Series: AAA and NRA Microfilms, no. 2 of 3

The First Microfilm Publication Project (Part 2)

Robert C. Binkley

The Recordak microfilm reader, displayed at the AHA conference in Washington D.C. in December 1934.

In the first post of this series we saw how the project to microfilm the NRA and AAA materials came about in the summer of 1934. In this part, we’ll follow the actual microfilming that autumn. At this point Schellenberg was in Washington, and his first task was to secure permission to make the films and access to the materials within the offices of the agencies who held them, with enough space to set up a Recordak camera (the size of a small desk).

Contents

The AAA Materials

Schellenberg approached the AAA first, and was given permission to film their materials. Since the records were so bulky, space had to be found in the AAA office for the Recordak and its operator. Schellenberg was unimpressed by the accuracy and efficiency of the hired secretary, and put in many hours of his own time feeding pages into the camera, often late into the evening. He wrote to McCarter: “If the filming of these hearings were left to the ordinary run of secretarial help, it would take all winter.”1 A few days later, when the pattern of the work had been established, he reported to Binkley:

I have been doing most of the actual work in filming the hearings, working an average of nine hours a day. I am certain that I can accomplish at least twice as much as one untrained in handling paper, because of my press-feeding experience.2

(This is presumably a reference to his experience in the printing shop of his father, who was the publisher and business manager of the Mennonite Brethren Publishing House.)3 In another letter he mentions having copied 14,000 pages between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m., which works out to about 2.3 seconds per page, if we assume there were nine working hours.4 When the AAA phase was complete he reported that it comprised 136,000 pages, mostly onionskin but also including bound pamphlets and other materials that were difficult to handle, and the whole process had taken 12 days (i.e. 11,333 pages per day).5 It used 5200 feet of film.6 He doesn’t say how the bound materials were handled, but since the Recordak could only accept single sheets, and there is no mention of other cameras being used, he must have removed staples and otherwise reduced the materials to single sheets. Double-sided sheets would have to be passed through twice, being retrieved from the bin after the first pass, which would reduce the through-put.

The NRA Materials

Gaining access to the NRA materials was more difficult, since they included submissions to the hearings which were meant to be confidential. When the hearings began there was no plan to publish their papers; that changed in September 1933 in response to public pressure. At the time he was pursuing the NRA materials Schellenberg was encouraged by A.F. Kuhlman at University of Chicago (who had kicked off the libraries’ interest in the codes with his ALA memo in January, 1933 - see part 1) to expect a change of personnel at the top of the NRA, and thereafter a friendlier reception. He argued that the materials submitted outside the hearings proper (which would include the confidential materials) was the most important, “because they really reflect the attitude of the special interest groups that are involved in the codes”. On these materials he had advice:

I should like to make a suggestion. I would not press for authorization to reproduce that portion of the material at this time. Mr. Viner as well as some of our other representatives who are now in Washington have told me confidentially that within a very short time there will be no difficulty in getting authorization to use the transcript not merely of the Hearings of the N.R.A. but all of the other material that is supposed to be more or less confidential. I think that within the next ten days the situation with reference to personnel* in Washington will have changed to such an extent bearing directly upon the question of authorization to produce in film form the material that you want so that there will be no further problem. As soon as the point clears up that I have in mind, I will drop you a line so that you can take up the matter at that time. It would be much easier to get authorization through the new personnel especially if you had not been turned down by the present authorities.

* You may get your further authorization from highly sympathetic persons. [added by hand]7

A week later he explained (confidentially) that he expected University of Chicago’s young president Robert Maynard Hutchins (a year younger than Binkley, four years older than Schellenberg) to be appointed to head the National Recovery Board. Kuhlman had discussed Schellenberg’s plans with Hutchins, who wanted to be kept informed. Kuhlman appears to have been unaware that such a rumour had appeared in the New York Times two weeks earlier, attributed to a source close to Roosevelt. According to the Times Hutchins would lead the National Labor Relations Board, or even that an important new position in the NRA would be created for him.8 Schellenberg had heard or read about it, and was dubious; he explained that the culture in the NRA was such that a change at the top might not be sufficient:

I have learned definitively through a subordinate in the National Recovery Administration that these materials are regarded as strictly confidential, that the hearings alone, which contain all the public documents and data submitted in support of testimony, can be made available without exposing the NRA to litigation. … I understand the appointment of President Hutchins has been pending for some time. His appointment, indeed, would be a most fortunate turn of events for the interests of scholarship, but personally I believe he would be boarding a floundering ship, hopelessly wrecked by the incompetence of his predecessors.9

Whether Hutchins might have made a difference is moot, since he was never appointed to an NRA office. As Schellenberg expected, the confidential materials were never filmed.

