One of the axioms of civilized society is that a citizen may do what he likes with his own property, so long as he does not injure any other person. Humanity has curtailed this right as to the particular instance of cruel treatment of animals, recognizing in them, and justly, a certain personality and citizenship. But he is at liberty to give away his grain, or sell it for all he can get, or keep it; but the usury statute forbids him to treat in the same manner the price he may have received for the grain. He may give it away or he may keep it; but if he sells it for all he can get, he may be sent by the judges of special or general sessions to the penitentiary for six months, and his reputation be clouded during his life and thereafter. The advocates of this usury statute aver that the person who violates the statute does injure another person, namely the borrower, by " taking advantage of his necessities " and thus causing him to pay for money more than it is worth. I have heard a United States Circuit Judge use these identical words. If this view is correct, then the baker who receives from me ten cents for a loaf of bread which costs him three cents " takes advantage of my necessities." Certainly I must have the bread or go hungry. But the baker would say, " Do not send me to the penitentiary for this; if you don't like my loaf at ten cents, go to another baker, or satisfy your hunger with some other edible." And the money-lender would also say, " If you do not like my money at fifteen per cent, go to some other lender; or make your purchases or satisfy your creditor in some other way." And if the baker is right, the money-lender is not wrong. In fact the position of the baker is not so tenable as that of the money-lender; since the supply of grain or bread may be monop olized, but the supply of money never can be monopolized. There is more money than grain or bread or any other one commodity all over the world, and the supply is more
equally distributed; hence money is less liable to be " cornered " than any other commodity. One might even maintain this proposition, namely, that there is no such thing as usury; since upon absolutely safe security, such as British consols, United States bonds, and bullion, money can always be had, wherever money exists, at a minimum of charge, usually less than legalized rates. When securities are not absolutely safe, and the element of insecurity is disclosed, whatever excess is charged is an insurance premium. But the statute makes it criminal for a lender to take such a premium; although by statute the pawnbroker may take a premium with out the risk, and by statute you may com mit this crime with impunity against a corporation. At common law there can be no penalty for usury, because the common law enforces all contracts, not fraudulent or contra donas mores, made between adults of sound mind. Equity might step in, and say to the lender, Your charges under the circum stances are too onerous; you must accept your principal with so much less interest. Finally appears an act of a legislature, by which you not only lose your loan, but may be consigned to the penitentiary in 1890 for doing what was declared to be by a fore going legislature eminently virtuous and proper in 1875, and what you have in real ity a right to do at all times. It is the effect of absurd statutes to defeat their own purposes. Large capitalists as a rule do not lend money on dubious securi ties. Borrowers on insecurities seek out small capitalists, who not only charge in surance premium on the risk of loss, but another and larger premium on the risk of a defence in court, and another and larger premium on the risk of prosecution in a criminal court. There are thousands of bor rowers in New York and King's counties who are to-day paying one hundred per cent per annum for money which, but for the usury statutes, they could borrow at twenty-
