The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1914-09-17
WHY THE LOCAL MERCHANT
SHOULD BE PATR0NIZE0 IN
PREFERENCE TO THE MAIL
ORDER HOUSE.

more vital and serious in its probable
effects upon our national well being
and prosperity than most people realize.
The writer has no quarrel with the
catalog houses themselves. They have
as much right to do business as any one
else and there is nothing illegal or
necessarily wrong in their system of
business. 1t it also possible for cata-
log house to conduct its business along
strictly fair and honorable lines, though
not having the same degree of personal
responsibility as the local merchant,
and having no particular interest in the
community or the people with whom
they do business, they do not have the
same incentive to give good value and
service for the money as the home mer
chant.
Nevertheless it is not so much the
catalog houses themselves or their
methods we are concerned with as it is
the question of which system of bust
ness is preferable from the viewpoint
of the greatest good to the general
public. For, be assured, the two systems
local trading and catalog house trad
ing-are irreconciiable; either one can
prosper and increase at the expense of
the other. 1t is competition, strenuous
and fair, which the home merchant
muSt avDnct and can moot
As between the two systems it is
evident that catalog house trading is
an influence that tends to draw trade
and population away from country
towns and rural communities into the
big cities. It tends to increase the con
geslion Of business and people in these
big centres with its many attendant
social and industrial evils, 1T also tends
to stjle country trading, kill Off the
country town and the farmers market
for his products, causes depreciation Of
town and farm lands values aL5i1 every
way makes the country less desirable
place IN which to live
The following thoughtful article was
written by IT, q. Kruse, editor Benton
County Times, Einton, Iowa:
More and more plaia.y the fact dawns
upon our mind that the system of. cen
traJized distribution now gaining a
strong hold on the people is a menace to
the Institutions Of our common country
and is d system fr2ught with danger to
our very liberties. Heretofore we have
looked upon the great catalog houses as
agencies filling certain want, but that
theory viii not stand an impartial and
intelligent investigation. Suppose this
idea is carried out to the limit and that
the catalog concerns absorb all the
business of the country. What then?
We will tell you what then" Say
that then cataIog concerns have sup
planted the local distributaries. Is is
to be supposed that they will rest con-
tent with one-half of the country's
business? Not much! The selling of
everything will be only one function of
the great centralized system of distri-
button; next will come the buying of
everything, and with the selling of all
articles of commerce in the hands of
the few. Where are we, the common
run of people, to find a place in which
to exercise our power as individuals;
and what is to become of the freedom
and liberties our farmer friends now
enjoy under widely spread competitive
system,
We have all along gone on the theory
that the man who earns his money has
the right to spend it where he wills,
and we still believe in that theory.
with certain notifications, but the ques-
ton of buying where one wills has
something involved besides the mere
question of right. There is the future
to think Of.
If thespresent tendency remains un-
checked the United States of the fu-
ture will comprise a few extremely
rich, who will manufacture, buy and
distribute and millions upon millions of
ordinary men, wholly dependent upon
those few. The greatest good for the
greatest number is the underlying
principle that shouldl guide man and
government in their attitudestoward all
public questions. Now if the increased
power of the catalog houses will mean
a greater good to the greatest number,
let US welcome that power and the few
of US whoi may be seriously affected
seek In other lines of en- deavor the
success we hope to attain.
But what may seem a present ad-
vantage to the greatest number, gives
promise of actual disaster to the great
est number.
This question of distribution is the
greatest question before the Ameri-
can people. Let us consider it in this
way: Will it be best for me and nv
children and my children's children to
maintain the present competitive sys-
tenn, or will it be best to gradually
adopt al plutocratic. socialistlc doctrine
of centralized system of distribution?
Will it be best to have keen, progress