date it in case the party should come into
court and plead usury and tender the amount.
Mr. MILLER. Certainly; but that would
invalidate it.
Mr. DANIEL. I will come to that directly.
I say that this is done every day. In my own
experience I know it. It is customary for
every money lender and broker in Baltimore
city to do that same thing. Money will have
its value. But the gentleman says it will
invalidate it in a court of justice if the party
comes into court and pleads usury and ten-
ders the amount of the principal and six per
cent. interest.
Mr. PETER. Would not a court of equity
say that that is a debt, like any other debt,
and compel the creditors to pay it back ?
Mr. DANIEL. I do not think it would; but
the question has never been tried. At any
rate the only way to avoid it is for the party
defendant to go into court and plead usury
and tender the principal sum and in crest;
and I say that no man who has any respect
for his character in the commercial commu-
nity will ever do that; and I think the histo-
ry of Baltimore will bear me out in that.
There baa been perhaps but one case known
where a man has ever done it under the pre-
sent constitution. A man goes upon the
street, and goes to Mr. A, who has money to
loan; and Mr. A. says, "I cannot lend it to
you unless you give me twelve per cent. He
says, "I know it is worth that, and I am
willing to give it to you ;" and he contracts
positively on his honor as a gentleman to pay
that amount. Then when he fails to pay it,
and you sue him in court, be comes in and
says, "true, money was worth it; and true,
I promised to pay it; but the law says I
need not pay it, and I will plead the statute
of limitations and avoid it ;" because it is in
effect a statute of limitations; and no man
that places any value upon his character
would ever plead usury upon a contract;
just as no man of honor will plead the statute
of limitations upon an honest debt. A man
who has agreed to pay twelve per cent. deems
it beneath his dignity and honor to come into
court and plead usury. And I say it would
be doing injustice, although the gentleman
from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) called it jus-
tice to plead it. I say it would he injustice
after going to a man and privately contract-
ing with him to give him twelve or fifteen
per cent. and knowing that be relies upon
your honor to pay it, then to go into court
and plead usury to avoid, because the law
allows him to do it,—plead that he has made
a dishonest contract which is void in law,
I wish further to say in reference to the
plea made here that money lenders and money
borrowers are not upon equal terms, that
think that money borrowers are a great
many of them about as sharp as money lend-
ers; and I have, seen some quite as sharp.
The man whose interest it is to borrow gene- |
rally studies his interest, where he can do
best, as much as those who lend. Human
nature everywhere is the same. It merely
depends upon the peculiar acuteness of the man
who borrows and of the man who lends as
to who gets the advantage in the bargain.
I will say, moreover, in conclusion, that the
court of appeals and the legislature of Mary-
land have tried to avoid these onerous laws
by construing them liberally; and the legis-
lature have passed laws so as to avoid this
very thing which gentlemen would have us
confined to, that money should be loaned at
six per cent. Chief Justice Taney said that
under this very constitution of Maryland, if
any man loaned at a higher rate than six per
cent. it was absolutely void, and the man for-
feited the contract, principal and interest. Yet
in the very face of that decision, our court of
appeals was so earnest to construe this law
liberally, that commerce might he promoted,
that contracts between men might be ob-
served, and that money might have its own
value without being restricted by a construc-
tion that was not the law, settled the princi-
ple that a man could only void the contract
by pleading usury, and if he did plead usury
he must tender both the principal and legal
interest.
I saw this very matter tried in the superior
court of Baltimore. A party had agreed to
give more than six per cent. He did not
plead usury, but he tried to avoid it as being
illegal; and the court gave the instruction
that the plaintiff should recover the full
amount, the interest which was contracted
for, being, I think, eight per cent. That is the
law now. Courts and legislatures have so
construed it as to break down this provision
of the constitution, with regard to usury, so
far as its original intention is concerned, in
order to promole progress. As sure as you
adopt such laws, while your neighboring
States, New York and others, allow a charge
of seven, eight, or ten per cent., you cause
money to flow out of Maryland into those
States, and make it harder for the poor men,
the particular friends of my friend from How-
ard, to get the little sums of money which he
may need. He cannot borrow because the
money will not be here to loan.
I know of my own knowledge that banks
in Baltimore city find at their desks when
they come there in the morning as many let-
ters from New York as they can answer, for
money in large sums to be loaned upon good
security at seven per cent. And some of the
largest banks of Baltimore city tell me that
they do not care to loan money in the city of
Baltimore, they can do it to so much better ad-
vantage in the city of New York. The result
is to cripple us and put us into the hands of
Shylocks, to whom we must pay exorbitant
interest, because you do not make it worth
while for honest and honorable men to loan
money, for you do not allow them to charge |
