{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_21623/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_21623","id":"gutenberg_21623","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21623","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Usury"],"text":"Produced by Irma Spehar, Jeannie Howse and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile made using scans of public domain works at the\nUniversity of Georgia.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    +-----------------------------------------------------------+\n    | Transcriber's Note:                                       |\n    |                                                           |\n    | Inconsistent hyphenation in the original document has     |\n    | been preserved.                                           |\n    |                                                           |\n    | Obvious typographical errors have been corrected in this  |\n    | text. For a complete list, please see the end of this     |\n    | document.                                                 |\n    |                                                           |\n    +-----------------------------------------------------------+\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nUSURY\n\nA Scriptural, Ethical and\nEconomic View\n\nBY\n\nCALVIN ELLIOTT\n\n\n\n\nPUBLISHED BY\nTHE ANTI-USURY LEAGUE\nMILLERSBURG, OHIO\n\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHTED 1902\nBY\nCALVIN ELLIOTT.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                            Page.\nChapter I--Definition                                           7\n\nChapter II--The Law by Moses                                   11\n\nChapter III--Usury and \"The Stranger\"                          18\n\nChapter IV--David and Solomon                                  26\n\nChapter V--Denunciation of Jeremiah and Ezekiel                30\n\nChapter VI--Financial Reform by Nehemiah                       36\n\nChapter VII--Teachings of the Master                           42\n\nChapter VIII--Parables of the Talents and the Pounds           52\n\nChapter IX--Practice of the disciples                          58\n\nChapter X--Church history                                      69\n\nChapter XI--Calvin's letter on usury                           73\n\nChapter XII--Permanency of the prohibition                     79\n\nChapter XIII--Our changed conditions                           81\n\nChapter XIV--The American Revision                             87\n\nChapter XV--Duty learned from two sources                      93\n\nChapter XVI--Rights of man over things                         97\n\nChapter XVII--Equal rights of men                             102\n\nChapter XVIII--A false basal principle                        108\n\nChapter XIX--The true ethical principle                       115\n\nChapter XX--Wealth is barren                                  121\n\nChapter XXI--Wealth decays                                    132\n\nChapter XXII--The debt habit                                  138\n\nChapter XXIII--The borrower is servant to the lender          144\n\nChapter XXIV--Usury enslaves the borrower                     146\n\nChapter XXV--Usury oppresses the poor                         154\n\nChapter XXVI--Usury oppresses the poor--continued             160\n\nChapter XXVII--Usury oppresses the poor--continued            168\n\nChapter XXVIII--Usury oppresses the poor--concluded           174\n\nChapter XXIX--Usury centralizes wealth                        180\n\nChapter XXX--Mammon dominates the nations                     189\n\nChapter XXXI--Effect on character                             206\n\nChapter XXXII--Ax at the root of the tree                     219\n\nChapter XXXIII--Per contra; Christian Apologists              233\n\nChapter XXXIV--Per contra; Land Rentals                       243\n\nChapter XXXV--Per contra; Political Economists                253\n\nChapter XXXVI--Usury in History                               258\n\nChapter XXXVII--Francis Bacon                                 266\n\nChapter XXXVIII--Why this truth was neglected                 272\n\nChapter XXXIX--Crushed truth will rise again                  281\n\nIndex                                                         293\n\n\n\n\nTO MY READERS.\n\n\nI beg the sincere and thoughtful consideration of this book by all its\nreaders. Please follow the argument in the order in which it is\npresented. This is the way it developed in my own mind and led me,\nstep by step, irresistibly to its conclusions. Do not read the closing\nchapters first, but begin with the \"_Definition_.\" I believe every\ncandid reader doing this, and having a logical mind, will fully and\nheartily concur in the condemnation of usury.\n\nI hope these arguments will be fairly treated and justly weighed even\nby those whose interests seem in conflict. I have simply sought the\ntruth, believing that \"the truth shall make you free.\" It cannot be\nthat this or any truth is in real conflict with the highest welfare of\nany man.\n\nIf any sincere friends of this truth are grieved that the argument is\nso crudely and roughly stated, I can only say in excuse, that, so far\nas I know or can learn from the great librarians I have consulted,\nthis is the first attempt ever made to fully present the anti-usury\nargument, and I sincerely hope that others, profiting by my effort,\nmay be able to make it more effective.\n\n                                                      THE AUTHOR.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nDEFINITION.\n\n\nIn the evolution of the English language, since the making of our King\nJames version of the Bible, many new words have been introduced, and\nmany old ones have changed their meanings.\n\nIn the nearly three hundred years the Saxon word \"let,\" to hinder, has\nbecome obsolete. It was in common use and well understood when the\nversion was made, but is now misleading. Thus we have in Isaiah 43:13:\n\"I will work and who will let (hinder) it?\" Paul declared that he\npurposed to go to Rome, \"but was let (hindered) hitherto.\" Rom. 1:13.\nAgain we have in II Thess. 2:7: \"Only he who now letteth (hindereth)\nwill let (hinder), until he be taken out of the way.\"\n\n\"Wot,\" to know, has become obsolete. Gen. 21:26: \"I wot (know) not who\nhath done this thing.\" Ex. 32:1: \"As for this Moses, we wot (know) not\nwhat hath become of him.\" Acts 3:17: \"I wot (know) that through\nignorance ye did it.\"\n\n\"Prevent,\" from its derivation and use, meant, \"to go before;\" now it\nmeans to hinder. Ps. 59:10: \"The God of my mercies shall prevent (go\nbefore) me.\" Ps. 92:2: \"Let us prevent (go before) his face with\nthanksgiving.\" I Thess. 4:15: \"We who are alive shall not prevent (go\nbefore) them who are asleep.\"\n\nCharity, which now means liberality to the poor, and a disposition to\njudge others kindly and favorably, was at that time a synonym of love,\nand used interchangeably with love in the translations of the Greek.\nThis is especially noted in the panegyric of love, in the thirteenth\nchapter of First Corinthians, and faithfully corrected in the Revised\nVersion, though some have felt that the beauty and especially the\neuphony of the familiar passage has been marred. But the word charity\nis no longer equivalent to love, in our language, and could not be\nretained without perverting the sense.\n\nUsury, when the version was made, meant any premium for a loan of\nmoney, or increase taken for a loan of any kind of property.\n\nTheological Dictionary: \"Usury, the gain taken for a loan of money or\nwares.\" \"The gain of anything above the principal, or that which was\nlent, exacted only in consideration of the loan, whether it be in\nmoney, corn, wares or the like.\"\n\nBible Encyclopedia: \"Usury, a premium received for a sum of money over\nand above the principal.\"\n\nSchaff-Herzog: \"Usury, originally, any increase on any loan.\"\n\nThis was the usage of the word usury by the great masters of the\nEnglish language, like Shakespeare and Bacon, in their day, and is\nstill given as the first definition by the lexicographers of the\npresent.\n\nWebster, 1890 edition: \"Usury, 1. A premium or increase paid or\nstipulated to be paid for a loan, as for money; interest. 2. The\npractice of taking interest. 3. Law. Interest in excess of a legal\nrate charged to a borrower for the use of money.\"\n\nInterest is comparatively a new word in the language meaning also a\npremium for a loan of money. It first appeared in the fourteenth\ncentury, as a substitute for usury, in the first law ever enacted by a\nChristian nation that permitted the taking of a premium for any loan.\nThe word usury was very odious to the Christian mind and conscience.\n\nInterest was at the first a legal term, used in law only, and it has\nalways been applied to that premium or measure of increase that is\npermitted or made legal by civil law.\n\nIn modern usage usury is limited in its meaning to that measure of\nincrease prohibited by the civil law. Thus the two words interest and\nusury now express what was formerly expressed by the one word usury\nalone. Interest covers that measure of increase that is authorized in\ndifferent countries, while usury, with all the odium that has been\nattached to it for ages, is limited to that measure of increase that\nfor public welfare is forbidden by the laws of a state.\n\nThe distinction is wholly civic and legal. That may be usury in one\nstate which is only interest in another. The legal rates greatly vary\nand are changed from time to time in the states themselves. If a\nstate should forbid the taking of any increase on loans, then all\nincrease would be usury, and there could be no interest; or if a state\nshould repeal all laws limiting the exactions of increase, then there\nwould be no usury in that state. Usury is increase forbidden by civil\nlaw. Separated from the enacted statutes of a state the distinction\ndisappears. There is no moral nor is there an economic difference.\n\nBlackstone says: \"When money is lent on a contract to receive not only\nthe principal sum again, but also an increase by way of compensation\nfor the use, the increase is called interest by those who think it\nlawful, and usury by those who do not.\"\n\nThe moral nature of an act does not depend on the enacted statutes of\nhuman legislators, and the laws of economics are eternal. We must not\npermit our views of divine and economic truth to be perverted by this\nmodern division of increase into legal and illegal. In order that the\nwhole truth may be now expressed in our language we must combine with\nthe old word usury the new word interest; then only will we have the\nfull force of the revealed truth. \"Wherefore then gavest not thou my\nmoney into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own\nwith usury or interest?\" It is rendered interest in the Revised\nVersion.\n\nThroughout this discussion usury is used in its full old classical\nmeaning for any increase of a loan, great or small, whether authorized\nor forbidden by the civil state.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE LAW BY MOSES.\n\n\nGod determined to deliver his enslaved people from the bondage in\nEgypt, and to lead them out to the land he had promised to their\nfathers. They had been strangers in Egypt; now they should have a land\nof their own. To them liberty was but a tradition; they should now be\nfreemen. They had been a tribe; they should now be a nation.\n\nGod raised up Moses to be his special servant and the mouthpiece to\ndeclare his will. He ordered his marvelous deliverance from the river,\nand his training in court as a freeman. He then gave him direction to\nlead his people out of their slavery, and also divine authority to\nannounce to his people the code of laws by which they were to be\ngoverned in their free state. Some of these laws were ceremonial, to\nconserve their religion, that they might not forget their God. Some\nwere civil and politic, to promote the moral, intellectual and\nmaterial welfare. All were in accord with the moral and religious\nnature of man, and with sound economic principles. All were suited to\npromote their highest good, and to secure them forever in their\nfreedom and national independence.\n\nThe great basal principles of law are found in concrete form.\n\nHuman life is sacred as we find from the explicit laws for its\nprotection. The owner of an ox was made responsible for the life taken\nby \"an ox that was known to push with its horns.\"\n\nA battlement or balustrade was required on the houses, very like our\nlaws requiring fire escapes. The principle is the same.\n\nThe laws forbidding marriage within certain degrees of kinship have\nbeen copied into the laws of every civilized people. The laws for the\npreservation of social purity have never been surpassed.\n\nThe rights of property were sacred. Each had a right to his own. Theft\nwas severely punished. \"If a thief be found breaking up, and be\nsmitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.\"\n\nEach must assist in the protection of the property of others; even the\nenemy's property must be protected. \"If thou meet thine enemy's ox or\nhis ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.\"\n\nThe laws for the relief of the poor were kinder and more encouraging\nto self-help and self-reliance than our modern poorhouses. Deut.\n15:7-11: \"If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren\nwithin any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth\nthee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy\npoor brother; but thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt\nsurely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.\nBeware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The\nseventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil\nagainst thy poor brother, and thou givest him naught, and he cry unto\nthe Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee. Thou shalt surely give\nhim, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him:\nbecause that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all\nthy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. For the poor\nshall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee, saying,\nThou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to\nthy needy, in thy land.\"\n\nThese divinely given laws never wrought injustice. They protected\nlife, purity and property, and required mutual helpfulness. They were\ngiven by the divine mind, in infinite love, to promote the highest\ngood of this chosen people.\n\nThese laws of God, given by Moses, positively forbade usury or\ninterest, and this prohibition was so repeated that there was no\nmistaking the meaning. Ex. 22:25: \"If thou lend money to any of my\npeople that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer,\nneither shalt thou lay upon him usury.\"\n\nThis law is more fully presented in Lev. 25:35, 36, 37: \"And if thy\nbrother be waxen poor, and fallen into decay with thee, then thou\nshalt relieve him; yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that\nhe may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase; but\nfear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give\nhim thy money upon usury, or lend him thy victuals for increase.