Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1873-02-08
USURY.

The people of Georgia and several
other States, are agitating for the re-
peal of the usury laws. We wish
them the fullest success; but, gravely
question their ability to break the
crust of superstition that has, for cen
turtles, been gathering and hardening
around the abstract idea of usury. 1t |
is singular. that in the progress of civ
ilization and the indefinite expansion
of commercial relations, the idea of
usury should have remained upper
most amid the revolutions which have
wrought out the conviction that free
disposition and use of ones property
is an inalienable individual right
with the single exception of his money
which is nothing more than a conven-
tional standard of values, and there
fore, its use must be restricted by law,
but only as between lender and Dor
rover. If usury is based upon the
idea that the borrowing class must be
protected against the extortion of the
lenders. the facility with which the
laws are evaded, renders the system of
protection more oppressive to the bor
rowers, because the effect is to drive
capital to points where rates of inter
est are higher and the risks to the
lender, not so great, under the penal
provisions against usury. The traffic
In money-like any other-is more
mutually beneficial when it is freest
from arbitrary and unjust diserimina-
tons, and like any traffic, ifleft to its
course, will speedily come within the
regulations prescribed by supply and
demand.
But if the leading aim of legisla-
lures is to protect the impecunious
against the oppression of monied men,
the law falls far short of its avowed
object. For instance: man brings
horse to town, for sale, in order to
raise sum of money to meet press
ingexigency, he is met by man skilled
in horse flesh, whilst the owner is
green and inexperienced; after chat
fering awhile, the Spectator gets, for
one hundred dollars, horse which he,
during the day, sells for one hundred
and fifty. Should the poor hard
working countryman find out the i'm
position-what is his remedy? The
courts, if consulted, will tell him that
making fifty per cent. per day, in that
way, is not usury. though he, the suf-
ferer, did practically pay fifty per cent
on one hundred dollars. The court will
further inform him that he was free
to make his own trades, and that the
constitution denies to any tribunal
authority to impair the validity of con
tracts. The cOuntryman goes off sup
posing it all right if such is law; but
fails to see the equity of denying him
the right to pay a money lender twelve
per cent, whilst the horse Jockey has
a legal right to swindle him out of
fifty per cent. And it will puzzle the
victim of such a swindle, as well as
wiser men to discriminate equitably,
between the illegality of a money
transaction involving a profit beyond a
restricted limit, and the legality of a
transaction involving property on one
side and money on the other, but I'M
restricted, as to profit, on the money
side of the bargain.
If money is not property, why can
it be sued for and recovered? If it is
not property, why can it be reclaimed
from the finder, when identified and
proven? If it is not property, why
punish thief for stealing it? And
if it is property, why single it out from
every other species of property and
say to the owner, you may make a
thousand per cent. OnyOur real estate,
your horses and cattle, in the way of
bargain and sale, purchase and repur-
chase; buff you have money to lend
You are restricted, by law, to six per
cent. interest. ltmatters not whether
YOU lend it to freeman who knows
how much the loan will be worth to
him. or to one whose necessities force
him to accept your terms, in such cas-
es. the constitutional denial Of the au-
thOrity to impair private contracts will
be disregarded and the lender restrict
ed to the profit allowed by law, on a
fair business transaction between par
ties competent to make their own con-
tracts.
Such nice distinctions between prop.
erty and money, or between property
and its arbitrary representative, are
not only incompatible with the free
dom of trade guaranteed as to all other
kinds of traffic, but the inequality with
which they bear upon money which is
the life-blood of commerce is demon.
alizing the trading public by holding
out inducements to violate or evadC
laws. the Justice or wisdom Of which
they do not perceive Money is as well
worth its market value as any Other
commodity, and, like every other com
modify, its value is dependent upo'
the law of demand and supply, and
there, legislatures should leave it, un.
less they propose to guard every indi'
vidual against possible imposition by
fixing the price of every article o.
commerce and affixing a penalty tC
every variation from that price. But
should they attempt this piece O
Quixotism. we hope they will depart
slightly from the policy adopted OF
the subject of uSury, at least SO far as
10 acknowledge these simple truism,
that it takes two to make bargain
and that il the lender of money al
usurious interest, is guilty of viola,
ton of law. the borrower, as a part!
to that violation, is just as guilty
Then why should the latter escape anC
the former bear the penalty. If it il