The Washington herald., 1922-03-19
DENIES PAWN
BILL SUPPORT
Representative Foch
: Scored in Statement
BY Tucker.
CITES OPPOSITION
Declares Citizens Here Never
Approved Higher Rate
For Pawn Shops.

Declarations of Representative
BENJAMIN FOcht. chairman OF the
House District Committee, recently
before the House committee that =
majority of the citizens of the Dis
! trict favored his pawnbrokers' bill,
were assailed last night by Evan II.
. Tucker. of the citizens committee
on remedial loan legislation for tho
/ District
Mr.. Tucker points out that all
--~1e bodies Of the District and the
Federation of Citizens Associations
has adopted resolutions favoring
the District Commissioners bill re-
iating to pawnbroker legislation
which calls for an increase in the
rate OF interest on pawnbrokers'
loans from l to 2 per cent.
To Increase Rate.
Representative Focht's bill calls
for particular legislation for pawn
brokers and provides for an inter-
est of per cent on loans up to
! s3s and az per cent above.
District leaders claim enactment
of this law will repeal pawnbroker
legislation enacted in 1913 which
has been declared constitutional by
the United States Supreme Court
and has driven all Illegal pawn
brokers from the city.
Speaking Of pawnbrOkers' legis-
lation Mr.. Tucker declared:
Tn the discussion of his pawn
brokers' BILL II. r. 63O9. on the
noor. on March Is. 1922. Mr.. Focht
said in response to Mr.. Brownies
statement that he understood the
District Commissioners oppose Mr..
Focht's bill:
,"Mr. Focht said: I do not think
20. think this has a universal
Endorsement. There might be 1000
people against It where there are
10000 for it
Cite. Vote Of Dissent.
Mr.. Focht is in error as to this
universal Endorsement" also. for on
April 2S. 1921. the Board OF Trade
at a largely attended meeting and
with only one dissenting vote,
adopted the report OF its law com
mittee. which approved of the Com
missioners' bill. S. III. r. 5015, and
disapproved OF Mr.. Focht's bill.
. 9S4-h. X. oSOS-
The secretary advised him of
this action on July 7. 1921, ard
called his attention to the fact that
the board disapproyed Of his bill.
On May IL. 1921. the Chamber
df Commerce, which Mr.. Foch. lists
amons tie associations whicn favor
his hill. unanimously approved of
the Commissioners' bill. s. 7-H. R.
SO15. Ind on May II, 1921. its sec
retary. Mr.. Seymour. advised Mr..
Focht of this. calling attention to
the fast that the action was uUani-
NOUS OF a largely attended m set
ing. and that il had been based on
a favorable report of its law COM
mittee, of which Mr.. James
Lloyd. who was a fellow member
of the House when the present law
was passed. was chairman. Mr..
Lloyd voted with Mr.. Focht for the
reduction in the rate to 1 per cent
from per cent at that time. and
II is unfortunate that Mr.. Focht
does not join Mr.. Lloyd in the ef-
fort to have this mistake corrected
now.
Citizens DisapprOse.
On April IS. 1921. the West End
Citizens Association. which Mr..
Focht lists as favorinE his bill, in
dorsed the Commissioners bill and
the secretary advised Mr.. Focht of
this action. BY this action the sub
Ject came before the Federation of
Citizens Associations and the Focht
bill was also brought before it
through favorable action on it by
the Brightwood Citizens Associa-
tion. The matter was carefully
considered by its law committee.
which. ia an elaborate report to
the federation on June 4. 1921. rec
commended the Endorsement of the
Commissioners bill and the disap-
provaI of the Focht bill. A motion
to approve the Focht bill was voted
down by an overwhelming vote. and
the federation then approved of the
Commissioners bill with practically
no opposition.
Mr.. Focht's list seems therefore
to be not only inaccurate but old.
and when corrected furnishes but
little basis for the universal in
dorsement' so far as the citizens