The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-12-28
Making Money Cheap:

We print an article in which the Barnwell
Sentinel reiterateS its reasons for supporting
the proposition, now before the General AS
sembly, for the re-estabishment OF the Old
usury laws of the State The Sentinel can
d.dly admits that the general argument
against usury laws is unanswerable, but 1t
evidently thinks that South Carolina is an
exception to the rule, and that, in this State,
capitalists contrive to obtain, for their money,
far more than the money is really worth.
That is to say, in the absence Of usury laws,
the planters OF South Carolina love the city
factors and bankers so dearly that they in
sist upon borrowing money in Charleston at
one and Two per cent. a month, when they
can get it, with ease in New York at seven
per cent. year. 'This Charleston rate is
can extortion, fraud The New York rate
sis less than half as much. Farmers and
ssplanters ruin themselves by paying Charles
ston these enormous prices. But they will
ssdo it, unless the usury laws prevent. They
ssare not shrewd enough to find out before
:.hand what borrowed capital costs, or what
sis likely to be the profit upon their crop.
s'They are not able TO take care OF them
"selves. Therefore, the State must step in
'and say that they shall not pay more than
''seveu per cent. a year."
This, logically speaking, is the precise
position OF the Sentinel. Unless that paper
admits that the South Carolina planters are
unable totakc care Of their own interests;
unless it insists that the planter who is keen
at horse-trade or in buying house, loses
his wits when he.comes to borrow money
it can have no solid reason for asking the
Legislature to prevent the planters from bor-
rowing money, rs they do now, without per-
suason or intimidation. at the lowest price
at which it can be had. Nay, to sustain
itself, the Sentinel must go farther. 1t must
contrive law to compel all persons who have
money at their command to lend it, upon
demand, at not exceeding seven per cent.
Unless this can he done, the usury laws will
not enable the planters to obtain what money
they require; for the simple reason that
money iu Charleston is worth, on stock col
lateruls, on CALL one or one and q half per
cent month, and, while this rule holds.
bankers will not advance their money to fac
tors or planters at seven per cent. year.
The fact that money can be borrowed in
New York at fre and seven per cent, under
certain conditions, does not help the argu-
ment No planter is forbidden TO go to New
York 10 borrow money. The financial world
is all before him. We say that, if he can get
money cheaper in New York than he can get
it here, he ought to go, and will so, to New
York, and not TO Charleston. But as long rs
money is worth twelve per cent. in Charles
ton borrowers here will have to pay that
rate, or 20 without the money. And this will
be so, whether The legal rate be live or ff-
teen per cent.
We oppose usury laws because they have
failed 10 cheapen money wherever they were
tried; because they have made money 1earer
wherever they have been in operation; be-
cause the laws Of trade in South Carolina,
are the same as in every other place where
the vain attempt has been made to Gx by
statute the price OF money; because the
planters are rs free now US they ever will be
to borrow money in the cheapest market;
because the effort 20 compel u banker To
take seven dollars for what is worth twelve
will only make money harder to obtain, and
make lis price higher 10 those who continre
to borrow. It is in The interest Of borrowers
Of money that we oppose usury laws, and
we firmly believe that if the bill of Mr..
Wilkes is defeated we, and all who think
with us, will deserve the thanks OF the aSri-
cultural and laboring population OF the State.