If a man determines to spend his time in the production of such things, he must have been led to it by the consideration of the power which these instruments add to his power; of the time which they save him; of the perfection and rapidity which they give to his labor; in a word, of the advantages which they procure for him.

Now, these advantages, which have been prepared by labor, by the sacrifice of time which might have been used in a more immediate manner, are we bound, as soon as they are ready to be enjoyed, to confer them gratuitously upon another?
Would it be an advance in social order, if the law decided thus, and citizens should pay officials for causing such a law to be executed by force?
I venture to say, that there is not one amongst you who would support it.

It would be to legalize, to organize, to systematize injustice itself, for it would be proclaiming that there are men born to render, and others born to receive, gratuitous services.
Granted, then, that interest is just, natural, and lawful.
2nd.

A second consequence, not less remarkable than the former, and, if possible, still more conclusive, to which I call your attention, is this: _interest is not injurious to the borrower_.

I mean to say, the obligation in which the borrower finds himself, to pay a remuneration for the use of capital, cannot do any harm to his condition.