The procedure of filming was also in question: it appears that Schellenberg wanted to follow the model he had developed for the AAA materials and do the filming entirely by himself, but Binkley intervened to require him to use workers from the relief rolls, so that the project would provide data on the costs and benefits of using relief labour (see below). Schellenberg warned Binkley that even under this plan he would have to spend time in the office with the Recordak operators to make sure the work was done properly:

I intend to do a certain amount of the physical work in connection with filming them myself, regardless of your previous admonitions, for I am certain it is advisable that I be in the office where the work is done until things are well under way.10

Permission to film the NRA materials arrived on Oct. 15, with the work to start a week later.11 Schellenberg was obliged to respect the office hours of the Dept. of Commerce (9:00 to 4:30) and could not work in the evenings as he done with the AAA papers, so he arranged to bring in a second Recordak, which the company supplied with no charge. The materials were in disorder; it was necessary for Schellenberg to assign arbitrary numbers to the dossiers to track them during the filming, and compile “a topical and serial guide as for the AAA materials” from the film when the copying was done.12

It is interesting to see what became standard microfilming practices described as new ideas:

At the beginning of each film volume I am going to splice on the film number in very large letters, so that even with the naked eye it will be possible to tell what volume is being handled. This will require but little work, and will be a great convenience to the users.13

The filming of the NRA hearings was finished on 6 November. Schellenberg was still negotiating for access to the confidential materials at that point,14 but it appears they were never made available, for a few weeks later he wrote to Tate, that the AAA films “contain a body of data that we were unable to get for the N.R.A. hearings”.15

Schellenberg found the whole process very trying. He summarized the sources of frustration comprehensively in a letter to Kuhlman when the filming was complete:

The people in the NRA … were military people, insisting upon the observance of petty regulations and routine characteristic of their ilk. It was necessary to carry the material all over the labyrinthine commerce building, to watch closely that material was not withheld from us, to submit to the surveillance of suspicious minds, having a thorough contempt for the civilian and an equally thorough lack of appreciation for the scholarly value of the materials under their custody. Further, the assistants in the work of filming had to be instructed in the most painstaking detail, and when their work was finished, it became apparently that through the most egregious carelessness pages had been fed in double, which will involve great labor in the checking, refilming, and correcting of the films. Further than that, I have been subjected to criticism for incurring unauthorized expenditures, though these expenditures will be amortized by library orders. When I did the work on the AAA materials myself, I was told to keep my nose out of the Recordak; and when I employed others to do the work on the NRA, I found the most annoying carelessness. Trust me, therefore, when I assure you that I appreciate your friendly interest.16

Technical Note

While Schellenberg was working to arrange the copying of the NRA materials, Recordak staff evaluated the AAA film and improved their process. Since the NRA materials were mostly hectographed with purple ink (in contrast to the carbon copies of the AAA materials), Recordak added lens filters to improve the contrast. They also “whitened” the cork drum that moved the paper under the camera, i.e. (I think) they dusted it with fine chalk powder (whitening) to prevent the paper from catching and wrinkling; it was later found that too much whitening tended to make the pages slip as they were photographed. The whitening probably also improved the contrast, especially for onionskin paper.17

The organization of the films was completed by Schellenberg in Cleveland in the new year, 1935. He found that some of the NRA materials had been “lost through splicing”18 by Recordak’s New York staff during the organization of the films. Rather than return to the Dept. of Commerce to refilm them, he asked his new friend Vernon D. Tate at the Library of Congress to buy copies from the official reporters and take them to the Recordak office in Washington to be filmed. Schellenberg devoted a good deal of attention to the details of compiling a complete set.

Meanwhile the financial outlook of the JCMR had worsened over the autumn. Schellenberg feared for his position and looked for new opportunities. In March he accepted a temporary position at the National Park Service, doing historical research; but he had his eye on the new National Archives for a permanent position. In Cleveland he drummed up the necessary political support for a federal job, including letters from local Democratic politicians. Binkley helped him to a letter from Senator Bulkley. Vernon Tate, who was also hoping for a position at the Archives, collected the necessary forms for him in Washington. Schellenberg moved his family to Washington when he started the NPS job, and arranged to continue his work for the JCMR as a volunteer.

