MR. LAWYER: Well, I think there is a very great difference; and I think I can demonstrate to you by an illustration right in your own neighborhood just what the distinction is between these two words. You will remember, Mr. Farmer, when that mill located over on Carroll River, and that big dam was put in, Mr. Adams, a man whom you and I both know very well, owned all the land in that neighborhood. You will remember that he proceeded to borrow money and build houses for the employees who wanted to come and work in the mill. I think he built as many as 150 houses for that purpose. You will remember the dam washed out and that they did not rebuild it; and as a consequence the mill closed down. The result was the employees all left, and Mr. Adams was involved to a very large extent, I think something over $200,000 all told. Now he still has the property, but the insurance company has the mortgages--in fact, Mr. Adams has a great deal more property now than he had before the mill located there, because he has the land and the 150 houses, but he has a good deal less wealth. For when the mill located there, Mr. Adams' wealth exceeded $100,000, but after the mill closed he could not rent or sell the houses to anyone. Now the evident result was that he had increased the amount of his property, for he had 150 houses, but he actually had no wealth left. His property was what we lawyers call corporeal property, that is, material property, land, and buildings. The insurance companies which held the mortgages had a very different kind of property, called by the lawyers incorporeal property, that is, not material property but an interest in the real or material property. I think you will all agree that while Mr. Adams still has all his property, all the wealth there is left belongs to the insurance company which holds the mortgages. MR. MERCHANT: Mr. Lawyer, is it not true that you could and would say that a man had a lot of property if he owns say 100,000 acres of land worth only 25 cents an acre, even if it was not salable at all? MR. LAWYER: Yes, I think that is true, and illustrates in another way that there is or may be a real difference between property and wealth; however, it may be said that in conversation we often use the words wealth and property without much, if any, distinction. It seems to me that we should note this particular difference. _Wealth consists of property convertible into money, and therefore implies exchangeability, while property may not mean wealth at all, because the property has no exchangeable value._ MR. BANKER: Mr. Lawyer, I think that that last statement of yours will assist Mr. Farmer very greatly in understanding the real difference between wealth and property. The difference is certainly very evident.