of the rich, and oppresses the poor men, I
would like to have anybody tell me, in the
position of things to-day, the rich men hav-
ing money, and the poor men wanting to bor-
row it and obliged to have it, whether it is
not in the power of the rich man now to ex-
tort his usury, He has nothing to do but to
take his discount in advance. What is to
prevent it. On the other hand, if the poor
man's necessities are such that they must
have the money is it for his interest that the
State should prohibit him from paying for it
what it is worth, and thus restrain him from
getting it upon any terms? That single illus-
tration shows us the philosophy of this ques-
tion; that the value of money as of anything
else varies with every man according to his
necessities. The whole difficulty arises from
attempting to fix the value, which is regula-
ted by the great principles of exchange and
finance that control all matters relating to
money and its operations, and which cannot
be predetermined or controlled by legislative
enactment.
The gentleman from Howard made one oth-
er observation, if I heard him distinctly, that
I ought not to pass by, because I did not think
it was even in that gentleman's capacity not
to perceive so plain a matter. He asked why
it was necessary, if a clause like this was to
be adopted allowing private contracts up to
ten per cent., to mention six per cent. at all.
I will give him a simple answer in passing.
If he will read the clause he will be sufficient-
ly answered. The object is to make six per
cent. the legal standard of interest in the ab-
sence of contracts, so that if parties neglect or
do not choose to contract, the rate of interest
recoverable in a suit at law shall be six per
cent. That is the plain object of it. If in-
terest were left entirely free, it might be sup-
posed that if no interest were agreed upon
none could be recovered
This is no longer a question of government,
but simply of dealings between one man and
another. It is not a question of the Jew in
the olden time under a theocracy, under the
old dispensation, trading with another Jew
and lending him money, and prohibited by
the fulminations against usury from making
such a demand. It is a question of finance,
subject to the laws of trade, regulating all
commercial transactions between man and
man, laws applicable to the whole world and
ruling money as they rule every other article.
Gentlemen have repeated here the old max-
im of Aristotle, that usury is not to be allowed
because money produces nothing and
is a fixed standard. What has produced more
than money? What is more flexible, more
fluctuating in its value, than money? I need
not refer to any other illustration than our
daily commercial intercourse. Those that are
engaged in that business see the effect of it.—
We know bow prices rise and fall as specie
rises and falls. We know bow prices rise and |
fall as current funds generally rise and fall.
We also know that the effect of that rise and
fall is that it comes to every man's door. We
pay for the necessities of life one price to-day,
and another price to-morrow. What is that
payment? It is paying exchange. Though
he may not know it, in the price of the bread
that a man and his children eat for the morn-
ing or evening meal, is a practical recogni-
tion of the very doctrine we claim here, of
freedom for money; for at every meal he is
paying a higher or a less rate of interest.—
That is the practical operation of it. It all
comes from exchange and the scientific prin-
ciples of trade which control everything
bought and sold, even the most common arti-
cles of domestic consumption.
As I said before, this is a mere remnant,
and about the last. remnant, of the old theory
and doctrine of sumptuary laws which so long
controlled men's minds; and we have before
us the brilliant example of England, in aban-
doning, after scientific inquiry, the laws re-
stricting interest on money within a certain
fixed rate. If we shall be wise enough and
scientific enough, in constructing our or-
ganic law, I hope we may follow in her
wake,
Mr. NEGLEY renewed his amendment, to
strike out all after the words "contracted
for," and to insert the words "as shall be
agreed upon between the parties, not exceed-
ing eight per centum per annum."
Mr. KINO called the previous question, and
it was sustained.
Mr. SANDS demanded the yeas and nays on
the amendment of Mr. NEGLEY, and they were
ordered.
The question being taken, the result was
—yeas 22, nays 38—as follows ;
Yeas—Messrs. Audoun, Baker, Brooks,
Brown, Cushing, Daniel, Dellinger, Greene,
Hebb, Hoffman, Hopper; Kennard, Lansdale,
Markey, Negley, Parker, Schley, Scott, Snea-
ry, Stirling, Sykes, Todd—22.
Nays—Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Belt, Car-
ter, Crawford, Davis, of Washington, Dent,
Duvall, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Hatch,
Henkle, Horsey, Jones, of Cecil, Keefer, King,
Larsh, Lee, Marbury, McComas, Mitchell,
Miller, Morgan, Mullikin, Murray, Myman,
Parran, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell,
Sands, Stockbridge, Swope, Valliant, Wick-
ard, Wooden—38.
When their names were called,
Mr. ECKER said: I had promised some gen-
tlemen that I would vote tor a modification
of the provision as it now stands) but the ar-
gument has changed my mind. We might
as well say that capital punishment for mur-
der should be done away with because an oc-
casional murder is committed. The argu-
ment of the gentleman from Washington
county (Mr. Negley) has entirely changed my
mind; and therefore I vote "no."
Mr. MCCOMAS said: Considering this a mat- |
