Katherine MonroeINFO 280May 4, 2017

The Central Public Library: Washington, D.C.’s Other Library

On January 7, 1903, the doors to Washington, DC’s first free public library opened to the

people. In attendance was President Theodore Roosevelt and Andrew Carnegie, the man

responsible for funding DC’s Central Public Library and many others throughout the United

States of America. Also in attendance was Theodore W. Noyes, associate editor of the Evening

Star and long-time advocate for a free public library in the nation’s capital. The closed stacks

were already full of volumes acquired through donations and consolidation from the

subscription-based Washington City Free Library, and the reading rooms were ready to receive

visitors, young and old, male and female, resident and visitor. It had taken almost a decade for

this day to arrive—longer for Noyes—and the DC community was ready to make use of this

public, tax-supported service. Yet the formation of this library, and even the creation of the

Beaux-Arts building, was not an easy task. In a city overshadowed by the Library of Congress,

convincing those in power who could allow such a building to exist in the historic and important

city took effort, time, and persistence. In the end, though, that persistence on the part of many led

to the establishment of a well-received and, to this day, well-utilized public library system open

to all residents of the city, a system which can trace its history back to the opening of the Central

Public Library in1903.

Before the Central Public Library opened, Congress had to agree to allow the

establishment of a free public library in the city. This took multiple attempts by numerous

people, one of whom was Theodore W. Noyes. As associate editor of the Evening Star, Noyes

was in a well-placed position to let his opinion be heard, dating back to at least January 20, 1890:

“What Washington wants in a literary way, and wants very much, is a great free library open to

the people all day, or until a reasonably late hour in the evening… The people wish to read some

books at home and others in the library building… The great educator of a free people and a prop

itself of freedom is the public library” (Evening Star, January 20, 1890). These lofty words, and

others like them, continued for the next six years, as Congress continuously ignored the cry for a

public library. They believed the Library of Congress was enough for the city, yet it did not

allow the public to borrow books nor stay late into the evening.1 It may have been a free library,

but it was not easily accessible to the residents of the city. Yet Noyes persisted, not only as

associate editor of the Evening Star but as president of the Board of Trade. In William A. De

Caindry’s 1913 history of the Washington City Free Library, he reminisces about how:

…there had been introduced in the House and Senate previous to this time [1894], at the instance of the Washington Board of Trade, various measures having for their object the establishment and maintenance of a free public library in the District of Columbia… The report had been debated in that body in August and December of that year; but the efforts of those who were pressing the matter resulted unsuccessfully, and the session ended without definite action.2

With this failure, Noyes must have been thrilled with the successful formation of the Washington

City Free Library which De Caindry wrote about, a subscription library whose purpose was to

secure a free public library for the city of Washington, DC.

Since the problem appeared to be getting Congress to approve of a free public library in

the city, the supporters of such an enterprise found a way around that. With the creation of the

Washington City Free Library, incorporated in 1895 and not dependent on congressional or city

funding, those interested in moving towards a free public library found a way to organize their

1 Alison K. Hoagland, “The Carnegie Library: The City Beautiful Comes to Mt. Vernon Square.” Washington History 2, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 1990/1991): 76, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40073023.2 William A. De Caindry, “The Washington City Free Library,” Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, DC 16 (1913): 68, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40066885.

2

efforts.3 One such supporter was Brigadier General A.W. Greely, who worked in the War

Department and served as its librarian. On October 30, 1894, he circulated the list of subscribers

to the newly-formed Washington City Free Library, with a very telling opening line: “There

being no free public library in the city of Washington, the undersigned hereby promise and agree

to pay annually, from 1895 for five years, the sums set opposite our respective names for the

purpose of establishing and maintaining a Free Public Library.”4 Their goal was not to usurp the

eventual establishment of a free public library, but to work toward it, hoping to show Congress

the need and success of such an endeavor. The subscribers opened the doors to their rented

library space across from Lafayette Square in October 1895, and started asking for book

donations to add to their base collection of 3,000 books (Washington Post, December 8, 1895,

13). Such institutions as the National Geographic Society and the Biological Society of

Washington “deposited their valuable collections of books and pamphlets as reference libraries

for general use within the building. As these Societies receive by exchange the latest journals and

magazines relating to geography and biology, the importance of these accessions is easily seen.”5

These types of publications added to the educational goals of those in support of the library, and

were thus well received. So, with such plentiful donations from both private and public donors,

the Washington City Free Library was able to build a comprehensive collection not solely

comprised of fiction and children’s books. By the time the Washington City Free Library closed

its doors to make way for DC’s free public library on July 15, 1898, it had acquired a total of

11,559 volumes and was well-used by the city’s inhabitants.6 Once Congress finally accepted the

need for a free public library, based on the successful efforts of Greely and his fellow

3 Hoagland, “The Carnegie Library,” 76-77.4 De Caindry, “The Washington City Free Library,” 67.5 Ibid., 76.6 Ibid., 93-94.

