The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1871-01-26
Usury Laws.

Since the introduction of bill by Mr.. Wilkes,
providing for the re-instatementup our statute
books of that legislation known as the usury
laws, there has been goodly amount of dis
cussion upon the subject. Our Charleston and
Columbia exchanges have unitedly opposed the
re-enactment of the usury laws, and have FUR
nished argument after argument against SUCH a
policy, all of them pointing to one principle
however that money is worth what it will bring
in the market, like other property, and that IL
should be free as other property. The adVo-
Gates of Mr.. Wilkes bill urge that it is inIurl-
Gus to the agricultural interests Of, the country
to allow an excessive rate ofinterest and while
admitting that commercial communities. are in
terested in the opposite course, they have not
shown by any experience of the past that re-
stricted rate of interest would not injure COM
merce to far greater extent than it would
benefit the farming community. In our judg-
ment, there is a reciprocal interest in this mat
ter, and if commercial men-dealing in money
as in other wares-can best obtain the requisite
amount to supply the wants of farmers by ad-
herring to present laws, it seems to us that it
would be prejudicial to the latter class, equally
as the former to restrict these efforts, and de-
clare that only six or seven per cent. should be
paid, when it would require higher rate to OBJ
tain money for the purpose of purchasing the
farmers products. Business must not be stag
mated by this or that prejudice, for every inter-
est of the State would suffer, in such an event.
To re-enact the usury laws, at this time,
would seem little singular, to say the least,
when other States are clamoring for repeal of
those laws. In our neighboring State, Georgia,
there is persistent effort to wipe out these re-
strictions and open the door to capital so much
needed. 1t is contended there that South Caro-
lima acted wisely in repeating her statute on the
subject, and that the experience of the past five
years has demonstrated its wisdom, while the
perpetuation of such laws in Georgia has been
injurious to public and private interests
Another example is Kentucky, where the dis
cussion upon this subject is rife at the present
moment. Toshow the experience of that State
and as fitting close to this article, we append
an extract from the Louisville C0mier-Journal: :
"The present low rate of interest is driving
out of Kentucky all the available money in the
State, and is undermining our commercial life
in way that must lead to ultimate bankruptcy.
We have to compete with higher rates of in
terest all around us. Our laws forbidding more
than six per cent, moneyed men take their
money elsewhere, and distant fnanciers give us
the go-by. The result is an incessant drainage
without any corresponding supply. s conven-
tional rate of interest is demanded to save the
fiscal system of Kentucky from destruction.
This conventional interest will not make money
dearer. 1t will make it cheaper. twill make
it more plentiful by keeping it home, and also
by inviting it from abroad. At least five mil
lions of Kentucky money are driven off every
year by the present rate of interest. The peo-
pie are thus five millions poorer than they
onght to be. But with a conventional interest
bill these five millions would be kept where
they belong, and five millions more of foreign
money be added to them, rendering the NAL
practice of sharpcrs impossible by making the
money market full and easy"