\"\n\nProf. George Bush makes the following note upon this passage: \"The\noriginal term '_Neshek_' comes from the verb '_Nashak_' (to bite),\nmostly applied to the bite of a serpent; and probably signifies biting\nusury, so called perhaps because it resembled the bite of a serpent;\nfor as this is often so small as to be scarcely perceptible at first,\nyet the venom soon spreads and diffuses itself till it reaches the\nvitals, so the increase of usury, which at first is not perceived, at\nlength grows so much as to devour a man's substance.\"\n\nAn effort is sometimes made to limit the application of these laws by\nplacing special emphasis on the poverty of the borrowers and to\nconfine the prohibition of usury to loans to the poor to meet the\nnecessaries of life; and it is claimed that the laws are not intended\nto prohibit usury on a loan which the borrower secures as capital for\na business.\n\nIn reply it can be said:\n\n1. There may be more benevolence in a loan to enable a brother to go\ninto business than in a loan to supply his present needs. It may be\nless benevolent and less kind to lend a dollar to buy flour for\npresent use than to lend a dollar to buy a hoe with which to go into\nbusiness and earn the flour. The highest philanthropy supplies the\nmeans and opportunities for self-help.\n\n2. A desire for capital to promote a business to gain more than is\nnecessary to nourish the physical and mental manhood is not justified\nnor encouraged anywhere in the Word. There is just a sufficiency of\nfood necessary to the highest physical condition. There is just a\nsufficiency of material wealth necessary to the development of the\nnoblest manhood. More decreases physical and mental vigor and degrades\nthe whole man. To seek more is of the nature of that \"covetousness\nwhich is idolatry.\" Prov. 23:4: \"Labor not to be rich.\" Prov. 28:20:\n\"He that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent.\"\n\nRiches are a gift of God and a reward of righteousness.\n\nProv. 22:4: \"The reward of humility and the fear of the Lord are\nriches and honor and life.\" Psalm 112:1, 3: \"Blessed is the man that\nfeareth the Lord, that delighteth greatly in his commandments. * * *\nWealth and riches shall be in his house.\"\n\n\"In the fourth petition of the Lord's prayer (which is: Give us this\nday our daily bread) we pray, That of God's free gift, we may receive\na competent portion of the good things of this life and enjoy his\nblessing with them.\"\n\n3. If the prohibition is applicable only when the borrower is poor it\nwould be difficult to properly apply it by drawing the line between\nthe rich and the poor. Many who are rich feel that they are poor and\nthere are many high spirited poor who will not admit their poverty.\nMany rich live in conditions that some poor would call poverty. The\nline must be vague and indefinite and always offensive. If any one\nshould endeavor to clearly mark and emphasize such a division in any\nmodern community he would receive the contempt of all right thinking\npeople.\n\n4. The laws of the Hebrews did not discriminate classes except in\ntheir ceremonial and forms of worship. There was but one law and that\napplicable to all alike. Even the stranger was included in the\nuniformity of the law. Num. 15:15, 16: \"One ordinance shall be both\nfor you of the congregation and also for the stranger that sojourneth\nwith you, * * * one law and one manner shall be for you and for the\nstranger that sojourneth with you.\"\n\n5. In the Hebrew community the man of independent resources did not\ncompromise his freedom by becoming indebted to another. Debt was a\nsure indication of some embarrassment or strait. The mention of the\npoverty of the possible debtor is not to limit the application of the\nlaw but describes the borrower. Thou shalt not lend upon usury to the\npoor unfortunate fellow who is compelled to ask a loan.\n\n6. The laws of the Hebrew state were for the promotion of equity\nbetween man and man and also for the protection of the weak and the\nhelpless. With these objects all good governments must be in harmony.\nThey can only be secured by general laws. It would be very imperfect\nprotection to the helpless poor if it was permitted to charge usury to\nthe covetous, greedy fellow who having much, yet desired to gain more\nand was bidding urgently for the very loan the unfortunate brother\nneeded. Also even equity between the borrower and the lender would\nwork a hardness in the conditions of the poor man. Full protection\nrequires a law of general application.\n\n7. Independence, self-reliance, self-support, was the condition aimed\nat and encouraged in the Hebrew state. Borrowing was only in time of\nsore need. The man who went a-borrowing was second only to the man who\nwent a-begging. The brother who, through misfortune became dependent,\nwas able the sooner to repay his loan and return to independence and\nto self support.\n\n8. In the repetition of the law in Deut. 23:19, 20, there is no\nreference to the poverty of the borrower and it cannot by fair\ninterpretation be limited to the poor. \"Thou shalt not lend upon usury\nto thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything\nthat is lent upon usury. Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury;\nbut unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy\nGod may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to do in the\nland whither thou goest to possess it.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nUSURY AND \"THE STRANGER.\"\n\n\nDeut. 23:19, 20: \"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury\nof money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon\nusury. Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy\nbrother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may\nbless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither\nthou goest to possess it.\"\n\nWhile there is no reference to poverty in this passage and the\nprohibition cannot fairly be limited to loans to the poor, a shadow of\npermission to exact usury is found in the clause: \"unto a stranger\nthou mayest lend upon usury.\"\n\nHebrews, who have been anxious to obey the letter of the Mosaic law,\nwhile indifferent to its true spirit, have construed this into a\npermission to exact usury of all Gentiles. Christian apologists for\nusury, who have not utterly discarded all laws given by Moses as\neffete and no longer binding, have tried hard to show that this clause\nauthorizes the general taking of interest. To do this it is wrested\nfrom its natural connection, and the true historic reference is\nignored.\n\nThree classes of persons, that were called strangers, may be noted for\nthe purpose of presenting the true import of this passage.\n\n1. Those were called strangers who were not of Hebrew blood, but were\nproselytes to the Hebrew faith and had cast their lot with them. They\nwere mostly poor, for not belonging to any of the families of Jacob,\nthey had no landed inheritance. The gleanings of the field and the\nstray sheaf were left for the fatherless, the poor, and these\nproselyted strangers. But they were to be received in love, and\ntreated in all respects as those born of their own blood. Ex. 12:48,\n49: \"And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the\npassover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcized, and then let\nhim come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the\nland: for no uncircumcized person shall eat thereof. One law shall be\nto him that is home born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among\nyou.\"\n\nLev. 24:22: \"Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the\nstranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.\"\n\nNum. 9:14: \"And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep\nthe passover unto the Lord; according to the ordinance of the\npassover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye\nshall have one ordinance both for the stranger, and for him that was\nborn in the land.\"\n\nNum. 15:15, 16: \"One ordinance shall be both for you of the\ncongregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an\nordinance forever in your congregations: as ye are, so shall the\nstranger be before the Lord. One law and one manner shall be for you,\nand for the stranger that sojourneth with you.\"\n\nOf these strangers it is explicitly said they are to be treated\nprecisely as brethren of their own blood.\n\nLev. 25:35, 36: \"And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay\nwith thee, then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a\n_stranger_, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no\nusury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live\nwith thee.\"\n\n2. There was also another class of strangers, including all the\nnations that were not of Hebrew blood, by which they were surrounded.\nThese traded with them and often sojourned for a more or less extended\nperiod among them for merely secular purposes, but never accepted\ntheir faith. For this reason they were often called sojourners. With\nus, in law, the former strangers would be known as \"naturalized\ncitizens,\" these as \"denizens,\" residents in a foreign land for\nsecular purposes. These denizens were to be dealt with justly, to be\ntreated kindly and even with affection, remembering their long sojourn\nas strangers in Egypt. Ex. 22:21: \"Thou shalt neither vex a stranger,\nnor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.\"\n\nEx. 23:9: \"Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the\nheart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.\"\n\nThey were \"denizens,\" but not citizens of Egypt four hundred years.\n\nLev. 19:33, 34: \"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye\nshall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be\nunto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself;\nfor ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.\"\n\nThis class of denizens or sojourners was also to be treated with the\nsame kindness as their own blood.\n\nLev. 25:35, 36: \"And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay\nwith thee, then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger,\nor a _sojourner_; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of\nhim, or increase: but fear thy God: that thy brother may live with\nthee.\"\n\nThe sojourner or denizen is here distinguished from the stranger who\nhad been naturalized, adopting their faith.\n\n3. There was another class called strangers. This class was limited to\nthe inhabitants of their promised land.\n\nRobinson's Bible Encyclopedia says, on this clause: \"'Unto a stranger\nthou mayest lend upon usury.' In this place God seems to tolerate\nusury toward strangers: that is the Canaanites and other people\ndevoted to subjection, but not toward such strangers against whom the\nHebrews had no quarrel. To exact usury is here, according to Ambrose,\nan act of hostility. It was a kind of waging war with the Canaanites\nand ruining them by means of usury.\"\n\nGod withheld his chosen people from taking possession of the promised\nland until \"their iniquity was full\" and the divine sentence of\ncondemnation had been pronounced against them. They were to be rooted\nout of the land and utterly destroyed for their sins, and their land\ngiven to the chosen people. God declared that he would execute his\nsentence, driving them out before them, as his people should increase\nand be able to occupy the land. Ex. 23:23, 28-32: \"For mine angel\nshall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the\nJebusite, and I will cut them off. And I will send hornets before\nthee, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanite, and the\nHittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee\nin one year; lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field\nmultiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from\nbefore thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land. And I will\nset my bounds from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines,\nand from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants\nof the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.\nThou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.\"\n\nEx. 34:10-12: \"And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy\npeople I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth,\nnor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see\nthe work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with\nthee. Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive\nout before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and\nthe Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself,\nlest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither\nthou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee.\"\n\nThey were in no way to covenant with this people and interfere with\nthe execution of divine judgment. They were commanded, willing or\nunwilling, to be in a measure the executioners of those under\nsentence. These people of Canaan were deprived of all rights by the\ndivine sentence and the Israelites were not to grant any. To do so was\ndirect disobedience, and yet most of the tribes failed to obey the\ncommand, permitting many of the inhabitants to remain.\n\nWhen the Gibeonites deceived Joshua and secured a pledge, the pledge\nof their lives was kept, but they were made slaves, doomed to drudgery\nforever, \"hewers of wood and drawers of water.\" Josh. 9:23.\n\nThis compromise was contrary to the divine command for their utter\ndestruction. To condone the guilt of these people, or to interfere\nwith their execution, was as flagrant a violation of law as that of a\nmodern community that seeks to protect criminals, or that interferes\nwith the execution of those convicted of capital crimes.\n\nThis class of strangers had no rights that Hebrews were permitted to\nrespect. They were not to be given any privileges. They were to be\ntreated as Hindoo widows are treated, \"accursed of the gods and hated\nof men.\" Debts were not to be forgiven them. The year of Jubilee did\nnot affect them. They remained enslaved forever. The Sabbath's rest\nwas only incidental, that there might be a complete cessation of all\nactivities.\n\nIn the fourth commandment Deut. 5:14, \"thy stranger\" is mentioned\nafter the ox, ass, and cattle, and was given rest for the same reason\nthe beasts are permitted to rest: \"That thy man-servant and\nmaid-servant may rest as well as thou.\" They had not the rights of a\ncommon servant or slave. The carcass of the animal that died of itself\ncould be given them to eat, and they could be charged usury.\n\nYet this clause has been seized upon by avaricious Jews as permission\nto exact usury of all the nations not of Hebrew blood, ignoring the\nfact that when given it was limited to those peoples under the curse\nof God for their iniquities. It can not justly be made to mean that\nthe Hebrews have a right to treat other nations with less\nrighteousness than they treat their own people.