Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-07-04

" None of these transactions are within tho
scope OF the law. Nor does the law prohibit
the purchase OF notes at any price the holder
may choose te take. This is now the form
which peruniary negotiations must frect.. rtly
assume OF what avail, then, repeat, Is our
law against Usurv2 Ii has done no cood-it
never cau do good--it aggravates the evil--it
forces business out of its natural chanuei-it
keeps every monied man, either scrupulous or
tnid, out of the n,arket-it fixes stigma on
those concerned in il, and always presents To
their minds the idea of litigation and reproach
For all this, the man who wants money must
make compensation"
These facts are judiciously related and
arranged; and the argument drawn from
them eloquent and impressive. But an
unexpected omission is thought TO attend
it. After exhibiting, with the most al
fentive precision, and applying with the
most correct judgment, many facts 10
prove, that the laws for the prevention of
Usury had failed oftheir object, and been
productive of injurious effects i'm every
country which had adopted them refer
ence is had TO Holland, the only CONNER
cial country which had rejected the poll
cy, and refused their adoption. I'm Hol-
land the rate ofinterest always continue
ed low. Here Mr.. II. contents himself
with relying upon Locke as the only au-
thorIty for this most important fact
Locke is admitted to be the best auhori-
" al the time he wrote but he wrote
nearly one hundred and forty years ago
and Holland might since have changed
its policy in that respect. 1t was there
fore important TO have asceriained the po-
Icy of Holland al the present lime and
thus have excluded all doubt or infer
ence upon that point. This might easily
have been done: not having done so is
certainly an omission. Because, armed
with the facts from all countries which
had adopted laws against Usury and
| finding such laws unavaiing and mis-
! chievous and also with the fact that in
terest now is, and always has been lower
| in the only commercial country which
had not adopted them, than i'll any of
those which had; a conclusion might
have been drawn against the policy with
| almost ariflmetical certainty. The re-
suit wonld have been rendered as certain
as il was possible to make one, by any ar
| gument drawn from experience. Itwould
! have proved the point contended for,
both affirmatively and negatively. 1t
would have proved that the presence of
such laws would not keep low the price
| for the use of money; and that in their
| absence the price would not run high. II
would prove more, that in all countries in
| which limit had been fixed bv law to
| the rate OF interest, the interest exceeded
the limit, and that in the only country in
| which no such limit was fixed, the rate of
! interest had never reached the lowest Ii
| NIT fixed in any one of the limiting coun-
fries. No conclusion, therefore, drawn
| from experience, could be stronger Ex-
perience can do no more than prove re-
suit afhrmatvely and negatively. lis
| conclusions, then, are rendered little less
certain, than working sum by addition
and proving the truth ofthe result by
| subtraction. Ii is therefore believed that
| Mr.. h. might have improved his speech.
| if instead of slightly touching upon this
| point, he had brought the whole force of
his genius and eloquence 10 bear entirely
| upon 1t.
MIR. HIS. reply 10 the inti,naiion, that
there was a peculiarly attending the ST.
tuation of Holland, arising from the a
bundance OF capital i'll that country, and
| the commercial temper and habits ofthe
| people which might Justify these, the re-
verse of the policy in relation TO Usury.
| adopted by other countries less commer-
cial, without incurring any risk, or injury,
III consequence OF the price Ofmoney run
ming too high, is also both eloquent and
| impressive. But that subject too, would
have admitted, d perhaps required, more
| ampiitlcation. 1t may be yielded, aItho' if
| is not known, that there is some peculia-
| rity IN Dutch manners and habits, i'm re-
lation to commerce, and particularly
| commerce in money but it is impossi-
BILE that this peculiarly can of itself be
| seriously regarded as the sole cause of
always keeping the rate of interest lower
| IN that country than any'other; especial
| ~ as the nature and extent of this peculi-
arlty remain underlined, and its suggested
| tendency TO produce that effect unex-
| planned. 1t should be recollected too.
that there IS daily an approximation in
the passion for commerce between other
countries and Holland, which must con-
tinually lessen the supposed effect of this
supposed popularity. There was time
when Holland was almost the only nation
truly commercial; but the passion for
| commerce seems now TO have become u.
| niverSdl amongst nations. Commerce
may now be regarded as the fashionable
! rage OF nations. This supposed pecuia-
| rlty has, therefore, Ill great degree, cea-
| sed. Other nations are now as CONNER
| cial as Holland-Great Britain more So
yctthe effect ascribed to this cause, is I'M
changed. 1t must therefore be conclu
| died., that the effect is atirlbutable TO some
| other cause-ceSSat caitSa, ceSSat efectuS.-
| To what cause can it be so properly ascri-
bed, as to the difference in the policy be-
tween other nations and Holland, bearing
directly upon this pointl Here tho aih.
| nifty between the cause and the eff CT
may be distinctly seen, and comprehen-
ded in the other case, it cannot be seen,
and is past all understanding. The diff
ference i'll the rate of interest essentially
consists in the difference Of the policy by
which it is regulated in the difference
between ia lr and free competition, and
unwlse antl-commercial governmental re-