The final characteristic of a profession is its influence upon the community as such. Now, our lack of such an influence as a body is in part due to the lack of that homogeneity in ideal method and personnel--but in part also to the necessary limitations of our office. We are necessarily non-partisan. We are to furnish impartially the ammunition for both sides of every issue. The moment we become identified with a single side merely, we lose our influence and our authority. And it matters not whether the issue be political, or theological or economic or social. If it be scientific, or merely literary, we have more freedom, since the subject matter is more nearly academic and less emotional. But even here we must avoid the charge of faddism. In a contest of morality we may indeed take side against the baser, because with this we have no influence and no need to court one. But there are today few moral issues clearly distinguishable as such in which there is need or temptation for us to engage. The result of this neutrality is an attitude which to the world at large must seem somewhat colourless; but also a habit of mind which insensibly in itself becomes neutral. We are content to be observers. We avoid becoming contestants. Such characteristics do not go to the solidification of opinion in a profession, nor to the assertion of it in an aggressive way. The sum total of all of which (observations upon us) is that in spite of our numbers, in spite of the momentous aggregate that our "establishment" represents, in spite of the assured place which it occupies in the community and the social system, we are at present, and in many ways must continue to be, an aggregate of individuals rather than a body politic. But even as the Devil's advocate I would not so conclude in a deprecatory sense, for we may find and show many reasons for complacency--and special opportunities for service--in the relations which this situation implies. * * * * * My original invitation was a large one: no less than to estimate the place of the library in English-speaking America. I have not attempted to comply with it: for it seemed too large for my fraction of this program. But as a theme it was enticing. And so would have been the reverse of it,--that is, the place of English-speaking America in the development of the library. That also will perhaps be worthy of treatment at some large opportunity. One particular aspect of it is suggested by a letter of Francis Lieber to General Halleck, fifty-seven years ago. It runs--