New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-03-18

wrongs, ana been foremost IN the efforts
made TO redress them. And we believe
that three fourths of the people Of our State,
if called upon to sign memorials for or
against the abolition Of our Usury Laws,
would decide to oppose any such change.
Perhaps they would judge mistakenly in
this, but we Dc not think so. In our view,
Usury Laws are desirable if only as clear
recognition Of the fact that Property has
Duties TO perform as well as Rights to up
holi--that man msy not do wat he likes
with his OWL unless he likes to do right
We have acres of laws for the protection
and security of Property, and they do not
all encounter as much opposition from year
TO year as do the few laws intended to
shield Poverty from the overweening, all
absorbing power Of Wealth.
Yet we think our laws regulating the
borrowing and lending of money might be
advanegeously modified. What we would
diffidenty suggest would be some such
plan as this:
l. Reduce the legal rate of interest to
six per cent.
Q. Enact that the drawer Of every note
not paid at maturity, allowed to be protest
ed) shall pay from five to ten per cent.
damages to the holder, as damage is now
paid on protested bills of exchange.
3. Allow any person no wise interested
in note to receive one per cent. for in
dorsing and guaranteeing it, requiring Sc
curity therefor.
We believe these notifications Of our
present laws would secure the following
benefits:
I. Money at lower interest to those who
can give good security.
Q. Greater attention to the important
point of prompt payment. Every man,
rich or poor, wants his meney when due,
and is injured whenever it is withheld.
Often loan would be made if it were net
for an apprehension Of slackness. even on
the part of responsible borrowers. Prompt
PAYERS suffer from this slack Of others,
which ought not to be. Whoever fails to
pay at the day weakens the whole fabric Of
Credit and does an injury which he: and
not others, should redress.
3. The principle of Insurance will en-
counter more objection, and may seem LA.
BILE to abuse. But it is based on justice, and
ought to be recognized by law. Two men
are competitors for loan; the rate Of in-
terest is fixed the lender of course prefers
the applicant who is more certain to pay.
But the other ought to have the privilege Of
going to any known capitalist and saying to
him, l will give you ample though not
readily convertible security, and pay you
one per cent for your name on the backof
my nete, whereby can secure dis
count" He might far better do this than
beg an Endorsement of some one who would
ask him to indorse again, and so subject
him to risk and probable loss. Indorsing
or guaranteeing should be regular bust
ness, wholly separated from money-lending,
and in the hands Of men thoroughly ac-
quainted with business, with the value Of
securities, and whose names would give
currency to any paper they should back
Such a system of indorsing would save
Thousands from unmerised ruin and give to
the whele business Of money-lending q
steadiness and method now csnfned to the
dealings Of capitalists, who very naturally
are first served at Banks because they can
give the best security. And we believe
such system would deprive the clamor for
a repeal of the Usury Laws of al its force
and plausibility.