The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1891-03-27
]. b. Hompe Explains.

y. -. k1ompo ExpAaanss
As members OF the great reform
movement in other states will yet
have to fight the great usury battle
over again, we give here portion of
the explanation" of the leader of the
break in the alliance ranks why he
voted for repeal of forfeiture Of prin-
cipal in case of usury:
'As is well known the most or near
ly all the money loaned in this state
is capital from the east; it is loaned
through agents in this state. Now
suppose that Mr.. Jones, living in
Massachusetts, has 100000 which
he wants to loan out; he sends it to
Mr.. Brown, his agent in Minnesota.
Mr.. Jones is to receive 6 or Z per cent
for his money-that is about the rate
these men do get, but Mr.. Brown
loans this money or part of it (for of
course he does not get all of this
amount in a lump) at rate which
tile law holds as illegal. Why not?
What is there to restrain him? What
can he lose? Nothing but his commits
sion; perhaps not that, as he may
have it in advance. Who then is
punishable? The innocent Mr.. Jones
in Massachusetts, who without viol-
ating any law receives the blow be-
cause of the dishonesty of his agent,
Brown. Is this justice? But it has
another effect. 1t makes such men as
Mr.. Jones afraid; they had rather
put their money elsewhere even at a
lower rate. Now in the past the law
has not amounted to much, as it is
difficult to enforce it in the courts,
but the judges are taking different
position on these questions. We re-
duce the rate to 8 per cent, the risks
increase, the profits decrease. Mr..
Jones may say: 4 will take my mon
ey out of Minnesota"
This is a miserable attempt to
plaster over the detection. from the
alliance. In the first place the ALI
ances of Minnesota wanted both for
fixture and local penalty-and J. B.
Hompe should have voted for the
bill with that local penalty and
MR.. DoNNELLY's AMENDMENT
that the law for local penalty should
not repeal the forfeiture of the old
law! That is the music for
J. B. HOMPE, OF OTTER TAIL,
to march to-both penalties were
wanted and demanded.
But, beyond that, his statement
above is false to fact and false to
theory. 1t is miserable ''guff,' -
preached to the weakened in the
St. Paul legislature for the purpose
OF beguiling those who were "beguil-
able!"
1st.-When loan agent loans
money for a principal he is under
bonds. If the bonds are not good
enough that is an affair of the bust
ness head of the establishment.
2d.-The loan agent is either in
sured in honesty, or ought to be.
like other iduciary agents at this
day.
3d.-The agent makes a clean and
complete report of every
FEATURE OF THE TRANSACTION
before the draft for the loan comes to
him. And if the principal does not
put the statement in form of aft
davit, so much the more folly on the
part of the home company or princi-
pal. And thereby the agent does be-
come amenable to the law for per-
jury-much more severe than pro-
posed for local usury.
4th, and finally-why should a prin-
cipalselling money (thus unrigtheous-
ly considered by Hompe's Octarchy),
not be amenable to the laws, regula-
tions and customs of the civilized
world? Where is the avenue of com
merce, the channel of trade, the sub
agency of business house, where the
principal is not held amenable to the
acts of the agent? OF all the occupa-
tions in the world, the usurer alone
demands protection from the execu-
ton of just laws!
As for driving money out OF the
country, at 8 per cent, the statement
is silly. If attempted it will be few
days bluff on the House! Money
begs at 7per cent in Iowa-6 per cent
in the middle states-and a national
banker will gee-haw the granger with
the statement that 4-per cent bond
is worth 124!
Many plutes are getting poor in
the east because they can't find a
place to loan money!
Now, Hompe, we can introduce you
tn a. loan aUont in tho Countv of