\n\nIt is an unwarranted broadening to make it a permission to exact usury\nfrom all the human race except from Hebrews.\n\nIt was chiefly the acting upon this false interpretation, classing\nall Gentiles with these strangers, accursed of God, that had no rights\nthey were permitted to respect, that set every Gentile Christian's\nhand against the Jews for fifteen hundred years.\n\nNothing more clearly marked the line between Christian and Hebrew\nduring fifteen centuries than this one thing, that the Hebrews exacted\nusury or interest of the Gentiles while the Christians were unanimous\nin its denunciation, and forbade its practice.\n\nGentile Christian apologists for the taking of usury or interest, to\novercome the force of this prohibition, are compelled to grant that\nChristians may be less brotherly than Hebrews: that the borrowers\nwhether Christian or not are \"strangers\" to those who make them loans\nupon increase.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nDAVID AND SOLOMON.\n\n\nDevout Hebrews during the period of the Judges obeyed the Mosaic\nprohibition of usury or interest. It was also recognized as binding\nand obeyed during the reigns of David and Solomon. This was a greatly\nprosperous period when commerce flourished and trade was extended to\nthe ends of the earth.\n\nDavid was weak before certain temptations and his falls were grievous,\nbut his repentance was deep and his returns to God were sincere. He\nnever failed to regard God as supreme over him and the bestower of all\nhis blessings. He is called the man after God's own heart, and it is\nalso said that his heart was perfect before God. His spirit of devout\nworship has never been surpassed. His Psalms, in all the ages, have\nbeen accepted as expressing the true yearning after righteousness and\na longing for closer communion with God.\n\nDavid, in the fifteenth Psalm, expresses the thought of the earnest\nand reverent worshippers of his time. This Psalm declares the\nnecessity of moral purity in those who would be citizens of Zion and\ndwellers in the holy hill.\n\n\"Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy\nhill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and\nspeaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his\ntongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach\nagainst his neighbor. In whose eyes a vile person is condemned; but he\nhonoreth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt and\nchangeth not. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh\nreward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be\nmoved.\"\n\nThe description, \"He that putteth not out his money to usury,\" is\ndirect and unqualified. There could be no mistaking its meaning. Those\nwho were guilty could not claim to be citizens of Zion. There is no\nqualifying clause behind which the usurer could take refuge and escape\ncondemnation.\n\nThis Psalm, prepared by the king, was chanted in the great\ncongregation, and was a prick to the consciences of the sinners and a\npublic reproof of all the sins mentioned. He that putteth out his\nmoney to increase received thus a public reproof in the great\nworshipping assembly.\n\nSolomon, endowed with unequaled wisdom and able so clearly to discern\nthe right, places among his proverbs a direct denunciation of this\nsin.\n\nProv. 28:8: \"He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his\nsubstance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.\"\n\nIn this proverb the gain of usury is classed with unjust gain that\nshall not bless the gatherer. This is in entire harmony with other\nproverbs in which those who practice injustice and oppression are\ndeclared to be wanting in true wisdom and receive no benefit\nthemselves.\n\n\"The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them: but\ntransgressors shall be taken in their own naughtiness.\"\n\n\"As righteousness tendeth to life; so he that pursueth evil pursueth\nit to his own death.\"\n\n\"Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall\nfall himself into his own pit; but the upright shall have good things\nin possession.\"\n\n\"Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted\nin the gate: for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul\nof those that spoiled them.\"\n\nUsury and unjust gain are joined by Solomon as sins of the same\nnature. It is also implied that they are necessarily connected with\nwant of sympathy and helpfulness toward the poor. They are presented\nas an oppression that shall not bless the oppressor.\n\nThis proverb does not confine the evil to the borrower like the\nproverb, \"The borrower is servant to the lender.\" The wrong is not\nconfined to those of the poor to whom loans may be made. The\noppression of usury is upon all the poor though they are not\nborrowers. They are the ultimate sufferers though the loan may be\nmade by one rich man to another to enable him to engage in some\nbusiness for profit. Usury is so bound up with injustice that its\npractice cannot fail to result in increasing the hard conditions of\nall the poor.\n\nSolomon's reign was brilliant, and the ships of his commerce entered\nevery port in the known world, yet usury was not necessary and was not\npracticed in that prosperous age.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nDENUNCIATION OF JEREMIAH AND EZEKIEL.\n\n\nThe Hebrew nation reached its summit of power and glory during the\nreign of King Solomon, but corruption crept in and disintegration\nfollowed, and a series of conflicts between portions of the kingdom.\nThe laws given by Moses were neglected, and a long period of gross\nsinning followed. They were warned by the faithful yet hopeful prophet\nIsaiah that the overthrow of their nation was certain, and that their\npeople would be carried captive to a strange land unless they forsook\nutterly their sins and turned to righteousness. They did not heed and\nthe predicted calamities came upon them.\n\nIn the midst of these calamities the contemporary prophets Jeremiah\nand Ezekiel ministered. They differed greatly in their dispositions.\n\nJeremiah was a complainer. Always bemoaning his own and his people's\nhard lot. The Lamentations are recognized as the best extant\nexpression of unmitigated grief. He lamented his birth because he was\ntreated as a usurer and oppressor, when he had never exacted usury,\nnor had business with usurers. Jer. 15:10: \"Woe, is me, my brother,\nthat thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the\nwhole earth. I have neither lent on usury, nor have men lent to me on\nusury; yet every one of them doth curse me.\"\n\nEzekiel was always patient, faithfully proclaiming his messages, and\nsuffering in silence. The completeness of his self-control and patient\nsuffering is shown in the short but pathetic description of the death\nof his beloved wife, yet at the divine command he repressed his grief\nand delivered his message the following morning. Ezekiel 24:15-18:\n\"Also the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, behold, I\ntake away from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke; yet\nneither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down.\nForbear to cry, make no mourning for the dead, bind the tire of thy\nhead upon thee, and put on thy shoes upon thy feet, and cover up thy\nlips, and eat not the bread of men. So I spake of people in the\nmorning; and at even my wife died; and I did in the morning as I was\ncommanded.\"\n\nThese prophets were familiar with the same scenes. They met the same\nsins. Some have thought they exchanged messages, sending them\nrespectively to Jerusalem and Chaldea for encouragement and\nconfirmation. This was the opinion of Jerome.\n\nIn a catalogue of the sins prevailing in Jerusalem, for which the\njudgment of God came upon them, this prophet places \"Usury and\nincrease.\" Ezekiel 22: 7-12: \"In thee have they set light by father\nand mother: in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with\nthe stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow.\nThou hast despised mine holy things, and hast profaned my Sabbaths. In\nthee are men that carry tales to shed blood: and in thee they eat upon\nthe mountains: in the midst of thee they commit lewdness. In thee have\nthey discovered their father's nakedness: in thee have they humbled\nher that was set apart for pollution. And one hath committed\nabomination with his neighbor's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled\nhis daughter-in-law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his\nfather's daughter. In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou\nhast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy\nneighbors by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God.\"\n\nIt would not be easy to give a list of more gross and flagrant sins\nthan those associated with usury in this passage. They are all, always\nand everywhere, sinful. In no condition can they be lawful and right.\n\nOne of the answers familiar to both Jeremiah and Ezekiel when the\npeople were reproved for their sins and exhorted to forsake them, that\nthe divine judgments might be removed, was this, that their sufferings\nwere not on their own account, but for the sins of their fathers. They\nthus met the charge of personal sins and claimed their sufferings were\ninherited and unavoidable. Their fathers had indulged in sin and they\nmust reap the consequences. They complained that this was hardness in\nGod. They expressed this murmur by a proverb. Jer. 31:29: \"The\nfathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on\nedge.\"\n\nThe answer of the prophet Jeremiah briefly is, that every one shall\nanswer for his own sin. Jer. 31:30: \"But every one shall die for his\nown iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be\nset on edge.\"\n\nThis same proverb was repeatedly given to Ezekiel, as an excuse for\ncontinuing in sins, even when the judgments of God were upon them. The\nword of the Lord came more fully and explicitly to him.\n\nEzekiel declares that the sins of the fathers were visited on the\nchildren only when they continued in their father's iniquity. That\nthose who forsook the sins of their fathers and were righteous, were\nfree from the punishment of the unrighteous parents.\n\nEzekiel 18:1-17: \"The word of God came unto me again, saying, What\nmean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel,\nsaying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth\nare set on edge.\n\nAs I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion to use this\nproverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the\nfather, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it\nshall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and\nright, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up\nhis eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his\nneighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,\n(_i.e._ neither hath committed a rape,) and hath not oppressed any,\nbut hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by\nviolence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the\nnaked with a garment. He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither\nhath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity,\nhath executed true judgment between man and man. Hath walked in my\nstatutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he\nshall surely live, saith the Lord God.\"\n\n\"If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that\ndoeth the like to any one of these things; and that doeth not any of\nthose duties but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his\nneighbor's wife, hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by\nviolence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted his eyes to\nthe idols, hath committed abomination, hath given forth upon usury,\nand hath taken increase: Shall he then live? He shall not live: he\nhath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall\nbe upon him. Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's\nsins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like:\nthat hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his\neyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his\nneighbor's wife, neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the\npledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to\nthe hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, that hath taken\noff his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury or increase,\nhath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not\ndie for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.\"\n\nIt will be noticed that usury or increase is here mentioned among the\ngrossest and foulest sins of which that people were guilty. They are\nplaced by the prophet in the worst possible company. He classifies\nthem among those things that can never be right. There is no\nqualification of \"increase\" great or small, nor of \"usury\" whether the\nloan be domestic or commercial, whether for personal need, or to go\ninto business, whether the borrower be poor or rich.\n\nUsury is mentioned as \"_malum per se_.\" \"Usury and increase\" are\ntreated as sinful in themselves, just as fraud, violence, impurity,\nand idolatry are sinful, and can never be innocent unless their very\nnatures are reversed. When there is fraud without dishonesty, and\nviolence without injury, and adultery without impurity, and idolatry\nwithout false worship, then may there be \"usury and increase\" without\ninjustice and oppression. \"Some sins in themselves and by reason of\nseveral aggravations are more heinous in the sight of God than\nothers,\" the prophet Ezekiel places \"usury or increase\" in the list of\n\"abominations.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nFINANCIAL REFORM BY NEHEMIAH.[1]\n\n\nAfter seventy years of captivity of the Hebrews in Chaldea an edict\nwas issued by Cyrus the king permitting their return to Judea. The\nmost earnest and devout had been restless and homesick in the strange\nland. The restoration was led by Zerubbabel who accompanied by about\nfive thousand of the most devout men from the various families, made\ntheir way over the long return to their former home. This was only\nabout one-sixth of the captive population. Many preferred to remain in\nthe land they had now adopted, and where some had been prospered, and\nsome were perhaps less fervent in their religious zeal. This fraction\nof the people, however, determined to re-erect their temple and to\ncultivate the fields again that were given to their fathers and to\nrebuild the nation, the tradition of whose glory never failed to stir\ntheir hearts.\n\nEighty years later another company under the priest and scholar, Ezra,\nauthorized by Artaxerxes, joined the first colony that had returned to\nre-occupy their own land.\n\nA few years later another company was led by the patriot, Nehemiah.