Year: 1873

4 AAAELhGAW03- ~ hhNN NJ ~ A+Aa Z = - A. = ~


U@UMK LAWS, -


A correspondent asked us a little while since e
state what possible ground oi opposition there
souId be to the repeal OF the New York ktltutes
against usury We replied at some iength, notle-
ing, among Others, the prejudice on the part oi


many rel e ioua people, who are accustomed to as
sociate the Scripture prohibitions with the stat
1 utes of the Stale An excellent illustration of
this is to be found in recent editorial IN the eol-
umns of the CiriStian Iatelhyeaoer. The iorce
Jf the article consists ia the statement that IN the
s0mmnnlon service of the reformed tDuicn)
Church usurers are forbidden to go to the Lords


able and the explanation that .'hy osurers those
| are meant who take unlawful or exorbitant
ate of interest from needy borrowers.


There are two sufficient answers To this, as APP
elied to the question at issue. There IS no dis
Jute as to the inherent sinfuness of exaCting an
.xhorbitant rate OF interest Those who are gull
of such wrong subject 10 that Tribunal
from whose Judgment there ls no appeal. But
why should the statute law seek to punish the eX-
action of an exorbItant rae of usance Tor money,
more than the taking of an exoThitaut ptioe for
hay, or potatoes, or -four, or wood, or coalt The
moral character of the transaction Is the same,
aud the scriptaTal associations bear similar le-
lation and, it the exaction Is 10 he followed by
legal penalty in the case, wny not IN anotherf
The truth Is that the good people who cling TO the
statute against usury do so because this IS assoca
ted in their minds with some provision IN the NO
sale law. In that case, however, the prohibition





The usury forbidden by the Hebrew lawgiver was
my interest price whatever for tine loan OF for
bearanos of money, or of any other property
And this prohibition was limited as may be seen
in Deuteronomy XIII: 1920; "Thou shalt not
lend upon usury to tay brother; usury or money
usury OF victuals, usury of any thing that is lent
upon usury unto a stranger thou mayest lend
upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not
lend upon usury.'


The original prohibition, therefore, was the
taking of any fee or reward m kind for the loan,
not OF money only, but of food or anything what
ever which could be lent. And this was limited
to transactions between brethren. The taking OF
one per cent per annum for the use Of money was
as much a violation of this law as the exacton OF
ten per cent Charging for the use or loan of
horse was as much usury and ms clearly prohibited
as exacting an exorbltant rate of interest foI mon
ey. 4 stranger might be charged for al such
service, aud in the letter of the law there was no
limit as to the rate but no hire could be taken for
any such service from a brother IsTasite. II is
sufficient objection, therefore. to the statute law
which attempts to restrain the exast0n Of eKorhi
ant interest that it has no foundation in the old
Hebrew code, either in the principle involved or
The subject TO which il extends. All property of
very kind that could be lent was there included
II usance for it, no matter how low the rate, from
brother Israekte, was prohibited, aud full per-
mission given TO take usance without terms Of Inn
tation from others.