INTEREST ON MONEYS.
Mr. Wood's bill (S. 9) regulating interest on money coming up, with committee amendments thereto--
Mr. CAVEN explained the amendments. Under existing laws, when a ten per cent. note is put in judgment interest is only allowed at the rate of six per centum thereafter. The amendment provides that on the principal sum found to be due interest shall be collected at the rate named in the original contract, and six per cent. on the interest found to be due. The bill would allow contract interest on both principal and interest.
Mr. FULLER had no doubt some such law should be passed, and as the Committee on Finance is now considering some such measure, he moved the reference of this bill to that committee.
Mr. WOOD hoped the bill would be passed at once, though he preferred the bill without the amendment proposed by the committee, because it would require two separate judgments,one for principal and the other for interest.
Mr. BRADLEY, a member of the committee which considered this bill, objected to the report. In order to get a test vote, he moved that the bill and pending amendment be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. WILLIAMS favored this motion. He thought such a measure would prove a fruitful source of litigation. There is now no inducement to go into courts--now it is much preferable to renew paper at ten per cent. than to go into court.
Mr. GRAY cared but little about this thing personally. He favored this measure because the law ought to carry out contracts made, and not make a better one for the contractor. There were more notes sued in court because the debtor does not pay; for he would rather go into court and have a judgment rendered so that but six per cent, can be collected thereafter. He hoped the bill would not be indefinitely postponed.
Mr. BRADLEY contended that the law never made a contract. When a man makes a contract to pay at a certain time at ten per cent., the other sues and recovers the amount due and interest accrued. He would not favor legislating for capital against labor. He desired such legislation as would prevent sueing on notes.
Mr. MARTINDALE combatted Mr. Williams' position, that there will be more suits instituted on notes were the judgment to bear ten per cent. interest, and claimed that all bills and enactments looking to the enforcement of contracts were for the benefit of the laboring classes, and regarded this bill as an entering wedge in legislation to be had on this subject.
Mr. MORGAN said gentlemen were talking about this matter as though postponement of this bill would be legislating for poor men, but it looked to him like a sort of backhanded business. He believed that the rate of interest should not be over the rate of six per cent. He believed the law should be made equitable and just, and rest upon every class alike, but if he were going to try to favor one class over and above another he would certainly legislate in favor of the poor man, because the rich man can always take care of himself.
Mr. STEELE thought it a singular way to benefit the poor man to require him to pay 10 per cent, interest on judgments instead of 5 as the law now is. That would be legislating with a vengeance for the poor man. He wished these gentlemen would publish their speeches in full and send them down in the rural districts to convince these money borrowers that they are standing in their own light not to pay 10 per cent, on judgments instead of 6.
Mr. MARTINDALE replied, contending that the law as it now stands is simply an act to encourage dishonesty and to prevents the collection of debts.
Mr. HOOPER believed the proposed amendment was as near the equity of this matter as we can get. We should have safe and prudent laws for the enforcement of contracts--such laws would be a benefit to all parties in community. He should support the amendment and then the bill, because he believed it to be correct in principle.
Mr. GLESSNER should certainly vote against the bill. He voted in favor of the amendment because if the bill is to pass at all he preferred to see it pass with the amendment rather than without. He regarded six per cent. as the full value of money and was in favor of repealing the present ten per cent. law, and declared his purpose to introduce a bill for its repeal if no other Senator does. He was of opinion that this measure would increase litigation, and that we are required not to do, but the strong point against it is that the people are not asking for it. He would be opposed to a bill for the repeal of the redemption law or a bill to recover attorney fees on suits for the collection of notes, although such legislation would accrue to his own benefit. He hoped the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill would be sustained, and had it not been for the custom which recognizes it as discourteous, he should have moved to reject this bill when it was first introduced.
Mr. WOOD stated the single object of this bill to be that, where a man who is competent to make a contract solemnly agrees that he will pay ten per cent. interest for money, the present law shall be so amended that the contract may be enforced, and there is nothing in that which the poor man, if an honest man, will object to. It provides simply that a man may be compelled to be honest, and for nothing more. Gentlemen have said that it will make additional business in court. page: 170[View Page 170] Instead of that being the case, the opposite was his experience.
The motion to indefinitely postpone the bill and pending amendments was rejected, by yeas, 19, nays, 26, as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Alsop, Beggs, Bobo, Bradley, Carnahan, Cave, Denbo Francisco, Fuller, Glessner, Gregg, Henderson, Johnson, Keigwin, Lasselle, Sarninghausen, Steele, Stroud and Williams--19.
NAYS--Messrs. Andrews, Armstrong, Beardsley, Beeson, Case, Caven, Collett, Dittermore, Dougherty, Dwiggins, Fosdick, Gray, Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Hooper, Hubbard, Martindale, Morgan, Robinson, Rosebrough, Scott, Taylor. Wadge and Wood--23.
And then--
The Senate adjourned till Monday at 2 o'clock P. M.
