The peanut vendor is a capitalist to the extent of his investment in earth nuts, roaster, pans, baskets, etc. The little girl who peddles laces, or newspapers, or pins around the streets, is as much a capitalist to the extent of her investment as Mr. Vanderbilt or Mr. Gould. Mr. Gould and Mr. Vanderbilt have simply by the exercise of more economy, sagacity and energy accumulated more wealth than she. But the peanut vendor may become a greater capitalist as he accumulates more wealth and employs it. It is folly to point the finger of prejudice and envy at the very rich people and cry: "These men oppress us; these capitalists are sharks; these wealthy people have our earnings." It is not only folly, but it is unjust. I see many of you with watches and chains, rings on your fingers, and pins on your breasts. These articles are wealth. They represent so much capital--labor or money--at rest. The man who owns the watch worth $8 and the one with the $100 watch, are men of wealth to the valuation of those useful articles. The poor laborer, who, by industry and frugality, after the exercise of his capital--his muscle--accumulates enough to buy an acre of land and erect a small cottage for his faithful wife and little ones, was in turn a laborer, capitalist, and is now a man of wealth to the value of that happy little home, where peace and virtue reign and upon which the blessings of God rest. Mr. Vanderbilt is a man of greater wealth than this man, but it is because he operated a larger capital. Some times a spirit of envy creeps in between these two capitalists and then both suffer--each in proportion to his wealth. This brings me to consider
This form of ownership originated in bloody Rome. It was tried among the early christians. Wherever it has been introduced failure and crime followed. The population of the United States and Territories is 50,155,783; the value of real estate and personal property is $16,902,993,443. Divide this according to agrarianism and each person would get $337, which by trade and speculation would soon again be in the hands of a few. And thus with each day we should have to re-collect and re-distribute. Out of such a system no good could possibly come. Nature everywhere teaches that differences and distinctions must exist. Why has she been more lavish with the peafowl than with the crow? Why has she bedecked the gold finch or the bird of paradise more gorgeously than the snow bird or the hawk? Why the lily more fragrant and fair than the sun-flower? Why the difference in the magnitude of the twinkling stars? Why the dissimilarity in the talents of men? Why are some men born idiots and others with the sparkling gems of genius shining in their souls? Why do some mountains possess millions of dollars of the precious or useful minerals and others only sandstone or lime rock? The answers are secrets locked up in the mystery of the Almighty. The man of talent, of push, of energy, frugality and sagacity can not help accumulating more of the results of labor than the individual of opposite qualities. Agrarianism is a foe to thrift and activity, and encourages idleness and stagnation. It would paralyze business and cause the wheels of industry to hang dry and still over the stream of progress.