Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-04-05

= Imittto the competence, measure OF
the lust extent ofsll political authority
What is that ll.iit, that measure ltcan
he no other than the object had IN view,
;u repositina the trust ot this authority
What is that object, 10 STRIP men OF dis
erection and free agency III regard TO their
propcr personal concerns! Exactly The
contrary. To preserve TO them tins dis
cretion unfcttered; TO repress and iepro-
vide means permanent and constant IN
their operation for the repression cfaliIn-
fr;usemcntofit: this is The object OF 70
liticai institutions, and furnishes theJust
scope OF the exercise of Political aatlor-
;ty. May il not, tl,en, safely be affirmed,
that all legal regulations. which, ike tlie
penal provisions OF omriaw OF usury,. nm
pose prohibitions, with no object which
Ri possible for them TO answer, other than
10 guard The exercise oiprisate discretion
in relation to private affairs, IL neither they
onerate by the direct restraint oftle par
r.. intended 10 be guarded, or indirectly,
bv the restraint and punishment of those
who NAV afford him facility for trangres-
sion. >are ,nuuesiionably inconsistent with
: The iustmcasure of Politicalau;hority, and
offend against the fountain from which
alIeivil obligation derivesits force2
But farther review will evince the pro-
visions under discussion TO be deficient
In the essential properties of fairness and
equality ofoperation. They denounce a
formidable forfeiture against lending at
usurious int rest, which is the same in all
cases--namely, three times the amount If
rI,e loan How is regulation of this sort
consistent with their protested object,
or with any principle of reason, or rule
0f proportion between punishment and of
! fence z? The object is to prevent the in
terest exacted on loans from transcendibg
certain fixed and supposed fair and rea-
sonable limit, and for accomplishing this
object, no distinction as regards penalty
is made, between the most immoderate
exaction and the slightest advance upon
tic legal limit. The penalty is precisely
the same for taking 2 per cent. per ann.
and per cent. per month. Would not
the professed object. as well as justice,
he better subseryed, by making the trans
erosion the measure of the penalty. IN a
case in which il is so easv 10 he done, in
stead of having one unvarying penalty
applicable TO everv grade and variety of
transgrfssion? What motive is left under
the existing regulation, 10 stop at small
iolation of the policy Of the lawi Is not
the strongest motive supplied, after the
seek indemnificatIon for the forfeiture
which is liable to proceed from the sen
repcc of the law, i'm the eXorbitancy of its
violation Why should the law evince
itself solicitOus to reprcss mischief, and
then be indifierentto the degree of it z Is
not every step in aggravatIon more perni-
eious, and a filter subject of rcprelicisi-
ON thsnthe first? 1.-THE prescribed for
fixture for usury were of three times the
illegal interest exscted, instead of three
times the amount ofthe loan advanced
ifthe end sought by the Illegal proceed
Eng, were made the instrument of IFS own
apprehension, would there not eat once
greater efficiency, and eaterjustice, and
greater reason in tile punishment Great
proficiency in that event, the
illegal gain could not be augmented
without augmenting, in the same exact
proportion, the hazard TO be incurred from
/ tie illegal act. Greater iustice-because
tie punishment would in such event pre-
Serve regular Il iuvsIiahle graduation TO
The offence. Greater reason-because
the fruit obtained from the prohibited
conduct would, in that case, be made the
\ fund. as well Us tie measure of refribuiion.
THE course recommended, would even
*seem, under tile circumstances, TO present
& the most obvious mode of punishment,
a. well as the most efficient and equita-
q bic. But it is not so severe as the one "a
*cop'cd. How large proportion of the
&punislmcnts, which laws infilct, and how
u large share of their rigor, are 10 be ira
8 ced, not 10 considerations of policy, but
fresenfment2 Let men be engaged in the
4 delicate and hazardous office Of denoun-
cling forfeiiures and infection, and when
5 hsre they know nthe poin; which either
aJpsticc or exDediency required them 10
&siop?
It's observable, that the reason which
mas been supposed ia justify the severity
8whirh the law = lows III this instance,
Z Is an insufficient one-nGmcly: the diff
3cultv which, on account of the privacy
y admitted by usurious transactions, is
$found in accomplishing their detection.
Slut is the essence OF offences, tie quality
#by which il becomes tit subject of re-
&DrebcnSion, or The indefeasibIe proporti-
Bon which Justice .prescribes, that punish
<nenf should observe 10 it; are either of
&these varied in any degree, by the consi-
tleraii0n alledged, the difficulty of detec-
4flon? This would rather seem TO be
*Tesson, (nasmu h as the injured are not
{slow in the exhibition OF their injuries for
suspicion, that the character of the pro-
<ceeding, siigmatized and prohibited as
lnllrious, might not be found in the ma
&jOtity of instances. TO correspond with
Chat description. This difficulty of de-
[feciiOn may also be very sufficient rea-
.fOn for The increase of vigilance on the
part Of those to whom The superintend-
I'fncp of civil dplinouqucv ie coufided, ar