3

subscribers, their collection became the foundation of the DC public library’s collection,

although it still took years for the transition to be made.

This slow-moving behemoth that was the beginning of the DC public library system

relied on Congress to sanction its creation, location, and allocations. While the Washington City

Free Library made Congress aware of the need and citywide support for an actual free public

library, it was not until June 3, 1896, that Congress finally passed an act to establish the library.7

A board of trustees was formed to take charge of the library. According to the act of Congress, it

was to be composed of nine tax-paying residents of the District of Columbia who would serve

for either two, four, or six years; they would “have power to provide for the proper care and

preservation of said library, to prescribe rules for taking and returning books, to fix, assess, and

collect fines, and penalties for the loss of or injury to books, and to establish all other needful

rules and regulations for the management of the library…”8 Theodore W. Noyes was president of

the board, a position he would retain until his death 50 years later; the rest included Samuel W.

Woodward, Brainard H. Warner, John B. Larner, James T. DuBois, R. Ross Perry, Charles J.

Bell, Rufus H. Thayer, and Ainsworth R. Spofford (the Ainsworth Spofford who was also

librarian of Congress).9 Weston Flint, who acted as treasurer and secretary for the board, was

chosen as the first librarian; he had served as librarian of the Patent Office for eight years and as

statistician of the Bureau of Education for five years, and thus had library experience—although

whether or not he had received a formal education in the subject is unknown.10 This was not a

7 First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Public Library of the District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1898 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1898), 3.8 Chapter 315, 54th Cong., 1st sess, in The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 1895, to March, 1897, and Recent Treaties, Conventions, and Executive Proclamations, with An Appendix Containing the Concurrent Resolutions of the Two Houses of Congress (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1897), 244-245, http://www.loc.gov/law//help/statutes-at-large/54th-congress.php.9 First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 4.10 “News from the Field,” Public Libraries (Chicago) 3, no. 10 (December 1898): 430.

4

volunteer position. His salary increased from $1,600 in 1898 to $2,500 by the time he retired in

1904.11 His tenure as librarian was seen as “the creative stage of the library,” for during this time,

the collection increased from 12,000 volumes to over 70,000, staff increased from 3 to 39, and

the permanent library building was commissioned, built, and opened.12 Another part of the act of

Congress provided for at least two assistant librarians, the first two being Irene Gibson and

Emily A. Spilman.13 These women served in several library roles throughout the city over the

years. Irene Gibson attended the New York State Library School and graduated in the class of

1894; she went on to work at the Library of Congress.14 Emily A. Spilman became head

cataloger at the Central Public Library by 1907.15 These job changes may have been because

their salaries were 2/3 of what most librarians in the area made, at least according to Flint, who

also saw this as a reason why his assistant librarians were lured away by better-paying

employment opportunities.16 Ms. Gibson’s salary as first assistant librarian started at $900, but

had increased to $1,000 by 1904 (a small increase compared to the one received by Mr. Flint in

the same time period). Ms. Spilman’s salary as second assistant librarian went from $720 to $900

during those years, a larger increase compared to Ms. Gibson’s, yet still small compared to Mr.

Flint’s. These three made up the first paid staff members of the DC public library system. Yet

even with a board and staff in place, it would be another two years before the public library

received funding from Congress and could open a temporary location.17 It would be another year

11 Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 14.12 Ibid., 13-14.13 First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 4.14 “New York State Library School Association,” Library Journal 28 (August 1903), 62415 “Members,” Bulletin of the American Library Association 1, no. 5 (September 1907), 57.16 Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 26.17 Alison K. Hoagland, “Establishment of the Library,” Written Historical and Descriptive Data, Historic American Buildings Survey HABS No. DC-457 (Washington, DC: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, c.1988), 8, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/dc0497/.

5

after that before a building design would even be chosen for its first permanent location, the

Central Public Library in Mount Vernon Square.

Before the Central Public Library was constructed, the newly-established DC public

library took over the Washington City Free Library quarters across from Lafayette Square, where

they remained until December 1898. They then moved into their next temporary quarters, located

at 1326 New York Avenue NW, while they waited for funding and Congressional approval of a

site for a permanent location.18 One more stipulation by the act of Congress that allowed for the

creation of the free public library was that the building would be able to hold 100,000 volumes.19

This was no easy task, as buildings already constructed and under consideration for the

permanent site were not necessarily created with such a large collection in mind.

