HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, February 22, 1881--9 a. m.Mr. BUSKIRK called up the special, order, being the consideration of his bill [H. R. 3] concerning interest and usury.
Mr. BENHAM made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 30; nays, 40--to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. STUART moved to amend by striking out the words "contracted for" in line one, the word "or" in line two; also, the words "the defendant shall recover costs." in line four of said section, and strikeout all of Section 5. He said: As the bill now stands I can not vote for it, for the reason that, as a general thing, the man who agrees to pay a high rate of interest is equally guilty with the man who receives it, and I can not see why you should offer a premium to one man for violating a law and imposing upon the other man a penalty. Let the law put both parties upon an equal. If you want to make a 6 per cent. law, enforce a law prohibiting the borrower from 6 per cent. and no more. The bill as proposed will allow the borrower to escape from paying any interest simply because the lender contracted for more interest than is allowed by law. I think this amendment ought to prevail.
Mr. BUSIKRK--Thiis bill has been discussed in all its bearings, if the Members of this House vote as their constituents desire them to vote this bill will pass without any further delay. If you strike out Section 5, then the lender has nothing whatever to risk; he loans his money at 10 or 12 per cent., and the borrower pays it. I am surprised to hear a lawyer and a Member of the Legislature claim that when the law says that more than 6 per cent. is illegal, a man contracting debts against the law is under moral obligations to comply with the contract as entered into. I deny the legal proposition, as well as the moral one, that when a man contracts under those circumstances, there is a moral obligation to live up to it. The adoption of this admendment is equivalent to the destruction of the bill. It strikes at the very fundamental principles which the bill means to establish, therefore I hope the amendment, as offered by the gentleman, will not prevail.
Mr. TETER--An individual has, without question, the right to agree to pay such a per cent. for the use of money, or forbearance of payment, as he may deem proper under the circumstances in each particular case, and if he contracts to pay any higher interest than that which is established by law Such contract is not, in view of our present law, void, but void only, as to the excess above the legal rate of intrest, so that if he has, in writing, contracted to pay interest at a rate of 25 per cent. he can not be compelled to pay more than 8 per cent., yet he may literally perform his contract. All good Governments protect the person and property of each individual to a limited extent only, for, if he precipitate any injury upon himself or contribute thereto, the case would be rare and extreme, in which an award of damages could be given. The law does not, in general, protect the individual against the results of his own actions but will if the act be criminal, sometimes, visit him with punishment severe. The question of the greatest importance in the bill under discussion is, perhaps, how far and to what extent shall the law interfere in the protection of each individual in the paymentof interest? Surely, only to make the contract for the payment of interest void, above a certain rate per cent., for, to make the whole contract void, absolutely or to visit either the debtor or the creditor both with a penalty for having entered into a contract usurious, would be manifestly beyond the limits of the protection necessary for each individual.
Therefore, as the present law regulating interest seems not to be oppressive in its operation, but sufficiently protects the debtor, and as it is eminently advisable to avoid, as far as praticable, mutation in our laws, let the bill not pass and become a law, notwithstanding its advocates are gentlemen whose intelligence, honesty and eloquence entitle them to high respect and genuine consideration.
Mr. CARTER offered a substitute for the bill fixing the rate at 6 per cent., except that written contracts may be at 7 or 8 in certain cases. He said he was of the opinion that the minimum rate of interest should be regulated by Legislative enactment. He thought when the lawful rate of interest is too low, it has a tendency to make the rate higher. The question is, what should be the maximum rate of interest? He felt that 6 per cent. was too low a rate. If such a law passed, it would drive foreign and home capital out of the State to other States for investment. For this reason he felt willing to meet the gentlemen half way, compromise and make the maximum rate 7 per cent. The amendment which he proposed imposed a penalty on the man who violates the law--the borrower as well as the lender, thus holding both parties responsible for trespass of law.
Mr. FULLER moved to amend the amendment as follows: By striking out the word "8 per cent." where it occurs in Section 1, and insert the word "7 per cent."
