Usury. long and flaming speech, and protested that he believed the man to be innocent. The judge told the jury that it was unnecessary for him to sum up, as they could have but one opinion.' After conferring a moment, the jury turned round and deliberately pro nounced a verdict of " Not guilty," to the amazement of every one in court. Of course the prisoner was, without further question on the case, discharged. On inquiring of a juryman the reasons which influenced them in giving so curious a verdict, the following reply was elicited: "Well, sir, we be most on us P men, and though the Lunnon judge said he thought the prisoner were
303
guilty, our recorder [who was the man's coun sel] said he thought he warn't, and we like to stick up for our recorder!" Of course it is at all times easier to point out defects than to suggest remedies; but for the grievances we have mentioned, the cure seems simple and obvious. In all cases involving important questions or the life of a fellow creature, allow special juries, consist ing of men who from their education and position in society are enabled to understand all the bearings of the case, and pronounce a verdict thereupon in a much more satisfac tory manner than any common jury could do. — Chambers' Journal.
USURY. By Champion Bissell. T DO not propose to follow in the footsteps of Jeremy Bentham, and write another " Defence of Usury; " but it may not be time wasted to suggest to the pro fession that as occasion serves, its members should endeavor to influence the repeal of statutes against usury, of which it is not too much to assert that they are relics of bar barism, infringements of personal liberty, and inconsistent not only with constitu tional rights but with themselves. The statutes of the State of New York in particular labor under these conditions. They provide that whoever receives more than six per cent per annum for the loan or forbearance of money is guilty of a mis demeanor, the penalty for which, on con viction, may be a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. A few years ago, 1880, the lawful price of money was changed from seven per cent per an num to six; so that the same transaction which would have been virtuous and legal in 1875 is a crime in 1885. Here is an
inconsistency, since whatever is right at one time is right at all times. Licensed pawnbrokers may, however, charge and receive thirty-six per cent and twenty-four per cent and twelve per cent per annum. Now, if usury is a crime per sc the State does wrong to license men to commit such a crime; and if usury is not a crime per sc, the State does wrong to punish citizens criminally for taking as much rent for the use of money as the borrowers are willing to agree to pay. Corporations may not plead usury, or complain to the magistrates against those persons who receive high interest from them. That is, usury is a crime, and bur glary is a crime; but you may practise one crime with impunity provided the victim is a corporation, while it still remains a felony if you burglarize a corporation. So much for the inconsistent demerits of the statute in force in the most populous and wealthy State in the Union, in 1890. How does such a statute affect the rights and personal liberty of the citizen?