But Congress and the numerous supporters of the public library did not have to worry for

too long. This question of a permanent location for the library was answered on January 12,

1899, when, as reported in Noyes’ Evening Star, Andrew Carnegie was rumored to have heard a

conversation that piqued his philanthropic interest: “[Carnegie] was at the White House today…

waiting to see the President, when he met Mr. Warner [vice president of the library’s board], and

Mr. Warner told him of the need of a library building in Washington. Mr. Carnegie offered at

once to erect the building at the cost of at least $250,000 if Congress would provide the site”

(“For Public Library,” Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), January 12, 1899). This initial

$250,000 would eventually increase to a total of $350,000, Carnegie’s largest financial

contribution to a single building in his long history of donating funds for the establishment of

libraries.20 There were conditions to accepting Carnegie’s generous gift, though. Carnegie

expected Congress to furnish the site as well as provide for its maintenance; his funds were only

18 Hoagland, “The Carnegie Library,” 77.19 Chapter 315, 54th Cong., 245.20 Hoagland, “The Carnegie Library,” 78.

6

to be used for construction, while “books, librarians’ salaries, and maintenance were the

responsibility of the locality. This ensured the public investment that Carnegie felt was necessary

to make his libraries successful.”21 While Carnegie had no interest in being a part of the site

selection, he made sure that his donation was only used for the physical building itself, ensuring

that the community, who would be taxed for its support, really wanted a public library and would

be willing to pay for it through taxation. Thus, with Carnegie providing the funding for the

building, Congress was left to agree upon the actual design of the library’s architectural

structure, and more importantly, to a suitable site for the capital city’s first free public library.

The site that Congress and the library board finally agreed upon was located at Mount

Vernon Square. But this site was not simply chosen at random, even though it was agreed upon

exactly one week after Carnegie promised his funding of the building. This space had been

designated as reserved public space by Charles L’Enfant in his 1791 plan, even though the city

never committed to using it as such. And therein was the problem. Advocates for a site on

Pennsylvania Avenue and 7th Street NW, where the present-day National Archives building

stands, did not want to lose what they thought of as historically-protected public space. Those

against the Pennsylvania Avenue site declared it to be too low, and thus susceptible to flooding

—not a very good choice for the site of a public library (or the nation’s archive, for that matter!).

One such Pennsylvania Avenue advocate was long-time library supporter and president of the

board, Theodore Noyes, who again turned to his Evening Star to support his favored site, or at

least not lose a protected public one:

Some who have denounced Pennsylvania avenue as a bog on lines of reasoning which would logically lead to its abandonment for public and private purposes have proposed as an alternative to surrender for this public building use some one or any one of the public parks, a proposal involving complete ignorance of the park policy which has made Washington so attractive, and, as a residence city, so prosperous, and absolute

21 Ibid.

7

recklessness of the city’s permanent welfare (“A Market Site for the Library,” Evening Star, January 18, 1899).

The residents were very protective of their city’s aesthetic appeal, and did not want a building to

interfere with the straight lines of sight built into L’Enfant’s original plan for the city. So, with

the Pennsylvania Avenue site declared unsuitable for the library, site seekers turned to finding a

way to claim Mount Vernon Square as an ideal spot. Luckily, it could not truly be declared a

protected public space, as there used to be a market located at the same location before it was

demolished in 1872.22 Because it had been used for something other than a public space, it could

be argued that it was not protected and could thus be developed. With this knowledge in hand,

and the successful convincing of the site selection committee that this was truly an advantageous

location, Congress and those involved in the decision agreed that it would beautify the space,

thus beautifying the city. During the third session of the 55th Congress, held on February 8, 1899,

Mr. Mercer reported:

[The site] seems to be the most suitable public ground available for library purposes. Mount Vernon Square, although used for some time past as a public park or reservation, seems to be free from the rule to which Congress has heretofore adhered, that public parks shall be exempt from occupancy by the erection of buildings. Your committee [the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds] have visited this site personally and are of the opinion that such a library building as is contemplated to be located in the center of this square would improve the appearance of the same.23

With the question of whether Mount Vernon Square was a public park or not finally answered,

the DC public library had a site for their permanent building at last. They could now turn to the

building design competition which Congress had mandated for the use of Carnegie’s donation.

This was not the first time a design competition was called for the building of a public

service facility. The Tarsney Act, passed in 1893, authorized the Supervising Architect of the

22 Kimberly Prothro Williams, “Mount Vernon Triangle,” (Washington, DC: DC Historic Preservation Office), 6, http://www.mountvernontriangle.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MVT%20History%20Bro.pdf23 Congressional Record: The Proceedings and Debates of the Fifty-Fifth Congress, Third Session, Volume XXXII (Washington, DC: Government Printing Press, 1899), 1614.

8

Treasury to allow architects to compete for the commission, instead of just hiring a local

architectural firm.24 While it was eventually repealed in 1913, it was used as a way for Congress

and the library’s board to send out a call for design submissions by specific architects working in

the nation. Carnegie was also looking forward to the results of the design competition. In a letter

written to show approval of the passage of Congress’ bill regarding the site, he wrote, “I always

ask for competitive plans and give prizes for second and third. The first gets the work. The first

consideration is suitability for library operations… I hope the best building for a library will be

selected.”25 But this did not mean Carnegie wanted to be highly involved in the process. He

continues: “Of course I shall be glad to advise with you and your committee upon selection of

plan if requested, but please understand the whole responsibility remains with yourselves. My

province is to provide funds—a very great privilege; to your committee we look to do the work.”

