We conceive, then, that the fundamental vice of our system, as hitherto carried out, lies in _the misinterpretation of the proprietary contract_—the contract tacitly entered into between each shareholder and the body of shareholders with whom he unites; and that the remedy for these evils which have now become so great, lies simply in the enforcement of an equitable interpretation of this contract. In reality the contract is a strictly limited one. In practice it is treated as altogether unlimited. And the thing needed is, that it should be clearly defined and abided by. Our popular form of government has so habituated us to seeing public questions decided by the voice of the majority, and the system is so manifestly equitable in the cases daily before us, that there has been produced in the general mind, an unhesitating belief that the majority’s right is unbounded. Under whatever circumstances men co-operate, it is held that if difference of opinion arises among them, justice requires that the will of the greater number shall be executed rather than that of the smaller number; be the question at issue what it may. So confirmed is this conviction, that to most this mere suggestion of a doubt will cause astonishment. Yet it needs but a brief analysis to show that the conviction is little better than a political superstition. Instances may readily be selected which prove, by _reductio ad absurdum_, that the right of a majority is a purely conditional right, valid only within specific limits. Let us take a few. Suppose that at the general meeting of some philanthropic association, it was resolved that in addition to relieving distress the association should employ home-missionaries to preach down popery. Might the subscriptions of Catholics, who had joined the body with charitable views, be rightfully used for this end? Suppose that of the members of a book-club, the greater number, thinking {90} that under existing circumstances rifle-practice is more important than reading, should decide to change the purpose of their union, and to apply the funds in hand for the purchase of powder, ball, and targets. Would the rest be bound by this decision? Suppose that under the excitement of news from Australia, the majority of a Freehold Land Society should determine, not simply to start in a body for the gold diggings, but to use their accumulated capital to provide outfits. Would this appropriation of property be just to the minority? and must these join the expedition? Scarcely any one would venture an affirmative answer even to the first of these questions; much less to the others. And why? Because everyone must perceive that by joining with others, no man can equitably be committed to acts utterly foreign to the purpose for which he joined them. Each of these supposed minorities would properly reply to those seeking to coerce them:—“We combined with you for a defined object; we gave money and time for the furtherance of that