21 FARMERS' INSTITUTES. 



class of business men. You possibly feel an inclination to repel the assertiors 

 that you are a capitalist. You should not. It is in no sense a dishonor, unless 

 you have built yourself intentionally upon the wreck of others. It is an honor- 

 to have capital, won in an honest life struggle. We do not make the assertion 

 that a farmer is a capitalist as a mere theoretical expression, but for the pur- 

 pose of drawing your attention to a few facts, which in the study of the ques- 

 tion now before us, you may have lost sight of. If a man have capital he is 

 surely a capitalist. If not, what is he, when referring to his capital? It has 

 already been said that capital might be money, stock, merchandise, or land. 

 Then if a man own either a quarter or full section of land, he has capital to- 

 the full extent of his ownership. A man has worked as a farm hand for many 

 years. By prudence and strict economy he has saved $500 ; it is his capital; he- 

 seeks an investment; he places the amount at interest, his security is still his 

 capital. Suppose that he buys eighty acres of land at $50 per acre — a fair value. 

 He pays his 1500 upon the place and gives back a mortgage of $3,500, he still 

 has his capital and has borrowed other capital, which he proposes, by means of 

 its use, to make his own. The party of whom he purchased has the same amount 

 of capital in cash and mortgage as when he held the title to his eighty acre 

 farm. Both have capital, call the men what you may. The man with the- 

 least amount has the intention to own as much as the one of whom he pur- 

 chased, and unless dreamily sleeping when some Bohemian oat swindler crosses 

 his threshold will probably see his intention verified. Then if the owner of 

 $500 worth of land has capital, surely the owner of 160 acres has capital, and 

 and is he not a capitalist? A party invests $10,000 in mortgages, or in inter- 

 est bearing stocks, that the profits on his investment may support hiuiself and 

 family, and if possible add to his accumulations. You call him a capitalist. 

 Ten men invest 110,000 each in a manufacturing interest, and you say that 

 capitalists have thus engaged in business. Ten men have $10,000 each ini 

 farms, and the necessary stock and implements — are they not just as surely 

 capitalists as though they sell those farms and invest that money in mortgages^, 

 stocks or manufacturing interests? A capitalist and a monopolist are not 

 necessarily the same person. The monopolist must have capital to create his 

 monopoly, but less of capital is invested in monopolies than otherwise. It is a 

 very general and oftentimes favorite subject for conversation, the "'oppres- 

 sions of n)onopoly" and'" tyranny of capital," and while there may be much of 

 reason for harsh criticism upon monopolies, nearly all the discussions are led by 

 those who have capital. Has it occurred to the fanner who invested in the Bohe- 

 mian oat swindle that he showed a desire to become a monopolist? He knew 

 that only a few could afford to invest upon any large scale, and that oats at $10 

 per bushel paid an enormous per cent upon the use of land, the toil and capital 

 invested, and he knew that but few could buy oats at $10 per bushel and feed 

 to ordinary breeds of animals. He invested to help h'mself to a quick increase- 

 of capital at the expense of others. He became a monopolist in sentiment and 

 would have been in reality but that his desire had led him into the trap of a 

 swindle. Let us look within ourselves when feeling a desire to arraign any 

 question at the bar of prejudiced opinion and see whether in throwing the 

 stone of thought we may not break a window in own domicile. Now if farmers 

 are capitalists, to what extent have they capital invested as compared with other 

 industries — say manufacturers? We confine ourselves to Michigan. In the- 

 farm btatistics of 1884-5, as collected by the Secretary of State's office, we find 

 these figures: 



