Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Upon the unsubstantiated dictum that the use of contractions makes bad spellers, and upon the contention that grade 2 contains so many contractions and abbreviations that it is too difficult for the primary pupil to learn, the authorities of the American Printing House were very slow to publish lower grade books in any code more contracted than grade 1 1/2. Gradually, however, grade 2 was extended downward until since 1950 few books except for children of the first grade are published in grade 1 1/2. This slow adoption of Standard English braille grade 2 has probably resulted in a generation of poor braille readers, because the method of teaching reading has forced children to familiarize themselves with three successive groups of word forms; first, the word form presented to the finger by grade 1 (full spelling) used in the lower, primary grades; second, the word form of grade 1 1/2 used in books below high school; and third, the word forms of grade 2 in which books to be used by most adults are printed.

During all this discussion, great hopes were held that uniformity would prevent duplication and bring about a cooperation among American and British publishers that would make the available funds purchase much more extensive libraries. It was hoped that in some way some kind of physical exchange of books would be worked out. As a matter of fact, while the Treaty of London was being negotiated a representative of the American Printing House and a representative of the Library of Congress went to London to discuss with the braille book publishers of that country methods of exchange of books. The basis of exchange was agreed upon, but were never carried out in more than a token fashion. Some few books were exchanged, and in a few instances the braille plates of one country were loaned to the printing houses of the other country so that books could be printed without the actual exchange of money. The whole matter was somewhat complicated by restrictions placed upon the British authorities in buying abroad. In America the Library of Congress has felt hampered by a prejudice against the spending of American tax dollars for British books when the same books could be manufactured in this country if enough money were paid for them; that is, if the Library of Congress, who might want ten or fifteen copies of a book, would be willing to pay enough for those books to meet the cost of making plates, the books could be made in the United States and the American money kept at home.

The printing houses for the blind in this country must bear some responsibility for the fact that this exchange did not work. They were anxious to keep their plants running at full capacity, and resented seeing part of the federal appropriation for books for the blind spent in England. But this was not the only reason why the exchange of books never became active. The Library of Congress had hoped that the American Printing House, or some other agency for the blind, would obtain British books in exchange for American books and then sell these British books to the Library of Congress. As the American Printing House and other American braille publishers had no desire to tie up their money in stocks of British-made books which they had no binding assurance would be purchased by the Library of Congress, nothing was done about it.

This whole matter could be solved by the Library of Congress if it would face the criticism of a policy of spending money abroad and would purchase such of its required books from England as are already published in braille in that country.

Perhaps this will not take place until someone puts behind this idea something of the drive which brought about the adoption of a uniform type for the English-speaking world. Doubtless, sooner or later, someone will take this matter up aggressively and put an end to the duplication of books published in braille in the United States and Great Britain.

In this connection, it may be contended that British-made braille books will never be as popular in the United States as they could be until British publishers print their books properly capitalized as judged by standards for inkprint books.

We in America have been critical of the British for not collaborating with the Americans in the development of a uniform type for the blind people of both the British Empire and the United States. The Americans, however, have not been entirely without blame. For example, as early as 1902 Dr. F. J. Campbell, later Sir Francis Campbell, wrote a letter in behalf of the British Braille Committee to the American Association of Instructors of the Blind which was meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina. It read in part as follows: "During the last week in April a large and influential conference was held in London under the auspices of the Gardner's Trust for the Blind....

"Among many subjects which were discussed at the conference the great need of a uniform system of reading and writing for the blind was felt to be of such importance that a representative committee was appointed to carefully consider the methods now in use in this country and in America, and to adopt, if possible, some system which from its simplicity and general excellence would be acceptable throughout the English-speaking world.