Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1853-02-08

meat in ir cai,r!i;!cn IN. 60 un,H"clth VIII pay late
rest o. s. $50 Gv from date ot'c contract Of loan But
by roiac nl is gentleman rom Petersburg the cot-
uanies w lie able "a: tho Interest on the 81 4OOOO0.
:u, r! shalt has" Seen completed tCh c tiS:'
Il lie close - years 80 the state VIII pay Interest Oh
s. ot CU iva yeas a. pes cent before III" conpantc- VIII
argia g. his j. two years vii amount 70 Sih5 23J;
which taiag capitals aai NJ 'cI 10 lui;r will make an
aggregate s2iS5 200 which sas will BE- paying Interest :
being So V9 than tho which shu wall 30 nces-
| iUG II.
per cent for thirty being in all 600
the Commonwealth will lose s35 GOD with ths interest AT
seven per cent 81 years beng all SOP 716. Il the Com
monwcaih refuse to hesr ills !ss AMI c.U:c 10 throw II
companies being thrrt.lhs OF tho stock,
three-fts of the oas which Is al2i ,665 luas
corporator-bcng the smallest loss she can sustain
! from this experiment.
The item in the list OF gains secured ia the scheme
OF my friend from PccrburI is the avoidance oil the loss
$50 Gi6 which, it alleged the Commonwealth will sus-
stakeholder by The supposed sale OF The bonds OF the
| com pdnies di>couD: # ~ per cent.
An uhv;oas cum;icn: this suggestion is, that the
scl. nc prop cnch Comm ,nwcal, by purc''ns
in- pr bonds o NJ companies which capitalist
viii "rg q smaller DIS than ~ per cent The
mas ci value OF oiy il The best criterion OF the
valuc nut the nara vaga 81 TIE bonds q! tie com
panic so in tic hurd;oihy nostuato. Yet the genc-
from Petersburg as legislator entTused win the
rh interests o. the STATE AID esfccdg with the admin
!5trailon - its tuGncssprIpc 10 invest lie public mo-
ucy a !an's 500 which The capitalists Of the country
huvc asc;aned 10 be worth but $780, and this he proposes
wise measure or financial policy.
But the gentleman is cstoppcd 10 argue, that the bonds
tho Companies be sold more favorable cond
be h. and his friends have es,oppcd themselves They
have uar! persuasive argument founded on the probable
pnduc. OF the stock OF Tho companies uEtiyne the
argument by tire assertion that the works pay div
dcnd 90 a 10 per The cost OF construction Ia
the works are use; and yet 10 support this branch Of
arrR'cni. hey the works will yield diy
i.t 81 unIil cuage:ed whch ley gay cunnot be in
~ Tia" Eve i! ~ :icac .! loans r. not invoked
GG'i' 1yr1aS III: avJtarcc 1f loss II sSi2 Gi6
:a..,. il :g talins:c s4ins according III:
pit uECa because kr adoption Of the
Cfoa"s, "hr i the ra'y basis o. the chcr the sale
sc bonds Vt Ire COMPANIES ct discount IS cbya.ed and
r!evCr ted c!;gey ami no Influence any scheme
ef'ri0 the acta1i pay,aea: al cash Inc gain which
enable lie Commonwealth 10 pay money, must be
thing having substantive poen5i existence The avoid
Hut fatal objection 20 this en in he calculation OF the
gentleman from Petersburg finds liz origin in The provisions
81 statutory law.
!= sa the bonds Of The companies the runous dis
count assumed hy the member is forbidden by law
against usury Its device to borrow money greater
Of Gtccst than is allowed by law 1t is usury and The
void in law. The member has no right assume
such will be made attempted By the
gnas II be made valid contract except By the
SANCTION c the General Assembly. The violation of the
law against usury denounced by the morsl Of the
wod, as act OF moTal'urptude. The member has no
tight that The Legislature will afford lis sanction
baed thai the act will hy hypothesis sn5cc, The Common
wealth 10 pecunary csR Motives may be pre-
tented 10 men, which often tempt them 10 fall from virtue