It was up to the specially appointed committee to choose the winner from the submitted entries,

while Carnegie supplied the capital to do so.

The design competition was highly regulated. Specific room measurements and uses were

laid out for the competitors, as well as suggestions for materials and the specification that “all

public, office, and clerical rooms, including book stack, should receive as much daylight as

possible.”26 Ten firms were invited to submit their designs to the committee, with the

understanding that other firms could also compete. The firm that finally won the design

competition, out of twenty-four architectural firms that submitted plans, was Ackerman & Ross

24 Chapter 146, 52nd Cong., 2nd sess, in The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 1891, to March, 1893, and Recent Treaties, Conventions, and Executive Proclamations (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1893), 468-469, http://www.loc.gov/law//help/statutes-at-large/52nd-congress.php.25 “Washington (D.C.) P.L.,” Library Journal 24 (April 1899): 173.26 Second Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and First Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1899 (Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1899), 8.

9

of New York, a firm not invited as one of the ten.27 Their design included everything the

committee was looking for, as seen in their submitted schematics (figs. 1-3). They even managed

to allow plenty of natural light into the stacks (normally a difficult task) through the “unusual,

vertical slot-like lighting in the rear of the building” (fig. 4).28 What was even more interesting

about their design was that it was in the new Beaux-Arts style, a style not yet seen in the nation’s

capital, making the soon-to-be-erected Central Public Library the first Beaux-Arts building in

Washington, DC.

William S. Ackerman and Albert Randolph Ross brought different backgrounds to their

architectural partnership. Ackerman, trained as a mechanical engineer, was supported by Ross,

who studied at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris and had worked with the prestigious American

architectural firm, McKim, Mead, & White. The Beaux-Arts style was popularized in America

by the successful Chicago World’s Fair in 1893, in which the “White City” of the exhibition

(designed by Charles McKim) hearkened back to a classical age, albeit with 19th-century

elaborate decoration. This Beaux-Arts style appealed to the civic designers of the time; “an era of

city planning, civic centers, and a ‘city beautiful’ movement followed the closing of the fair,”

aided by the use of the Beaux-Arts style in buildings.29 This architectural style was considered

perfect for the nation’s capital; not only did it allude to the classical past from which democracy

and certain American ideals stemmed, it provided for beautiful buildings that would enhance the

city’s overall appreciation for visitors from home and abroad. This was very much in keeping

with Carnegie’s wish for a suitable library building, and a reason why he was willing to donate a

total of $350,000 for its completion. And this grand building would also be the highlight of

27 Ibid., 10.28 Hoagland, “The Carnegie Library,” 87.29 Donald Ervin Oehlerts, “The Development of American Public Library Architecture from 1850 to 1940,” (doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1975), 73-74, ProQuest (Order No. 7517029).

10

Ackerman & Ross’s partnership.30 Though they would receive three more commissions for

libraries, their partnership dissolved in 1902, before the Central Public Library even opened.

The Central Public Library is a wonderful example of the Beaux-Arts style, as designed

by Ackerman & Ross. Since “it was designed to be a monument, respecting its position in the

Nation’s Capital, as much as a library,” the exterior of the building shows the extravagance and

classicism inherent in the chosen architectural style.31 While it was not specified as the only

material allowed, white Vermont marble was used for the exterior of the building. Worried about

having to switch to the economically-viable black slate for roof material, Building

Superintendent Bernard Green was thankful to be able to find green slate—the material in the

original plan—at a reduced cost, thus allowing for the original material to be used in the finished

building. Exterior decorations include heads of Minerva, Ionic columns, swags, garlands,

medallions, pediments, and plaques.32 The words, “Science,” “Poetry,” and “History” adorn the

frieze above the three arches of the main façade, along with plaques that read “This building a

gift of Andrew Carnegie,” “Washington Public Library,” and “Dedicated to the diffusion of

knowledge” (fig. 5). Statues of nude male figures can be seen between each plaque, holding

blank tablets. These decorations are predominantly on the central block of the building; the

wings and the exterior façade of the building are plainer, yet still feature carved decorations

above windows and doors and underneath eaves. And the beauty of the building did not lie solely

in its carved decorations; it was also considered well-proportioned to Mount Vernon Square

itself: “The library building is designed to be in the centre of the square, east and west, but will

stand much nearer to the north than the south line, in order that a worthy approach may be

secured for the long south front, and that the architectural attractiveness of the front may be

30 Hoagland, “Establishment of the Library,” 2.31 Ibid., 9.32 Ibid., 17.

11

enhanced.”33 By placing it off-center in the square, the building would draw attention to its

Beaux-Arts façade while also mollifying those who still considered the square a protected public

park. Plenty of space was left in Mount Vernon Square for pedestrians to enjoy a stroll outside of

the beautiful library building.

