Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1850-12-06
THE rIsuRY LAWS

ney is different from other commodities is that the
law makes it legal tender, whlstno other commo-
dty Is; and again, the law making it legal tender
renders it necessary that it should interfere further
and regulate the at which shall be sold or hi
red That the law makes it legal tender is not
denied, but that does not make it certain that its
character is in anyrespect changed thereby or that
the law interfering with it in respect should do
so in another. Indeed we think the law making it
legal tender is free from objection, because it
arbitrarily fixes value to that which can have no
fixed value. Thus day ten dollars will buy
certain amount of the necessaries of life, whilst to-
morrow, for occurring reasons, it may buy twice as
much or not half as much. This cannot be dispu-
ted or doubted, and hence it is very evident that
whilst making it legal tender may work great in
justice, it does not change its intrinsic character
nor make it different from other commodities. Ger
tainly then, grow out of this, justify
ing further interference with money.
With reference to this whole matter, there is no
necessity for confusing ourselves with details In ar
guing it. If the general principle involved con-
dennis the enactment of usury laws, we may rest
assured that their enactment cannot be really usti
fed by the details. 1t cannot be denied that
money is subject to the same fluctuations in value
that any other commercial commodity is, for to day
it viii buy more and tomorrow less, of the same
article, and consequently worth more to day than
tomorrow. Thus, in this western country, land RI
SEES very rapidly in value, increasing in many cases
one hundred per cent in year. Now can any man
sanely say that money is worth no more to bnyland
which is increasing that rate, than if it increased
at the rate only of ten or twelve per cent year.
real value except as it will purchase other commo-
dties, and inasmuch as the value of other commo-
dities is dependant on circumstances independent
of money and which are continually changing and
consequently changing the value of commodies, how
is it possible that law fixing the value of money
can be other than false in its nature and pernicious
in its results On this general principle then, the
usury law is condemned.
Again, moments reflection will show any per-
son that each and every individual must occupy a
different position in the world of business, is con-
trolled by different circumstances and moved by
that every man must necessarily occupy the same
position in every respect. Certainly every can
see and know that the value of money individuals
will correspond with the necessities and crcumstan-
ces that surround and govern them. Thus the bu-
sness of one man may be of nature to warrant
him in paying 25 per cent for money whilst another
may uot able 10 pay s. To-day man may be in
Al
per cent, tomorrow he don't want it and would
give nothing for it. In all conscience then, how
can there be any truth applicability in law
which says that money is worth IL per cent neither
more less, to every man, woman and child.
How can the law know what money is worth to me
and if does know what it is worth to me to-day,
how can it know what it will be worth to morrow?
Is it not most ridiculous as well as Objectionable
law which dictates to you what you shall pay for
any commodity. Can the law know as much about
your business as you do yourself and can the law
take care of it better than you can? The presump-
tior. Of .l.o ..er lap i I'll ahooas thorn
selves all the time, and nothing is necessary to save
them but to prescribe the value of money to be IL
per cent. What can be more degrading to peo-
pie than this assumption of guardianship over their
business relations.
Again, usury law is revolving to the conscience
of people. Whoever heard of a man losing posi-
ton in society from violating the usury laws? When
did church ever deem it necessary to expe sus-
pend, or reprimand brother from that cause? This
is not the when man violates the law against
stealing; and why? simply because there is moral
fitness in one law ard in the other there is not.
One law is felt to be right and its observance cor
repondingy necessary and proper, whilst the other
is felt to be violation of the laws of trade and
business generally, and its observance not deman-
ded by good policy. And this feeling is more mark
ed when an individual pleads usury in justification
of violation of contract fairly entered into. All
condemn him and feel and know that he is man
not to be trusted This is fact, and it can arise
from other cause than the antagonism of the
law with the moral sense of the people, and can
such law be beneficial in its operation?
These are few of the general principles which
condemn the enactment of usury laws, and we trust
the legislature will not be influenced by passing
circumstances, laws which being intrin-
sicaly bad, can be productive of no good ends
~ The Circuit Court for this county was
still sitting this Thursday morning. Two in
dictments for murder were found, against Nc
Cafferty and INLAND, each for the murder of his
wife. Neither has yet been tried. An effort