When the NRA films were complete Schellenberg and Recordak decided that they were not usable.19 In May Schellenberg announced to Binkley that he had been refilming the NRA materials for the previous two weeks, on his own time, with Recordak absorbing the costs. Permission had been sought by Schellenberg and Boeing, and they were now copying “the duplicate copies wherever possible”, in the order of the index Schellenberg had made. (By “duplicate copies” perhaps he means the carbon copies made when the materials were typed rather than the hektograph copies distributed by the reporters, bringing the NRA films in line with the AAA ones.) Recordak made another technical improvement: voltmeters were attached to the machines, to make the exposure consistent (by adjusting the brightness of the illumination according to the state of the document). The department also loosened the rules on office access, enabling Schellenberg to continue his work until midnight. The resulting film was, according to Schellenberg, much better and more complete than the first set. He described the result bluntly in a letter to Binkley:

The issuance of the N.R.A. and A.A.A. film sets was certainly one of the most interesting and significant of the experiments which the Joint Committee has undertaken. The tendency of the Committee to regard the issuance of such materials on film as mere experiments, without considering that the materials themselves would contribute to scholarship, has been carried too far in [the] case of the N.R.A. hearings. Most of our grief in making that film has come from the instructions to set unskilled labor to work at producing the film, simply from a desire to secure statistics for your manual on how cheaply film copies could be made. If I had been allowed to film the material myself, as I did the A.A.A., using one machine, and accepting the arrangement in which I found the records at the Code Record Section, practically all our difficulties would have been obviated. It would have been the height of misfortune to the development of filmslide technique, if the original N.R.A. films had been allowed to go out.20

Some of this is unfair: the decision to use two Recordaks (which meant Schellenberg could not do all the copying himself) was Schellenberg’s, forced by the limited office hours at the department. But Binkley’s insistence on collecting statistics on the efficiency of relief workers, who were using the camera for the first time, probably was a bad choice. Binkley admitted in a letter to Crane that he was more interested in the project as a demonstration than in the material:

It is not for the sake of getting these documents out that we are primarily interested in doing this work. The point that interests us is that it is an opportunity to prepare the ground throughout the country for the use of filmcopy material, and that if will fit into our plans of promoting the publishing service, which we realize, more and more, must reach all the way from reproduction of one copy to reproduction of many copies. That is to say, as our publishing service is launched, we will include micro-copying in it.21

When in July some papers from another project had to be filmed in Cleveland, McCarter had them done in the offices of the May Co. department store, which also had a Recordak camera. She wrote to Binkley:

You remember that I told you that we had the archives inventory files copied on the May Co. Recordak before sending them to Ted. We got the film back yesterday, and it is swell. Even the poorest carbons are legible. A rather dumb looking dame fed the sheets into the machine, and Addie [i.e. Adeline Barry] and I, spiteful cats that we are, are wondering whether the NRA hearings really had to be fed into the machine by TRS Himself.22

Relief workers in Washington would no doubt have reached the same level of proficiency in time. Judging from the scans I made at Harvard, though, I think Schellenberg was probably right to refilm the materials: if the first set were worse than these, it would have harmed the reputation of the project and the technique.

Collaboration and Competition

Clipping of the Draeger camera
at the AHA conference
(Washington Herald).

In November 1934, just after the completion of the NRA microfilms, a significant step was taken towards the broader deployment of microfilm in libraries. A camera designed by Lt. R.H. Draeger of the Navy Medical Corps was installed in the library of the Department of Agriculture, and the Bibliofilm service launch of Bibliofilm service was launched to enable microfilms of journal articles to be made and shared on request. The idea was developed at the famous lunch at the Cosmos Club on Nov. 5, where Watson Davis of Science Service invited fifteen people to discuss the possibilities of Draeger’s camera, and the first article was shipped ten days later.23

Washington was at the center of various proto-microfilm projects at this time, and communication among them was still being developed. In October Schellenberg met with some of them at the Library of Congress (I don’t know what they discussed), and he was aware that Watson Davis wanted to know more about the activities of the JCMR, but had not yet had a chance to meet him.24 Schellenberg was not present at the Cosmos Club lunch, but later in November he was cc’ed on an announcement of the new Bibliofilm service, for which demonstrations by Draeger were being arranged.25 There was discussion of bringing people together from the various projects to discuss a common technical standards.

