The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-11-29
NONRESIDENT USURERS.

An Answer to an Important
Question.
We have received the following let
ter; we omit the writer's name, for
we know how vengeful are money
Gratis:
STEPHEN, Mimi, Nov. 10.
HON. IGNATIUs DONNELLY,
Hastings, Mimi.
Dear Sir: am requested, on behalf
of poor farmer neighbor, to ask you
few legal questions which you may
answer through the REPRESENTA-
TIVE il you choose, or privately; but
please reply as soon as possible.
Certain parties in Dakota hold
notes, secured by chattel mortgage,
against a certain other party in Min
nesota, said mortgage being regis
tered in the town clerks office in a
Minnesota town, said papers bearing
interest at twelve per cent. Are
said papers subject to the laws of
Minnesota or Dakota, property on
which they are given being held in
Minnesota?
Your answer will settle question
of great interest to many, as the US
urer is depressing the people here as
elsewhere. Fraternally, --
From an examination of the usury
law, am of the opinion that the
chattel mortgage in question is void,
whether the original note, given in
North Dakota, is or not. The law
says: Kelly's Statutes, p. 56@::
"Sec 2O9l. All bonds, bills, notes,
assurances, cOnveyances chattel mort
cages, and all contracts, and securities
whatsoever, and all deposits of goods, or
anything whatever, whereupon or
whereby there shall be reserved,
secured, or taken, any greater
sum or value for the loan or for
bearance of any money, goods, or
things in action than is above de-
scribed, shall be void."
BY this the law draws distinction
tween the debt or note, and the Sc
surity for it's payment, and makes
both void.
And sec. 2029, same page, says:
"Whenever satisfactorily appears
to court that any bond. bill, note,
assurance, pledge, Conveyance, contract,
security, or evidence of debt, has been
taken or received in violation of the
provisions of this act, the court shall
order the same to be given up"
1t would certainly be a shocking
perversion of law and justice for any
court to hold that man could, we
will say, remove across the Red river
from Minnesota, and do business in
this state, and take pledges and Sc
curities which would be worthless
without the aid of the legal machin-
cry of this state, and yet be above
and beyond the laws of this state.
The provision of the constitution of
the q. S. (Sec. 2, Art. IVY is, "The
citizens of each state shall be enti-
tied to all privileges and immunities
of citizens of the several states"
That is to say,-the citizens of North
Dakota can come into Minnesota and
do business, and have all the rights
of citizens of Minnesota, and no more!
But to argue that citizen Of North
Dakota doing business IN minnesota
was not amenable to the laws of the
state, as to usury, would be to place
the stranger above the people who
made the laws. If there are many
such II per cent mortgages insthe
Red river valley, and l suppose there
are thousands of them, let the debt
ors club together and hire good law
yer to make test case; and carry it
to the supreme court if the local
judge holds against them.
The REPRESENTATIVE will be glad
to help all it can in such battle.
AS Flanagan of Texas said, ''That is
what we are here fOr.'' I'D.