Evening star., 1922-03-16
LOAN SHARK BILLS
HELD DIFFERENT
Erroneous Impression Con-
cerning Measures Cleared
by Citizens Committee.

by Citizens Committee.
Seeking to correct what is believed
to be an erroneous impression con-
corning the bill known as H. r. 6a0s,
relating to pawnbroking in the Dis
tlrct. the citizens committee on reme-
dial loan law issued a statement to-
day. in which it is brought out that
this bill introduced by Chairman
Focht Of the House District COM
mittee differs from the Commits
| sioners' bill. also introduced by Mr..
| Focht, and known as H. r. 5015, in
that it does not bear the Endorsement
OF the Commissioners. The text of
! the statement follows:
Text Of Statement.
The District Commissioners sent
their bill. increasing the rate in the
District loan law from l per cent to
| per cent per month. to Mr.. Focht as
| chairman of the House District COM
| mittee for Introduction on April 12,
1921:
"on April 20, 1921, MIR. Focht intro
4,
only to pawnbrokera
MIR. Focht's bill was practically
! identical with the pawnbrokers' bill,
II. X. 3164. introduced in the previous
congress by Mr.. Dyer. with the addi-
tion OF seven sections, which were
Pennsylvania law.
OF these seven, two were penalty
! sections. SO that there are three sec
lions IN the bill which prescribe diff
ferent penalties: and they were pu,
| IN with such utter disregard of CON
dltions in the District on which Mr.
Focht was imposing them that one
of them provides for Imprisonment
in the county prison." and another
| forbids concealment from ANY con-
stable or sheriff
BILL Reintroduced.
| Some one seems to have called Mr.
| Fochts attention to these slips, for
! Trey were corrected when, on May
| ~, ne reintroduced the bill al
! H.. r. $685. which is the one nov
| before the House; and although, or
April IS, he introduced the Commis-
sioners' Dill as H. r. 5015, his remarks
! on the floor last Monday indicate thai
ne Is trying to put his bill through
without regard to the other.
! When Mr.: Browne asked him
| whether the Commissioners bill, II. r
soils, did not have the Endorsement OF
the Commissioners, Mr.. Focht re.
piled:
| "I do not know anything about It,,
The letter Of the District Com
missioners, transmitting the bill to
J Mr. Focnt. called his attention to the
the business of making small loan.
and of pawnbroking: that when
passed the rate allowed had been re-
duced by Congress from per cen,
| per month to l per cent; that the eff
| feet OF this reduction had been 10
| stop loans by pawnbrokers and ether
money lenders, and that the present
law. which had been sustained by
numerous court decisions, WIS in ali
other respects sufficient to regulate
| the business OF pawnbroking and to
prohibit illegal loans. The Commits.
sloners. therefore. requested the in
PRODUCTION and the enactment of the
bill
Vote for Reduction.
when the present law was nassed
Mr.. Focht. after the pawnbrokers mad
I been taken In. voted to reduce the
rate from per cent to the 1 per cent
which has stopped all business under
the law for more than six years.
When MI: Browne said further ,ha,
sioners' bill. H. R. 5015, which MT
Focht admitted he had introduced
had the Endorsement Of the Distric,
Commissioners, Mr. Focht repIied.
MI. Focht-Yes. if they indorse tina,
Dill lthe Commissioner bilD they
wiz indorse this (the Focht bill) be.
cause OF the added feature Of protec.
pledge. 'As
Mr.: Brown of Wisconsin, under.
stand that they do not indorse thi.
1t,i. 9ts Understand they oppose this
Commissioners billy. s'"e
! Mr. Focht-I do not think so..
think this (the Focht billy has a uni.
versal Endorsement. There might b.
shar. tnousand people against it where
What are the facts about this? Or
April 26,. 1921. in response to his in.
quiry the District Commissienar,
wrote Senator Ball objectinR to. ths
enactment Of s. 984. which is praeti.
caliy the same as Mr. Focht's pawn.
brokers' bill. as explained above. he,
cause they thought the. rate OF 3 neI
cent unnecessary, and saw no reason
why the present law. which had beer
sustained by the courts, should. be su-
perSeqea py new law on the subject
necessity OF passing their bill Is, =
II. r 5015) amending the present
month. ~.
Statement Makes Denial.
Although this letter was published d
| on April 81, 1921, it was reported in
the papers that on May 1, 1921, the
House District committee. had been
told that tho District Commissioners
desired the enactment of the Focht
Dill. which was then in the H. R. 1857