The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-07-31
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
The Intcres, Law. Of Tennessee.

ilhN'nh Lawn W lfllIfNffff ~ lbhl lp1ut
Of Yesterday; and, rs the subject is one
which has, 10 some extent, occupied my
attention, perhaps You will kindly permit
me 10 offer few observations upon Il.
A. you state, the subject IL one OF para.
mount importance 10 the State OF 1cnncs.
see, whose immense material resources
require capital fOr their development, and
at the same limo afford tho amplcst Sc.
cutity ior the return OF that capital
Toward the close Of his letter Mr. Treze.
want suggests most interesting question
when he refers TO the 'siHlulncss" Ol
usufv In the whole "hislory Of cNiliLa.
ton there il probably no more interest.
ing illustration OF the force aud persistence
OF theological sentiment IN the sphere of
practical lie than is afforded by the history
oi the usury laws, both IN the old world
and III" new
expressly prohibited from lending 10 ono
another upon interest, ENol. xii. %,
Lev. XIV, 1851 Dcut. XXIii, 1900, and
there is no doubt that usury avs were
based upon misconccpliOn OF the real
purpose and scope OF these cnaclmcnts.
The canon law, viewing them M part Of
INV hblNl INV lunNNfu NbbH lllfln ~
strict prohibition OF all interest upon loans.
The ecclesiastical councils issscd numcr.
Ons regulations against usury, and tho
church regarded the olirnse OF taking IN.
lrfcst rs 80 hcinOus that II punished all
who were guilty oi II with the sentence Of
greatest accommodation, and even with
The denial ol the right Of burial The
schoolmcn, too. following out their meth.
oil OF applying 10 theological questions the
principles of THEN master, Aristotle, who
dcnuunCes usury ~ contrary To nature,
united IN It's condemnation. Indeed, II Ii
not until after the Reformation that sound.
81 views prevailed, aud that the taking of
interest upon loans was legnlizcd by stat
ute. Calvin WIS tho first biblical expos.
iiot who comhitcd tho traditional view
aud showed that there WIS nothing in IL.
self immoral or unscIipiual IN receiving
interest upon money given In loan.
The Mosuc cnarimcnis against usury or
interest were, however, IN reality meas.
ufes, not ol ethical requirement, but OF
political aud agrhrim cxpcdicncy. suited
10 the circumstances OF the people aud the
character Of their national polity. Among
u people like the lsfaclilcs. whose territory
vas limited, whose polity was founded
upon agriculture, and whose wealth almost
entirely consisted IN aud depended on the
land, the permission TO lend Ia one another
upon interest would, by process more or
less gradual, but equally certain in It's op.
efilion. have resulted In the aggregation
Of The land into the hands IL the opueni
few Ol this tendency there ~ an actual
instance among the jews themselves in
the time Of Nehemiah, when the poorer
l..ss..s..l g..
over their lands which they be- |
came unable To redeem, aud the final ei. |
feet was ayoricd only by Nehemiah string
emily applying the old law aud requiring |
tho mobiles 10 lorrgo their claims aud rc. |
lease the lands Nrh. v l.ill And
this ultimate effect oi usury was actually |
produced in Athens and In Rome, where |
the whole lands gradually Tell into the |
hands Of the rich, aud whore the poor
became ~ oppressed by the burden Of
their dchls that social revolution fol.
lowed. To prevent such n result, which
would have certainly accrued. TO n people
like the lsrrlitos, with an agricultural
pllity aud limited territory, the law i'm.
pumtiycly forbade their lending To ono
another upon interest. but this prohibi
ton was merely n part oi the lSrClitiuh
land legislation like the laws Of the jubi.
lrc, the sabhaiir year aud the scptcnnial
release Of dcbls-nnd IN no more obliga.
tory upon other people, or oven upon the
Jews themselves la their present diverse
situation aud circumstances, than other
local and temporary portions Of their Juris.
Tic code. Perhaps you may think have
said too much upon this question OF the
'siniulncss Of interest liut know oi no
moro interesting illustration VI the inilu-
cncc Of theological thought. sven when u
Is rrroncous upon practical lie. than Is
afforded 10y tho history OF the usury laws.
aud, IN addition, there Is no doubt that
even the existing statutory limitations OF
the rate Of interest are founded upon a
lingering respect for what IL supposed
TO bc tue s,nplutal prohibitions Of
usury."
Upon the practical question ~ the 10.
peal OF the existing statutory Limitation Of
the rate OF Interest upon loans. Mr.. Trrzc.
want aud yourself have SAID 80 much, aud
said 4 ~ will, that there IL little room. es.
ccpi 10y way Of retention. for any remark.
II i beyond question. that all statutory
restrictions upon the freedom NJ borrowers
aud lenders to adjust between themselves,
sud In the particular circumstances Of their
individual transactions, the p'turn 20 ba
paid and received ior the Use OF money.
arr economically AMI practically unsound.
They ate q relic Ut the aniiquaicd ideas
tia, undctlay lhc old sumpiuhry laws for
regulating the price oi commodities.
Money n n commodity which. like every
other, ought Ia bc, and. indeed. can only
safely be-, left 90 the natural operation ol
The law IT supply aud demand. N this
hour Of the day no one Who las studied
The subject except visionary economists
Ike Mt Ruskin, will lpf moment advo.
cate the restriction. Al such restrictions
ace not only practically ineffective hut
they actually insult IN rendering money
dclrcr than Il would bc IN their
absence. They arr ryaded every
day by lenders who uru willing 10
run the rsk, aud who simply load the
priccniagc' With an addition ior tie risk
Of evasion. The most iigid laws against
usuty, backed 10y the pain. and penalties
both Of temporal and spiuiual power.
mover succeeded In preventing or even In
materially diminishing Il. Their only
elect Nas really TO augment the return
which the needy borrower hal 10 nay for
The money Tie lender naturally s,pu.
lated iof q wiun sufficient 10 cover The
temporal nss, ani ~ purchase, " need
wcrr, 81 lcas mitigation ,oi the spiritual
penalty.
BESIDES, as Mr.. 1rctevani admirably
points out, the legitimate result Of the ~.
moval Of the existing limitation would
ultimately b. the chcspcning OF money.
No one Who has gone. With his eyes opcn.
through the State Of tennessee and ar.
quaintcd himself with It's characteristics,
can have failed 10 have been convinced
that II IL bound IN become, nj no very ~.
mote period, one oi the wealthicsl