The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1889-05-23

Ihe HeDreWS being nation WHICH IOl- ;
lowed Pasture and Husbandry and un
familiar with the secrets of trade and
navigation, never borrowed money but
when pressed with necessity and since the
gains in such cases could be but small the
least usury must be very oppressive; but
OF strangers they might demand interest,
(Deut. XIII, 2O) and why? Because the
strangers (Gentiies) wanted to borrow
it for the purpose cf i"cestnleat.' for,
Says Grotius:
''The chief riches of the Jews lay in
Husbandry, whereas most of the neigh
boring nations made vast riches by mer-
chandise, (by investments and specula-
tiOns). And therefore the Jews were al
lowed to take usury (interest) of the Gen
tiles (strangers) which was forbid to be
taken of one another"
Puffendorf says in his great work
that,
"Where money is borrowed for invest
ment the contracting parties should be
unfettered as to the rate of interest,"
If any additional authority is needed
to show that in such cases the parties
should be allowed to contract as they
please, l beg to present the views of
one r. w. H., of Henderson, North
Carolina. delivered in the year A. d.
1889. Says he:
"SOme men make investments that
bring in 800 per cent. profit; they can
pay so per cent easier than Others can
| pay & per cent
the lachrymose and illogical and unfair
argument of my friend, must fall to the
ground.
Says r. w. H.:
| eff the moral right to receive increase
for the use of money be conceded, / would
like for some legal mind to work out the
line between guilt and innocence in the
| NATTER
I think it very doubtful as to whether
any moral right exists to charge in
crease for money, where the money is
borrowed purely from necessity.
In such cases it was forbidden in the
most positive terms by the law OF
Moses.
The conditions and reason remaining g
the same, why should the law change
Gods law does not change.
A great law writer Informs us that
"Anciently in England many doubts
were entertained as to to the prOpriety
|
money; it was thought it could not be
sustained in toro conscientiae, and hence
it was held to be indictable as a crime ;
But granting that the moral right
, does exist, my friend desires to be i'll
formed by "some legal mind where
the line shall be drawn between gull
, and innocence in the NATTER
He need not wait for the lucubratior
: of any illegal mind' Oh this point
since he knows so we'll himself, ant
has drawn it so accurately and ettectu
ally; does he not say in his recen
:, communication that
= Eight per cent. is enough for most an.
, business man to pay and succeed, an
though sometimes lend money, mere
o yet got the consent o. my mind conscience
y to take more than the legal rates OF il
e terest."
S Could David Dudley Field, tn
!, Achilles of the American Bar, aid IN
i friend in drawing the line, ''betwee
n guilt and innocence in making tn
is charge?''
j. 1t is the same line that marks tn
d difference between an easy conscienc
It and an uneasy one; between a bed {
-
e fears Of Hell and hopes of Heaven.
Putting the Old Testament al
ID Moses out Of sight; the British Kin!
D. dom finally concluded that some inte
t. est might be charged fol the use
5. money. and then commenced to dra
Id the line. as to how much.
" The taking of interest was implied
n authorized by statute passed in tt
in 9th year of Henry VIII, which tiXt
is 10 per cent. as the highest possib
IN rate. BY different enactments the ra
I'd was changed from time to time until
re came down to 5 per cent. at which IA
IN it now stands.
ed North Carolina following Gre
NJ Britain in allowing the charge, h
fixed the rate at 6 per cent. and p
at cent. respectively thus the line b
st. been drawn the line is so plain that
to blind man may see it, SO apparent tn
by it is either ridiculous or sad. / hard
lis know which, to hear any one ask whe
n the line shall be drawn. 1t only 1
" mains for r. w. II. and those like hi
es. to hue to the line and no further. \
at friend says:
L
to law in our midst nor do [ believe We ha
for many among us. Nor do / believe \
in Henry can put his hand on one and s.;
VIZ thou art the man."
hS My language was. ''usurers are
coming as thick in North Carolina
iio they were in Athens, when it requir
lo- -, the law of SOlon, called Shaking
III, the burthens,' to clear the city of the
Jul w'u' and their expressions.
ST. / limited my remarks to no partit
Jul lar section of North Carolina.
friend seems to cOnfine himself to
lniS mere locality when he uses the wor'
um I''amongst u.s. and lin our midst
III" But take it either way his stateme
CO. eo is startling one and altogether incr'
~ ible. He must be jesting, merely je
ce ling. Ny friend must have been
Is In sportive fit
mt. With no other play place for his wit"
ent But his humOr is. | assure him.
r a tuned. There are many thousands
ing our State who have felt the dea
we'd coils of the usurer. who are ute
be unable to appreciate his CHASTITY .io
side Not many usurers in North Ca
say ilna:
e if One had as we'll stand upon the |;
buried ruins of Pompeii. and decl
2 of that Vesuvius towering near by
the ever been as peaceful and beautiful