CONVENTIONAL INTEREST.
Mr. SHERMAN, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Orr's bill [74,] to regulate interest on money, and repeal the act of May 27, 1852, with a recommendation that the same do pass.
Mr. HEFFREN moved that the report with the bill be indifinitely postponed.
Mr. DOBBINS referred to the bad influence of a conventional interest in the States of Wisconsin and Ohio. After a fair trial in both these States the producing and consuming classes petitioned numereously for its repeal, till it was accomplished. The same thing had been tried in this State, and now there was a compromise. If the merchant pays 10 per cent, for money to buy his goods, the consumer at last lias to pay it, in the increased price of the goods he consumes.
Mr. LANE. We should legislate for the greatest good of the greatest number. The rule would not allow us to legislate for capitalists. Look at the condition of any new State that has adopted such a law, like Iowa. It was like the condition of our own State when we had such a law, which resulted in the compromise on six per cent., stated by Mr. Dobbins.
Mr. PACKARD replied that he had discussed it before the people, and although he had no selfish interest to consult in the passage of the bill, he confessed that he felt much interest in its success. His constituents were largely in favor of this increase in the rate of interest. If petitions were circulated amongst thorn, there would be found fifty to one in its favor. The experience of our own and other States, which has been referred to by members, was not the result of a high rate of interest, but it was occasioned by deep-seated difficulties, arising from heavy State debts and taxes. He had, until a recent period, resided in Michigan, and there the ten per cent interest law had acted beneficially. He concurred in the position assumed by Mr. Heffren in the discussion relative to the law against carrying concealed weapons, that laws which were generally disregarded ought not to be continued in existence; and the existing law, limiting the rate of interest to six per cent., is constantly violated. The people will have money when their business wants demand it, be the law what it may. The necessity of a change in the law is more felt in the border counties than in other parts of the State. The northern counties are drained of their surplus cap page: 132[View Page 132]ital, because it is sent to the adjoining States, where it can find a higher interest. He would be the last man to legislate against labor, but this bill promotes its welfare as much as that of the capitalist. As to loans made by merchants from banks, and'the argument from them, he would reply by asking whether such loans can now be made for less than 10 or 12 percent? Since this is the rate of interest generally given, a change in the law will not result in actually increasing it. As to the experience of Iowa, it was not a ten per cent, interest law that caused its financial difficulties, but other causes. He had been written to by men who are not capitalists, to use every exertion to change the present law.
Mr. BUNDY. In order that every gentleman desirous of debate may have an opportunity, he moved that the report be laid on the table, and its further consideration made the special order for Thursday of next week, at 10 o'clock.
Mr. NEBEKER suggested that the bills on the subject be made the order at the same time.
Mr. BUNDY could not say that, because they were not here.
Mr. McLEAN saw no propriety in any extended discussion of this question. There were good arguments on both sides. At least one week of time was consumed ineffectually on this subject at each of the two last sessions. The change of the law, he thought, could not be made. He was willing to make it the special order, but expected no result.
Mr. HEFFREN understood the motion to lay on the table and make the special order.
Mr. Bundy's motion was agreed to, and the subject was made the special order for Thursday of next week.
Mr. LEE, from the Committee on Rights and Privileges, returned Mr. Heffren's bill [65,] to repeal the act touching gaming contracts, with a recommendation that the same be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. HEFFREN. That was another of the laws that was violated every day.
Mr. STOTSENBERG. It was true the Supreme Court had decided that the money could not be recovered from the winning party after it has been put over by the stake-holders. It refers to betting on games. The argument that the law was not respected, would be just as good against any law.
The report was concurred in.
Mr. McCLURG, from the same committee, returned the resolution requiring railroad association in this State to employ no engineer who cannot produce a certificate of qualifications, with a recommendation of indefinite postponement.
The report was concurred in.
