The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-07-29


nent, into one solitary act of sisin,erestetl
Friendship We shoultinotdo him such great in.
justce. MS to believe, that his mind was ever ir-
radiated by one enlarged thought, or that his
bosom ever sweiled with one generous emotion
II u did not suit his present purpose to confess
WITH n,uch GiDfe,ce and confusion TO be sure that
he has been guilty of friendly action, am not
certain that he would not prosecute any man. as
detracting from his tbrifiness and good husband.
~, who should say, Vsdt lie has sworn to, that
| he ever lent money without interest By sor-
did attention to the necessities ofh fellow-men,
he has acquired the means of distressing MS poor
negi,5ors He has scented his prey among the
brothers of his yicnage, and wherever power
| tvs keen blast" had lowy bent the meek end
nnassumrg peasant Of the vale, so surely has he
marked him as the victim If his lawless cupidi,v
And is this the man who tells tbs he has put down
! ms shop; loaned money without interest hired
! out striker at an undervaue , his blaci;smith's
tools for little or nothing and advanced cash
Mpon open accounts of dubious credit Surely
" cannot be ! There must be some leger- de-man
~ tins business 1t cannot be the defendant
who has thrown off the wintry torpor or his fro
zen soul, and comes out the sleek and supple seq,
lant OF the spring And vet, sir, there has been
70 transformation here 1t is the same man that
we have always known and kno wing him, as
20 always have done, who viii believe that he
has performed THIS incredible act of generosity
II any person was to assert to me physical or
neral inpossibihty-was to tell me that yellow
was biuei or that green was red, or that The
n:ush gr:tings sf cart wheel were more plea
sing TO INN than the soft music of the flute or
that the defendant had lent money without exact
ing illegal interest and excessive security should
certainly conclude that his senses were disor-
dered, or that to serve purpose, lie gull
~ OF deliberate falsehood: Now, two conclu-
sions may be drawn from the precedingprerlises
an9 1T IS not for me to say that the defendants
senses disordercd
lie tins as 1t may
The answer Sc drags its slow length along"
cpntendng that the plaintiff was to do his work
as consideration for his putting down his shop
y q what inducenent could the plaintiff have, for
mixing this sacrifice what injury III the way OF
riyaishiP or competition, cond the defendants
Ship be to him when, as the answer states, at
subsequent period, he, the defendant,
u'rier the necessity Of purchasing blacksmith,
tocarry ON the trade An empty shop could not
bdvery injurious TO one that was full of work
the allegation is absurd and falsihes itself. E.
ven after the defendant had set up shop, it APP
pears that the plaintiff lost no customers thereby
ard the only reason he had to regret il, was,
that 1t furnished the defendant with prctext for
net extending the loan to longer period than
az first agreed upon and to sell the plaintiffs
properly ror little or nothing property with the
v'lues of which, forsooth, the defendant pre-
tends, even at this day, not to be acquainted
! very likely story this
anf lastly, this contract was usurio,,s
In order to discover this, it is necessary to as.
CERTAIN tie value of The work done by the plain
Tiff
His charge against the defendant, which is no
sta=t correct, t5i the case prove
the integrity of his character, is E So, and some
odd shiliings. One OF the ovcrseers of the de-
fenant states in his affidavit, that the work done
was worth between IS and { 50 ; the other, be-
tHHee. 90 aH e & IS. Bi;; viii take tiiic lowest
OF all possible calculations will take that of
the defendant himself: and he admits, in his
answer, that upon IN annual average computati-
on, one year with another, his work was worth
* 20. Now, sir, if there is any truth i'll figure
if Is % is than & g. then is this contract u.
surious.
But the defendant, in his answer, has brought
forward some arguments. if arguments they can
be Called TO she that this contract is not usuri-
Gus He contends that it was legal purchase of
labor, aid, .iit tic plaintiff derived benefit
thereby.
If this contract be called purchase of labor,
we shallnot sickle much, to admit that it was;
but the amount of that labor given as a consider
alton fortbe use of the loan, we contend was H.
legal, and constitutes the very essence ofusurv
This, sir, is miserable subterfuge. Vice does
not lose its nature by changing its name, and If
the defendant was to chrisJen and nick name this
tou,transact'On, with the most plausible cDithet
IN the vocabulary OF fraud and swindling, it
would not thence cease to be an u5uriCus contract
Of the most fragrant and flagitious description
Moneyis but the representative Of labor; and TO
pay III labor, is, in.eifect, to pay in money; since
money must be advanced rs the price of labor, if
the debtor is not employed. The distinction,
therefore, attempted to be drawn, in the answer,
between paying in labor, and paying in money,
or purchasing labor and purchasing money, is alb
surd and preposteTous.
Whether it is labor, or MONEY which represents
labor, that is committed at Illegal price is alto
gether iminatcrial--it is i'll each equally usuri
Gus.
The defendants contract with the plaintiff was
precisely this--he agreed TO lend him S 500, for
the use of which the plaintiff was to do work Of
ten times the value, or very near it, Of the legal
interest of the money. Can any thing be plain
er than that this is usury! Where would be the
utility of labor, where the benefits of Industry,
if ones labor did not pay his debts, nor his indus
try secure him the comforts Of life ! When the
debtor undertakes 80 do work for his creditor
where islthc difference between satisfying t!.c
demand ir that way and paying him dollars !;
Where is the difference between paying & 100
for the use OF = 500 in cash. or doing work 10
that amount When the debtor borrows money
and undertakes TO do SO much work as will A.
mount &c the legal istcrest, in consideration for
the use Of II, it Is fair contract But when he
undertakes TO do so much work for the man from
whom he has borrowed money as will amount
90 five OF ten times the legal interest, for the use
OF it, it is quite as usurious as if he bad under
taken TO pay SO much cash for the use of it.