The interior of the Central Public Library was not as ornate as the exterior. Due to the

rising cost of materials, certain features of Ackerman & Ross’s design plan had to be reduced in

order to stay within the (already-increased) Carnegie budget. The Third Annual Report of the

Board of Trustees opened with the following acknowledgment:

During the past year the work of modifying the accepted design of the new public library building so that the structure might be built for the money available for that purpose without substantial alteration of its lines, and without sacrifice of either working usefulness or artistic attractiveness, has occupied much time and required much anxious consideration on the part of the architects, superintendent of construction, and the library commission.34

Most of these reductions were taken from the inside of the building, reserving the lavishness of

the exterior decorations for the public. Yet it was still in keeping with the extravagant Beaux-

Arts style. Pilasters and moldings adorned most walls and ceilings, while columns divided many

of the larger rooms (fig. 6). In the delivery room, where patrons would pick up their requested

books, the cornice around the walls read “Plato,” “Homer,” “Galileo,” “Bacon,” “Shakespeare,”

and “Newton,” famous thinkers and writers who would inspire the educational goals of all who

entered the library’s inner sanctum. This room was designed to have the most decoration in the

entire building; behind the delivery desk, there is a clock surrounded by two boys carrying

festoons and garlands. Another plaque can be seen, on which is inscribed:

DONOR

33 “The Washington, D.C., Public Library Building,” Library Journal 24, no. 12 (December 1899), 676.34 Third Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Second Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1900 (Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1900), 7.

12

ANDREW CARNEGIE

BUILDING COMMISSIONJOHN W. ROSS HENRY B. MACFARLANDJOHN BIDDLE THEODORE A. BINGHAM

THEODORE W. NOYES

ACKERMAN AND ROSSARCHITECTS

BERNARD R. GREENSUPERINTENDENT OF CONSTRUCTION

RICHARDSON AND BURGESSCONTRACTORS

This plaque, visible from the main stairway’s landing, emphasized those involved in the

construction of this beautiful building.

In terms of decoration, though, the delivery room was the most extravagant of all the

interior rooms seen by the public, and even then, it was not as ornate as originally intended.

Instead of lavish materials being used to ornament the interior, a painting scheme was provided,

although even the final product was not as colorful as originally intended and used muted

colors.35 Other materials that were originally intended for the interior were also cut out of the

final construction, although it is interesting to read what was in the original design scheme

contrived by Ackerman & Ross:

All bronze work and all mosaic floors, except borders in the general delivery room and exhibition hall, have been omitted. White marble is retained for the stairways, but all other interior marble finish is omitted. The original elaborate stucco enrichments of ceilings, vaults, and cornices are generally omitted, but fine moldings and good forms are retained. The door and wainscot trims of the general delivery room will be in cement instead of marble. Metal sashes and bronze doors are altered to oak. All oak and parquetry flooring is changed to plain, hard, Southern pine. No change has been made in the original design of the heating and ventilating apparatus and electric lighting. Polished plate glass is retained for all windows.36

35 Hoagland, “Establishment of the Library,” 20.36 Third Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 10.

13

What a sight this would have been, had all of the original materials been retained! But expensive

materials were not necessary for enriching the mind of the library’s patrons. Expensive metal and

oak were switched out for cheaper materials, while greater ornamentation was reduced to the

plainer work seen in photographs taken soon after its opening (fig. 7). Thus, while Beaux-Arts

ornamentation was retained on the exterior of the building and within certain aspects of the

interior, the Central Public Library was more impressive on the outside than it was on the inside.

Thankfully, this did not prevent the residents of and visitors to Washington, DC, from making

use of the facility once it was opened to the public on January 7, 1903.

When the doors to the library opened, the crowds were joined by both President

Theodore Roosevelt and Andrew Carnegie. While Carnegie, who preferred to stay out of the

limelight of his philanthropic triumphs, at first refused to attend the event, which was originally

scheduled for December 16, 1902, the library’s board rescheduled it to the January date, making

it impossible for him to refuse.37 Noyes, as president, spoke of Carnegie’s generous gift, and how

it would hopefully lead others to financially contribute to the propagation of the library and any

future branches. In response, Carnegie approached him afterwards, saying, “I protest… against

an invitation to anyone to poach upon my preserves. I have given this library to Washington, and

whenever branches are to be established I shall insist upon the privilege of supplying the funds.

The giving of public libraries to the District of Columbia is my province, and you are to let me

know when to provide them.”38 Thus, Carnegie did not restrict himself to contributing one library

building to the District of Columbia; because of his generous spirit, and providential proximity to

requests for money, Carnegie donated an additional $367,000 for three branch libraries at

37 Hoagland, “Establishment of the Library,” 9-10.38 Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Fourth Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1903 (Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1903), 12.

14

Takoma Park (1911), Southeast (1922), and Mount Pleasant (1925).39 But it was this first library,

the Central Public Library, which would inform future building commissions as to what services

and facilities would be needed in DC’s public library buildings.