Mr. BERRYMAN was not only opposed to the bill, but all the amendments. He thought there was too much legislation; that the people were fully capable of taking care of themselves. You can not by legislation compel a banker or individuals to lend money. Parties possessing money will send it out of the State rather than loan it in our midst at a lower rate than can be obtained elsewhere.
Mr. MOODY was in favor of the bill, and opposed to all amendments offered, beliving none of them could tend to its perfection. None but bankers and money-lenders, and their friends, are opposed to the bill. It ought to stand upon its merits, and every member should go upon record in that view of it. As long as people are willing to convert their money into 4 per cent. bonds, he thought it high time the people of this State should be able to obtain money at 6 per cent.
Mr. FULLER tought it very doubtful if this bill should be passed by the House, whether it could pass the Senate, and on that account he favored a compromise to make it 7 per cent. It is not money borrowers who are opposing this measure, but the money lenders. He thought school money at 7 per cent, could be loaned as easily as other money at 6 per cent.
The amendent to the amendment was agreed to.
The amendment was rejected--yeas, 43; nays, 47.
Mr. HAMILTON thought the members of this body should fully consider the practical results of this enactment before entering upon such legislation hurredly. The flood gates would be shut upon every branch of business by making the rate per cent. 6, and it would bring embarrassment upon the people of the State.
Mr. CARR, of White, was opposed to changing the law on the subject of interest, and read a speech giving his views on the subject.
The bill was ordered engrossed by yeas, 46; nays, 44.
THE TAX BILL.
Mr. WALKER moved that the tax bill be postponed until Friday at 9 o'clock a. m.
page: 215[View Page 215]Mr. NEFF moved t amendby inserting 2 p. m to-day.
The motion as amended was agreed to.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, being the consideration of the bill [H. R. 252] to extend the elective franchise for the election of President and Vice President of the United States to a certain class of women therein designated. The bill was read the third time and failed to pass by yeas, 43; nays, 46; as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Akin, Baker, Beatty, Compton, Cotton, Edwins, Floyd, Franklin, Furnas, Gardner, Gillum, Gilman, Gregory, Hamilton, Huff, Iddings, Johnson, Kenner, Lindlay, Linsday, Marshall, Mason, McIntosh, Melroth, Miles, Murray, O'Brien, Roberts, Robinson, of Decatur; Robinson, of Ripley; Ryan, Skinner, Stewart, Sumner, Taylor, of La Grange; Taylor, of Noble; Teter, Thompson, Vawter, Westfall, Wheeler, Wilson, of Morgan, and Wright--43.
Nays, Messrs. Barnett, Bartlett, Benham, Berryman, Buskirk, Cabbage, Carr, of White; Carr, of Whitley; Carter, Cauthorne, Chandler, Cole, Cooper, Cummins, Davis, Fall, Frazer, Fuller, Gibson, Ham, Hammond, Hinton, Hottell, Huston, Jackson, Kain, Keer, Lee, McClure, McCormick, McDowell, McSheehy, Meredith, Miller, Mitchell, Moody, Neff, Null, Roelker, Switzer, Shields, Smelter, Sulzer, Walz, Weaver and the Speaker-46.
Then the House adjourned till 2 p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
The Speaker announced the special order for this hour to be the consideration of the bill (H. R. 8] for compulsory education.
The report of the Committee on Education, recommending its passage with amendments, was concurred in, and the bill was ordered engrossed.
The SPEAKER announced a special order at this hour to be the consideration of the bill [H. R. 204] concerning taxation.
Mr. MURRAY moved to amend Section 115 concerning vacancies of Assessors, as follows: "And if from any other cause a vacancy should occur in such office in the Township at any time, the County Auditor shall fill such vacancy by appointment, and the person so appointed shall qualify as herein required."
The amendment was adopted.
On motion by Mr. WALRER, township assessors were made members of Boards of Equalization.
Mr. THOMPSON moved to amend Section 211 concerning price for printing descriptions of delinquent list to read: "It shall not exceed fifteen cents."
The amendment was adopted.
The bill passed the House by yeas 73, nays 11.
The House adjourned till 9 o'clock to-morrow.
