Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1865-1869, 1866-01-12

Jer. XIV, 10; Eek. xviii, Sis xii, IL,
where it is plain that the writer's refer to this
specific regulation, and not to the general
question, as it regarded those outside Of the
Mosaic institute. HENGsT ENBERG, on PS. xv.,
,, says: 81 With the interest, lending for cap
8. italists, who borrow for speculation, it has
6. nothing to do" " By unreasonable COMPARE
" son with our modes Of speech, many would
" eXpound his money he puts not to interest
Other able commentators might be quoted 10
the same effect, lift were necessary:
These are all the references TO the SUBJECT III
the Old Testament, and it is clear from them
that there is mo- more sin in receiving hire
for the use OF money than for The use Of a
horse or a house. and that the rate Of that hire
is not fixed in the one case more than in the
other
The only reference to the matter in the New.
Testament is in the parable of the talents,
where the LORD says, Matt. XIV, y Thou
oughtest, therefore, to have put my money to
the exchangers, and then, at my coming, |
should have received mine own, with uSury.'
This certainly does not condemn the taking Of
interest, nor does it lay down fixed rate, but
in view Of the different gains of the servants,
seems rather to sanction the opposite.
One cause, perhaps, of the confusion Of ideas
that exists in some minds is tine change that
has taken place in the meaning Of the word
.usury." Ia the Bible it has its original
meaning of anything taken in payment for the
use OF money" and is, really, Synonymous with
interest. The present meaning OF it is well
given by BENTHAu, in his Defence OF Usury,
letter ,: 81 Know OF but two definitions that
" can possibly be given oruStTy; one is taking
6. greater interest than the law allows of: this
s. may be called the political, or legal defn-
90 ton. The other is the taking of greater in
50 terest than it is usual for men to give and
=. take this may be styled the moral one, and
.s this, where the law has not iuteriercd, is
Is plainly enough the only one" In either of
the senses, the moraliSt must pronounce usury
wrong, because 1t is wrong to violate a law,
even il it be an unwisc one, provided it does
not enioin a wrong and il is wrong 70 take an
exorbitant price for money, just rs 1t Is wrong
TO take an cNorbitant price for anything else.
But all this is wholly aside from the morality
or expediency of fixing rate OF interest, which
no one may exceed, however much they may
desire to do so. Ii is doubtless well to fix
rate when there is no specific contract, as
mere matter of convenience for then every
contracting party may be supposed to acquiesce
in this rate, il he does not otherwise specify.
But We know of no principle Of morality re-
quiring the rate for the use of money to be
fixed, any more than the rate for the use Of
houses or lands. The true rate in any given
ease must be determined by at least three ele-
ments FIRST, The value Oft to the borrower,
who may sometimes gain six per cent, some
times six hundred, by having the use of the
the money for 4 given time. Secondly, The
general demand for it, which is governed by
IT'S plenty, or the general condition of CONNER
cial affairs, continually changing and Thirdly
by the risk of repayment, which is strictly
kind of insurance, and varies with each indi-
riduaI case.
Now it is plain that not one of these three
elements is fixed one, hut constantly vary
ing, and hence cannot properly be fixed by law.
But when the infinite combinations of all three
enter into every such transaction, it is evident
that no human wisdom can say what the rate of
interest ought invariably to be, any more than
what the rate of rents, insurance, or any other
similar transaction ought to be.
II it be said that without such laws men may
charge cXorbitant interest, the reply is that
they may charge eXorbtant rents Tor houses,
Or hire for horses, and the remedies used to
prevent the one are the proper remedies for
the other.
Ic it be said they are needful to protect the
iebtor, the reply is, they do not protect him,
bat increase his burdens. In many cases 4
man must have money or be protested. The
Protest will do him more pecuniary injury than
he most eNorbitant rate OF interest. But the
ender now must charge 4 rate Of interest that
viii cover his risk, which is much higher from
he fact that he has no legal mode OF recover
M his interest. Add to this the fact that the
trictly conscientious will cease TO lend their
money, when itsvalue is suchthat they lend itat
loss, and that therefore the borrower is thrown
uto the hands of the unScrupulous, and it is
aSy To see that these laws press with the most
grinding force on the most necessitouS, and
cally Cypress the debtor. They throw the
Door debtor wholly in the power Of those who
Ire willing to violate the law, if the premium
or the risk is put high enough. Is this any
advantage to the debtor
EXtortion is a great wrong, and deserves the
,terncSt condemnation, but twill never be pre-
vented by fixing the price OF any commodity,
As all sumptuary laws have proven, but 10y
leaving it open to the great law of supply and
demand which will apply As merringly to
money as it does to any other form of value.
But Us We did not mean, in this article, to
enter intothe political economy OF the question,
but only into its theology and ethics, we leave
it here for the present.