state Convention—republican-democracy, \ 73 
which we are expected to pay ten per cent, interest, and on which 
we actually did pay, for 1872, as Mr. Poor tells us, 5.2 per cent, 
on the so-called cost of $8,159,423,057, which is nearly double 
the capital stock. Next, $850,000,000 in national bank stock, an 
unknown amount in the stock of other banks, insurance compa¬ 
nies, etc., upon all of which it is essential to their good standing 
that a good rate of interest be made; so that, in addition to pub¬ 
lic debts amounting, in 1870, to $3,271,874,768, the people of 
this country have to carry as much more in the shape of corpo¬ 
rate stock. The evil of this stock is perpetuity. The persons 
who own it may change; but the stock remains, a perpetual incu¬ 
bus; men may come, and men may go, but it goes on forever. 
This is not so with private capital. The unsuccessful merchant, 
or mechanic, or farmer, simply gets a low rate of interest, or sinks 
a part of his capital; but capital stock must pay, and I believe 
does pay about double the interest that the farmer makes from 
his farm. The result, unless the tendency is checked, is the ab- 
sorbtion of private capital by capital stock. In the words of a 
writer in the North American Review (Jan., 1873), “It is evident 
—for it is a mathematical proposition—that this movement of 
property from the many to the few, if unchecked, will, sooner or 
later, make the few the possessors of all property, while the 
masses will be necessarily impoverished, and virtually enslaved. 
The ratio of relative increase on the one hand and diminution on 
the other, will make the time required for this consumation pro¬ 
portionally longer or shorter; but it cannot change the result.” 
Thus far I have spoken simply of what I may call the legiti¬ 
mate results of the association of capital in corporations—of 
what they can do and actually effect under the management of 
honorable men. But there are even worse phases than this. 
Capital, in the hands of a few, is organized with facility, handled 
rapidly, and may be used unscrupulously. It may do more mis¬ 
chief in a democracy than elsewhere. “In democracies,”said De 
Tocqueville, “ statesmen are poor, and have their fortunes to 
make.” He could not have put it more scathingly had he seen 
the “ credit mobilier ” in a vision. 
Associated capital, again, takes a most oppressive form in the 
shape of monopolies. These are the result of conspiracies against 
