Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-07-22

CS acquainted: u very nkciy story tins:
We come now to examine, whether Sc
coudly and lastly, this contract was usuri.
CTS
IN order to discover this, it is necessary
toascertain the value of the work done by
the plaintiff.
His charge against the defendant, which
is no doubt correct, for the aifidavits of the
ease prove the integrity of his character, is
s So, and some odd shillings. One of the
overseers of the defendant states in his af-
fdavit, that the work done was worth be-
tween IS and so; the other, between 20
and 6 IS. But will take the lowest of all
possible calculations 1 will take that of the
defendant himself: and he admits, in his
answer, that upon an annual average COM
patation, one year with another, his work
was worth 90. Now, sir, if there is any
truth in figures; if % is more than G 6,
then is this contract usurious.
But the defendant, in his answer, has
breaght forward some arguments, if argu-
ments they can BE called, 70 shew that this
contract is not usurious: He contends that
it was a legal purchase of labor, and, that
the plaintiff derived benefit thereby.
d. If this contract be called purchase of la
Dor, we shall not sickle much to admit that
1t was but the amount of that labor given
as consideration for the use of the loan,
we contend was illegal, and constitutes the
very essence OF usury. This, sir, is mil
SCRABBLE subterfuge. Vice does not lose its
nature by changing its name, and if the de-
PENDANT was TO christen and nick name this
foul transaction, with The most plausible cpl
tibet in he vocabulary of fraud and swind
ling, il would not thence cease to be an u.
surous contract of the most fragrant and
flagitious description. Money is but the
representative of labor and to pay in Ia.
Dor, is, in effect, TO pay in money; since
money must be advanced as the price. of la
Dor, 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 absurd and
preposterous.
Whether it is labor, or money, which re-.
presents labor, that is comnuted at an IL
legal price, is altogether immaterial--it is
in each equally usurious.
The defendants oontrac, with the plain
tiff was precisely this--he agreed to lend
him 9 500, for the use of which, the plain
tiff was to do work of ten times the value,
or very near it, of the legal interest OF the
money. Can any thing be palmer than
tlIat this is usury Where would be the IL
tility of labor, where the benefits OF indus
try, if ones labor, did not pay his debts, nor
his industry secure him the comforts of life
When the debtor undertakes to do work for
his creditor, where is the difference be-
tween satisfying the demand in that way
and paying him dollars? Where is the d.
ference between paying s 100 for the use
of 8 500 in cash, or doing wori, to that a :
mount When the debtor borrows money,
and undertakes 20 do so much work as will
amount to the legal interest, in consdera
ton for the use of it, it is a fair contract
But when he undertakes to do so much work
for the man from whom he has borrowed
money, as will amount to five or ten times
the legal interest, for the of it, it is quite
as usurious as if he had undertaken to pay
so much cash for the use of it..
But the defendant thinks he has che more
p hiding place l will ferret him from this {:
He says that the plaintiff derived a benefit
from the coutract-we will suppose he did.
Whoever borrows money, but from he
necessity of making choice of evils ! Ifhe
borrows at legal interest, 10 pay present
demand, and has source of profit else
where, from which he derives, say 10 per
cent. per aunum, IL is evident, when he re-
turns the loan, with legal interest, that he
has, upon the whole, saved per cent. by
the contract.
To put stronger case-suppose he bor-
rows money at 90 per cent and pays debt,
which ne could no otherwise discharge, but
BY a sale of his property, at a discount OF
SO per cent. less than its value; here then
the borrower has saved so per cent. by
the contract; and vet, l believe, no one
will contend that such contract would not
be usurious.
But this contract, sir, comes not only
within the meaning, but precisely within the
words of the statute--it was " a corrupt bar
gain, loan, exchange, shift, GOWN, device
and deceit" to elude the statute and it has
been decided in the court of appeals, Calls
Rep. /. Gibson, us. Fristor, that ga slight
contingency will not take contract out of
the statute" the 'ssiight contingency
by which il has been attempted to take this
case out Of the statute, is, the distinction,
without the difference, endeavored to be
drawn, between labor and money.
Judge Peudietou, by whom the preceding
opinion was delivered, and whose name it
is impossible TO pronounce, without graft
tude and veneration, goes on TO state, that
&c the vendor Of money" and by fair con.
struction, analogy, and parity Of reasoning,
presume, the seller of labor, "is suppos ed
10 have submitted TO a disadvantageous
price, under the inhUence Of that M cessiiy
which the statute meant to protect him a.
ganst,"
There never was case more complete.
~ in point the plaintiff did sell his labor