, about the students at NYU that Professor O'Neil did about the students at the State university, in respect of this hardship work as being a set off for some student loans?

Mr. McKAY. Yes, very definitely. I would like to add to that also something that Dean Scarlett said before you were here. He described himself as the dean of one of the smallest law schools in the country. Mine is one of the largest law schools in the country, but we have much the same problem, difficulty in finding sufficient financial resources for all our needs.

The things that Professor O'Neil mentioned, and that Dean Tollett has described, about amendments that could be put into this act that would make better opportunities for needy students wherever they are located, including particularly of course those who are disadvantaged because of discriminatory backgrounds, would be enormously helpful to legal education. And I would like particularly to endorse what you said, Senator Javits, about the need for more assistance in the legal

services area.

The law schools are now willing to do a better job of training for those needs than they ever have in the past, but support for those programs is very much needed.

LEGAL SERVICES IN D.C.

Senator JAVITS. I might say to the Chair, for whatever it is worth to our other members, the Senators, what I have in mind is the possibility of blending of the facilities of the large law firms with the law schools to zero into the slum areas, and this is all in the private sector. It has nothing to do with government. It will help take up the slack which Senator Morse and I both terribly depreciate, which has occurred in the funds available for this particular effort in the antipoverty program.

Senator MORSE. As the Senator knows, I serve here in the District on the Senate District of Columbia Committee, and my subcommittee has jurisdiction over the police and fire departments, schools, and public welfare. You try to put the three problems together and it will give you more problems.

The Senator from New York is quite right, particularly when we get down into the so-called public welfare field. The availability of legal service to many, many people in the District of Columbia is one of the greatest needs, and anything we can do to work out the type of program the Senator has in mind I shall cooperate with.

The Senator used to serve with me on the District of Columbia Committee in this very field. But I think that to a certain degree some of our most difficult ghetto problems springs from unavailability of a legal device to the people who are being exploited and taken advantage of, and that creates bitterness, misunderstanding, and active vice programs.

Professor Sneed, I turn the seminar back to you.

Mr. SNEED. Thank you, Senator. We will turn to the libraries problem, and Prof. Morris Cohen will speak on that.

Mr. COHEN. I will abstract my remarks from the longer prepared statement to save the committee's time.

Senator MORSE. The entire statement will be inserted in the record at this point, Professor Cohen.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MORRIS L. COHEN, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND LIBRARIES, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL

On behalf of both the American Association of Law Libraries and the Association of American Law Schools I would like to speak on the needs of academic law libraries in our country today and on the significance of this proposed legislation (Senate Bill 3098) with regard to their maintenance and improvement as essential facilities for the proper administration of justice, for the conduct of legal education and for the support of legal research and scholarship. It is fundamental in our legal system that all laws be recorded, preserved and kept easily accessible for the use of all who would know the law. Our sense of injustice is aroused by the prospect of secret laws or laws whose inaccessibility removes them from effective public notice. Two hundred years ago, Blackstone stated this requirement as a basic premise of English law:

**... a bare resolution, confined in the breast of the legislator, without manifesting itself by some external sign, can never be properly a law. It is requisite that this resolution be notified to the people who are to obey it."

Although this concern is reflected in the recent Freedom of Information Act and other legislative requirements of public disclosure, we have not always been cognizant of the importance of adequate law libraries as our prime national resource in the dissemination of legal information. Law libraries, including those in our law schools, not only serve every branch of the legal profession. but also

serve the general academic community, the public at large, and governmental agencies at all levels, both directly and through assistance and interlibrary cooperation with general libraries. The ability of our law libraries to acquire, to store and to provide access to the records of our law is an essential condition of the smooth and just operation of our legal system.

Law libraries were among the earliest specialized libraries, both in England and in the United States. The library of Lincoln Inn in London, dating from 1497, is said to be the oldest library in that city. The Philadelphia Bar Association Library, founded in 1802, and the Social Law Library of Boston, founded in 1804, were among the first professional libraries in this country. The early legal collections of American universities were among the most important parts of the first academic libraries. With the rise of formal law schools in the 19th century the law libraries took on a new importance which is reflected in the following quotation from one of the great pioneers of modern legal education, Christopher Columbus Langdell, first dean of the Harvard Law School:

"It was indispensable to establish at least two things; first that the law is a science; secondly that all the available materials of that science are contained in printed books * * *. We have also constantly inculcated the idea that the library is the proper workshop of professors and students alike *** that it is to us all that the laboratories of the university are to the chemists and physicists. all that the museum of natural history is to the zoologists, all that the botanical garden is to the botanists."