The nature of the services which microfilm would enable were being thought out. In July Atherton Seidell of the National Institute of Health had published a discussion paper in Science, describing Watson Davis’ proposal for a publication service based on microfilm. The problem Davis sought to solve was the proliferation of journals in the field of chemistry, which made it impossible for researchers to access all relevant articles in a single library. The solution was to move all publication and distribution of articles to microfilm:

He proposes that a photographic process of reproduction of documents be substituted for publication by means of the printing press, in all cases except papers of general interest and abstract journals.

Seidell followed this up in August with a discussion paper on the technical details of a microfilm camera and window cards.26

The first step would be to establish duplication services at national Bureaus of Chemical Documentation, which would supply microfilm copies of articles on request. The physical format would be 16mm film copies mounted in windows on cards no bigger than 10x15 cm (4x6 inches), with the article metadata typed on the card. A small table projector would be used to read the article. Such a service would solve the access problem, and would also improve the quality of research publications by removing constaints of space: more articles could be published and they would not have to be condensed to fit the journal format, which currently “results in the printing of many papers which are in large part unintelligible to those for whose benefit they were written.” (p.71) As the service became ubiquitous, attention would be given to standardizing classification, cataloguing, abbreviations, etc. The technical details had not yet been worked out, but Davis and Seidell did not expect them to be a difficult problem:

It is probable that, owing to the large scale of its production, the cost of the necessary photographic equipment would not be excessive. The perfection of such mechanism is a subject worthy of the intensive study of the foremost apparatus makers of the world. The success of the undertaking depends upon the solution of this initial but largely mechanical problem. (p.72)

Davis’ program was news to Binkley. Seidell’s two articles came to the attention of B. Joyce at Consumers’ Research, who wrote to Binkley about them. He had evidently been in touch with Binkley about microphotography before this, and was surprised that Seidell did not mention the JCMR’s work.27 Binkley responded:

I have had correspondence with some people in Minnesota on the question of photographic reproduction of chemistry works and it may be that Davis got some of his ideas from this quarter, but so far as I am concerned it makes no difference; I welcome any evidence that film copying is pushing ahead.28

(I don’t know what chemistry connections Binkley had in Minnesota at this time.)

Davis’ plan parallelled Binkley’s idea for a publication service, which he intended to pursue under the JCMR’s auspices. The difference was in the nature of the publication service they sought to replace: Binkley did not have much to say about journals, and focused instead on out-of-print books, manuscripts and newspapers: microfilm would be used to copy existing research materials. He also proposed using near-print technologies (hektograph etc.) to circulate research papers which had too small a readership to have a chance of publication in a journal. Where Davis was narrowly focused on solving one big problem with one technology, Binkley wanted to experiment with several related problems and technologies.

The gap between Binkley and Davis was driven by their different disciplines. Davis and the Science Service operated within the natural sciences, while the JCMR’s sponsorship by the SSRC and ACLS pinned it to the humanities and social sciences, which were also Binkley’s natural home. This helps to explain how the development of microfilm services in the academic world was so uncoordinated at this point. Both groups were conscious of this, and were trying to find platforms from which to propagate their vision, and to develop common technical standards so as to bring down prices and barriers to adoption.

By February 1935, when Seidell published another update in Science, the two groups had come together. Binkley had shared the draft chapters on microphotography from the Manual, which Seidell praised. Binkley’s broad survey of the available cameras filled out Seidell’s knowledge of microfilm developments:

The contributions of a large number of workers are reviewed and it is apparent that greater progress has been made than is generally realized. Some 12 film-copying cameras are described and their relative merits discussed.29

A lot of Binkley’s information came from Library of Congress, which indicates that communications even within the Washington community were not smooth.

