Fourth, I believe the people know what they want in this matter as well as their legislators and will call for a repcal when they desire it.

But as a kind of Aaron's rod, which is to swallow up every other principle, the learned Senator points to Jeremy Bentham, upon whom he claims no man can look and not believe. He has also cited Malthus and Ricardo, Say and McCulloch, Abbe Raynal and Montesquieu, and others, as authority upon this subject; though he admits that the conclusion of the whole matter is all summed up in Jeremy Bentham. Sir, I have read most of these authors, and especially Jeremy Bentham with much attention; and I have so far been unable to discover wherein "his great strength lieth." His effusions have been little heeded in his own country, and for one I desire to be most distinctly understood as scouting the idea of taking for our guide the moon-struck theories of the political economists of Europe, who have gained little respect for their wild and visionary schemes, even at home, and who know as little of our institutions as of Symzonia. This same Jeremy Bentham is the man who, in 1808, had the impudence to propose to Mr. Madison to give us a code of laws; a political nun, whose monkish seclusion from the world made him as unfit to speak of our institutions as an inhabitant of the moon. In the discussion of the question of usury laws, like a country clergyman who has some favorite dogma to inculcate, he raises imaginary objections that he may surmount them in triumph. But the objections which he has raised to show his skill in answering, are not the true reasons which exist. I will, however, after having been so triumphantly challenged, attempt an answer to some few of his most formidable objections against the propriety of usury laws.

He

says:

"My neighbors, being at liberty, have happened to concur among themselves in dealing at a certain rate of interest. I, who have money to lend, and Titius, who wants to borrow it of me, would be glad, the one of us to accept, and the other to give, an interest somewhat higher than theirs. Why is the liberty they exercise to be made a pretence for depriving me and Titius of ours?"

If the "neighbors," by conventional compact, represent the whole, and fix the rate of interest for the purpose of protect

ing the rights of individuals, or of advancing the cause of morality, by preventing extortion, Titius and Jeremy Bentham, as good citizens, should be willing to yield a portion of their "natural rights" for the general good, in this, as in various other cases required by the rules which govern society. But again he says:

"Another thing I would also wish to learn is, why the legislator should be more anxious to limit the rate of interest one way than the other? Why he should set his face against the owners of that species of property more than of any other? Why he should make it his business to prevent their getting more than a certain price for the use of it, rather than to prevent their getting less? Why, in short, he should not take means for making it penal for offering less, for example, than five per cent. as well as to accept more? Let any one that can, find an answer to these questions; it is more than I can do."

Learned Theban! Let us see if an answer can be found to the problem which this great high priest of political economy has been unable to solve, and parades so triumphantly. The Lex scripta, or written laws of a country, are induced by necessity, real or imaginary. The laws to prevent kidnapping were found to extend only to the protection of blacks, and were extended to the protection of whites when the necessity was suggested by the kidnapping of a white person. The laws against disinterring the dead were doubtless suggested by the fact that graves were plundered by the living, and when under the new order of nature, which we are forewarned is soon to commence, the dead shall "burst their cerements" and drag the living down to their dark abodes, the argus eyes of legislation will probably interpose its protection. The laws prohibiting an exorbitant interest were induced by the fact that money lenders had in all ages, like the Promethean vulture, perpetually gnawed the vitals of their debtors; and when a corresponding oppression shall be found to reach the lender at the will of the borrower, it will be high time to protect him. Again he says:

"In the next place, no man, in such a country as Great Britain at least, has occasion, nor is at all likely to take up money at an extraordinary rate of interest, who has security to give, equal to that upon which money is commonly to be had at the highest ordinary rate.

While so many advertise, as are to be seen every day advertising, money to be lent at five per cent., what should possess a man, who has anything to offer that can be called a security, to give, for example, six per cent., is more than I can conceive."

It is sufficient to say, that however applicable this may have been to his own country, it will hardly be regarded as authority here until money is "advertised" to be lent at "five per cent;" there, there were more lenders than borrowers, which produced "competition;" here are more borrowers than lenders, which produces "combination." But Mr. Bentham continues:

"Buying goods with money, or upon credit, is the business of every day; borrowing money is the business, only, of some particular exigency, which, in comparison, can occur but seldom. Regulating the prices of goods in general would be an endless task, and no legislator has ever been weak enough to think of attempting it."