\nNehemiah was in an honorable and lucrative position in the first court\nupon earth, yet he grieved over the misfortunes of his own people,\nand especially over the reported distress of the returned exiles. He\nsought leave of absence and a commission to return and co-work with\nhis brethren for their complete re-establishment at Jerusalem.\n\nThe leave of absence was cheerfully granted and a broad commission\ngiven to take with him any who wished to return. The revenues of the\nking were placed at his disposal and the governors of the provinces\nwere ordered to assist and further his work. A large company of the\nearnest and devout returned with him, confident of his protection and\nin sympathy with his mission. He deliberately reviewed the work to be\ndone, made careful plans and was greatly successful.\n\nThe people were obedient. They cheerfully endured the privations and\ndangers in their devotion to their country, and in the hope of\nretrieving the fortunes of their depressed people.\n\nEnemies appeared, who threatened to estop their work, but some worked\nwhile others watched, with arms in hand, ready to defend. Some wrought\nwith one hand and held a weapon for ready defence in the other.\nNehemiah and his aides, and many of the people, did not take off their\nclothes, but were on duty constantly--so devoted were they to the\ncause in which they were engaged, regaining their homes and\nre-establishing the worship of their fathers and rebuilding the\nnation.\n\nBut there was a strange interruption in this patriotic work. A sordid\ncovetousness possessed their nobles and rulers. While the people were\nabsorbed in their patriotic service, these persons were planning\nsuccessfully to despoil them.\n\nA cry of distress came to the ears of Nehemiah. The people found, now\nthat they had made the sacrifice and suffered deprivations and\ncheerfully given their labors for the common good, they were deprived\nof their blessings and enslaved.\n\nThis enslavement was not to foreign rulers, but to those of their own\nblood. A division had grown up among their own kindred. Some had grown\nrich and become their masters. Others were in hopeless poverty. The\ndistinctions came gradually or grew up among them, possibly\nunobserved: the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer, until the\nnobles held their lands and were selling their sons and daughters as\nchattels.\n\nThis condition was hopeless, after all their struggles for nearly a\nhundred years to re-establish their institutions. Neither they nor\ntheir children could, under those conditions, enjoy the fruit of all\ntheir efforts. This was no fault of theirs. There had been times of\ndearth and harvest failure, when some with large families were in\nneed. The king's tribute, too, was heavy upon them and some were not\nable to pay and they were compelled to borrow, but had to give\nmortgages upon their land as security. Now lands, homes and all, had\npassed to the creditors and they were despondent and helpless.\n\nThis cry caused Nehemiah great distress, but Nehemiah was not like\nEzra, a devout and learned priest, but without executive power, who in\na like position gave way to unmitigated grief. Nehemiah was equally\npatriotic and conscientious, but he was also a strong leader and an\nindependent commander. He did not call together the nobles and rulers\ncharged with oppression and ask them what he should do. He had none of\ntheir counsel. He took counsel with himself, his own conscience, his\nown judgment, and worked out an independent, individual policy which\nhe should pursue.\n\nHis sympathy was with the suffering people, and he determined to\nespouse their cause and to correct their wrongs. He then called the\nnobles and rulers and charged them to their face with oppression. He\nlaid \"the ax at the root of the tree\" and charged the fault to their\ncovetousness, to the exacting of usury or interest. It was this, he\ndeclared, that had brought them to wealth, but driven others to\npoverty. He demanded reparation. When they were slow to yield, he\ncalled a convocation of the people and aroused them to a due sense of\nthe wrong they had been enduring, and laid bare the sins of the rulers\nand nobles. He showed the oppression by comparing their sordid and\ngreedy conduct with the unselfish, self-sacrifice of himself and\nothers for the common good. While he and the patriotic people were\nbusy with hand and brain in rebuilding the nation and fighting the\nenemies, these usurers were busy getting in their work of ruin,\ngathering the property into their own hands and enslaving the\npatriots.\n\nThe usurers were not able to withstand this onslaught of the chief\ncommander and the aroused people, and they made no reply. Their\nconduct had so evidently been contrary both to the letter and spirit\nof their own law, they were compelled to yield and to say meekly, \"We\nwill do as you have said.\"\n\nThen he stated the terms and conditions of the reform he would\ninstitute.\n\n1. They must return the pledges they had taken for debts, without\nreserve. The people must not be deprived of their land, tools, or\ninstruments of production. The foreclosure of mortgages must be set\naside and the people again given possession of their lands.\n\n2. Interest must be returned or credited upon the debts. If the\ninterest equaled the debt, then the debt was fully discharged. If more\nthan the principal had been paid, then it must be returned in money or\nin the product of lands taken in foreclosure, the wine or oil or\nfruits and grains must be returned. Thus only could the wrongs be\ncorrected and righteous adjustment be made.\n\nThere then followed a general restoration of pledges and a cancelling\nof debts that had been paid once in interest, and a repaying of any\nsurplus.\n\n3. They must take a solemn vow that this sin shall henceforth be\nunknown among them. The law against usury or interest must henceforth\nbe carefully obeyed. These distinctions that had grown up among them\nmust disappear forever, and the cause of the poverty of the many and\nthe wealth of the few must be shunned.\n\nTo these conditions the usurers assented, made ashamed by the conduct\nof the noble patriot in contrast with their own selfishness, though\nthey had not yielded until awed and compelled by the indignation of\nthe people, which Nehemiah had enkindled against them.\n\nThis positive enforcement of the law against the taking of increase on\nany loan, makes unmistakably clear the interpretation of the law by\nthe devout, earnest, sincere, God-fearing Hebrews, down to the close\nof the Old Testament Canon.\n\n[1] References: Ezra, Nehemiah, Bible Dictionaries.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTEACHINGS OF THE MASTER.\n\n\nPsalmist and prophets had sung of the exalted character of the coming\nMessiah. \"Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured\ninto thy lips.\" \"And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor,\nThe Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.\"\n\nAt his coming he lifted to a higher plane, by his precepts and\nexample, the ideal of a true, noble and worthy human life. By his\nteachings and by his life of utter unselfishness he revealed clearly\nthe exalted character and conduct that conformed to the Divine will.\n\n1. Our Lord's character forbids that we should think of him for a\nmoment as devoted to the gathering of worldly wealth. He came to\nminister unto, not to serve himself. Self-seeking was foreign to his\nnature. A great truth was spoken by the scoffers. \"He saved others,\nhimself he cannot save.\"\n\nHe who strives to follow in his footsteps cannot serve himself.\n\nThe whole drift of a great unselfish Christ-like soul must be for\nothers. The whole current of his thought and effort during his life\nmust be, to be helpful to others. Studying and striving to help\nothers, he cannot seek wealth. \"Ye cannot serve God and mammon.\"\n\nIt is out of harmony with the whole life and all the teachings of the\nMaster that he should encourage or permit a means of increasing wealth\nforbidden by the laws given by Moses and classed among the vilest of\nsins by the prophets.\n\n2. Again: He did not undo the teachings of the prophets, but enlarged\ntheir scope. He showed by word and example how the true spirit of the\nteachings of the old dispensation led to self-sacrifice for the\nwelfare of others. Matt. 5:17: \"Think not that I am come to destroy\nthe law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.\"\n\nFulfill, here, is more than to obey. It is in antithesis with destroy,\nand means to perfect and complete.\n\nThe old ceremonial forms of religious worship, pointed to the advent\nof one who should be a perfect sacrifice for sin, typified by the\ndaily sacrifice of bulls and rams. The sacrifice typified, was\ncompleted in Him.\n\nThe moral enactments were not set aside, but they were given a\ncompleted meaning; that is they were made to reach beyond the external\nto the hidden desires and affections of the heart. He taught that mere\nexternal compliance was not sufficient in the All Seeing Eye. The\naffections and desires of the soul must be in agreement.\n\nThus we have the explanation of the law of chastity, completed,\nrequiring purity of the soul. So murder is not merely the external\nact, but the law for murder, completed, forbids enmity or hatred\nhidden in the heart.\n\nThe requirements for mutual helpfulness were also perfected or\ncompleted.\n\nThe old law required the helping of a brother in need.\n\nDeut. 15:7, 8: \"If there be among you a poor man of one of thy\nbrethren within any of thy gates in the land which the Lord thy God\ngiveth thee, thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thine hand from\nthy poor brother. But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and\nshalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he\nwanteth.\"\n\nThis was completed so as to extend the help to all sufferers, though\nnot kindred nor friendly, and though they may not be able nor willing\nto repay. Luke 6:35: \"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend,\nhoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall\nbe the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful,\nand to the evil.\"\n\nThe old law permitted the lender to take a pledge to secure the return\nof \"as much again,\" that is, the loan without interest. The Master\nenjoins being helpful though the principal should never be repaid. To\ntake a pledge or mortgage and add the interest would greatly harden\nthe conditions for the borrower. It would be a step backward and not\nforward in the way of helpfulness to others.\n\nAgain, the year of Jubilee was a kind of legal time limit to debts.\nAll obligations were then cancelled. No debt could be collected. The\nselfish Hebrew feared to make a loan shortly before Jubilee lest it\nshould not be repaid promptly and his claim would become worthless.\nDeut. 15:9: \"Beware that there be no thought in thy wicked heart,\nsaying, The seventh year, the year of release is at hand; and thine\neye be evil toward thy poor brother, and thou givest him naught; and\nhe cry unto the Lord against thee and it be sin unto thee.\" In his\nheart the old Hebrew might have a desire to press his claim but the\nlaw protected the debtor. This law for the release of the debtor from\nthe payment of principal without interest is completed so as to\nrequire sincere and hearty forgiveness.\n\nOur Lord taught his disciples to ask for forgiveness of God only as\nthey forgave their debtors, Matt. 6:12: \"And forgive us our debts, as\nwe forgive our debtors.\" The commercial terms here used show this to\nbe the completion of the law as touching the creditor and his released\ndebtor.\n\n3. Again, he broke down the artificial barriers, the distinction of\nHebrew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, bond and free.\n\nThe love and sympathy and helpfulness among men was no longer to be\nlimited to such narrow bounds, but must be wide as the race. \"Who is\nmy neighbor?\" is so answered that every man must be neighbor to every\nother man, and the object of his care and help. All are of one blood,\nand all God's children. He gave one law for all classes and conditions\nin all times. He so expounded the old commandments and so condensed\nthem, that they became the one law of love. Whosoever is governed by\nsupreme love to God, and loves his neighbor as himself, has fulfilled\nthe law. He would thus bind all men together, and all to the throne of\nGod, by the one bond of love.\n\nBut he further intensified the obligations of love, by his own special\ncommand. John 15:12: \"This is my commandment, that ye love one\nanother, as I have loved you.\" And he adds it to the decalogue, John\n13:34: \"A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as\nI have loved you that ye also love one another.\" This new command\nrequires that men shall love their brethren above themselves and be\nready to sacrifice for their welfare. As he gave his life, so also he\ncommanded that men should sacrifice for their fellows.\n\nThose who hear his voice and have the spirit of obedience go to the\nends of the earth, and make any sacrifice that may be required for the\nuplifting of fallen men.\n\nThe law forbidding the Hebrews exacting usury of their brethren, of\nthe stranger who had accepted their faith and kept the passover, of\nthe stranger, sojourner who dwelt among them, of everybody except the\nCanaanite who was under the condemnation of God, could not have been\nannulled or suspended by the divine Master who thus draws together and\nembraces as one family the whole race. The ties of Christian\nbrotherhood are not less strong than the ties of Hebrew blood. The\nconverts from heathen to Christian faith are not less dear to the\nmissionary than the proselytes to the Hebrew faith were to the\nPharisees. The foreigner who comes into a Christian community must not\nbe treated with less justice and kindness than the wandering Arab who\nstrolled into Jerusalem for a trade. It cannot be that the relation\nbetween Christians is like that between the Hebrew and the criminal\nCanaanites who were convicted of capital crimes and under sentence of\ndeath. As usury was repugnant to that spirit of justice and brotherly\nlove that obtained in the Hebrew State, much more is it repugnant to\nthat closer brotherhood into which we are drawn by the divine Lord.\n\n4. Again, He was a friend of the poor and lowly. This was foretold by\nthe song of the virgin, when assured that she should be the mother of\nthe Savior. Luke 51:52, 53: \"He hath put down the mighty from their\nseats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with\ngood things; and the rich He hath sent empty away.\"\n\nThe prophets foretold that He should be the friend of the poor. He\npointed John to the fulfilment of these prophecies in proof of his\nMessiahship.\n\nIn his first address in the explanation of the new dispensation he\nbegan by saying, \"Blessed are the poor in spirit.\" The literal\nrendering would be, \"Blessed are the poor, to the Spirit.\" This is the\ndative singular with the definite article. He is speaking of external\nconditions as contrasted with spiritual blessings, and those\nconditions thought wretched in the world were especially favorable for\nthe development of grace. The poor, humble, mourning, suffering, and\npersecuted were especially blessed in his kingdom.