Publicity

At the end of the year the progress of these projects led to presentations at various conferences of academic associations in the traditional slot between Christmas and New Years. An exhibit of microfilm equipment and techniques, led by Schellenberg, was set up at the American Historical Association meeting at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, where a set of the AAA films and a Recordak viewer were shown. Schellenberg, in collaboration with Thomas Martin of the Library of Congress, had decided to focus on proven technologies, “calling the attention of the scholars to pertinent apparatus only, instead of distracting them by things which might be merely novel instead of useful.”30 The JCMR papers contain a clipping from the Washington Herald showing the Draeger camera and the program of the exhibit, signed by Binkley and Schellenberg.31 It reiterates Binkley’s array of new reproduction techniques, from microfilm through the various near-print technologies, as laid out in his memorandum “New Tools, New Recruits, for the Republic of Letters”, which was circulated to the JCMR around the same time in November 1934 and was published in abbreviated form the following March. The exhibit included the Draeger camera, samples of the Recordak camera for bound materials’ work, Leica and Folmer Graflex cameras for the individual scholar’s use, samples of publications made by photo-offset (including a miniature book for the Fiske Reading Machine) and Mimeoform. Not mentioned in the program but photographed by the Washington Herald photographer was a Recordak reader (see above), no doubt showing samples of AAA films.

Further publicity followed from the outreach of the JCMR staff: in Cleveland just before Christmas, Adeline Barry had sent details to the WRU Publicity Officer Marie Kirkwood about presentations being made not only at the AHA conference but at other meetings of the ALA and the American Economic Association conferences. Her letter describes the AHA exhibit of the AAA films in particular.32 It was probably because of Kirkwood’s communication with the press that an AP article appeared, based on an interview with Binkley and datelined Cleveland, Dec. 30. The article referred to the project as “semi-experimental work”, and claimed that the 16mm film copies were made at a cost of $0.00125 per page.33 AP released another story, datelined Chicago, Jan. 21, carrying Kuhlman’s report of the AAA and NRA films and the potential for microfilm in libraries.34 In February a brief story from the news service INS datelined Chicago, Feb. 9, made the rounds, though its reference to “complete film records” of the hearings must have left many readers thinking of newsreels rather than microfilm.35

In the new year notices began to appear in academic journals advertising the availability of the AAA and NRA films. I’ve found five in Economic Journal, American Journal of Sociology, Journal of Farm Economics, The American Economic Review, and The American Political Science Review, as well as Library Journal and Bulletin of the American Library Association.36

The final post in this series will trace the completion of the microfilm project and the effects it had on the development of microfilm and its acceptance as a library technology.

… to be continued.

  1. Doc. 10293 (1934-09-21): [T.R. Schellenberg] to Jo McCarter (JCMR/36-gen-schellenberg)↩︎

  2. Doc. 10294 (1934-09-21): T.R. Schellenberg to RCB (JCMR/36-gen-schellenberg)↩︎

  3. J. H. Lohrenz and Richard D. Thiessen, “Schellenberg, Abraham L. (1869-1941),” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (November 2006). Web. 14 Aug 2024. When he came to Cleveland the Plain Dealer reported (no doubt based on information from Schellenberg via the university press office) that he was a “former proofreader and linotypist” and that he had “worked as a boy in the print shop of his father, who owned a German newspaper.” “Educator to Get Post”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 19, 1934, p.5.↩︎

  4. Doc. 12856 (1934-09-28): T.R. Schellenberg to RCB (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  5. Doc. 12012 (1934-10-13): T.R. Schellenberg, “Memorandum of a Union Catalog of the Philadelphia Libraries” (JCMR/25-filming-union)↩︎

  6. Doc. 12855 (1934-10-04): John K. Boeing to RCB (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  7. Doc. 12842 (1934-10-30): A.F. Kuhlman to T.R. Schellenberg (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  8. “Say Dr. Hutchins May Join New Deal,” New York Times (October 14, 1934), p.5.↩︎

  9. Doc. 12835 (1934-11-13): T.R. Schellenberg to A.F. Kuhlman (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  10. Doc. 10284 (1934-10-10): T.R. Schellenberg to RCB (JCMR/36-gen-schellenberg)↩︎

  11. Doc. 12852 (1934-10-15): T.R. Schellenberg to RCB (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  12. Doc. 12848 (1934-10-23): T.R. Schellenberg to RCB (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  13. Doc. 12840 (1934-11-03): T.R. Schellenberg to A.F. Kuhlman (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  14. Doc. 12836 (1934-11-07): [T.R. Schellenberg] to John K. Boeing (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  15. Doc. 10246 (1935-02-19): T.R. Schellenberg to Vernon D. Tate (JCMR/36-gen-schellenberg)↩︎