This is the reason why they are not alike; he furnishes a refutation to his own argument; the one being the every-day business of life, which everybody can readily understand from the actual competition which exists; the other but the matter of "some particular exigency," when the only "competition" is combination. As to fixing the price of property, Mr. B. is probably right, but the legislature of Connecticut in the early history of that colony passed a law, declaring that all mutton which weighed less than "eight pounds the quarter should be lamb," finding, however, that a patriarch of the flock occasionally fell within its provisions, the law was repealed. But he further says:

"But while, out of loving kindness, or whatsoever other motive, the law precludes a man from borrowing upon terms which it deems too disadvantageous, it does not preclude him from selling upon any terms, however disadvantageous. Everybody knows that forced sales are attended with loss; and to this loss, what would be deemed a most extravagant interest bears in general no proportion. When a man's movables are taken in execution, they are, I believe, pretty well sold, if, after all expenses paid, the produce amounts to two-thirds of what it would cost to replace them. In this way the providence and loving kindness of the law cost him thirty-three per cent."

The sale of goods upon execution occurs but seldom, compared with the ordinary transactions of life. If a man must die, the sword is preferable to famine-the prompt loss of thirty-three per cent. at once, is far better than the slow consuming process of four per cent. a month. But it is well to trace the misfortunes of the individual to their proper source. If you do so, you will doubtless find that usury, that "worm that never dies," has eaten out his substance; that he has nothing further worth pursuit, and that it is the usurer himself who has brought his goods to the hammer; whose name heads. the execution; and if he was permitted to loan him again at such "market price" as his conscience would permit, "the last state of that man would be worse than the first."

(Mr. Dickinson continued to read copious extracts from Mr. Bentham, upon which he commented at length.) Sir, continued Mr. Dickinson, we cannot set too high an estimate upon science; but I have no more respect than I should have for that metaphysical subtlety which separates itself from all practical demonstration, and assumes to arrive at conclusions upon theories alone. Too much light obscures and weakens the natural vision; too much learning, unmixed with practical knowledge and common sense, dims the mental eye, or in other words makes men mad. Jeremy Bentham was one of those who are

"Thus, by the glare of false science betrayed, That leads to bewilder, and dazzles to blind."

It was said by an ancient writer, that "It is the business of all legitimate philosophy to account for facts; and general reasonings, though apparently demonstrative at every step, must necessarily involve a fallacy when their conclusions do not square and tally with experience." The practical knowledge of one man is worth infinitely more than all the theories of the old world and new. Who can read this extract from a pamphlet which has been laid upon my table, without bearing testimony to its practical truth:

"If we open our eyes we cannot avoid seeing the narrow quarters into which the borrower of money is driven, and the freedom with which the purchaser of every other article exercises his judgment. Go into any of our crowded cities, and we see granaries, store-houses,

shops, and other spacious buildings, crowded with merchandise and goods of every possible variety. In every street, lane, or alley, for miles in extent, one uniform abundance is presented to our view. This is always the case. But the money of the city is confined to a single street or a narrow alley. All other articles are abundant, and in the hands of the many. Money is frequently scarce, and in the hands of the few. In all the trading streets, we see the seller bowing to the buyer and courting his custom by the most enticing manners. In the money alleys, we see the borrower bowing to the lender with the servility of a French dancing-master. The purchaser enters a store with the air of a free and independent man. The borrower enters a bank with the subdued and sorrow-stricken countenance of a beggar."

If further evidence were wanting to place this question beyond a doubt, I could summon to my aid the opinion of our highest judicial tribunals-the present Chancellor of this State, with various other eminent men who have placed on record their approval of the usury laws; but as time will fail me, I will but cite the opinion of one who is intimately and proudly associated with our judicial history-one who is familiar with all our peculiarity as a people, whose name is already encircled with a halo of glory, and whose memory will be fondly cherished by every New Yorker, when the dreamy theorists of Europe and their deluded followers shall be overwhelmed and forgotten in the vortex of political revolutions. I allude to the opinion of Chancellor Kent in Dunham vs. Gould, 16 Johnson, 376. Let every one who listens to its warnings ask himself, "Is it I?"

"It is an idle dream to suppose that we are wiser and better than the rest of mankind. Such doctrine may be taught by those who find it convenient to flatter popular prejudice; but the records of our courts are daily teaching us a lesson of more humility. And, I apprehend, it would be perilous in the extreme to throw aside all the existing checks upon usurious extortion, and abolish or traduce a law which is founded on the accumulated experience of every age. The statute of usury is constantly interposing its warning voice between the creditor and the debtor, even in their most secret and dangerous negotiations, and teaches a lesson of moderation to the one, and offers its protecting arm to the other. I am not willing to withdraw such a sentinel. I have been called to witness, in the course of my official life, too many vic. tims to the weakness and to the inflamed passions of men. All sudden and extreme reforms are unwise. We ought not to stretch or to ampu