tories, they contain a great fund of information which is nowhere else to be found in print.
A third result of the history plan, and one which is of importance to historical writers everywhere who have large fields to cover, was the devising of a coöperative method for organizing the vast collections in the library. Mr. Bancroft makes the claim of having been the first to resort to such a division of labor; and points out (Literary Industries, 767) that his method avoids the repetition of details and insures a more thorough working up of the field than does the coöperative method as the term is usually understood, under which the writers work independently of each other after the field is divided. Such a claim might indeed be granted had Mr. Bancroft announced himself as editor and reviser instead of author, and had he designated the part of the work written by each of his collaborators in accordance with the usual custom in coöperative works. The printing of his name as author on the title page, and his general recognition as such in accordance with press notices following those of the Native Races, have, of course, largely lost for him the credit of originating a coöperative method for the organizing of large quantities of material.
Concerning the understanding Mr. Bancroft had with his corps of writers generally as to the public acknowledgment of their work which he would make, information is not at hand. Only one had ever before written and published a book, and perhaps the majority gave no thought to the rights which would be theirs as authors. Certain it is that when the greater number of the more prominent writers entered the library, the work was planned on a much smaller scale than that upon which it was carried out, and, as they did not know that they were to become the authors of entire or consecutive volumes, the question was not then of the importance which