  16. Doc. 12835 (1934-11-13): T.R. Schellenberg to A.F. Kuhlman (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  17. Doc. 12855 (1934-10-04): John K. Boeing to RCB (JCMR/4-nra-filming), Doc. 12850 (1934-10-18): John K. Boeing to T.R. Schellenberg (JCMR/4-nra-filming), Doc. 12836 (1934-11-07): [T.R. Schellenberg] to John K. Boeing (JCMR/4-nra-filming).↩︎

  18. Doc. 12815 (1935-01-24): T.R. Schellenberg to J.K. McDaniel (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  19. Doc. 12830 (1934-12-04): John K. Boeing to T.R. Schellenberg (JCMR/4-nra-filming))↩︎

  20. Doc. 10220 (1935-05-25): T.R. Schellenberg to RCB (JCMR/36-gen-schellenberg)↩︎

  21. Doc. 9555 (1934-11-08): RCB to Robert T. Crane (JCMR/74-agenda-9)↩︎

  22. Doc. 6264 (1935-07-13): Jo McCarter to RCB (corr.1933-40/Mc).↩︎

  23. Peter B. Hirtle, “Historical Note: Atherton Seidell and the Photoduplication of Library Material”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 40, no. 6 (1989): 424–31 at p.427.↩︎

  24. Doc. 12848 (1934-10-23): T.R. Schellenberg to RCB (JCMR/4-nra-filming)↩︎

  25. Doc. 10270 (1934-11-19): Watson Davis to F.G. Cottrell (JCMR/36-gen-schellenberg)↩︎

  26. Atherton Seidell, “Reforms in Chemical Publication (Documentation)”, Science 80, no. 2064 (20 July 1934), 70–72; “The Photomicrographic Reproduction of Documents”, Science 80, no. 2069 (24 August 1934): 184–85.↩︎

  27. Doc. 10297 (1934-09-07): R. Joyce to RCB (JCMR/36-gen-schellenberg)↩︎

  28. Doc. 10296 (1934-09-17): RCB to R. Joyce (JCMR/36-gen-schellenberg)↩︎

  29. Atherton Seidell, “Film-Strip Copies of Scientific Publications.” Science, New Series, vol. 81, no. 2094 (15 Febl. 1935): 174–76.↩︎

  30. Doc. 11067 (1934-11-26): T.R. Schellenberg to Dallas D. Irvine (JCMR/33-gen-irvine)↩︎

  31. Doc. 9868 (1934-12): RCB; T.R. Schellenberg, “Memorandum on Techniques of Reproduction” (JCMR/63-memoranda)↩︎

  32. Doc. 12864 (1934-12-21): Adeline Barry to Marie Kirkwood (JCMR/4-nra-publicity)↩︎

  33. “Camera Makes Possible Compact Record of NRA”, Star Tribune (Minneapolis, Minnesota), December 31, 1934, p.14. See also “A.A.A. and N.R.A. Code Data Recorded on Film”, The Los Angeles Times, January 2, 1935, p.13.↩︎

  34. “Code Hearings Filmed.” Bulletin of the American Library Association 29, no. 2 (1935): 79.↩︎

  35. “NRA Film Records of All Hearings Made by Society”, Nashville Banner (Nashville, Tennessee), February 10, 1935, p.8; “Hearings of NRA Filmed. Records Prepared for Educational Service”, The Lincoln Star (Lincoln, Nebraska), February 10, 1935, p.12; “All NRA Hearings Recorded on Film”, Tulsa World (Tulsa, Oklahoma), February 10, 1935, p.4.↩︎

  36. “Current Topics”, The Economic Journal 45, no. 177 (1935): 196–200, at pp.199-200; “News and Notes”, American Journal of Sociology 40, no. 6 (1935): 829–36, at p.831; “News Items”, Journal of Farm Economics 17, no. 2 (1935): 406–8; “Notes”, The American Economic Review 25, no. 1 (1935): 189–96; Frederic A. Ogg, “Personal and Miscellaneous”, The American Political Science Review 29, no. 1 (1935): 100–107; “NRA and AAA Film Sets”, Library Journal 60, no. 7 (1935): 301; “Code Hearings Filmed”, Bulletin of the American Library Association 29, no. 2 (1935): 79↩︎

@pbinkley@ . .