\n\nThe word rendered poor does not mean pauper. There is a great\ndifference. The poor may be industrious, self-reliant and\nself-supporting. There is no hint of dependence.\n\nIn Luke he says, \"Blessed are ye poor.\" When at the rich man's table,\nhe told his host that he would be more blessed if he should make the\nnext feast to the poor and defective, that could make him no return.\n\nHe was uncompromising in his denunciation of the rich. Luke 6:24: \"But\nwoe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation.\" He\nshowed the danger of riches in the parable of the sower. Matt. 13:22:\n\"He also that received seed among thorns is he that heareth the word;\nand the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches choke the\nword, and it becometh unfruitful.\"\n\nWhere grace is to be cultivated and flourish, the \"greed of gain\" must\nnot enter. The young man who came to him, whom he loved for his sweet\ndisposition and excellent character, he turned away by the answer that\nhis wealth was incompatible with his salvation. He must part from his\nriches. When the disciples were surprised, he made it more emphatic,\nMatt. 19:24: \"And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go\nthrough the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom\nof God.\" And when they felt that this made salvation impossible, he\ndeclared it could only be possible by the exercise of omnipotent,\ndivine grace.\n\nZaccheus, the one rich man whose conversion is recorded, surrendered\nhis ill-gotten gain fourfold and gave away half of the remainder\nbefore salvation came to his house. The temptation to trust and lean\nupon riches is irresistible.\n\nOur Lord did not make wealth more dangerous than under the Mosaic\ndispensation by removing the restraint that was there put upon it. As\na friend to the poor he did not give wealth an advantage it did not\nhave before.\n\n5. The whole drift of his teachings limited and restrained\naccumulation of wealth. The parable of the rich fool is a forcible\npresentation of its human folly on the earthly side.\n\n\"Whose shall these things be?\"\n\n\"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust\ndoth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up\nfor yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth\ncorrupt, and where thieves do not break through and steal: For where\nyour treasure is, there will your heart be also.\"\n\nThe result is irresistible; when engaged in storing earthly treasure,\nthe heart will be earthly; or if laying up treasures in heaven, the\nheart will reach heavenward. He who labors for a heavenly reward, will\nbe heavenly minded.\n\nTreasures are stored for eternity, when used for the bringing out of\nthat which shall survive the grave; for the bringing out the highest\ndivine type of manhood and womanhood, in ourselves, in our children,\nand in all the children of men.\n\nTreasures expended in the development of immortals shall be found when\nthe earthly and temporal scenes have passed away. That which is\nexpended in the uplifting of the race shall be our eternal reward.\n\nGiving, giving, not hoarding is commended. Productive industry he\nenforced by his example, the carpenter that wrought for his daily\nbread. He chose workmen to be his followers. He taught economy in the\ncommand to take up the fragments of the food miraculously created\n\"that nothing be lost,\" yet unreserved giving was the lesson he\ninculcated and illustrated in his life. To follow his example, we must\nproduce and produce much, yet what we gain is to be expended, so as\nto promote the highest welfare of all mankind. We must not store the\nfruits of our labor, but expend, not as a spendthrift who wastes, but\njudiciously and wisely for God and man. Our giving is only limited by\nthe ability and facility to produce. Our Lord did not greatly add to\nthe temptation to hoard by delivering the earthly treasures from the\ndecay by \"moth and rust\" and instead permitting their increase. Our\nhoarding of earthly treasures must be limited, because of our\ndisposition to trust in them. We must always be so dependent that we\nshall pray truly with the spirit of dependence, \"Give us this day our\ndaily bread.\" \"Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food\nconvenient for me.\"\n\nThrift does not require that we shall hoard an amount that will\nsupport us through life, much less that we shall lay up a fortune,\nthat shall free our children from the necessity of productive labor.\nThe spirit of the Master's teachings is, that each age shall produce\nand spend its product for its own advancement, then each succeeding\nage shall be better fitted to produce and care for itself and so\nadvance the coming generations. \"Go work today in my vineyard.\" Now is\nthe time to give and do for the generation yet unborn.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nPARABLES OF THE TALENTS AND THE POUNDS.\n\n\nOur Lord mentions usury by name only in the parables of the talents\nand pounds. Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27. Usury is mentioned in these\npassages incidentally to meet the excuses of worthless servants, but\nin both as the unjust and oppressive act of a hard and dishonest man.\nThese references to usury are in entire harmony with the expressions\nof David and Solomon, and of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.\n\nThese servants in the parables were slaves, who owed their service to\ntheir master and for whom he was responsible.\n\nThe lesson in both parables is the necessity of faithfulness. The\nfaithful servants are rewarded and the unfaithful punished in both.\nYet there is a special lesson in each.\n\nThe parable of the talents shows that an equal reward shall be given\nall who are equally faithful, though the means and opportunities\nafforded one may far exceed those granted another. One was given five\ntalents and another but two; one gained five and the other two, yet\nboth equally faithful, are directed to enter into the joy of their\nlord.\n\nThe unfaithful servant brings his talent with an excuse, which is a\ncharge against the character of his master, \"I knew thee that thou\nart an hard man reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where\nthou hast not strewed,\" \"so there thou hast which is thine.\"\n\nThe master in reply showed the inconsistency of the excuse by assuming\nthat he bore the hard character charged upon him by his slave, \"Thou\nwicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed\nnot, and gather where I have not strewed: Thou oughtest therefore to\nhave put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should\nhave received mine own with usury.\" It is \"interest\" in the Revised\nVersion.\n\nThis interview may be paraphrased as follows:\n\nThe unfaithful servant said: \"I know the kind of a man you are. You\nare dishonest. You take what does not belong to you. You reap what\nother people sow, and you take up what others earn. I was afraid of\nyou: Here is all that you gave me and all that belongs to you.\"\n\nThe master said: \"You are merely excusing yourself. You are a lazy\nfaithless slave. If I am the hard man you say I am, taking what does\nnot belong to me and gathering the sowings and earnings of others, you\ncould have met that condition without trouble to yourself, by giving\nmy money to the usurers and then at my coming I could have received my\nunjust gain. Your excuse is inconsistent, you condemn yourself. You\nare an indolent and worthless slave. Begone to your punishment.\"\n\nIt is clearly implied that unearned increase, reaping and gathering\nwithout sowing, could be gained through the exchangers. If this was\nwhat was demanded, the servant could have secured this with no effort\non his part. His charge against the master was a mere pretence to\nexcuse his own want of personal faithfulness, and the master's reply\nwas fitted to this pretense.\n\nThis is in entire harmony with the opinion our Lord expressed of the\nexchangers when he called them thieves and drove them out of the\ntemple. It would be wholly inconsistent for him to advise an honest\nand faithful servant to place any portion of the property in their\nhands. His advice can only come from the standpoint of a dishonest\nmaster such as his servant called him.\n\nThe parable of the pounds shows the degrees of faithfulness in those\nwho have equal opportunities. With the same opportunities one may far\nsurpass another, because more faithful to his trust, his reward is\nproportionately greater.\n\nIn this parable each servant received the same, but the gains and\nrewards differ. By diligence one gained ten pounds and is commended\nand given authority over ten cities. Another gained five pounds. He is\nalso commended and given authority over five cities.\n\nAnother, who had given no service, came with his pound but without\nincrease. This was a proof of his unfaithfulness. He endeavors to\nshield himself like the servant with the talent, by charging injustice\nand oppression on his master. \"I feared thee because thou art an\naustere man: thou takest up that thou layest not down, and reapest\nthat thou didst not sow.\"\n\nHis master turned on him because his own reason was inconsistent with\nhis conduct and a mere shield for his indolence and worthlessness.\n\"Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou\nknowest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and\nreaping that I did not sow. Wherefore gavest thou not my money into\nthe bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with\nusury.\"\n\nThis interview may also be paraphrased.\n\nThe unfaithful slave came and said: \"Lord I have carefully kept all\nthat thou gavest me. I knew that thou wast an exacting master, taking\nwhat did not belong to you and gathering what others sow.\"\n\nThe master says: \"Now stop right there and I will judge you by your\nown excuse out of your own mouth. You say you knew me to be exacting\nand dishonest, taking more than belonged to me. Now, knowing this, why\ndid you not serve me by giving my money to the bank, and then at my\ncoming you could have brought me my money with my unjust gain and that\nwould have pleased a hard man like me, without effort on your part.\nYou are only giving this as an excuse for your own unfaithfulness. You\nare a wicked slave.\"\n\nThe master admits that he would be a hard man, if he reaped what\nanother sowed, or took up what belonged to another, but assuming that\nthis was his character, even this could have been met without trouble\nto the slave through the bank. This is a clear recognition of usury as\nunjust gain.\n\nExchangers were little more than the pawn-brokers of today and a bank\nwas a pawn-shop where pledges were stored. The money loaned upon any\npawn was much less than its full value. The increase of the loan soon\nmade it more than the value of the pledge which was then forfeited,\nand the pawn was sold by the broker.\n\nThese parables are here dwelt upon, for they are so frequently\nmisunderstood and misapplied. In a large volume on \"Banking,\" the\nwriter found the words of the master quoted, \"Wherefore then gavest\nnot thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have\nrequired my own with usury.\" And they were quoted as a solemn\ndirection of the divine Master to deposit money in the bank.\n\nTo quote from these parables in the defense of usury is as flagrant a\nperversion of the truth as the famous quotation to prove that Paul\nencouraged theft. \"Let him that stole, steal.\"\n\nThe lessons of these parables are in entire harmony with the law of\nMoses and the teachings of the prophets and Nehemiah. In these\nparables the usurer is presented as a hard man, exacting that which he\nhas not earned and to which he has no right.\n\nThe teachings of the Master did not permit what had been forbidden in\nall the ages.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nPRACTICE OF THE DISCIPLES.\n\n\nThe conditions in the very early church were not such as to make\nprominent the sin of usury. Many of the disciples were very poor and\nfrom the humblest walks of life. I Cor. 1:27-28: \"But God hath chosen\nthe foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath\nchosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are\nmighty; and the base things of the world, and things which are\ndespised, hath God chosen, yea, and the things which are not, to bring\nto nought things that are.\"\n\nThe practice of the disciples was, however, in entire harmony with the\nteachings of Moses and the Master, and in accord with the prohibition\nof usury. Later, in the time of the apostolic fathers when the church\ncame face to face with this sin, there was but one voice and that in\nthe denunciation, for the fathers were unanimous in its condemnation.\n\n(1) The first disciples did not loan, but gave to their needy\nbrethren. The early converts held their property so subject to a\ngeneral call that some have thought they had a community of goods.\n\nActs 2:44, 45: \"And all that believed were together, and had all\nthings common; * * * and sold their possessions and goods, and parted\nthem to all men, as every man had need.\"\n\nIt is evident they did not assist their brethren with \"loans,\" but\nwith gifts; much less did they take the opportunity to secure increase\non loans.\n\nThe suffering poor were their especial care. They gave of their\npoverty for the relief of the suffering. Many called by the Spirit\nwere in want, and many came to want through the severe persecutions to\nwhich they were subjected. This was especially true of the converts in\nJerusalem. For these large collections were received from the churches\nin Macedonia and in Corinth.\n\nThey were commanded to care for the needy of their own house. I Tim.\n5:8: \"But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of\nhis own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an\ninfidel.\" Paul, in giving directions to Timothy, as to the care of\ntheir poor, requires aid to be given to \"widows indeed,\" those who\nhave no children; but those who have children or nephews are to look\nto them and be supported by them, and if any person refuses to care\nfor his widowed mother or grandmother or dependent aunt, \"he hath\ndenied the faith and is worse than an infidel.\"\n\n(2) They were diligent in business. They provided things honest in the\nsight of all men.\n\nPaul set the example during his itinerate ministry by working at his\ntrade to secure his support and his dictum has been accepted as both\ndivine and human wisdom ever since. \"If any will not work neither\nshall he eat.\"\n\nDiligence was enjoined for self-support, and that others might be\nhelped. Eph. 4:28: \"Let him that stole, steal no more; but rather let\nhim labor, working with his hands, the things which is good, that he\nmay have to give to him that needeth.