The Cecil Whig., 1874-06-06

lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any
estate or interest therein" This act was
to expire by it's own limitation, January 1,
1912; but it was revived year after year,
and kept in force till 1856; until finally, by
act of II and IS Victoria, C. 80, the usury
laws were totally abolished, and contracts
for the use of money, like all others, we're
left to the discretion of the parties.
Now, what stronger argument can be
urged in favor of the repeal of our usury
laws than is furnished here T.? If these
laws are so necessary and their repeal so
disastrous to the public welfare, why did
England, year after year, exempt from their
operation certain classes of contracts, con-
stantly expanding her exemptions until at
last they were totally repealed? Surely. if
the effect of repeal, either partial or total,
had been prejudicial to British interests no
such acts would have been enacted. For
no statesmen watch more keenly the pub
lie prosperity, and labor more assiduously
for its promotion, than the British States
men. Neither can it be said that the social
so different from those of England that
different effect would be experienced here
from what was felt in that country. The
laws of supply and demand in every coun-
try are the same and are affected by the
same conditions as other business relation.
But why this shameful inconsistency?
Principles can work only legitimate
suits. Caprice alone is dangerous. But
with so just principle to regulate the
price of money caprice could not display
her trickery. 1t is only when elements are
displaced that they are properly discord-
ant. But when things work by their nat
ural bias, whether commerce, or manufac-
lures, or money or anything else, they pre-
serve their proper relations to their sur
roundings, and SO help to keep up the
equilibrium of all.
But aside from these considerations a
usury law creates needless and profitless
Inconsistency. Every useless inconsistency
ought to be indicated. Such one we are
about to consider. By a rule of universal
nature, validity, obligation, and nterpre-
tation is to be governed by the law of the
place where it is to be executed. And
this it is said because &C it is in conform
ity to the presumed intention of the par
tes.' Thus a contract made in Pennsyl
vania, but to be performed in France, is to
be governed by the laws of France. If
made in Pennsylvania but to be performed
in California, it is to be governed by the
laws of California. Accordingly, a note
drawn in Pennsylvania, where the rate of
interest is fixed at per made payable in
California where the rate is 10 per cent if
no particular rate be specified, draws inter-
est at the latter rate; and if, upon present
ment made at the place where payable,
payment is refused, suit can be brought in
the courts of Pennsylvania, and a recovery
enforced for the 10 per cent interest, de-
spite our per cent usury law. Is not
here glaring inconsistency? The State
will enforce foreign law against its own cit
izens and give validity to their contracts,
because such is the "presumed intention
of the parties;" but will net enforce the
same contracts, made with the same inten-
tions, by the same parties, and just as
binding in point of moral obligation, by
virtue of her own law. 1t is true it can be
said that in the former instance the rela
tions of States, commerce, and national
comfy demand the application of the prin-
cple, and that the rule pertains not to
interest only, but to every class of contract.
But there is another view which deserves
laws would inevitably cheapen loans. Not
at first, indeed, for avarice, like the un-
tanned horse, plunges most freely when at
first set free. No great reformation or
change in any extensive system at first
produces those broad and permanent re-
suits which later experience only can
evolve. But though avarice might run to
wanton lengths of riot in the first mo-
ments of its freedom, it would soon be re-
strained to moderation by natural causes.
Ultimately its chances for extortion would
be largely diminished, and active competi-
tion would effect the change. The legiti
mate effect of usury laws is to tie up
money in the hands Of the more honorable
capitalists, Or at least to restrict the loan
ing of it to their less conscientious breth-
rem. But reverse these restrictions and
lenders will rapidly multiply, and in pro-
portion as they multiply rates will be re-
duced by the laws of competition. which
are as in7ariable in their effects as the
laws of gravitation.