The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1874-12-03

markable manner. And yet, in the very
face of such facts, the Ners is bold enough
to make the following assertions:
cit might well have been supposed that
intelligent journalists Of the present day,
everywhere, concurred in recognizing the
absurdity of usury laws, which has been Sc
clearly demonstrated by the ablest writers
on political economy. Yet some Texas pa
pers, that are not without influence. are
found advocating the revival of these laws,
Just as though Texas was still under the old
Spanish dominion, which made a virtue OF
prescribing conditions and processes indis-
pensable to healthful commerce and vital to
the growth of material prosperity" am
We would most respectfully refer the
writer Of the above to the law Of the great
State Of New York, which is as follows:
Seven per cent. is the legal rate. All
contracts wherein an excess Of that rate is
received are void, and the Hsuri0us lender
tor1sits both Prinsipal and interest. Cor
porations cannot set up the defense OF
usury."
New York is money centre, and carries
on an immense commerce with the world.
Her fnanciers control the-. money market,
and her merchants direct the policies OF
trade. Surely such a people cannot be
compared with the ''old Spanish dominion. y
Even Galveston might get little informa-
ton from her business men which would
add something to the prosperity of the city
of the Gulf. Now upon what hypothesis
can the Nescs base the onward march of all
the natural greatness of that State, where by
statute law the ''usurious lender forfeits
both principal and interestY'2', But New
York is not the only State that has usury
laws. Nearly all the States of the Union
have found Unnecessary to recognize, not the
absurdity, but the necessity of such laws.
The demonstrations ''by the ablest writers
on political economy" have failed to prevent
the States from passing laws to throw whole
some restrictions around the circulating
medium. 5r, -.
The Neacs falls into the common error Of
those who oppose an usury law, and con-
founds property in money and other articles
as synonymous, when, as we have repeat
edly shown, it is not the same. -; s4ie
The logic of facts does not support the
allegations of the Notos. eao ais
We give another extract from that paper
as a specimen of the arguments used against
an usury law, which is as follows:
SIN short, the policy intended to inn
prove the position of the borrower if. car,
ried practicallyto the ultimate reduction OF
its logic, would make it impossible for him
to borrow. And as for hireling labor, of
whatever grade, where would be its wages
when capital was no longer accumulated
The laborer could only get pay inskind, and
no more than he could consume. He could
lay up nothing-could not by any amount
of toll or ingenuity better his condition. !
Now, if the Nesos means that usury laws
prevent men from borrowing, then it is fal
from knowing the facts. Men can and dc
effect loans more readily where there are
usury laws than they do where there are
none. And what is of more Importance,
the money Is more largely invested IN bus
mess, which greatly improves the wealth
of the State and the happiness of the peoples
In such business, the poor laborer is needed
and is employed at living rates. This fact
Is demonstrated by the statistics of prodnc.
tion. But when there are no restriction:
thrown around the circulating medium, it is
invested too often in wild speculative
schemes, which frequently result in crush
ing some man who has been made to foot
the gambling rates paid for the use of the
money. .E5l
Men who have no money TO lend, as &
general rule, favor an usury law, but those
who have it are opposed to any restrictions
As there are exceptions to all general rules,
SO there may be exceptions in this instance
but not to the destruction of the position
assumed. - ia7ehi
As consequence, the masses demand
usury laws, and the voice of the people i
the voice of God on the subject. Divin,
law teaches us that usury is objectionable
but the NsUs tells US that it is right, and
that money, like all other property, should
be left free. Who is right, the finite or the
in6nite9 sn .so ei5a8a