Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-07-25

more Haa me legal limit ; aud who is gene
rally the inStigator Of the bargain Sure
~ II he be not the principal, ne is parii-
ceps crinlinis. What punishment is he
10 suffer Why SIMPLY none at all. Does
The iaw stop here! Oh no! This could
mol answer The purpose of the law.-For
ms participation IN the offence, so far
irom ne!iiS punished, he is TO be reward
eh VITA tie Whole thnIg in contract; pro-
vided te can prove ms own crininaIiy
III a court ot law and TO add 10 this Il
rage npon Justice, If an intormer shall
discover The offence, then the occsptor
shall forfeit double the thing in contract
and the Steer forfeit nothing. But If he
cannot prove the corrupt contract what
len The borrower may tliou exhibit
his blli IN Chancery, and compel the len
der ID discover on oath, &c. Ia which
case. TIE fe'n4.r snail lose and the 6o,7ou-
e,' shat gam the interest contracted for
Here lei tie reader pause, and without
devoilnS oae solitary thought To the mi
Scrabble contrNance OF inviting informers
to give their ,iriuouS aid 20 the exc
cution ofthis law let him reflect, deep
~ reflect, upon another most odious prin-
ciple, pressed into the service of this
most odious law. The great principle
of evidence, which except in this notable
case, pervade. the whole British and Anne
rlcan systems of jurisprudence, wisely
and humanely founded upon just and
tender regard 10 human imperiections !;
and intended for the security of the per-
son and reputation of the accused, is, for
the holy purpose of carving into effect
this law. unceromoniously set at nought !;
and tor thus single purpose, the accused
individual is called upon to give evidence
against himself; although III so doing he
sonvic's himself ofan otftnce aga ~ the
law which approved upon him in court
of law by other evidence, particularly nj
the instance ofan informer, he incurs Inc
forfeiture Of double the value of the thing
in contract but it he gives compulsory G.
pielence GgGins, himself, then he fcyJcits only
the inierest.-It is nor recoilcc,ed, that i'm
single 9th instance in the whole code
OF Virginlan laws, an individual can be
compelled to give evidence against him
self, ifthereby he acknowledges a crime.
and incurs penally.-Ii is believed, that
In all chancery courts, the plea of for
fixture TO a bill for discovery, is ALWAYS
| available. Yet for the pious purposes
of executing the law against usury, this
great security TO person and reputation,
Is most plously dispensed with.-Will the
reader also turn his recollection for mo
ment to celebrated case, which lately
occurred before the highest French cri
minal tribunal : in which the dignity, the
lberality, and the Justice of tins sacred
principle in the British and American
codes, shone conspicuously above the
unfeeling despotism ofthe French code {?
When before a French tribunal, Sir Ro-
bert Wilson was lately accused of often
ces against the State, and according TO
the French law, was called upon TO give
evidence against himself, what did he
say To The court | am British sub
ject. CLAN the benefit of British laws ::
British laws are too wise, too Just, too
liberal TO compel the accused to condemn
himself" Because he is accused of
one offence, TO impose upon him the grea.
test possible temptation 10 commit ano-
Their" To add perjury TO his accusation,
whether lie be guilty or not" Is it pos
slble TO place these two great principles
of British and French law, in point of
contrast more honorable TO the British
law? This British is also a Virginian
law; and does not every Virginian feel
proud of his birthright, when he fluids this
great security 10 his personand reputation
which French subject cannot claim Z?
And are yon willing do You think il wise.
to destroy the consistency and liarmo-
ny of your whole sysiem,by break
ing down this inestimable painciple, mere
ly to effect the little object of enforcing
the despotism of Que law upon an indivi.
dual tor taking the fraction of cent for
the loan of money more than the law al
lows? Independently of the outrage up.
on the rights OF private property, which
constitutes the principle of the law, is il
possible 10 conceive tissue Of more in
justice than Is sanctioned by its provisi-
ons And what has been the effect of
all this shifting phraseology, and device
to enforce the execution of the law Have
they had the effect? 1t is known thew
have not. Its known that the law is dai-
ly violated within the METROPOLIS ofthe
state, within the vestbule oftlIe Capitol
within the view of the courts.-So noto-
rious is its violation, that the intention
to violate 1T, is, in substance often an
nounced IN the newspapers without excl
ting the least surprise. Whilst writing
this commentary, the following advertise
m nj is in the Richmond Enquirer of June
Goth 1917. Wanted about one or two
thousand dollars, on loan. 4 liberal in
tereSf. and the best security can be OBJ
tanned. Apply at this Office" 4 liberal
interest, II IS presumed is something more
than thciegnE interest. If so, this adver-
tisemeUt is publick annunciation of an
intention TO violate the law Has this adj
vertisement excited any surprise, or call
ed forth any scrutiny! Certainly not.
1t is not deemed worthy ofnotice by any,
but those who happened TO be devotine
some thoughts 10 the subject. Why then
keep a law i'll the statute book, which is
dlsrespected, derided, and disobeyed
Has the legislator ever given himself the
trouble 10 search for the causes, which
defy all his efforts TO execute the law
II he would do this. lie would instantly
ind causes sufficient for It's repeal. II is
because its provisions violate the rights
OF prlva1e ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS flev yinlatn