easy to give protection in this case; there are
more persons affected by it.
I think the law as it stands now is very
good, as it has been construed by the court
of appeals, and is well settled with the excep-
tion of the point in relation to the contract
for the payment of the tuxes by the borrower.
I am myself doubtful whether such a contract
would be justified under the law. It is cer-
tainly an indirect mode of taking more than
six per cent. For, if the taxes amount to one
per cent., the making a contract at six per
cent. with a stipulation that the borrower
should pay the taxes, would be the same as
if the lender took seven per cent. and paid the
taxes himself. It is usual for the borrower
to pay all the expenses for executing the con-
tract. And if he makes a contract to pay the
taxes also, and the money is worth that to
him, I do not see any great objection to it.
As it is now, the contract may be entirely
confidential between the parties. And out of
a million of contracts I do not suppose that
more than one or two out of a hundred become
subject to the laws about usury. Among
commercial men it is understood that no con-
tract of that sort should be set aside by the
plea of usury. Still the law in some cases
may avail for purposes of justice and to pre-
vent oppression. And it may be some re-
straint upon 'those who would be grasping,
who would take every advantage of a man's
necessities. It is true you cannot prevent
that altogether, A man who has his corn
house full while his poor neighbor has not
credit to get it ten or fifteen miles off for a
less sum, may charge him more than the
market price for it. That is a practice which
is wrong; it is not doing as he would be done
by; it is against the moral law, and is im-
moral in that aspect of the case. But those
cases are few, and public opinion will regulate
that matter to a great extent.
While I disclaim (any idea that there is any
immorality in a contract for the loan of
money, yet I know there are times when six
per cent. would not be an adequate com-
pensation. And in those cases the party
may contract for and receive more than six
per cent,, (it is done in thousands of in-
stances,) if there is no litigation about it
But if it does come into litigation and there
has been oppression practiced, the party is
relieved to the extent of the interest above
six per cent. This is to be said in favor of
that; that whereas those who engage in any
other business, in farming, merchandise, in
speculations of various kinds, have to run
the risk of the loss of all they have invested
it is not so with the money lender. A man
invests his money in manure, puts it upon
his land, sows his seed, bestows upon it all his
labor, and then a blight comes, upon his
wheat crop especially, a week or two before
it matures, and his prospects are blasted, and
he loses all his money and labor. But for |
those who lend money on interest, the interest
goes on whether it be cold or hot, whether
it rains or shines, day or night, whether be
sleeps or wakes; his interest is all the time
accumulating, if his loam is well secured.
In that respect he has a great advantage over
those engaged join other kinds of business,
which are attended with great hazards.
With all due respect, therefore, to those
who have submitted propositions here,' 1
think that the present system which has
now been in operation for some twelve or
fourteen years, is about the best. The system
relieves the subject from the idea of attaching
immorality to such contracts, and I think we
better leave it as it is. Let a man make his
contract; let him take his chances; let him
be sure of the man he deals with. He can
tell if he is a fair and honorable man, and can
contract with him according to the' money
market. In the city those who lend under-
stand very well the character and standing
of those who borrow. And in the counties
a man is very apt to know to whom be lends,
and takes care of the security. I think we
cannot better the present system. As to what
New York does, all I can say is that Penn-sylvania and
Philadelphia, being between us
and New York, get along very well at six per
cent. And I cannot understand why capital
should pass through Philadelphia and go to
New York, especially when after it gets there
it is beyond the personal supervision of those
who own it. and is in the hands of the money
brokers and capitalists of New York, who
will have, their percentage on all the invest-
ments they make. I do not think capita] is
sent there to any great extent. I am, there-
fore, in favor of retaining the present system,
leaving contracts between parties to the ope-
rations of the law as it now stands.
The question recurred upon the motion of
Mr. DANIEL to strike out "six' 'and insert
"seven" as the legal rate of interest.
Mr. THOMAS called the yeas and nays upon
this question, and they were ordered.
The question was then taken, by yeas and
nays, and resulted—yeas 8, nays 63—as fol-
lows :
Yeas —Messrs. Abbott, Cushing, Daniel,
Gale, Hatch, Hopper, Parker, Ridgely—8.
Nays—Messrs. Audoun, Berry, of Prince
George's, Billingsley, Blackiston, Bond, Bris-
coe, Carter, Chambers, Clarke, Crawford,
Cunningham, Dellinger, Dennis, Dent, Du-
vall, Earle, Ecker, Edelen, Galloway, Hebb,
Hollyday, Hopkins, Horsey, Johnson, Jones,
of Cecil, Jones, of Somerset, Keefer, Ken-
nard, King, Larsh, Lee, Mayhugh, McComas,
Mitchell, Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Murray,
Negley, Nyman, Parran, Peter, Pugh, Pur-
nell, Robinette, Russell, Sands, Schley,
Schlosser, Smith, of Carroll, Smith, of Dor-
chester, Smith, of Worcester, Sneary, Stir-
ling, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Thruston, Turner,
Valliant, Wickard, Wilmer, Wooden—63. |