The library’s services and clientele can be identified through the names of the rooms

within the building. Of the thirty-six rooms described in the Fifth Annual Report of the Board of

Trustees, 18 were dedicated to public space, 11 were dedicated to administration and staff, and 7

were dedicated to facilities management.40 The administrative rooms were made up of the

librarian’s office, trustees’ room, a closed book stack, and lunchroom, complete with kitchen and

pantry (fig. 8). There were also rooms dedicated to the acquisition and preservation of the books:

a packing room, receiving rooms, bindery, accessions room, catalog room, and a repair

department (figs. 9 and 10). The closed book stack, located on the north wall of the main central

wing, had seven-foot shelving units with five shelves each, and was made of steel and iron.41 It

could hold a total of 264,500 books, and would be utilized by delivery desk attendants paging

books for individual patrons (fig. 11). The seven rooms reserved for facilities management

included the boiler room, storerooms, janitor’s room, house cleaner’s room, scrub women’s

room, engine rooms, and the stock rooms. But it is in the rooms designated as public space that

really show the efforts on the part of the DC public library to educate and work with those who

spent time in Washington, DC.

The 18 public rooms are prime examples of ways in which the library sought to serve as

an educational extension of the city. Fourteen of the public rooms were not reading rooms. They

included the entrance, reception hall, general delivery hall, reception room, public catalog room,

memorial or exhibition hall, four private study rooms, a lecture or classroom, lavatories, a

39 “Mission and History,” DC Public Library, accessed May 2, 2017, http://www.dclibrary.org/about/mission.40 Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 8.41 Third Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 10.

15

bicycle room, and an open-shelf room (figs. 12 and 13). This open-shelf room was a relatively

new concept for library buildings, allowing patrons to peruse certain collections of books for

themselves without having to rely on a librarian retrieving it from the closed stack. In 1893, John

Thomson of the Free Library of Philadelphia wrote, “Hardly a librarian who has adopted open

shelves would entertain the idea of returning to old-fashioned methods, now that he and the

public whom he serves have found the advantages of free access by readers to the books they

wish to consult.”42 With this system, readers could search a cataloged shelf of books and see if

there were other items on similar topics that appeals to them. This open-shelf system also

allowed the Central Public Library to accomplish the mission it was given by Congress, to be “a

supplement of the public educational system,” by giving all readers the opportunity to see what

was on the shelves of their library.43 It also increased the amount of shelving by 50,000 to 75,000

volumes, depending on whether or not the movable partitions that separated it from the

temporary children’s reading room on the main floor were in place.44 Aside from the open-shelf

room, the lecture room, the four private study rooms, and the exhibition room also showcased the

library’s desire to serve as a public gathering place used for the edification of the mind.

The library’s dedication to the promotion of education and access to materials was also

apparent in its four reading rooms. Those four rooms included the general public reading room,

the periodicals and newspaper reading room, and two children’s reading rooms, one in the

basement and designated for that purpose and one sharing space with the open-shelf room, as

mentioned above (figs. 14 and 15). Children had been encouraged to make use of the library

even before there was a free public library. The Washington City Free Library allowed children

to check out books; De Caindry relates, “… any person over fourteen years of age living in the

42 John Thomson, “Report on Open Shelves,” Library Journal 23, no. 8 (August 1898), 40.43 Chapter 315, 54th Cong., 244.44 “The Washington, D.C., Public Library Building,” 676.

16

District will have free access to all the books. Children under fourteen will have to present a

permit from their parents to draw books, and then the parents will be held responsible for their

return.”45 While it was not the same sort of access granted to older adolescents and adults, the

Washington City Free Library still encouraged children to make use of their collection, knowing

that children benefitted greatly from the use of a lending library. The Central Public Library

continued the tradition of catering to the younger clientele. In the outfitting of the new building,

an order was placed for 200 children’s chairs and 6 children’s reading tables, specially-sized

furniture for smaller readers in “the most important branch of the public library’s exclusive

work.”46 And when the library opened, the children’s reading room had “a library of over 5,000

books for children…, with a specially trained children’s librarian in charge.”47 While the

children’s librarian was not named in the annual reports of the public library’s board of trustees,

this person was kept extremely busy, as the children’s reading rooms were very popular as soon

as the library opened.

What about the other residents and visitors in Washington, DC, who did not view the

Library of Congress as their most accessible option? The Central Public Library was not just for

the use of children and teachers (although aiding education was emphasized as its most important

task); it was open to everyone from its very inception:

The library is, then, a true university, both for the graduates of the public schools and for the whole people, without regard to class, or sex, or age, or wealth, or previous condition of servitude to ignorance. The people eagerly avail themselves of the educational opportunities offered by the public library. It raises the whole community to a higher intellectual plane. It is also not without its beneficent influence as a moral agent.48

45 De Caindry, “The Washington City Free Library,” 74.46 Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 8-9.47 Ibid., 28.48 First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 7.

