Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-07-27

commented on. Mr.. S. said it would De lus. a.
proper 10 make The borrower composer. W.
ness against the lender, so as 10 enaoIc n'ni ~
pay that debt, as il is, under The SUBSTITUTE, y; ~
enable him to pay another debi, by tesl'iy'ns ~
favor of The Judgment CREDITOR MI. .. CnIu
the varying decisions OF The Court oil APPea's'
until ii was selllei in 4th Grattan, that IL ooi.
rover files his bill in Court OF Equity, u ~
away with usurious interest, The Lender wa ~ a.
lowed 10 recover his debt and interest. NJ
Couns Of Equity in England have esaoiisneu
and adopt The original provision in the Cooe,
which allows the lender 10 recover his principal
and legal interest," He should infinitely prefer
The old law 10 the substitute, with its odious prih-
cples, which are calculated 10 encourage pei
jury.
Mr.. SCOTT continued in defence OF The pup
lie policy of the section objected TO. There was
no danger Of perjury in The man who has s1eWn
himself ready honestly TO pay lie pound OF nesn,
and whose interest is generally small, as mostly
his worldly goods are gone. BY The law OF
1919, The usurious dealer forfeils doub re The va
lue OF The subject OF the contract, one hall 10 inc
iniormer and the other 10 The Commonwealth.
Yet gentlemen who prefer the present law, WIN
these slringen, provisions object to The SOD
slIlpte on account OF lis assumed aspeHty TO-
.
modified the present law in favor OF, and mol
against the usurer. But The gentleman from
Alexandria obj.c that Inc substitute embraces
three different rules for adjudica,ing usurcus
contracts. Now, said Mr.. s., there are also
three rules under The present law, whose great
deiecl IS, 10 furnish through deeds OF trust, abun-
dant inducements 10 deal in usuri0Us lrans-
actions. These deeds OF trust are self-execu,ins
instruments, no, requiring the inerpositicn Of
any court. The Court OF Appeals, regarding
deeds oil trust as ready shifts for The purposes
OF The usurer, have gel themselves 10 work, as
far as possible, 10 do away with their operation
in This regard. There have, it is lrne, been Sc
veral decisions, one way and another, as 10 The
nature and character OF the relief from usnrious
contracts. To remove this cooflici Of decisions,
The 9th section OF The substitute was framed,
putting deeds OF trust on The footing OF mort
cages, requiring them TO be executed by The
courts where the consideration may be eLqnired
into. II We condemn usufy, is there any thing
wrong in giving 10 deeds OF tusI, The Teatiesl
shifts OF the usurer, the effect OF mortgages Mr..
Scott then, al some length, went INFO an exam-
nation oil The general policy oil usufy, urging The
most stringent prohibition vi it.
Mr.. SMITH asked where was the difference
between all other contracts and contracts Tor mo-
ney, made between Two men OF ripe years and
sound mind2 He protested against This attempt
made by US, as wise guardians, 10 make con.
tracts for individuals, who know their interests
and can better manage their own affairs than the
Government Why ntl as we'll fix the value Of
lands and other pfopcrly-and why not declare
that the exchange between Richmond and New
York shall mol exceed five or sir per cent? The
argument! cannot be answered-and II will moi
do 10 indulge in denunciations and appeals 10
nrp nd 1rti hahu 10
willing 10 sustain The usurers-but was ready 10
stand by the orginal provision in The Code al
lowing The recovery OF The principal and six per
cent interest. II note has seal, The interest
cannot be taken ID in ADVANCE If it has no sea,
the interest can be taken of-and it is on such
nice distinctions thai man is 10 be regarded as
criminal or not Mr.. S. cited cases, 10 show thai
the question OF nsury really depended on The par
icuar evidence Il the case. Mr. S. traced the
history CT usury from the Jewish dispensalion,
through Greece Rome and other nations, and ar
gued that in nearly every one the usuty laws were
obsolete. Wherever they are in force, they apply
TO real estate. Mr. 8. qsoled the instance Of
England, whose laws we have adopted as The
foundation OF our own, as evidence OF the liberal
provisions on this subject He referred 10 The
large number oil our sister States, which have
adopted the equitable luie on hi, subject. There
lima ard New York, which Stood on the same
platform OF restriction with Virginia.
Mr.. BURWELL said the gentleman from
Alexandria had jumped into the cock pit to-day |
as the prochcim omi Of the usurer, having most |
pruden,ly avoided an encounter with the gen
tleman from Jefferson, mir. Thomson who was |
not hsre 10 day. Mr. B made an amusing il. |
lustralon OF the manner in zh;ch Mr.. Hart had |
unconsciously thrown open the discussion OF The |
whole question upon mere motion 10 correct a |
particular section. The gentleman from Alex. |
andria had, in his extended historical researches,
disclosed one OF the strongest arguments in |
favor of the usury laws, VIZ: that .he Jews |
made i penal 10 take usury from one q ,otl:r,
though they might have taken il from, and given |
any amount OF usury 10, citizens Of all other |
nations MIR. d at some length, defended the |
policy and necessity Of usuly laws-tbo repeal |
of which would bring together all The ravens |
and yu'tures 10 prey upon their miserable vic |
Tins. We should egislate for Virginia as she |
IS, in all her length and breadth, and not &C
cording to the circumstances, customs and pre- |
cedents Of other naions.
Mr. HARRISON OF l., would like 10 hear The |
Chairman of the Revision Committee defend |
The action Of the committee.
Mr.. WHlTTLE thought we should first take
the vote on the motion 10 reconsider, which |
would be test question as to the adoption or
rejection of the substitute. II the vote be re,
considered, the House can then undcrst anding.
~, and in order, go into tho merits Of the
whole question.
MIR. RlvES had yesterday been forced 10 vote
between The provision in The Code and The sub.
stilute, and had taken the latter lilo now dc.
sired TO amend that substitute by striking out
the Objectionable portion af the 9Th section, and
should vote 10 reconsider.
Mr.. PERROW called the previous question,
which was sustained; and asked the ayes and
noes on tho motion to reconsider, which was
agreed lo-ayes4 s. noes 80.
Mir. HART moved TO amend the s.h section |
Of Mr. SCOTS substitute. by striking out the |
words: In any such suit the debtor shall be
competent witness 10 prove he usary"
MIR. SCOTT SAID to st:iSo out these words
would destroy tho value Of the whole section
He thought, therefore, the gentleman had bit.
Ter move TO strike out the whole section, and
substitute the provision OF the present law,
compelling forfeiture Of double the value OF
the subject
Mr.. HART said he desired 10 retain the pro
vision in The section which required the lender
10 discover on oalh.
Mr. SCOT L asked il tho borrower would not
be better witness than the lender.
Mr. WATSON sal. there were many cases
in which the usury could be proved BY other
persons than the borrower. He was for re.
tanning the first part Of the section as valuable
MIR HARRISON Of L took similar view
Mr.. PERROW thought there was no reliance
to be placed in The answer Ct the defendant,
and was opposed 10 omasculalios lhe section,
BY striking out the words 1t was much moro |
likely that the borrower would honestly tell the
truth, especially as il was to pay an honest debt
MIR SCOTT. 10 an action n, law, there may
be some reasons why Inc debtor should not be
witness in his own casc-(neither can the
lender)-but in salt in equity, the answer un
der oath Of the lender is 10 stand, unless 70.
but,ed by the oa,h Of two witnesses and, un.
less you make the debtor q witness, YOU give