Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-05-17
FORB|DS HIGH RATE
Bill to Regulate interest or
Loans in District.
ITS PROVISIONS DEBATED
Monday Evening Club Plans Cam
paign Before the House.
HEARING TOMORROW MORNING
Effort to Have the Measure Adopt
ed Practically as It Passed :,
the Senate
HEARING TOMORROW MORNING


Rallying for the last stage of their
campaign for legislation to prevent the
| loaning of money at eXorbitant interest
| rates, members of the Monday Evening
Club, at meeting held last night in the
Y NJ c. A. building. laid plans for fir
ing the next broadside at the hearing be-
fore the House District committee to-
| morrow morning.
The bill has been passed by the SEN
ate in practically the form it was drafted
by the committee on remedial loan leg
islation and is now before the House
District committee. The supporters Of
the measure expressed the hope last
night that they would persuade the COM
mittee at the hearing tomorrow to re-
port the bill favorably. and that it would
receive the approval Of the House at an
early date.
Plans for the clubs representation at
the hearing were made previous to last
nights meeting. but the rally was held
Ito get an expression of opinion in the
belief that this measure is best for Wash.
ington William II. Baldwin, who is at
been pushing the legislation, presided. In
a brief explanation Of the status of the
bill in Congress, he said the supporters
have not found any hard spots in the
House committee to get over or any
strong opposition to the measure.
LOAN Sharks" Denounced.
Those lenders of money classed as loan
sharks who charge an exorbitant rate
of interest, were strenuously denounced
by the several speakers.
They extract blood money from the
poor" declared Judge William H. De
Lacy OF the Juvenile Court.
'They prey on the poverty Of the poor
people: let us stop them" declared f. l..
Siddons.
Two criticisms have been aimed at the
bill to regulate the loan sharks" as was
explained last night. and the answers to
/ those arguments were specially discussed.
Both were considered by Mr.. Siddons,
| who was the first speaker.
Practically all are agreed as to the
necessity for law to regulate the loan
i business under consideration, said Mr..
| SiddonS.
Cause of Differences.
Differences of opinion. such as there
are, arose on practically only two provi-
sions Of the pending bill. These are the
provisions that fix the maximum rate OF
interest to be charged for the loan of
|
quiring those engaging in the business
| to keep register Of loans made, which
should be open to the inspection of the
| District Commissioners and their agents.
| ION the first point it is urged by per-
sons now engaged in the business, that
the law should not attempt to fix or limit
the rate of interest charged on loans
| made. but leave that TO be determined by
| competition. which would tend to drive
4 toe down "A
| advocates of the bill in. its present form
reply that competition is now and for
many years has been free in this business
| In the District and it seems to have pro-
duced a rate at the present time which
ranges from 60 per cent to as high as 300
| per cent per annum.
! But were tubs not so. and competition
did seem to promise relief and a just
| between the lenders OF money would go
long way toward defeating what
! credulous people still believe competition,
| in some mysterious way, can accomplish
in this direction.
Objections Discussed.
| There are those who urge that the
rate proposed in the pending bill is al
| together too high. To the fixing of this
| rate the citizens committee gave the
most anxious consideration. and made a
patient investigation of the subject. We
| came TO know that the conduct of the
| business was necessarily expensive and
| losses i'm it not inconsiderable, ard tigur-
! ing upon these of it's elements. or factors,
we reached the conclusion that per cent
per month would do no more for those
embarking their capital i'll the business
| than to return a net gain of about q or
Z per cent
"On the question of keeping a register
of loans those engaged In the business
insist that this is neither necessary nor
fair urging that the private business OF
citizens should not be subject to scrutiny
by tho municipal authorities. and that the
same reason for requiring such a register
in the case OF pawnbrokers does not exist
in the case OF the business under con-
siGeration. There are two answers to
these contentious. The first is that the
proposed la" gives to those who embark
In the business to be regulated by II a
special privilege in the rate of interest
that is allowed to be charged. and in such
case the legislature may always inn
pose such conditions upon the enjoyment
of the privilege as In its wisdom seems
appropriate. The law is a penal one. and
every reasonable safeguard to insure it's
observance should be prescribed
THAT the provisions in question. to
which objection is made, are reasonable,
cannot be gainsaid. There are abundant
precedents for it. We need only remem-
Der such examples as the power given
to the bureau Of corporations to inquire
into the affairs OF Industrial institutions
Of different kinds. and the power of the
interstate commerce commission to in
carriers. for the purpose of insuring
obedience to law.
Register Not Public. .r1
The second answer is that the protec-
ton from exposure of the private business