As has been said before, the comparative feature of this work is one which is worthy of special consideration. Its value can scarcely be over-estimated. The efficiency of the library can be greatly increased by a constant lookout for such material. Every book, pamphlet or clipping, passing through the hands of the cataloger must be most carefully reviewed, not only for its general material, but for any comparative statement which shows either conditions, laws, or tendencies in two or more communities, states, or countries. It may take form as a tabulated statement, a chapter, a paragraph, or even a mere foot-note, but at some future time it may serve as a starting point for an investigation, or give instantaneous help in the question as to "what states or countries have laws similar to this." The advisability of listing such comparative material in a separate catalog must be determined by each library. When it is buried in the regular catalog it requires much longer to answer such questions than when kept in a separate file. If made into a catalog by itself, there should always be a note showing exactly what states or countries are included in the comparison and the dates covered by such material. In other words the comparative entry must be justified either by the title or a note showing that it really is a comparison. Probably two-thirds of such material is analytical in character. The question of analyticals will be greatly influenced by the subject matter under consideration. Upon certain subjects there are practically no book treatises, and most of the material will be found in the form of analyticals. The amount to be analyzed, the choice of form and the relative value of the material concerned must be determined by shrewd judgment on the part of the cataloger. The entire library will be greatly enhanced by a careful selection of analyticals, but the bulk of the catalog must not be increased unless with good reason. The percentage of analyticals will be in most cases much higher than in the ordinary library, because so often a few pages are worthy of special notice on account of their comparative nature, the particular view point of the author, or sometimes merely because of the scarcity of material on that subject. As to the cataloging form for analyticals, there is no reason why it should not follow the general rules of the library as a whole. My own preference is for the long form, because oftentimes the short form is not perfectly clear to the legislator. Although advocating simplicity, as a general thing, it should not require clearness to be sacrificed at any time. There is room for discussion on this point and there is difference of opinion, but my conclusion in the matter has been reached after some experimentation. A little more work on the part of the librarian is preferable to the slightest bit of doubt on the part of the legislator.