\" The effort was first by labor\nto be independent and then also to come to the relief of the feeble,\nthe sick, the poor, and the needy. That a man could honestly secure a\nlivelihood without productive labor was foreign to their way of\nthinking. If any did not work he did not deserve a living, nor was he\nan honest man. No one was at liberty to be idle. Productive effort\nmust not be relaxed. There was no retiring for the enjoyment of a\ncompetency.\n\nThere was no thought of such a provision to free them from the effort\nfor the daily bread. The surplus product was given for the aid of\nothers, to those who had claims of kinship first, then to all who had\nneed.\n\nThe instant a man failed to produce he began to consume. There is no\nhint anywhere that it entered any of their minds that they could stop\nproduction and live in ease from the increase of what they had\nproduced and the supply grow no less; that the meal and oil should not\nfail, but be handed down unimpaired to their children.\n\n(3) Covetousness was hated and denounced and classed with the most\nflagrant violations of the moral law.\n\nCovetousness is an inordinate regard for wealth of any kind. This may\nbe shown in the greed of seeking it, without proper regard for the\nrights of others; or in parsimony or stinginess in holding it, when\nthere are rightful claims upon it.\n\nJames 5:1-6: \"Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries\nthat shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments\nare moth eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them\nshall be witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were\nfire. You have heaped treasure together for the last days.\n\n\"Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields,\nwhich is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them\nwhich have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.\n\n\"Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have\nnourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and\nkilled the just, and he doth not resist you.\"\n\nCovetousness may also be shown in undue respect for wealth when in the\nhands of others. This is reproved in James 2:1-7. \"My brethren, have\nnot the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with\nrespect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a\ngold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come also a poor man in vile\nraiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing,\nand say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor\nman, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then\npartial in yourselves, and become the judges of evil thoughts?\nHearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this\nworld rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised\nthem that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men\noppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they\nblaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called?\"\n\nCovetousness was a secret sin often indulged when the outward forms of\nrighteousness were observed. Usurers were the open representatives of\nflagrant covetousness in all the ages. Usury was not named among them\nas becometh saints.\n\n(4) The early disciples kept out of debt. The early Christians were\nnot borrowers. In both dispensations borrowing was only resorted to in\nhard necessity. The borrower was second to the beggar. The borrowing\nwas but for a short time, and the loan was returned as soon as\nabsolute wants were supplied.\n\nThe doctrine and practice of the early church was to owe no man\nanything. Rom. 13:8: \"Owe no man anything, but to love one another:\nfor he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.\"\n\nIndebtedness was to be avoided as compromising the faith in the eyes\nof others and detrimental to the development of grace in the\ndisciples.\n\nThis was the direct command of Paul. This commandment required the\npayment of all honest obligations. The Christian then as now who\nfailed to acknowledge his obligations and meet them in full as he was\nable was wanting in the spirit of righteousness and unfaithful to his\nown convictions of right and duty.\n\nThe payment of a debt was the return in full of the loan received.\n\nAny Christian conscience at that time would have been satisfied with\nthe settlement approved and commanded by Nehemiah. The debt was fully\ndischarged when payments equaled the loan by whatever name those\npayments were called.\n\nThis text also required that they keep out of debt. By no distortion\nof the text can it be made to mean less. Chalmers on this passage\ncomments as follows: \"But though to press the duty of our text in the\nextreme and rigorous sense of it--yet I would fain aspire towards the\nfull and practical establishment of it, so that the habit might become\nat length universal, not only paying all debts, but even by making\nconscience never to contract, and therefore never to owe any. For\nalthough this might never be reached, it is well it should be looked\nat, nay moved forward to, as a sort of optimism, every approximation\nto which were a distinct step in advance, both for the moral and\neconomic good of society. For, first, in the world of trade, one can\nnot be insensible to the dire mischief that ensues from the spirit\noften so rampant, of an excessive and unwarrantable speculation--so as\nto make it the most desirable of all consummations that the system of\ncredit should at length give way, and what has been termed the\nready-money system, the system of immediate payments in every\ncommercial transaction, should be substituted in its place. The\nadventurer who, in the walks of merchandise, trades beyond his means\nis often actuated by a passion as intense, and we fear too, as\ncriminal, as is the gamester, who in the haunts of fashionable\ndissipation, stakes beyond his fortune. But it is not the injury\nalone, which the ambition that precipitates him into such deep and\ndesperate hazards, brings upon his own character, neither is it the\nruin that the splendid bankruptcy in which it terminates brings upon\nhis own family.\n\nThese are not the only evils which we deprecate--for over and above\nthese there is a far heavier disaster, a consequence in the train of\nsuch proceedings, of greatly wider and more malignant operation still,\non the habit and condition of the working classes, gathered in\nhundreds around the mushroom establishment, and then thrown adrift\namong the other wrecks of its overthrow, in utter helplessness and\ndestitution on society. This frenzy of men hasting to be rich, like\nfever in the body natural, is a truly sore distemper in the body\npolitic. No doubt they are also sufferers themselves, piercing their\nown hearts through with many sorrows; but it is the contemplation of\nthis suffering in masses, which the sons and daughters of industry in\nhumble life so often earn at their hands, that has ever led me to rank\nthem among the chief pests and disturbers of a commonwealth.\"\n\nTo this may be added an extract from \"Short Instructions for Early\nMasses by the Paulist Fathers.\" \"The fact of the matter is, dear\nbrethren, that there is too much laxity of conscience among our people\non this question of contracting debts, of borrowing money, of running\nup bills with little or no hope of ever paying them. We have all of us\nno doubt come across people who consider themselves quite religious\nwho owe money to their neighbors for years, and never make an effort\nto pay what they owe or even to offer an excuse for their negligence\nin such important matters.\n\nThere are some professional debtors who think the world owes them a\nliving, and who spend a good part of their time figuring out how much\nthey can get out of the land and from those who dwell thereon. To have\nto pay rent is their greatest grievance, and after being trusted for a\nfew months, they find it much cheaper to move to other quarters than\nto pay what they owe.\n\nThen there are others who must dress extravagantly, no matter what it\ncosts, and in consequence have nothing left to pay for the things\nthey eat or drink. Do they on this account deny themselves any of the\ngood things of this life? Not at all; on the contrary, every business\nman will tell you the same story--these people want the best and are\nthe most exacting in their demands.\n\nNow, I repeat, there is too much laxity about contracting debts and\ntoo little conscience about the necessity of paying for what we use.\nSt. Paul's warning should ring in the ears of every debtor: \"Owe no\nman anything.\" It will not do for such people to come to confession\nand say they contracted debts and are not able to pay what they owe.\nConfession will not relieve them of their obligation, and they must\nbegin at once and make an effort to lessen the debts they owe in the\npast and learn a lesson in economy and strive against contracting new\nburdens. This will help us to clear off the old ones.\n\nIt is not edifying, nor is it conducive to good fellowship, nor does\nit help to make our religion better known and better loved, to find\npeople, dressed in the finest, coming Sunday after Sunday to mass\nwhile they are heavily in debt to their grocer or butcher or landlord,\nwho may be in the very same pew with them. This is certain, it\nconvinces such men in business that the debtor's religion is not very\nsincere.\n\nIn a word, brethren, it is far better to live in less pretentious\ndwellings, dress more soberly and eat more sparingly than to owe any\nman anything. Pay what thou owest, and then you may walk honestly\namong all men.\"\n\nFreedom from debt is necessary to the independence of the man who does\nright and answers only to God. Struggle as he may the man is not free\nwho is under obligations to others. He is hindered in his conduct; he\nis not always conscious of it, but nevertheless there is a real\nbinding or fettering of his actions. It influences his gifts, for what\nhe holds is not his own and the owner may criticize his benevolence.\n\nAn easy conscience and sound sleep is the portion of the man who is\nunder no obligations to another. He looks the whole world in the face,\nwho owes no man a cent.\n\nHe is free from distracting business relations with his brethren and\nbrotherly love may abound. The exhortation of Paul is in connection\nwith brotherly love, and of all external relations, debt hinders the\nfree flow of sympathy among brethren.\n\nThe early disciples endeavored to avoid all debt. Much less did they\npay a premium for the privilege. They only borrowed in hard necessity;\nbut borrowing on usury to make a profit by it was as repellant to the\nChristian conscience then as complicity with theft or fraud. It marked\na man as anxious to share in unrighteous gain. His own conscience\nplaced him among those who are discontented with their lawful estate\nand guilty of that covetousness which is idolatry. I Tim. 6:6-11:\n\"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing\ninto this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And\nhaving food and raiment, let us be therewith content. But they that\nwill be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish\nand hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For\nthe love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted\nafter, they have erred in the faith, and pierced themselves through\nwith many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and\nfollow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience,\nmeekness.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nCHURCH HISTORY.\n\n\nThe Church, from the time of the apostles, was emphatic in its\ndenunciation of usury.\n\nSchaff-Herzog says: \"All the apostolic fathers condemned the taking of\nusury.\" The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge declares the same.\n\nChrysostom said: \"Nothing is baser in this world than usury, nothing\nmore cruel.\"\n\nBasil describes a scene so real that we can scarcely realize that he\nwrote over fifteen hundred years ago. After stating the usurer's\nprotestations of having no money, to the victim, who seeks a loan\nwithout interest, he says: \"Then the suppliant mentions interest and\nutters the word security. All is changed. The frown is relaxed; with a\ngenial smile he recounts old family connections. Now it is 'My friend,\nI will see if I have any money by me. Yes, there is that very sum\nwhich a man, I know, has left in my hands in deposit for profit. He\nnamed a very heavy interest. However, I will certainly take something\noff and give it to you on better terms.' With pretenses like this he\nfawns on the wretched victim and induces him to swallow the barb.\"\n\nOf the man who has borrowed on interest, he says: \"At first he is\nbright and joyous and shines with another's splendor * * * now night\nbrings no rest, no sun is bright. He hates the days that are hurrying\non, for time as it runs adds the interest to its tale.\"\n\nThe fathers unanimously condemned the taking of interest, Tertullian,\nCyprian, Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome can be quoted against it. The\npopes followed the teachings of the fathers and forbade it under\nsevere penalties. The priests guilty of this sin were degraded from\ntheir orders. The laymen found guilty were excommunicated. Interest\npaid could be reclaimed, not only from the usurer but from his heirs.\nA bargain, though confirmed by an oath never to claim back the\ninterest paid, was declared not binding. This action of the popes was\nconfirmed by councils.\n\nCharlemagne, in France, forbid the taking of usury either by priests\nor laity.\n\nA council at Westminster (1126) approved the degradation of all\nclergy, who were guilty of this practice.\n\nArchbishop Sands said: \"This canker (usury) hath corrupted all\nEngland.\"\n\nA council in Vienna (1311) reaffirmed the denunciations of previous\npopes and councils, and then adds: \"If any shall obstinately persist\nin the error of presuming to affirm that the taking of usury is not a\nsin, we decree that he shall be punished as a heretic.\"\n\nThere is no record of the repeal of any of these edicts.\n\nThe leaders of the Protestant reformation also denounced usury.\n\nLuther was violent in his opposition, using the strongest language he\ncould command. \"Whoever eats up, robs and steals the nourishment of\nanother, commits as great a murder, as he who carves a man or utterly\nundoes him. Such does a usurer, and he sits the while on his stool,\nwhen he ought rather to be hanging from the gallows.\"\n\nMelancthon, Beza and others are accounted against usury.\n\nThe decisions of Ecclesiastical Councils were numerous and emphatic\nuntil the seventeenth century. Since that time interest taking has\nbecome common, all but universal, but there is no record found\nanywhere of its direct approval by any ecclesiastical body. The Church\nhas come to tolerate it but has never given it official approval.\n\nUsury has not been included in any creed or confession of faith, nor\nhas it been directly approved by any council or general assembly.\n\nThe truth has not been left in any age without its witness. There have\nalways been those more or less prominent in the Church who contended\nthat it was unjust and oppressive. Some of them have been of\nworld-wide distinction. The writer has a letter written him by John\nClark Ridpath, the historian, expressing his agreement with the views\npresented in these pages. Another of these is brilliant John Ruskin,\nrecently deceased. Quotations from him will close this review.