17

Children were not the only ones who could benefit, both morally and intellectually, from using

the public library. The library was seen as an equalizer, a way for men and women to educate

themselves and thus improve their place in society. This was recognized by those who were

financially capable of creating such institutions. In his speech during the building’s grand

opening, Carnegie waxed poetic about libraries when he stated, “Even he who honours us to-day

by his august presence [Theodore Roosevelt], the holder of the highest position upon earth, the

elected of the majority of the English-speaking race, a position compared with which all

inherited positions sink into insignificance—even he within these walls has no privilege which is

not the right of his poorest and humblest fellow citizen.”49 With such a statement, it is no wonder

that, from what can be gleaned from reports, newspaper clippings, and other contemporary

sources, everyone had access to the library’s resources.

Even the transient nature of those visiting and working in the nation’s capital city was

taken into account, for there were people employed in the cataloging and delivery departments

who could speak other languages within one year of the new building’s opening. “In a city like

Washington there are many temporary foreign residents who draw books, and it has been found

almost indispensable at the delivery desk to have assistants who are not only familiar with

French, German, and Spanish, but who can converse with the readers in these languages.”50

Visiting foreign government officials would be able to use the public library’s services during

their stay in Washington because the library had prepared for its likely clientele.

Finally, the Central Public Library allowed minorities, though other key facilities of the

city were segregated. In the Historical Society’s oral history project, Growing Up in Washington,

D.C., it is noted that “the Smithsonian Museums, the National Zoo, Griffith Stadium, the Central

49 The Ceremonies Attending the Opening of the Washington, D.C., Public Library Building (New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1903), 25.50 Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, 26.

18

Public Library, and Rock Creek Park were notable exceptions in segregated Washington.”51 The

Central Public Library truly was an institution devoted to education for all residents of the

nation’s capital. While photographic evidence from the early years does not support this, the

speech made by Commissioner Henry B.F. Macfarland at the opening ceremony alludes to the

idea that minorities were welcome at the library:

The library will not only be central to all sections of the District, but near to some of the most important institutions of the public school system: with which we desire to integrate it. The Central High School, the Business High School, the McKinley Manual Training School for white pupils, the General Armstrong Manual Training School for coloured pupils, will all be its neighbours. As a part of our educational equipment, rather than as an adjunct to it, we look to the library for invaluable service in the development of the youth of the District.52

His statement clearly shows the public library’s commitment to education, but it does not only

take into consideration “white pupils.” In his sweeping statement, he included white and black

students together as “the youth of the District.” And this also extended to the employees. Mr.

Thomas Hungerford, a janitor at the Central Public Library, is alluded to in a reference to the

Colored Social Settlement library station in 1906: “Those who are interested in this work for

social betterment of the negro are extremely grateful for the added strength which the library

station has given it and for the kindly cooperation of the main library, from which one of the

young colored employees has come each week with devoted volunteer service.”53 While he

worked in the facilities management portion of the library, and not as library staff, he was able to

spend his volunteer hours in this more scholarly capacity. While it is unknown what happened to

Thomas Hungerford, his efforts on the part of the library were lauded and appreciated by those 51 Jill Connors, ed., Growing Up in Washington, D.C.: An Oral History (Washington, D.C.: Historical Society of Washington, D.C., 2001), 12.52 The Ceremonies Attending the Opening of the Washington, D.C., Public Library Building, 11.53 Tenth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Ninth Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1907 (Washington, D.C.: [Government Printing Office], 1907), 20; Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Eighth Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1906 (Washington, D.C.: [Government Printing Office], 1906), 43.

19

with whom he helped. So, from residents to visitors, from citizens to foreigners, and from white

to black, the Central Public Library opened its doors to all who sought knowledge from its

collection.

The Central Public Library, Washington, DC’s first public library structure, was born out

of a tremendous effort on the part of many people. The persistent efforts of Theodore W. Noyes

and Brigadier General A.W. Greely, along with other financial and political supporters, pushed

the formation of the library through Congress. Even though the Library of Congress was

believed by some to be sufficient for the needs of the city, Noyes, Greely, and others persisted in

maintaining and showing that this was not so, and that the residents of the capital would benefit

from a free public library. With the philanthropic aid of Andrew Carnegie, William S. Ackerman

and Albert Randolph Ross were able to design a building that reflected both the political and

“city beautiful” ideals that prevailed during the turn of the twentieth century. And it truly was a

beautiful building, taking into account shelving, public access, administrative spaces, and even a

bicycle entrance! Even though it took six and a half years to get from Congress approving a free

public library to opening the doors of the permanent location of that library, the Central Public

Library was an improvement on the cramped conditions provided by the temporary locations

which the free public library first enjoyed. Patrons of all ages, races, and nationalities could find

space to seek knowledge and improve their minds; children were allowed plenty of room (two, in

fact!) to peruse educational materials and books written for their enlightenment. Thus, while the

public library would soon outgrow the shelving space of the Beaux-Arts building and expand

into multiple branches before moving location in 1972, the Central Public Library proved to

Congress that the people of DC truly would benefit from the educational opportunities provided

by a free public library.

