privileges that are not allowed to individuals.
I have yet to know the State that grains
privileges to corporations in their corporate
capacity, that would nut lie allowed to indi-
viduals with an equal amount of money, if
it is usury for an individual to loan money
for more than five per cent., of course cor-
porations cannot. Was the Bank of England
organized to borrow money ?
Mr. MILLER. Certainly.
Mr. NEGLEY. What does it do to-day?
Every steamer brings to us the rate of dis-
count at the Bank of England, not the rate
of borrowing. At different times we find
the rate of discount stated to be three, four,
four-and-a-half, five, six and seven per cent.
Mr. DANIEL. It is up to eight and nine per
cent. now.
Mr. NEGLEY. Yes, sir. Then the gentle-
man is in this predicament, if his law is cor-
rect; the government of England grants priv-
ileges to corporations that she denies to her
citizens.
Mr. MILLER. Will the gentleman allow me
to read the statute ?
Mr. NEGLEY. There are other banks in
England, and I suppose they are put upon
the same footing with the Bank of England.
They are chartered by the government, and
I suppose are allowed to charge this sliding-
scale of interest. Why is it permitted to the
Bank of England? Because the fluctuations
of trade require it. It is so in France; if
money is abundant it goes down; if it is
scarce it goes up. Is the Bank of England
organized by the British government for a
public benefit or a public nuisance? If it is
organized and created for the public benefit,
and I take it for granted that it is, then this
privilege is given for what purpose? So that
the wants of the public might be subserved;
so that in a time of abundance of money they
might get the benefit of it, by obtaining it at
a low rate of interest. That is it. Suppose
yon fix a rate of interest that a bank may
demand; sometimes it may be too high,
sometimes it may be too low. A party can
never obtain it for less than that rate; he is
bound up to that sum; and the bank can
and absolutely will not loan at a less rate.
I would like to see the law of Maryland
conform to the law of Missouri on this sub-
ject. By that law the rate of interest is
fixed at six per cent., but parties may agree
in writing tor the payment of interest not ex-
ceeding ten per cent. per annum, on money
due or to become due on contract. Some-
thing of that kind should be adopted here ;
there ought to be a limit. Let the rate of in-
terest be six per cent.; then give some liberty
of choice, some freedom to persons who want
money, but say that the rate shall in no case
exceed ten per cent. The gentleman from
Allegany (Mr. Thruston) proposes that it
shall not exceed seven per cent. Look at
what has been done by the government of |
the United States. Did it not go into the
market at the beginning of the war and offer
seven and three-tenths per cent.; next its five-
twenties at six per cent.; then its ten-forties
at five per cent.; then back to six per cent.,
and now up to seven and three-tenths per
cent. again? Why is this? Because of its
need of money; that renders it necessary
that it should change its rate of interest.
Would it be right or wrong that the govern-
ment should be tied down to offering a par-
ticular rate of interest? It is free to choose,
and the rate is regulated by its necessities
and its wants. If you were to tie the gov-
ernment down to six or five per cent., it
might not be possible for it to borrow a dollar.
It may have to pay more than seven per cent.
bye-and-bye, we don't know.
And it is the same with an individual.
His necessities may require him to have
money, and it may be his salvation to get it
at seven, eight, nine, or even ten per cent.
I know a case in the city of Philadelphia,
of a man owning immense quantities of coal
lands; who, if he had not succeeded in
getting money two or three years ago at more
than ten per cent., would have been a broken
and ruined man to-day. He got the money
on those conditions; and to-day is worth a
million of dollars. If a man thinks his
financial affairs will justify him in giving
six, seven, or eight per cent. interest, he will
do it. And in God's name is not he, rather
than this convention, the best judge as to his
ability to give six, seven, eight, nine, or ten
per cent.? Why not leave it discretionary
with him? If you legislate upon the hy-
pothesis that a man is not intellectually or
morally competent to make a contract as to
the value of money, you strike at the foun-
dation of all competency for individual self-
government. To that extent you strike even
at the personal liberty of the individual; you
interfere with his right to pursue his own
happiness, and look after his own interest in
the way he may choose.
These usury laws come down to us from
antiquity, from the middle ages. We know
that in the period of the middle ages, the
money lenders, the Jews, were looked upon
as outcasts; were not allowed to live in the
heart of any city, but were kept outside, in
their own peculiar quarter. So far did that
prejudice go during the middle ages, that the
Jews were denied the privileges of citizens
on account of money lending. But we have
outlived those prejudices, and in this country
Jews are allowed the privileges of citizens.
But our constitution, as it now stands,
makes this the paradise of money lenders, of
Shylocks, because you guard their privileges;
you make them a privileged and a preroga-
tived class. You say to the citizen that he
shall not borrow money, unless he does it
through the instrumentality of the money
changer. I say , let us go into their temples |