American law libraries play a dual role in the legal system of this country. They are both a repository of our laws and legal traditions and, at the same time, the laboratory in which these laws are studied and refashioned to deal with the changing needs of each new generation. As the number and complexity of problems facing American society have increased, the demands on our law libraries have multiplied. Our continuing efforts to secure liberty, justice, and a greater reliance on the rule of law at home and abroad, have increased the need, both of the legal profession and of the general public, for access to the sources of our law, the law of other countries and the developing law between nations. At the same time the actual numbers of users of legal materials have increased substantially. Both as archive and as laboratory, the law library faces a series of crises whose solution will seriously affect the nature and quality of the administration of justice in this country.

There has been an accelerating increase in the volume of legal literature being published today. This acceleration can be seen in the frequently quoted estimate of 30,000 new judicial decisions coming from our courts every year and 10,000 new statutes enacted by the State and Federal legislatures each year. It has been estimated that the courts of this country between 1790 and 1840 producd 50,000 reported decisions; that between 1840 and 1890 some 450,000 decisions were issued; and that from 1890 to date close to 2 million decisions have been reported. The print explosion in legal materials is straining the capacity of our law libraries to acquire, store and provide access to both the basic primary materials and the secondary sources of our law. Studies show that the holdings of many American law libraries are literally doubling in size every 15 years. The Law Library of Congress in 1912 showed 145,000 volumes; by 1930 it had almost doubled to 280,000 volumes; in 1940, it held 434,000 volumes; in 1950, 744,000 volumes; and today, well over 1,400,000 volumes. The same growth pattern can be followed in any number of academic and bar libraries. The University of Michigan Law Library, for example, expanded from 32,000 volumes in 1912; to 80,000 in 1930; to 151,000 in 1940; 210,000 in 1950; and well over 300,000 in 1960.

This rate of growth has severely affected the capacity of our present means of access to legal sources. The information retrieval systems of the law have historically been among the most advanced and sophisticated in the field of bibliography, but their efficiency seems to have been markedly reduced by the tremendous volume of material pouring into them from our courts, legislatures, and administrative agencies. While other areas of bibliography, particularly those relating to scientific and medical literature, have received substantial Government assistance for research and development, the field of legal bibliography has had very little aid for study and improvement. Legal bibliography has developed no really new mechanisms in the last 40 years to handle this proliferation of materials. If it had not been for the genius of a few bibliographic giants in legal publishing at the turn of the century-men who devised unique finding tools like our digest systems. our citation indexes, and our looseleaf services-access to the sources of our law

would be impossible today. Now we desperately need serious study and research to develop new approaches to bibliographic control of our legal literature. Innovation in legal bibliography has in the past come from the law publishers, but today they offer only the old solutions to new problems. The impetus and direction for change is most likely to come from law librarians, a few interested academic lawyers, and the information scientists. But financial assistance must be made available for this purpose.

There are many other problems also facing law libraries today. Inadequate physical plants, shortages of trained librarians and supporting staff, increases in the cost of books and services, have diminished the effectiveness of law libraries in meeting the increased needs of the legal profession and the public. A variety of factors have made the functions of law libraries more complex and yet the demands on them increase and grow more diverse. Private resources no longer seem capable of maintaining these centers of scholarship and research.

There are approximately 1,000 law libraries in the United States today, of which about 150 are located in law schools. The importance and influence of the academic law libraries is much greater than may be indicated by those figures. The academic law libraries, in addition to performing vital educational and research functions for their law schools, also provide the bibliographic resources which many judicial, legislative, and bar libraries use to supplement their working collections. With the exception of the Library of Congress and one or two other nonacademic law libraries, the bulk of foreign legal materials in this country are held in law school libraries. Most of the head librarians of American law libraries have been trained in academic law libraries and continue to be influenced by professional developments in those institutions. Most of the experimentation with respect to modern information science as a means of improving the storage and retrieval of legal materials has been conducted in academic institutions. All of the libraries of the legal profession perform invaluable service and all are in need of support for vital improvement and development. Most will not, of course, be reached directly by this legislation. It is important, nevertheless, that law school libraries are assisted by general legislation in aid of higher education, such as this bill.