\n\n\"I have not so perverted my soul nor palsied my brain as to expect to\nbe advantaged by that adhesion (usury). I do not expect that because I\nhave gathered much to find Nature or man gathering more for me; to\nfind eighteen pence in my box in the morning instead of the shilling\nas a reward of my continence, or to make an income of my Koran by\nlending it to poor scholars. If I think he can read it and will\ncarefully turn the leaves by the outside, he is welcome to read it for\nnothing.\"\n\n\"Thus in all other possible or conceivable cases, the moment our\ncapital is increased by having lent it, be it but the estimation of a\nhair, that hair-breadth of increase is usury, just as much as stealing\na farthing is theft no less than stealing a million.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nCALVIN'S LETTER ON USURY.\n\n\nA mere hint of encouragement to the usurer came from Calvin. In a\nletter, to a friend, he hesitatingly expressed opinions that have ever\nsince been quoted in defense of the practice. He alone of all the\nreformers took a doubtful stand. He has often been referred to and\ngiven great credit for his opinion, even by those who utterly reject\nall the doctrines he most earnestly advocated. The fear that he\nexpressed near the opening, that some word might be seized to take\nmore license than he would allow had reason, for this letter has been\nthe basis for all the apologies for usury that have ever been\nattempted. In these last days all who have tried to present fully the\nmoral law as comprehended in the ten commandments have felt called\nupon to make some apology for the prevailing practice of usury in\nconnection with the eighth command. They all refer to this letter.\nSometimes there is a brief quotation, given in Latin and left\nuntranslated, to convince the ignorant, for Calvin wrote in Latin.\n\nLetter of Calvin: _De Usuris Responsum_.\n\n\"I have not yet essayed what could fitly be answered to the question\nput to me; but I have learned by the example of others with how great\ndanger this matter is attended. For if all usury is condemned tighter\nfetters are imposed on the conscience than the Lord himself would\nwish. Or if you yield in the least, with that pretext, very many will\nat once seize upon unlicensed freedom, which can then be restrained by\nno moderation or restriction. Were I writing to you alone I would fear\nthis the less; for I know your good sense and moderation, but as you\nask counsel in the name of another, I fear, lest he may allow himself\nfar more than I wish by seizing upon some word, yet confident that you\nwill look closely into his character and from the matter that is here\ntreated judge what is expedient, and to what extent, I shall open my\nthoughts to you.\n\n\"And first, I am certain that by no testimony of Scripture is usury\nwholly condemned. For the sense of that saying of Christ, 'Lend,\nhoping for nothing again' (Luke 6:35), has up to this time been\nperverted; the same as another passage when speaking of splendid\nfeasts and the desire of the rich to be received in turn, he commands\nthem rather to summon to these feasts, the blind, the lame, and other\nneedy men, who lie at the cross-roads and have not the power to make a\nlike return. Christ wished to restrain men's abuse of lending,\ncommands them to lend to those from whom there is no hope of receiving\nor regaining anything; and his words ought to be interpreted, that\nwhile he would command loans to the poor without expectation of\nrepayment or the receipt of interest, he did not mean at the same\ntime to forbid loans to the rich with interest, any more than the\ninjunction to invite the poor to our feasts did not imply that the\nmutual invitation of friends to feasts is in consequence prohibited.\nAgain the law of Moses was political and should not influence us\nbeyond what justice and philanthropy will bear.\n\n\"It could be wished that all usury and the name itself were first\nbanished from the earth. But as this cannot be accomplished it should\nbe seen what can be done for the public good. Certain passages of\nScripture remain in the Prophets and Psalms in which the Holy Spirit\ninveighs against usury. Thus a city is described as wicked because\nusury is practiced in the forum and streets, but as the Hebrew word\nmeans frauds in general, this cannot be interpreted so strictly. But\nif we concede that the prophet there mentions usury by name, it is not\na matter of wonder that among the great evils which existed, he should\nattack usury. For wherever gains are farmed out, there are generally\nadded, as inseparable, cruelty, and numberless other frauds and\ndeceits.\n\n\"On the other hand it is said in praise of a pious and holy man 'that\nhe putteth not out his money to usury.' Indeed it is very rare for a\nman to be honest and yet a usurer.\n\n\"Ezekiel goes even further (Ezek. 22:12). Enumerating the crimes which\ninflamed the wrath of the Lord against the Jews, he uses two words,\none of which means usury, and is derived from a root meaning to\nconsume; the other word means increase or addition, doubtless because\none devoted to his private gain takes or rather extorts it from the\nloss of his neighbor. It is clear that the prophets spake even more\nharshly of usury because it was forbidden by name among the Jews, and\nwhen therefore it was practiced against the express command of God, it\nmerited even heavier censure.\n\n\"But when it is said, that as the cause of our state is the same, the\nsame prohibition of usury should be retained, I answer that there is\nsome difference in what pertains to the civil state. Because the\nsurroundings of the place in which the Lord placed the Jews, as well\nas other circumstances, tended to this, that it might be easy for them\nto deal among themselves without usury, while our state today is very\ndifferent in many respects. Therefore usury is not wholly forbidden\namong us unless it be repugnant both to Justice and to Charity.\n\n\"It is said, 'Money does not beget money.' What does the sea beget?\nWhat does a house from the letting of which I receive a rent? Is money\nborn from roofs and walls? But on the other hand both the earth\nproduces and something is brought from the sea which afterward\nproduces money, and the convenience of a house can be bought and sold\nfor money. If therefore more profit can be derived from trading\nthrough the employment of money than from the produce of a farm, the\npurpose of which is subsistence, should one who lets some barren farm\nto a farmer, receiving in return a price or part of the produce, be\napproved, and one who loans money to be used for profit be condemned?\nAnd when one buys a farm for money does not that farm produce other\nmoney yearly? And whence is derived the profit of the merchant? You\nwill say from his diligence and his industry. Who doubts that idle\nmoney is wholly useless? Who asks a loan of me does not intend to keep\nwhat he receives idle by him. Therefore the profit does not arise from\nthe money, but from the product that results from its use or\nemployment. I therefore conclude that usury must be judged, not by a\nparticular passage of Scripture, but simply by the rules of equity.\nThis will be made clearer by an example. Let us imagine a rich man\nwith large possessions in farms and rents, but with little money.\nAnother man not so rich, nor with such large possessions as the first,\nbut has more ready money. The latter being about to buy a farm with\nhis own money, is asked by the wealthier for a loan. He who makes the\nloan may stipulate for a rent or interest for his money and further\nthat the farm may be mortgaged to him until the principal is paid, but\nuntil it is paid, he will be content with the interest or usury on the\nloan. Why then shall this contract with a mortgage, but only for the\nprofit of the money, be condemned, when a much harsher, it may be, of\nleasing or renting a farm at large annual rent, is approved?\n\n\"And what else is it than to treat God like a child, when we judge of\nobjects by mere words and not from their nature, as if virtue can be\ndistinguished from vice by a form of words.\n\n\"It is not my intention to fully examine the matter here. I wished\nonly to show what you should consider more carefully. You should\nremember this, that the importance of the question lies not in the\nwords but in the thing itself.\"\n\nThose acquainted with Calvin's \"Institutes\" will not fail to notice\nthe timid manner in which he treats the subject, as if uncertain of\nhis ground and endeavoring to excuse usury to please his friend. This\nletter is wanting in that positive air of assured certainty that\nbreathes inspired authority and lends a charm to his \"Institutes.\" He\nis nearest himself when he bursts out, \"It could be wished that all\nusury and the name itself were banished from the earth.\"\n\nThe letter is here given in full because often more force is carried\nby the reference to a great name than by the study of his argument. A\ncareful reading of this letter does not reveal a positive approval of\nusury. He merely excuses it by suggesting other evils that he thinks\nworse; for instance, that land rentals may be worse than the usury of\nmoney. He does not mention the necessary oppression of the poor\ntenants by the loan upon a mortgage.\n\nIt is proof of the weakness of the case when this letter is the most\nfavorable that can be presented from any ecclesiastic.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nPERMANENCY OF THE PROHIBITION.\n\n\nIt is sometimes urged that the law of Moses with regard to usury was\nnot intended to be permanent but was only a wise and beneficent\nregulation for that people in their peculiar condition; that as the\nceremonial was done away by the incoming of the New Testament\ndispensation, so this prohibition was annulled and should be reckoned\namong the effete laws of the ancient Hebrews.\n\nIn answer to this contention it may be replied:\n\n(1) This prohibition is not ceremonial. It has no connection with the\nrites and forms of their religion. It touches their character and\nconduct but has no place in their forms of worship.\n\n(2) Nothing can be presented from the Mosaic laws to prove that this\nprohibition was only of a temporary character. It is in entire harmony\nwith the spirit of helpfulness and especially the protection of the\nweak, that is so characteristic of the Mosaic order.\n\nNo induction from any of the Old Testament writers can be fairly made\nto limit its application. The prophets place usury in the catalogue of\nsins that are always and everywhere offensive to God. Nehemiah\ncondemns it as destructive to personal and civic freedom.\n\n(3) There is no hint of its discontinuance in the new dispensation.\nThe Master gave a spiritual completeness to this law as he did to all\nenactments requiring external moral character. He classed the usurers,\nin his parables, among the dishonest, who took up what they had not\nlaid down.\n\nThe disciples, in their poverty and persecutions, were not specially\ntempted by this sin, and it is not therefore prominent in their\nhistory. But there is nothing in their teachings or practice that is\nnot in entire harmony with the binding continuance of the Mosaic\nprohibition, and their practice and teaching are just such as we\nshould expect from Christian people in their condition and\ncircumstances who recognized the prohibition as permanent.\n\n(4) The apostolic fathers, as the church grew and came into contact\nwith the world and was beginning to share in the business of the\nworld, to a man, regarded the prohibition as in full force and its\nobservance as one of the marked characteristics of the Christian,\ndistinguishing him from the worldling and the Jew. Conditions in the\napostolic age did not make this prominent but when the conditions were\nchanged and the church came in conflict with this sin, it is clearly\nseen that the law was in a continuous binding force through the whole\nperiod.\n\nThe later fathers were of the opinion, unanimously, that it was in\nfull force, not temporary or provincial, but binding for all time and\nupon all people. That it is suspended is a modern idea, a suggestion\nof the world to the church within the last few hundred years.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nOUR CHANGED CONDITIONS.\n\n\nThe changed conditions of the race in these last years are urged as a\nsufficient reason for annulling this law. It is admitted that it was\nrighteous and beneficent in ages long past but with the new light and\nnew conditions of the present it is effete, inapplicable and unjust.\nThey call attention to the vast extension of commerce, to the\nmarvelously increased facilities for travel, transportation and\nintercommunication; to the innumerable and wonderful inventions that\nin their application have brightened our civilization. They exalt\npresent conditions and they belittle the long past conditions and\nthought.\n\nThe prohibition of usury belonged to the past, the practice of usury\nis all but universal in the present, therefore they argue that usury\nis a part and a necessary part of our civilization and to revive the\nold prohibition would turn the world's civilization backward and be as\nabsurd as to now dispense with steam or electricity.\n\nIn reply it may be said that the changes are not universal, that there\nare some things that abide, that the changes are trifling when\ncompared with those things that remain and are permanent.\n\n1. Human nature remains the same. Man, in body and mind, in\nphysiology and psychology, has not changed in these thousands of\nyears. That which in ages past promoted the health and vigor of his\nbody, will secure its best development now. That discipline, culture\nand mental exercise that secured the highest intellectual strength in\nages past will do the most for its best development now. Many things\nthat now give splendor to our civilization do not promote either the\nbest physical or mental manhood.\n\n2. Family ties remain. The relation of husband and wife, of parents\nand children, and the duties of their several positions in the home\nhave not changed. The family remains the social unit as it has been in\nall ages. Sociology, the science of social and political organization,\nis a permanent science. It does not change with the shifting temporal\nconditions of the people. Those things which made for the general\nwelfare of ages ago are for the public weal now, and those things that\nendangered the state then are to be avoided now.\n\n3. The moral law remains unchanged and unchangeable, with all the\nbrilliant present there is no amendment to the ten commandments. The\nethical nature remains and the voice of conscience, approving the same\nright and condemning the same wrong, is identical with the voice of\nconscience in the time of Moses.\n\n4. The laws of nature have not changed. The relation between a cause\nand its sequence remains. Like causes produce like effects.