Evening star., 1922-04-03
THINKS f0CXT BILL :
REPEALS LOAN LAW
P. H. Marshall Issues State
ment to Support Contention
on Proposed Measure.

In support of his belief that the
Focht pawnbrokers' bill repeals the
present loan law, T. II. Marshall,
former assistant corporation counsel.
today issued the following statement:
'In connection with the proposed
legislation relating to pawnbrokers,
it is of vital Importance to the cit-
zens of this District that earnest con-
sideration be given to the question of
whether the bill introduced by Rep
resentative Focht will so operate as
to repeal the existing law, as enacted
February 4, 1913.
PawnbrOEers Included.
"The last mentioned act has been
judicially determined to include
pawnbrOllers, and if amended. as de-
sired by the Commissioners, by in
Creasing the rate of interest to per
cent per month, will make possible
the resumption of the pawnbrokinS
business in the District. under law
which has been interpreted by our
courts so as to make 1T impresnable
to attack. On the other hand, an
examination of both the euactinG and
repeating clauses of the Focht bill at
once raises the question OF whether
II Will not entirely repeal the act of
1913
4
reasonably be advanced against the
total repeal of the act of 1913 by the
Focht hill is that the latter concerns
itself exclusively with the pawnbrok- =
ing business and therefore VIII leave
the former Legislation in force as TO
loans not secured by pledges. but ii
IS Nifilcult to see the logic of such an
argument when thoughtful attention
is given to the real object OF the
existing law and the law advocated
by Mr.. Focht. namely. to prevent and
renalize excessive interest charges
Penalty Is Heavier.
.'In this connection, it is To be
! observed that the act of 1913. which
iitciude" pawnbrOkerS and money
leEcers in general. provides for fine
of not less than $25 nor more than
500, or imprisonment for not less
than five nor lrore than thirty days.
or for both fine and Imprisonment
for any violation OF said act. whereas
the Focht bill declares that any
pawnbroker who shall violate or
neglect or refuse to comply with amy
Ct it's provisions shall Tor every such
off-nse. upon convivtion before a
court of cCmr retent jurisdiction, pay
Il fine of $500 or I've sentenced to six
months imrricrnment or both, at the
discretion of the court.
surely. the taking of unlawful in
than a similar eNaction by q pawn
broker and as the real object Of
Congress is not to differentiate be-
tween rawnbrokers and other money
lenders OF to provide q more severe
penalty for one usurer than another.
this feature alone would afford ample
ground for the contention that the
act of 1913 will be repealed in toto
should the Foch: bill become law.
should this contention he sustain
ed the District would have no law
permitting loans upon notes at more
than per cent per annum. to the
manifest advantage of the pawn
brokers, and equally manifest detri-
rnent of the needy borrower VINO
lacks tangible security.
There are other points which lead
to the same opinion, as shown by the
report of the law committee OF the
Federation of Citizens Associa tions
and also by statements made during
the hearings when the Focht bill was
under consideration"