Who knows, even, that I may not be reproached for having made great effort to burst what may be said to be an open door.

But as soon as _cash_ makes its appearance as the subject of the transaction (and it is this which appears almost always), immediately a crowd of objections are raised.

Money, it will be said, will not reproduce itself, like your _sack of corn_; it does not assist labor, like your _plane_; it does not afford an immediate satisfaction, like your _house_.

It is incapable, by its nature, of producing interest, of multiplying itself, and the remuneration it demands is a positive extortion.
Who cannot see the sophistry of this?
Who does not see that cash is only a transient form, which men give at the time to other _values_, to real objects of usefulness, for the sole object of facilitating their arrangements?
In the midst of social complications, the man who is in a condition to lend, scarcely ever has the exact thing which the borrower wants.

James, it is true, has a plane; but, perhaps, William wants a saw.