20

21

Figures

Figure 1. Plan of Basement. Second Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and First Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1899 (Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1899), 9.

Figure 2. Plan of First Floor. Second Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and First Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1899 (Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1899), 12.

22

Figure 3. Plan of Second Floor. Second Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and First Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1899 (Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1899), 13.

Figure 4. Library Building—North View. Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Fourth Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1902 (Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1902), 17.

23

Figure 5. Central Library, District of Columbia Public Library, c.1915-1930. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/170/rec/14.

Figure 6. Delivery room, Central Library, District of Columbia Public Library, c.1905-1906. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/193.

24

Figure 7. Reading and Reference Room, Central Library, District of Columbia Public Library, 1905. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/167.

25

Figure 8. Librarian’s Office, Central Library, District of Columbia Public Library, 1908. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/168.

Figure 9. Bindery Department, Central Library, District of Columbia Public Library, 1905. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/162.

26

Figure 10. Cataloguer’s room, main floor, Central Library, District of Columbia Public Library, c.1905-1906. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/191.

Figure 11. Stack Room. Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Fourth Annual Report of the Librarian of the Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1902 (Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1902), 21.

27

Figure 12. Exhibition room, second floor, Central Library, District of Columbia Public Library, 1906. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/189.

28

Figure 13. Lecture hall, second floor, Central Library, District of Columbia Public Library, c.1905-1906. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/192.

Figure 14. Children’s Room, Central Library, District of Columbia Public Library, after 1902. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/186.

29

Figure 15. Children’s room, main floor, Central Library, District of Columbia, c.1905-1906. Courtesy DC Public Library, Washingtoniana Division. http://digdc.dclibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16808coll11/id/190.

30

References

The Ceremonies Attending the Opening of the Washington, D.C., Public Library Building. New

York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1903.

Congressional Record: The Proceedings and Debates of the Fifty-Fifth Congress, Third Session,

Volume XXXII. Washington, DC: Government Printing Press, 1899.

Connors, Jill, ed. Growing Up in Washington, D.C.: An Oral History. Washington, D.C.:

Historical Society of Washington, D.C., 2001.

DC Public Library. “Mission and History.” Accessed May 2, 2017.

http://www.dclibrary.org/about/mission.

De Caindry, William A. “The Washington City Free Library.” Records of the Columbia

Historical Society, Washington, DC 16 (1913): 64-95.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40066885.

Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Fourth Annual Report of the Librarian of the

Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1903.

Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1903.

First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Public Library of the District of Columbia

for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1898. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,

1898.

Hoagland, Alison K. “The Carnegie Library: The City Beautiful Comes to Mt. Vernon Square.”

Washington History 2, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 1990/1991): 74-89.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40073023.

31

—. Historic American Buildings Survey HABS No. DC-457. Washington, DC: National Park

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, c.1988.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/dc0497/.

“Members.” Bulletin of the American Library Association 1, no. 5 (September 1907): 26-64.

“News from the Field.” Public Libraries (Chicago) 3, no. 10 (December 1898): 430-433.

“New York State Library School Association.” Library Journal 28 (August 1903): 624.

Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Eighth Annual Report of the Librarian of the

Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1906.

Washington, D.C.: [Government Printing Office], 1906.

Oehlerts, Donald Ervin. “The Development of American Public Library Architecture from 1850

to 1940.” PhD diss., Indiana University, 1975. ProQuest (Order No. 7517029).

Second Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and First Annual Report of the Librarian of the

Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1899.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1899.

Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Sixth Annual Report of the Librarian of the

Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1904.

Washington, D.C.: [Government Printing Office], 1904.

The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 1891, to March, 1893,

and Recent Treaties, Conventions, and Executive Proclamations. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, 1893. http://www.loc.gov/law//help/statutes-at-large/52nd-

congress.php.

The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 1895, to March, 1897,

and Recent Treaties, Conventions, and Executive Proclamations, with An Appendix

32

Containing the Concurrent Resolutions of the Two Houses of Congress. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, 1897. http://www.loc.gov/law//help/statutes-at-large/54th-

congress.php.

Tenth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Ninth Annual Report of the Librarian of the

Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1907.

Washington, D.C.: [Government Printing Office], 1907.

Third Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and Second Annual Report of the Librarian of the

Public Library [of the] District of Columbia for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1900.

Washington, DC: [Government Printing Office], 1900.

Thomson, John. “Report on Open Shelves.” Library Journal 23, no. 8 (August 1898): 40-42.

“Washington (D.C.) P.L.” Library Journal 24 (April 1899): 173.

“The Washington, D.C., Public Library Building.” Library Journal 24, no. 12 (December 1899):

676-677.

Williams, Kimberly Prothro. “Mount Vernon Triangle.” Washington, DC: DC Historic

Preservation Office,

http://www.mountvernontriangle.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MVT%20History

%20Bro.pdf.

33