Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-05-01
rUE RUTLAND HERALD.
FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1873,
Usury Laws.

The subject OF usury and usory laws
:. inst now attracting general attention
New Hampshire and Connecticut, hav-
inr heretofore abolished usury laws, are,
if we may believe newspaper reports
moving in the matter Of re-enacting pen
allies against the taking of more than a
.,ccifrd rate OF interest. Our own
onhiou is, and always has been,
tbst the price paid for the use OF
nopev-that is interest-like the price
If other commodities, will regulate
tsrlf We know that this is the fact,
law or no law. The only question there
seems to be in the minds OF legislators
and others upon the subject is, whether
r. is better to keep laws in force which
orr daily violated, or incur the danger
,f u Dossible combination of money
lenders and consequent extortlon from
and oppression Of needy borrowers. we
i, not believe such combinations pos
.ih,s. either in the country or city IN
l.r tina law as it now is in New York,
,y. see money ranging from three per
cent per annum to nearly the same
,r,onnt ner week One of the penalties
If their usury laws is the forfeiture OF
nrincipal and interest, and also, we be-
lieve liability to a criminal prosecution
Cases of forfeiture are of very rare oc-
.oprrence. and the Grand Jury OF one or
.,ha city courts has just refused to In
.lict parties who were proved to have
taken nsurious interest, We do not pro-
nose. however, at this time, to discuss
the general question of usury or usury
laws we only wish to call attention 10
- hill before the New York Legislature,
.spd 10 the remarks of the New York
H9aH thereon 1t is sufficient for our
nnrposr to state that it abolishes the
present laws against usury, and provides
That in case more than the legal rate OF
interest is taken, the interest only shall
", forfeited, and that in case OF suit only
fine principal shall be recovered. where
upon the New York HerGH sagely re-
marks; 1T will be observed that the
nTBNlGlOllS arc dlluOHb 81 ~ $50 N'''tN -
l., amount to an abolition of the usury
laws II is not likely that money lend
ers asking usurious interest will insist
before the courts upon payment when
the mere fact of asking usnrious interest
ensures Judgment against them (mran-
inc. of course. so far as interest Is con-
cprned) 1t is believed that the country
members will favor this bill yet, al
though they might revolt against a
SQUARE, open repeal of the usury laws.
The fact is that the bill itself, by its very
terms, abolishes what are now called
',the usury laws" but enacts others II
their stead. The idea that because
lender, in "A suit at law, can only recover
the principal, if the defence of usury Is
made, he will be thereby deferred from
commencing suit, is absurd. Under The
law declaring forfeiture of both prln
cipal and interest, money-lenders con
stantly resorted to the courts, and tht
plea of usury was so rarely interposed az
TO excite astonishment when claimed az
"A defense. The proposed law is sub
stantially the law of Vermont. W.
Know that money is loaned here at NOR
than six per cent per annum. and tina
suits are brought on such contracts ant
are suffered to go to judgment withou
contest. So it will be In New York, tn
Herald to the contrary, notwithstand
ing. The trouble with the proposed lay
is that it does not go far enough. |
abolishes one law against usury by pass
ing another. If it is right to punls
persons taking more than a specified rat
of interest, and necessary thereby t
protect the people from extortioners
then the penalties should be sufficient t
effect its purpose. Either laws shoul
be stringent against the taking of usury
or all laws upon the subject should b
abolished.