Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-06-16
THE QUE STION or INDEPENDENCE.

The State, a magazine published at
Tacoma, alleges in it's June Number that
the Inter Mountain defends the trusts
quoting from this paper the following ex-
cerpt from an editorial in which the eX-
istence of trusts was deplored, though
they were ascribed to the industrial de-
velopments Of the age as a natural! out
growth of the conditions that made them
a possibility:
Probably no one feature of human life
is rolled over in a more meaningless way
than that of personal independence. The
fact is overlooked that but few II any
can escape the inevitable law of civiliza-
ton that makes us inter-dependent. and
builds up manhood upon the basis of dis
cipline to establish rules and usages. In
dustrial independence, in the sense that
each man must think and act for him.
self. can be acquired only by turning
back the wheels of progress to the time
when each man supplied his w wants
from a shop in the back yard.
1t required not only a vivid magma
ton, but a disposition to play the part
of a political ~demagogue. for The State
to gather from the foregoing the erron-
eous idea that the Inter Mountain de
tends the trusts" In commenting upon
this excerpt The State says: This is
not good. 1t is poor logic Let us see.
The independence referred to applies,
of course, to the lines of procedure on
the part of the Individual in doing the
work assigned him in the vocation in
which he may be employed. The man
who is a shop owner, and who does his
own work, is independent in the sense
that he has no industrial boss to SUPER
wise his work. but he has a host Of COM
petitors Of whom he is not independent in
selling his wares. When these competi-
tors close down their shops and all go to
work for one man who operates a fac
tory, they lose their independence in the
matter of directing how the work shall
be done. They merely obey orders. The
corporation and the trust merely enlarge
upon this idea. There are fewer bosses
and more men obeying the directions of
the bosses.
Therefore, we say. that any form OF
Industrial development that concentrates
human energy necessarily means the
surrender of individual independence as
to the way of doing things. In the nature
Of things, as an industrial proposition
widens in it's scope there are fewer gen
orn 1, on5 ~ r,;,,otnc r. oaon0f IN
otherwise, under our industrial system
n to secure that personal independence
of action in the manner of doing work
which cheap politicians so industriousl,
prate about, the wheels of modern prog
ress must be turned back from the cor
poration to the factory and from the fac
tory to the shop, until each mar is agail
his own boss.
The trouble is, too many gentlemen ar
too narrow between the eyes to under
stand the difference between independ
ence of thought and action, as applied
to the work performed in an industria
vocation, and independence of though
and action in religious and political mat
ters which have no legitimate ~relatio.
to the pursuit which an individual ma
follow They dump the whole bushes
into a common pot, and pirate about tn
surrender of the individuality of man
The truth is, inter-dependence in tn
industrial affairs of life is an e~ssentia
consents to be a law abiding citizen sur
renders a portion of his independence
He bows to the rules and regulations lai
down for his guidance by his fellowmer
If he enters the employ of another h
does the work assigned him, under tn
agreement made, as his employer directs
whether it be in a shop or a factory, vi
der a boss, a corporation or a trust. Blu
to how this or that piece of work shoul
be done. in Difference to the views of a
employer, does not imply the surrenGc
of the personality of the individual, AN
more than does obedience to the laws c
the land. Ii is merely a feature of on
Industrial life that cannot be avcide,
except by going back to the days of tn
cooper shop In the backyard and agai