The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1874-11-19
to all arguments in favor Of law to restrict

" al az uLleuIS IN favor OF law 20 reSlIlCl
exorbitant rates, we quote the following:
The STATEsMAS for which we entertain
The highest regard) has labored industrious
ly to produce some argument with which "a
convince itself and others, that usury is an
evil that ought to be suppressed by law.
From the tenor of all the articles that have
appeared in its columns, it was plain to be
seen, there was not a firm conviction upon
It's part that the selling of money as other
property is sold, ought to be prohibited, OF
demanded that species of class Legislation
which it advocated.
How cool and refreshingl Ahl now we
have it. The Telegraph, perhaps, only
wishes us to understand that the opposi-
tion of that paper to an usury law is no.
real, but feigned. If We were not firmly
convinced of the necessity OF such law,
then we doubt our own existence and the
sanity of the editor of the Telegraph. But
we will accept of the proposition of that
paper and make our readers the jury to de-
eide between US. What then9 How many
have sustained the Telegraph. Two or three
papers; while the large majority that have
expressed an opinion, coincide with the
STATEsMAN and sustain our views; and ss
for the people, except the money lenders,
they, generally, warmly sustain our position.
We have published the opinions Of several,
and have more of the same sort which will
be given to our readers.
But the Telegraph has attempted to ex-
DIoin fba 1;Haro,oo l,ot,,oor ,,,orar n, a
medium of exchange" and money when
not medium of exchange" To show
the extremity to which that paper is driven,
we give another extract, as follows:
We have tried to show the STATESMAN
that when dollar was in hand it was not
medium of exchange" but property.
That it only became a medium of exchange
when it was put in circulation; that if A
sold dollar to B, and B sold it to G, and
it passed as property, being bought and
sold from A down to q, it was not a medium
of exchange at any time during all these
transactions. Its functions were suspended.
When 2 paid his butcher or his laborer, or
his wife shopped with it, its functions were
restored. That, being property, it would
be doing violence to the property owners
property was worth. That is our position,
in very few words, and cannot be mistaken.
Now, the above is q remarkable distinc-
ton, and makes the whole question lumi-
nous Now we see. II faman pays ever so
high for money, it is all right, if he will
only hold it-lock it up and keep like other
property in other words, makes no use of it
then it is not medium of exchange, but
if he uses it as ''medium of exchange, F"
then it is not like other property, and
should not be let out at high rates. If this
is not the legitimate construction of the
extract, then it means nothing. But we all
know that men do not borrow money to
keep in hand, to lay up in banks, to look
at as a fine horse or house for which a rich
man may have no particular use. When
money is borrowed, it is for the purpose of
being used as a medium of exchange" in
the transaction Of the business pursuits of
life. Then as such medium it should rot
be taxed with high rates, because it is a
public necessity and is not at all like other
property. The higher the rate, the dearer
will be the price of every necessary of life,
if it should be generally loaned at high rates
and if not generally so loaned, then it will
fall with crushing power upon the man who
is compelled to borrow at exOrbitant rates.
We only called the attention of the TeLe-
graph to the opinions of other papers beside
the STATESMAN for the purpose of showing
that paper that there were various reasons
for enacting an usury law, and that we were
not singular in our views. But we do not
agree with the Telegraph that the article of
the Fort Worth Democrat was ''timid" nor
that of the Commercial ''tlrade." They
were founded upon facts and the necessities
of the people. The article from the Ennis
Argus was good; and so was the letter of
Mr.. Kemble. Surely they will have some
weight with our cotemporaryi
We are not writing these articles for
amusement, but to call the attention of our
leading men to the necessity of protecting
our citizens from one of the bighting curses
uf our present Constitution which was
framed by men who gambled in money,
reputation and political positions; whose
god was gain; and who, as a general
rule, cared not for the necessities of the
citizens nor the development of the State.
Again, we quote from the Telegraph, as
follows:
For the extortioner, the Shylock, the
man who preys upon the wants and necessi-
ties OF his fellows the human spider, who
weaves his web and without remorse de-
stroys the human fly caught in its meshes-
for all these we have as holy q horror as
either of the highly respectable journals
named but they are found in all trades,
professions and avocations. We may hate
Shylock and his brethren, but 'let US be
just, though the heavens fall" and, in &C
cordance with that maxim, we are opposed
to usury laws.
Now, our contemporary must excuse US if
we doubt his sincerity in the above. He
may believe that he is sincere, but the posi-
tions assumed do not warrant such conclu-
sion. Men who put out their money at ex-
orbitant rates invariably become Shylocks,
however humane they may be at first, un-
less they decline to collect from the needy
and lose by their transactions. We mean
men VINO make it their business to lend
money. Experience and facts prove this.
If, then, the law may be invoked to punish
man for forgery, cOunterfeiting or swind-
ling, it is equally necessary to pass law to
punish a man, in some way, who gambles
in the necessaries Of life. Money is q ne
cessity of trade, and Of exchange, and should
be guarded by wholesome restrictions.