Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1856-02-22


land. There has been no greater offender
against the spirit of the laws against, usury
than the State itself. Its bonds have been
put in the market and sold at far higher
rates of Interest than the law allowed. We
can see no reason why the Legislature should
run its head against post any oftener OF
more forcibly than is really necessary =
The last Assembly undertook to forbid the
circulation of foreign small bank notes.
The people put contempt on them and theil
law. The present Assembly may pass laws
to regulate the ratio of Interest, but money
will command and receive whatever it Is
worth. ~ a fu
?. Laws which the people will not obey
only demoralize them. This is too plain
for argument.
8. We hold that any attempt on the part
of the law-making power to say that men
possessing money shall receive only 6 or I
or any other fixed per cent, is an invasion
of the natural rights of the citizen. In this
view we are sustained by such writers on
Moral Philosophy as Rev. Wayland, form
erly of Brown University. The case is clear
enough. What would be thought of law
declaring that merchants shall receive only
ten per cent. profit on their goods3 Itwould
be secuted and disregarded. What better
fate does law deserve that says to man
who has only money, you shall make only
6 or 1Oper cent. by loaning i'll Ten per
cent. may be enough or too much, but what
we assert is that the Legislature has no bus
mess to meddle with the matter. The laws
of trade which have their foundation in the
nature of things, and in the nature of man,
will best regulate all these things.
4. No rate of Interest fixed by law can
operate with any kind of justice or equality.
The rate, in the nature of the case, depends,
or should depend, on these two things
first, the supply and demand, and secondly
the risk attending the loan. These circum-
stances viii vary with every case, hence no
law can regulate the rate.
5. The good of the borrower requires that
the usury laws should be repealed. On this
point We need not say much, as it has al
ready been spoken Of. AS the matter now
stands, men who will loan at legal rates or
not at all, can furnish no relief to that class
ofborrowers, and their name is legion, whose
security is of such nature as 10 require
more than legal rate to cover the risk. In
such cases, if trade in money were free, like
trade in other things, the borrower could
find those who would take his loan at such
a rate as would cover the actual risk. But
now he is shut up to those who Will make
the most of his necessity. He suffers all the
evils of a restricted market in which to sell
his paper. The truth of this is so well
known to men of large experience, that the
Chamber of Commerce in New York, cora-
posed of men who from the nature of their
business are large borrowers, has earnestly
petitioned the Legislature to repeal or great
ly modify the usury laws. 12 a
We may add in conclusion that in Eng
land the usury laws were entirely repealed
in 1854, and trade in money made free
In Holland also, five mistake not, tho rate
of interest is left to be determined by the
lender and borrower. Thus the two great
monied nations of the world, have set US the
example of free trade in money. Whether
the State of Ohio is far enough advanced in
civilization to overcome what the Chancellor
ofthe Exchequer called "the superstitious
notions on the subject of Interest partly Ju-
daic and partly Mohammedan," remains to
be seen. C.