In this paper, the author has tried to make clear the points in dispute as to the Library Services bill introduced in the 84th Congress.
　One of the reasons a few representatives opposed to this bill was that the United States Constitution did not assign the Federal Government responsibility for public library services. This responsibility is left to the States and local communities. However, the bill is so designed that the Federal Government shall not infringe the States' right. In this respect, it says: “the provisions of this act shall not be so construed as to interfere with State and local initiative and responsibility in the conduct of public library services.”
　The second reason that the opponents pointed out was the financial difficulties in the Federal Government. The representatives supporting the bill emphasized that the Federal aid requested by this legislation was much less than the national defense budget. Mrs. Green of Oregon stated as follows: “Since the war in Korea over three-fourths of a million young Americans have been rejected by Selective Service for educational deficiencies.... We spend $30 million a year to draft young men. Can we not then spend one-fourth that much to give them books to read?”
　Thirdly, the opponents doubted whether the bill would remain a temporary legislation, in the light of the fact that the Congress had often extended legislation which initially was termed temporary. Fourthly, Mr. Gwinn of New York and Mr. Curtis of Massachusetts pointed out the unfairness to some States of the means adopted by the bill.
　The passage of the Library Services Act is regarded as a result of the anxious and tenacious efforts by the American Library Association and its members. In the 84th Congress the bill was sponsored by eighteen Senators and by twenty-seven Representatives, although the bill had been introduced only by three Senators and three Representatives in the 81st Congress. It seems that the bipartisan sponsorship greatly favored the passage of the measure.

抄録全体を表示