The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-07-25
THURSDAY. JULY IS. 1895.
BIGNESS-I
la scRIPPs.HoMARp NEMsPAPERl

THE best way to deal with big subject is
in small chunks. Otherwise, it's propo-
sition like the one the professor put to the
college student-"Describe the universe and
give three examples"
There is a school of thought in Washing
ton which regards bigness as an evil, per Sc. In
that school are some very fine and very sin
cere men, such as for example, Justice Bran
deis Felix Frankfurter and Senator Burton
Wheeler. Their philosophy finds expression
frequently IN the words of Franklin D. Roose-
welt. such as "bigness begets monopoly" AL
though Roosevelt doesn't go the whole way,
but qualities with expressions Of appreciation
for the economies and lower prices that have
been the result OF blgneSs and mass produc-
ton"
The graduated corporation tax proposal is
one presidential manifestation of the anti
bigness idea. The bgness issue is hot in many
states, with legislative attacks on chain stores.
The subject isn't one for pontif1cation. 1t
doesn't divide itself sharply into black and
white. There are many grays and many shad-
ings. In it there are both economic and
philosophic angles.
that too much concentration of power becomes
dangerous is true. though it doesn't follow
that efficiency and power always multiply in
exact ratio to siEe-as witness the dinosaur.
But, generally speaking. size and power are
synonymous. So, usually. are size and eff
cheney, up to the point where diminishing re-
turns appear, and economic elephantiaSis
sets in.
GRANTING that there are dangers in big
- ness we do not believe this nation can
ever attain prosperity and continue to multi
ply its wants and then satisfy them on any
go back to smallness' program. The problem
seems to us to be one of continuing to enjoy
the things that only bigness can supply and at
the same time devise ways by which the dan
gers in bigness can be restrained. And that's
a job.
Philosophically, we all yearn from time to
time for the good old simple days. AS life be-
comes more and more complex we sometimes
think we should like to shrink back from the
factory and its throng into the shade of the
spreading chestnut tree and commune once
more with the village blacksmith.
We are conscious also of the softening in
fluence of hard-surfaced roads and of the
: stimulation, in terms Of rugged character. that
came with plugging through the mud behind
old Betsy. But when we face what return
to the old days would really mean, we shy
away from the thought. For we like our
creature comforts, the things that the inven-
tors and the mass producers have brought us.
T.. And so the retrospection after all is just an
other case wherein it is the distance and not
the actuality that lends the enchantment.
When we get really honest with ourselves we
. admit that never again do we want to light
up the old oil lantern and search on a cold and
icy night for the structure immortalized by
Chic Sale.
THUS we co,ne to realize that without mass
i production and what goes with it, includ-
ing the laboratory and the inventor and the
massng of capital, We would have to give up
most of those things which a few years ago
we looked upon as luxures and now regard as
prime necessities.
Anyway, like it or not, we are in a mass
production age, and bigness and mass-produc-
ton is concerned, we can't pull out by substi-
tutng the push cart and the peanut stand
for the department store.
We are geared up big. Not only in produc-
ton but in governmental expense. We're
dealing in multi-billions now. For just one
example: In the last 20 years We have seen the
Federal debt increase from slightly more than
one billion Q9l5) to approximately 80 billions
today. And Federal government alone is
spending at the rate of more than 20 millions
every time the clock goes round.
We have created tax burden and an ex-
penSe rate that can be paid only from volume
and more volume. Unless the size Of the ma
tons business increases. and increases big,
we can't meet the bill. no matter how large
the tax rate. And that increase will never
come through any process that would abolish
bigaeSs as such, and substitute mere smaIness.
So the problem becomes one of bigness still,
but bigneSs regulated and controlled against
the evils that multiply with growth.
We said that bigneSs should be discussed in
small chunks. This one hasn't proved so small.
But anyway, enough for today.
r,xVr,