The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-12-02

Aextortion. But this very severity OF public
Ioopinion renders the enforceme Of the laws
so:dificult, andthe inaiction Of the penalties
so rare, that when it does occur, it merely
victimizes an individual, and has no effect
on:general practice.
In 60 fur as the motive Of a usury law may
be supposed to be, not public policy, but re-
gard for the interests of the borrower, 1t
would be difficult to point out any case IN
which such tenderness on the legislators
part is more misplaced. A person OF sane
mind, and of full age, must be presumed 10
be sufficient guardian of his own interests
II he may buy lands or grant release, or
assign away hisaproperty, or vote Tor The
election of Mr.. Wilkes and his colleagues,
without control from the law, it seems very
unnecessary that the only bargain which he
cannot make without its intermeddling
should be loan of money. There is no
truth in the presumption that the money
lender, dealing with necessitous persons,
can take advantage Of their necessities, and
exact conditions limited only by his own
pleasure 1t might be so if there were only
one money-lender within reach. But where
there is the whole monied capital of CON-
munity to resort to, no borrower is placed
under any disadvantage in the market
merely by the urgency Of his need. If he
cannot borrow OF the interest paid by other
people, it is because he cannot give an
equally good security, and competition will
limit the extra rate to fair equivalent for
the risk of his proving insolvent. Though
the law intends favor to the borrower, it is
to him, above all, that injustice is, in this
case, done by it. What can be more unjust
than that man who can give perfectly good
security, should be prevented from borrow
ing of persons who are willing to lend him
money at what it is worth to them and
worth to him? What is more unreasonable
than that person who cannot give perfect
ly good security, should be debarred from
borrowing OF persons who were willing to
lend money to him If the law permitted them
to receive the rate of interest which would
be a just equivalent for their risk? Through
the mistaken kindness of the law, ne must
either go without the money, which is per-
haps necessary to save him from much
greater losses, or be driven to expedients OF
far more ruinous description, which the
law has not happened to interdict
This, in brief, is the argument of Mr.. Mill
upon the subject of usury laws, and it is
confirmed by the experience OF every practi-
cal business man in the country. No law
can force man to lend at seven per cent.
money which is in demand at ten and twelve
Such law drives capital away, so that it
may find employment in other places at its
full market value And the money which
remains is lent at Higher rates than would
prevail il no usury law were upon the stat
ute book. We undertake to soy that to-day,
other things being equal, money is dearer in
Georgia than in South Carolina. The reason
is plain. In this State, at present, the value
OF money is regulated BY The call Tor IL;
while In Georgia, where usury law exists,
the borrower pays the full legal rate and a
commission, which, with the legal rate,
amounts, in general, to rather more than
would have to be paid in Charleston. The ex-
tra risk jus,ifies the additional rate.
We have endeavored to explain the prin-
ciples which govern this highly important
matter of the market value Of money, and
we trust that the mercantile community
borrowers as we'll as lenders, will, through
the proper channels, represent to the General
Assembly the injury which will undoubtedly
be done the people by the revival Of the
usury laws. The motives OF Mr.. Wilkes are,
doubtless, very praiseworthy, but the bill
which he has introduced will only make
money harder to obtain, and will certainly
increase the price to be paid for its use by
those who are forced by circumstances to be
either regular Or occasional borrowers.