A joint committee of the Association of American Law Schools and the American Association of Law Libraries has been working during the past few years on new standards for law school libraries. These standards are being designed as a guide to what constitutes a law library capable of meeting the needs of modern legal education and scholarship. The proposed draft of these standards requires a library of 60,000 volumes as the minimum working collection for an academic law library. Approximately one-half of the libraries of law schools approved by either the American Bar Association or the Association of American Law Schools have less than the proposed minimum collection. Based on current law book prices, which incidentally have increased by 75 percent in the 10 years from 1957 to 1967, the per-volume acquisition cost of developing a new library is over $10 per volume or $600,000 for the minimum collection described above. Those figures reflect the cost of the books alone. To include cataloging and processing of this collection would increase costs by at least 50 percent. In other words, to establish a proper working collection for a new law school today would require about $1 million. Although professional groups like the AALL and the AALS are striving to raise library standards, financing is badly needed. For example, the Association of American Law Schools is now publishing a series of bibliographic guides for the development of law library collections. These extensive annotated bibliographies entitled “Law Books Recommended for Libraries," were prepared by Prof. Miles 0. Price, formerly of the Columbia Law Library, Prof. Harry Bitner of the Cornell Law Library, and Mrs. Meira Pimsleur of the Columbia Law Library. The implementation of these standard guides will require massive aid for collection development in law libraries, aid which is not now available under any legislation.

The library standards being proposed by the Association of American Law Schools also include a staff requirement of a law trained librarian, three other professional librarians, and supporting clerical staff. I would estimate that at least one-half the law schools accredited by the American Bar Association do not weet this standard either. With respect to the physical plant, it will be recommended under the new standards that law schools provide library seating for 65 percent of their student body. Very, very few law schools meet this standard today. Because of the centrality of the law library in legal education, this per

centage is considerably higher than the typical seating ratio of other academic libraries. It is, however, a realistic requirement in the light of research demands on today's law student and the changing nature of legal education. Several new law school buildings currently being designed reflect this new approach to library use even more deeply by providing an individual seat for every registered student. Despite the importance of law libraries in our legal system and in legal education, existing library legislation has offered very little assistance to law libraries. Most Federal legislation aiding libraries has been designed to improve public libraries and the libraries of elementary and secondary schools. Law libraries have been virtually ignored in library legislation, although special legislation has been passed assisting medical libraries in areas where the needs of law libraries are equally pressing. The most significant legislation dealing with law libraries has been the Higher Education Act of 1965 which has had only slight impact on law libraries and actually affected only those in our law schools. Although designed to aid academic libraries generally, title II of Higher Education Amendments of 1968 contains a number of provisions of importance to law librarianship. In the light of the actual needs of law libraries, the effective assistance is rather modest however.

Title II includes provisions for basic, supplemental and special purpose grants for library collection development. Unfortunately, almost none of these grants are going to law school libraries, because of the limitation that only one grant be made to each academic institution. General university libraries have benefited from these sections to the exclusion of law school libraries. If parts A and B of title II could include specific coverage for law school libraries, or at least indicate that additional grants may be made to specialized school libraries within a university, some assistance may be available to aid the development of legal collections.

The library training and research program of title II offers some assistance in the education of law librarians and in the study of techniques for the improvement of law libraries. One example of such a program is a summer institute for the continuing professional education of law librarians being planned at the University of California in Berkeley this year with funds made available under the Higher Education Act of 1965. Title II also includes provisions strengthening the acquisitions and processing program of the Library of Congress, which make possible a number of important bibliographic services to other research libraries throughout the country. This expanded role of the Library of Congress as a bibliographic center works to the benefit of law libraries as well. Many are already taking advantage of the availability of centralized cataloging from the Library of Congress and hopefully the developing mechanization of bibliographic records will have an even greater impact in all research libraries.

The removal of subject limitations in the program for assistance in the purchase of equipment and materials for higher education under title VI might make available limited support for law library acquisitions, if the limitation to undergraduate education could also be lifted. Unfortunately, the level of assistance under the present act has been very low and the administering officials have not construed title VI as really designed for library assistance, but primarily for other instructional aids.

Title IX dealing with networks of knowledge opens up the possibility of a variety of cooperative programs between academic law libraries. A considerable program of professional cooperation has already developed informally among law libraries. These include inter-library loans and photoduplication, duplicate exchanges, shared acquisition information, local union catalogs, publication of book catalogs and cooperative reference assistance. More sophisticated opportunities for such inter-library cooperation can be developed if financial support is available. Computer networks linking law libraries, facsimile transmission of photographic images, centralized computer storage of bibliographic records, and microfacsimile storage of research materials are but a few of the possibilities open in this area. Law librarianship has kept abreast of these developments and is, as a profession. prepared to incorporate the best of the new technology into their own facilities and operations, if the means for further study and implementation are made available.

Title XI providing assistance for the construction of academic facilities, includes the building and renovation of law school facilities and has already made a substantial contribution to legal education. Financing is badly needed