Against Co-operative Change.

To the Editors of the Crimson:

In support of the proposition to do away with the Co-operative Society there have been offered only two main reasons. They are:

1. The alleged uncertain legal status of the Society.

2. The danger of a sudden reversal in the policy of the Board of Directors caused by the usual small attendance at the annual meeting.

It is to be noticed at the outset that these are in no sense reasons for adopting the particular plan for incorporation submitted by the majority of the Directors. But let us examine how weighty they are. The Society is a partnership, the direct management of the affairs of which is placed in the hands of a Board of Directors, chosen from the Faculty and students by the members of the Society. As such it has become a strong business institution, possessing a large capital, doing a cash business of the most stable character, and enjoying the unlimited confidence of the business men with whom it has to deal. During the past four years its annual business has increased by $100,000, and it is now carrying out its purposes in a most satisfactory manner. Something more, therefore, than a vague charge of "looseness of organization" is necessary before the institution is forever laid aside. It is easy to make indefinite and unsubstantiated charges, but we must not overlook the fact that the Society has as a "co-operative" society accumulated a large capital, built up a strong credit, and has on the whole proved satisfactory to the students. If it is necessary to incorporate, incorporation should be effected in such a manner as to leave the institution still in the control of the members. They should not be deprived of their right to make their dissatisfaction known, nor of their power to come together if it should prove necessary in the future as it has once in the past, and awaken the Directors from a state of inactivity. However, after Professor Hart's article no more need be said on this point. As to the second reason, it has been suggested by Professor E. H. Hall that the danger of a sudden and undesirable change of policy at an annual meeting is completely obviated by requiring the nominations to be posted in the Society's store and printed in the CRIMSON a month before the election is to be held. It may be added to this that a large vote may be obtained by having the election made by an all-day ballot at the Society's store. The election of the Class Day officers by an all-day ballot has already proven the advantages of that system. In view of the fact, however, that the constitution is so framed that a majority of the Board hold over from one year to another, the danger of a sudden upheaval at an annual meeting has been much overdrawn, but Professor Hall's suggestion shows that whatever possibility there may be of such an occurrence may be taken away by measures far more acceptable than those proposed by the Directors.

It is evident, therefore, that the majority of the reasons given do not justify the proposed changes. To the many objections to these changes already pointed out in the CRIMSON by Professors Sabine, Hart, and others, there is added the important one that the plan promises all the evils common to delegated management in their most intensified form. When a customer enters the store the employes know that if he is not properly treated he can, if necessary, make the fact known at the annual meeting. Under the proposed plan, however, this incentive, the only existing one, for the employe receives no profit from his sales, will be wanting, and no other is substituted in its place.

The most efficient service from salesmen is obtained when the salesman is himself the owner of the property sold; the second best, where the salesman is an employe, but the owner is always present to oversee his work; the third best, where the owner can be appealed to indirectly, as in our present business; the fourth and poorest, where the owner delegates his power to another. This is the system proposed, and therefore there is a great difference between the present attitude of the employes toward their customers and that which experience teaches will exist under the new plan.

One of the Directors in a communication has told us that the stockholders will be subject to the force of public opinion, but public opinion only works on the knowledge that is available to the public, and when the public has a means of making its desire felt. It cannot be denied that, if the plan proposed is adopted, the influence of public opinion on the control will be weakened.

After all that has been said upon this subject, no one, I feel certain, will believe that the objections to this plan have been based on "sentimental" grounds, that the success of the Society up to the present time has been "in spite of its present organization" as has been asserted, or that the proposed plan is the best now practically available. If I were asked to state briefly my main ground of dissent I should say that I feel the need of a check on the powers of the stockholders which will at the same time be a means of expressing when needed the views of the student body.

Since the public discussion has begun, the strength of the reasons against the plan have been made clear much better than they were or could have been by my feeble and unaided efforts on the Board of Directors. Very few persons agree in toto with the plan proposed; and if the vote today is in the negative, there will be an opportunity in the immediate future to adopt a plan which will save to the members needed powers, and at the same time bring about changes which the majority of the Board of Directors probably feel the necessity of more strongly than others. But if the plan is adopted, one extreme view will prevail, those who hold it will be put in absolute control of the Society, and the members will not in the future have a chance to insist upon its modification.  M. A. SULLIVAN.