Evening star., 1936-12-27

In California recently . proposal to
enact q discriminating tax against
chain stores was defeated In q popu-
lar referendum; it lost in 81 out Of the
States So counties, with the agricul.
tural regions going against it with
especial strength. The California vot.
ers, after abundant debate, seem to
have concluded that they prefer ths
chains.
1t may be also that the Independent
owner Of q filling station, who was
formerly an employe Of q chain, viii
be less comfortable in his new status
than In his old one. Not every man
Is equipped to be business man "on
his own" Some of those newly trans.
ferred to that status may find 1t irk-
some to meet even q small pay roll on
Saturday night, to borrow from the
bank and repay the loan, to endure
periods in which income does not come
up to outgo, to look after the wearying
details which, in a chain, are system
atized. No doubt some of those who
are now changing from employed man
ager Of a filling station to independent
owner Of it will at times look back with
regret to their former status.
But regardless Of whether small own
ership is less efficient In the economic
and even the social sense, 1t Is never
theless desirable from the standpoint
Of saving America for individualism.
II individualism in America Is In dan
ger. If 1t is necessary for the larger
,owners Of property to make some con-
ceSsions In order to save the system.
then here would seem to be Q good
place to make one.
The whole of the battle to save in
dividualism is, at this moment, o los
ing one. Any one who doubts that
must be blind to what Is going on in
America and the world. He must have
failed to see the significance of the
recent election. That election cannot
be blindly resisted. It must be &C.
cepted as the present will Of . great
majority Of the American people.
Whether Mr.. Dooley" was right or
not, whether the Supreme Court fol-
lows the election returns or not, It Is
certain business must follow them. It
Is universally conceded that the indi-
vidualist system must endure some
modification. The fight to preserve 1t
Is q losing war in the sense that the
system can only be saved by giving up
some parts of it as it now exists.
II the war between individualism
and collectivism were conducted by
one general supreme In command, he
would conclude that his military STRAIT.
egy must be that Of the rear-guard
fight. He would look over the field a.
a whole, and decide that in order to
win the war he must lose some hat.
ties. To try to win every battle and
skirmisn. to yield nothing. would be
to invite loss of all Such q general
might readily decide that preservation
Of the chain system in all its recent
size is one battle which he chooses to
lose, or at least not to fight. There
are battles much more important to
win, battles which will be either indi.
vidualism's Gettysburg or its Water.
loo. Possibly the most crucial one Is
to prevent disastrous infiation-for
reasons not convenient to set down in
this limited space. To win the major
battle for individualism, it may be de-
sirable to lose some minor ones.
The present situation does not mean,
and the New Deal legislation does not
mean. that the whole chain idea will
be extinguished. Nothing in the exist
ing New Deal legislation necessarily
goes that far. More than half the
States have refrained from adopting
discriminatory legislation against the
chains, although the agitation for
such laws has gone on for some years.
Some States which have tried the ex-
pertinent may come later to feel that
the chain system Is preferable-there
Is a large body Of consumer sentiment
which feels that way At later time
it may be possible to debate the issue
solely on its economic and social
merits. In some calmer future we
may be able to decide on the basis of
economic evolution, regardless of
politics.
But so long as the individualist con-
ceptlon OF society Is In danger in
America, so long as there is a large
body of opinion or emotion which op-
poses big business on the ground Of
bignsss-and an even more formida-
able body of sentiment which says, in
effect, '.let us have more and more
bigness and then let the Government
take it over'-so long as these condi-
tions exist, 1t Is certainly not prudent
for any political party or other group
trying to save individualism- from ex-
tinction to make q stubborn stand on
this one point.
CCopyriGht, 1850