applicability of this chapter from library history to what has preceded.  The action of the delegates was officially that of the Association.  But it was disapproved by very many members of the Association on the ground that it seemed likely to result in lessening the importation privilege of libraries.  Whether these dissidents were in a majority or not it seemed impossible to say.  The Association’s legislative body, the Council, twice refused to disapprove or instruct the delegates, thus tacitly approving their action, but the dissidents asserted that the Council, in this respect, did not rightly reflect the opinion of the Association.  The whole situation was an instructive illustration of the difficulty of getting a large body of general scope to act on a definite, circumscribed question, or even of ascertaining its opinion or its wishes regarding such action.  Recognizing this, the dissidents properly and wisely formed a separate association with a single end in view—­the retention of present library importation privileges, and especially the defeat of the part of the bill affecting such privileges as drafted in the conference.  The efforts of this body have been crowned with success in that the bill as reported by the committee contains a modified provision acceptable to the dissidents.  Thus a relatively small body formed for a definite purpose has quickly accomplished that purpose, while the objects of the larger body have been expressed but vaguely, and so far as they have been definitely formulated have failed of accomplishment.  There is a lesson in this both for our own association and for others.

It must not be assumed, however, that limitation of action along the lines I have indicated means weakness of organization.  On the contrary, foreign observers have generally testified to the exceptional strength and efficiency of societies and groups of all kinds in this country.  It may be interesting to quote here what a recent French writer on the United States has to say of the part played by associations of all kinds in our national life.  And, in passing, he who is proud of his country nowadays should read what is said of her by French and German, and even English writers.  The muck-raking is all on this side of the water.  The writer from whom I quote, M. Paul de Rousiers, author of “La Vie Americaine,” does not commend without discrimination, which makes what he has to say of more value.  He notes at the outset that “the spirit of free association is widely extended in the United States, and it produces results of surprising efficiency.”  There are two motives for association, he thinks, the consciousness of weakness, which is generally operative abroad, and the consciousness of strength, which is our motive here.  He says: