Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-12-21
LYNCHBURG VIRGINlAN.
Repeal Of the UsuIy Laws

are glad that he has done SO: for il is always
best that both sides of question should be pre-
scented. We are glad too, because, to our minds
tho repeal of these ancient laws is called for by
reasons so plain and palpable, Lat it is difficult
to present arguments which are clearer or more
selt-esidsnt than the bare statement of the pro-
positi itself 1t is easier for u to answer than
to originate objections to their repeal. We
therefore thank our correspondent for relieving
US of that portion If our duty We feel assured,
too, that the defence Of Usury laws will not
suffer in his hands. lie will say all for them
that be said. We cordially invite the atten
fion of our readers 70 his articles.
The first point raised by Roanoke is presented
in the following extract from his first article
There is settled conviction III the minds Of
very many tihe writer j. of that number) that
nioney Is NOT m.rehondize-fhat it has in all we'll
regulated communities value of much more
fixed character than agricultural products, or
horses, or cattle, than lands; that there Is
certain reasonable limit within which the hor-
rover aud tine lender equal terms-that
beyond this reasonable limit. NJ Ia the use of mon
ey, there L. constant tendency the part of
the lender To cypress the borrower, aud thnt eA-
perence has demonstrated the Wisdom and pro-
priety uf guarding the borrower against this op-
preston
He says that monsy is NOT merchandize,' aud
that il has a more fixed value than agricultural
produce, &c. We answer that moncy-the oircn-
luting mediums n much merchandizr-tha i,
article 10 be bought and sold-as any other
article whatever. Truly and accurately speak
ing, every transaction by which money is c,-
changed for something else, is as much II sale of
the money Of the article bought The value
OF money is unques,ionably regulated hy the
same laws that regulate the value of every ar
ticle of commerce. These lnws when analy sed
are as follows: lst. The cost of production;
ID the supply 3D. the demand.-Ihe last two
being only relatives, may be considered ono
law. These all act together, aud the result of
their combined action gives the value of money
as of every thing else. The action of each of
these laws or causes of value j. So palpable that
illustration is unnecessary. If gold and silver
could be produced at the same cost with IRON
then it would be worth no more than IRON. ANY
dlmnuion IN the cost OF producing gold or silver
diminishes its value in the same ratio The
operation of this law is seen in the effect of tho
discovery of gold in California. The cost of
production was diminished hy that discovery:
hence gold has decreased in value. The action
of the law OF supply and demand is equally clear
so clear indeed, that we will not explain. 1t
is evident then, that the value of money
depends upon the operation Of the very same
laws, that regulate the value of every thing else.
IL follows, as necessary consequence, that il is
as unwise and as impossible to prescribe n fixed
and unalte fable price fer money n for any other
article of commerce If the laws which govern
the price of Wheat are the same as those that
govern the price Of money, then where is tho
reason for allowing those laws 10 act untrammel
led as TO the one, and endeavorng To annul or
thwart them as to the other We call upon our
correspondent To show that we ara wrong either
in premises conclusion.
But "Ronnoke' says that money. ia all we'll
regulated communities, has more fixed value
than articles of merchandise. This, we venture
10 say, is an error. But whether it has or not,
affects the question under discussion, in no wise.
If the value of money be more fixed in It's chutuc
ter than that oil anything else, then why should
the Legislature interfere If the natural laws,
by which money is regulated, ara more certain
IN their operation and more fixed in their results,
then why should they BE- selected as the peculiar
object of Legislative linkering
Roanoke" says that There is certain reas
enable limit within which the borrower aud len.
der are on Equal torms-thai beyond this reason
able limit, as to the of money there Is II con
slant tendency the pant of the lender To op.
press the borrower and that the hitter should
be guarded by law against oppression. What,
we ask, Is that reasonable limit to which our
correspondent refers Who, too, is the best
judge Of - the reasonable limit }" l. it ALWAYS
the same ID" not cger varying circumstances
vary that limit If 80, then should law nllow
no variation Should it declare that things shall
not change, when the edict cannot prevent the
change! Surely not If there were no law
against usury then every man would be free 10
lend his money at its current price or rate of in
terest. The field for loans would be enlarged.
Every man that had money would be anxious to
Lend as every man that prodIces wheat IL anx-
ious TO sell. Indeed more so for in one en- Sc the
holder can provide against any future rise in the
price, whilst the Inter cannot. Men may refuse
to SELL hoping for rise in the price, they would
not refuse to lead with such hope. The Usury
Laws. then increase the instances of oppression.
They drive the needy borrower 10 those who
have no conscientious scruples about violating
the law. They give TO that class of lenders an
additional pretext for oppression; for if they
venture to violate the law, they must and will
be paid for that risk. The only way to prevent
this specie of oppression is to give the borrow
er the privilege of borrowing from any one that
has money to lend. The chances of oppression
are increased just in the proportion that the
number of lenders is decreased If there were
but one lender, he might fix his own price. If