Usury / A Scriptural, Ethical and Economic View

by Calvin Elliott

A is crossing the city and can without inconvenience carry a note to a party for B. That accommodation without sacrifice or inconvenience on the part of A is no basis for a charge upon B, though the delivery of the message was of value to B, but if A discovers that in delivering that note he can make it a matter of business gain to himself, that would not justify B in claiming a part of the profits A secured for himself. While A served his own business he also favored B. It would be unreasonable and unjust for B to forget the favor and make a charge against A, because in the delivery of the note A managed to gain a profit.

Two farmers are without barns. It will require the labor of a number of years to secure the requisite amount of lumber and other material to enable them to erect their barns. One of the farmers undertakes to shelter and protect from decay the lumber of both, until the requisite amount can be secured. This is a real favor to the other and is accepted readily. He even offers to pay him for the care and liability. But he discovers afterward that his neighbor, by wise, careful and skillful piling, has made from this lumber a shelter for his stock and grain. That he has so managed as to gain for himself a benefit. Then, with the false principle of usury he makes a charge for the keeping of the very thing for which he was willing to pay a price.

A gentleman not wanting his coach for a time, but wishing it to be kept in perfect repair, and his team fed and exercised, to be kept sleek and strong, leaves it in his coachman's care. The coachman agrees to keep from decay, and to replace should one die, and at the end of the term, return the coach in perfect condition, no mar or wear, and the team sleek and strong from good care, feed and daily exercise. But the coachman discovers that in the daily exercise of the team he can carry a party of business men to and from their offices, and secure for himself a gain. He, at the end of the term, returns the carriage and equipage complete as he received it. The owner has had his property perfectly cared for during the term he could not use it. But the owner learning of the benefit to the keeper, which would not have been possible without his equipage, demands a portion of the benefit which cost him nothing, nor in the least diminished his property.

A gentleman has a warm, rich and beautiful robe, but is about to travel a number of years among the countries of Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, where he will not need it, and afterward visit Siberia, where he will need and use it. Another undertakes to relieve him of all care of it during these years and deliver it to the Siberian home ready for his use. He protects it from the moths in summer, and guards it against all touch or taint, and delivers it in the perfect condition in which it was received. In justice he deserves a reward from the owner, and if he received no benefit, would receive it, but it is found that he needed it for his comfort by the way, and that without it he should have perished. Then the owner demands a reward for the benefit the carrier received. The owner did no service. He received a positive benefit, but the porter, who carried the burden all the way, must pay interest or rental because he was kept from perishing by it.

The surprise or discovery feature is introduced into the above illustrations to emphasize the false basis upon which the rates of interest rest. In the actual practice of usury the lender may have full information as to the use of the loan and its advantages to the borrower. If we eliminate this feature the basis still remains untenable. By no tortion of ethics can I demand that he, who does me a favor, shall pay me for the privilege.

A man has one thousand dollars of money he is not using. He gives it to another to keep or place in a drawer in his vault. To care for this and be responsible for it, a commission is allowed, for it is no benefit to the keeper. Even an amount is asked for the drawer in the vault, without responsibility. To care for this a term of years is deserving of a reward. But now keeping the property equally safe, and returning every dollar when the owner calls for it, is not satisfactory to the usurer. If this money has in any way proved a benefit to the keeper, through his wisdom and energy and skill, he demands an increase. What is this loan worth to you? is the question of the usurer to the borrower.

The basis of legal interest rates is the amount of benefit the borrower gains by the loan. If his opportunities in a state are favorable, and he may by diligence make a large gain, the rates are high. If in another state his opportunities are so limited that, strive as he may, he can make little gain, the legal rates will be low.

The basis is so absurd that many have urged the repeal of all laws regulating the rates of interest. "Why should the laws presume to level the rates for a whole state? The possibilities and opportunities of gain are infinitely varied. Every borrower knows his own conditions and the amount of advantage the loan is to him and he should be permitted to pay for money whatever he is willing to pay."

One writer thus expresses it, "No man of ripe years and of sound mind, acting freely, and with his eyes open, ought to be hindered, with a view to his advantage, from making such bargains in the way of obtaining money, as he thinks fit; nor anybody hindered from supplying him upon any terms he thinks proper to accede to."

Jeremy Bentham is often quoted to prove the absurdity of all laws regulating the rates of interest, and yet all his elaborate arguments are based on this false principle.