\n\nNo living thing has changed its nature. A lion now is of the same\nnature that it was in the time of Samson. So with every savage beast\nthat roams the jungle. Even the domesticated animals, with all the\neffort and skill of intelligent man, have only been smoothed or\nspeeded a little. The horse, cow, sheep, or dog have held their old\nforms and dispositions.\n\nSeed time and harvest come and go and we are dependent for the same\nshower and sunshine that gave Adam his first harvest.\n\nWe know some things they did not know and we have bettered our tools,\nbut the natural world has shown no signs of change.\n\n5. The relation of things to each other have not changed. Plants must\nhave soil to grow in, animals must have vegetation to feed upon. Fish\nmust have water. And so with the thousands of relations of climate,\nelements, soils, plants, animals, fishes, birds and insects, they are\nthe identical relations sustained ages and ages ago.\n\n6. The nature of money has not changed. Its material and form and\ndenominations have been modified but the functions of money as a\nstorage of values and as a measure of values and as a medium of\nexchange remain the same. Our gold and silver and paper money may be\nmore convenient and more exact, but its functions are just the same\nas the Indians' wampum.\n\nThe law of supply and demand and the equity in commercial\ntransactions, great or small, are unchanged. Money could always be\nused to make or gather more money in business. It is no more true now\nthan in the times of David or Nehemiah. If this had not then been\npossible; if there had not been tempting opportunities, there would\nhave been no sin of usury for them to reprove.\n\nMan's changed conditions are but trifling and incidental, relating to\nhimself. They do not affect a single natural or moral or economic law.\n\nThe changed conditions, which are urged as a reason that the\nprohibition of usury is no longer binding, are only the conditions\nbrought about by the violation of that law.\n\nThe prohibition of usury is systematically violated. The neighbor in\nthe smallest transaction with his neighbor exacts usury, though it be\nbut a few cents. The credit system has become universal. It is the\nrare exception now to \"own what you have\" and to \"pay as you go.\"\nInterest bearing bonds are issued by the smallest manufacturing plant,\nby the great corporation and by the empire. These conditions do not\nprove usury right. They only show how far true business, commercial,\nand political principles have been perverted by this practice.\n\nIf violating a law annuls it, then any law can be pushed aside. Let\nthe claims of the Sabbath day be ignored. Let the houses of worship\nremain closed upon that day. Let work be planned for seven days of the\nweek. Let the hum of the mills and the roar of commerce go on. Take no\nnote of the Sabbath day, either in business or recreation or worship,\nand conditions will soon be upon us, such that we may urge as\nplausibly, that the Sabbath is effete, possible to our slow going\nfathers but inconsistent with the necessary rush of our day.\n\nIf the systematic violation of a law annuls it then we can quiet the\nconscience and be dishonest while dealing with a Turk in\nConstantinople and we may lie while dickering with a Chinese merchant\nin Canton.\n\nIf violating a law annuls it, even the seventh commandment, the\nviolation of which is so offensive to decency and its observance so\nnecessary to the purity of the home, may in this way be ruled out as a\nbinding obligation. Let polygamy be the order, supported by the\nexample of Jacob and David and Solomon, and the families be\nconstituted along that line, then enforced monogamy would seem to be a\nsundering of tender ties and hardness toward the cast off Hagars that\nis inconsistent with the Christian spirit. An earnest, Godly man, a\nmissionary friend of the writer, under whose ministry a heathen chief\nwas converted, was misled by the plausibility. The chief had a number\nof wives; he had children by them; he was much attached to his wives\nand was fond of his children, and they all seemed to love him and\nclung to him. The missionary in the kindness of his heart did not\ninterfere with the family, permitting the chief to keep his wives and\nplaced his name on the church roll of the Mission. For this act he was\nreproved by the ecclesiastical authorities above him. Let polygamy\nbecome as universal as usury and even the seventh commandment in its\nstrictness will seem impracticable and unkind if not positively cruel.\n\nIt will not do to claim freedom from the prohibition of usury because\nwe have organized commerce and the state and all society in violation\nof it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nAMERICAN REVISION.\n\n\nThe Revision by the American Committee is the latest effort of\nscholarship to bring King James' Version up to date by eliminating\neffete terms and using words in their modern sense.\n\nThe references to usury are here collated so as to give a general view\nof the question from the translations of the passages in this the\nlatest Revision. The reader will notice that the modern word\n\"interest\" is substituted for \"usury\" in nearly every passage.\n\nExodus 22:25: \"If thou lend money to any of my people with thee that\nis poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay\nupon him interest.\"\n\nLeviticus 25:35-37: \"And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his hand\nfail with thee, then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a\nsojourner shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or\nincrease, but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou\nshalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals\nfor increase.\"\n\nDeuteronomy 23:19, 20: \"Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy\nbrother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of anything\nthat is lent upon interest: unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon\ninterest, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest,\nthat Jehovah thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand\nunto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.\"\n\nNehemiah 5:7-10: \"Then I consulted with myself, and contended with the\nnobles and rulers and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his\nbrother. And I held a great assembly against them. And I said unto\nthem, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews that\nwere sold unto the nations; and would ye even sell your brethren, and\nshould they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace and found\nnever a word. Also I said, The thing ye do is not good: ought ye not\nto walk in the fear of our God, because of the reproach of the\nnations, our enemies? And I likewise, my brethren and my servants, do\nlend them money and grain. I pray you, let us leave off this usury.\"\n\nThe interest exacted by the princes and nobles was no doubt so\nextortionate that it could be called usury in the modern legal sense.\n\nPsalm 15:\n\n    \"Jehovah, Who shall sojourn in thy tabernacles?\n    Who shall dwell in thy holy hill?\n    He that walketh uprightly and worketh righteousness,\n    And speaketh the truth in his heart;\n    He that slandereth not with his tongue,\n    Nor doeth evil to his friend,\n    Nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor;\n    In whose eyes a reprobate is despised,\n    But who honoreth them that fear Jehovah;\n    He that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not;\n    He that putteth not out his money to interest,\n    Nor taketh reward against the innocent.\n    He that doeth these things shall never be moved.\"\n\nProverbs 28:8: \"He that augmenteth his substance by interest and\nincrease, gathereth it for him that hath pity on the poor.\"\n\nJeremiah 15:10: \"I have not lent, neither have men lent to me; yet\nevery one of them doth curse me.\"\n\nKing James reads: \"I have neither lent upon usury, nor have men lent\nto me upon usury.\" As Jeremiah was protesting his innocence of any\nwrongdoing the early translators inserted what was evidently implied\nwhile these latest revisors have omitted what was not in the original\ntext.\n\nEzekiel 18:1-18: \"The word of Jehovah came again unto me saying, What\nmean ye that ye use this proverb, concerning the land of Israel,\nsaying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth\nare set on edge? As I live saith the Lord Jehovah, ye shall not have\noccasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are\nmine, as the soul of the father so also the soul of the son is mine:\nthe soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just and do that\nwhich is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains,\nneither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,\nneither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a\nwoman in her impurity, and hath not wronged any, but hath restored to\nthe debtor his pledge, hath taken naught by robbery, hath given his\nbread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment: he\nhath not given forth upon interest, neither hath taken any increase,\nthat hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true justice\nbetween man and man, hath walked in my statutes and hath kept my\nordinances, to deal truly: he is just, he shall surely live, saith the\nLord Jehovah.\n\n\"If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that\ndoeth any one of these things, and that doeth not any of those duties,\nbut even hath eaten upon the mountains, and denied his neighbor's\nwife, hath wronged the poor and needy, hath taken by robbery, hath not\nrestored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath\ncommitted abomination, hath given forth upon interest, and hath taken\nincrease; shall he then live? He shall not live: he hath done all\nthese abominations: he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.\n\n\"Now, lo, if he beget a son which seeth all his father's sins which he\nhath done, and feareth and doeth not such like; that hath not eaten\nupon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of\nthe house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbor's wife, neither\nhath wronged any, hath not taken aught to pledge, neither hath taken\nby robbery, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered\nthe naked with a garment; that hath not withdrawn his hand from the\npoor, that hath not received interest nor increase, hath executed my\nordinances, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the\niniquity of his father, he shall surely live. As for his father,\nbecause he cruelly oppressed, robbed his brother, and did that which\nis not good among his people, behold, he shall die in his iniquity.\"\n\nEzekiel 22:6-12: \"Behold, the princes of Israel, every one according\nto his power have been in thee to shed blood. In thee have they set\nlight by father and mother; in the midst of thee have they dealt by\noppression with the sojourner; in thee have they wronged the\nfatherless and the widow. Thou hast despised mine holy things and hast\nprofaned my sabbaths. Slanderous men have been in thee to shed blood;\nand in thee have they eaten upon the mountains; in the midst of thee\nthey have committed lewdness. In thee have they uncovered their\nfathers' nakedness; in thee have they humbled her that was unclean in\nher impurity. And one hath committed abomination with his neighbor's\nwife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law; and another\nin thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter. In thee have\nthey taken bribes to shed blood; thou hast taken interest and\nincrease, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbors by oppression\nand hast forgotten me saith the Lord Jehovah.\"\n\nMatthew 25:26-27: \"But his lord answered and said unto him, Thou\nwicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed\nnot and gather where I did not scatter; thou oughtest therefore to\nhave put my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have\nreceived back mine own with interest.\"\n\nLuke 19:22, 23: \"He saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I\njudge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I am an austere man\ntaking up that I laid not down and reaping that I did not sow; then\nwherefore gavest thou not my money into the bank, and I at my coming\nshould have required it with usury.\"\n\nLuke 16:13-15: \"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will\nhate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and\ndespise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees\nwho were lovers of money heard all these things and they scoffed at\nhim. And he said unto them, Ye are they that justify yourselves in the\nsight of men but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is exalted\namong men is an abomination in the sight of God.\"\n\nIt is not easy to understand how an honest, godly man, who has even\nmedium intelligence, unclouded by prejudice, and who has confidence in\nthe highest scholarship of the age, can deny that the revealed Word of\nGod, in both Testaments, condemns usury or interest. It is just as\ndifficult to explain how any one, not glaringly inconsistent, can\nclaim that interest taking is not a sin, who bows to the divine\nauthority of the revealed Word and who defines sin as \"Any want of\nconformity unto or transgression of the law of God.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nDUTY LEARNED FROM TWO SOURCES.\n\n\nIn this discussion we learn our duty from two sources. Two authorities\nare recognized. One is the revelation of God in his written Word. The\nother is the book of nature; this includes the ethical nature of man,\nhis social relations, and the laws that govern material things.\n\nThe author of the Bible is the God of nature. They are but two volumes\nfrom the same mind and hand. They must speak in harmony when both are\nunderstood. Truth found in the inspired Word cannot be contradicted in\nnature; and no facts in the works of God can be found in conflict with\nthe Word He has spoken. A truth found in either is always consistent\nwith the truths made plain in the other.\n\nFamiliarity with one prepares us to better understand the other. The\ndevout student of the Word has his mind aroused, and his\nsusceptibility so quickened that he is able to read more clearly the\nlessons in the volumes of nature open before him. The student of\nnature, who has searched its mysteries and taken in its beauty and\ndesigns of infinite wisdom everywhere appearing, must be the more\nready and competent to appreciate the revealed love and grace.\n\nThe Bible is not a treatise on natural science, nor does natural\nscience teach revealed religion, yet they do not conflict. The special\nstudent of either may have perfect confidence that whatever he has\nfound true in his chosen field will be found consistent with truth in\nother fields of special study.\n\nChemistry, biology and all studies of nature, are found only to give a\nhigher conception of the God of all grace. The same wisdom and power\nshine out in His works that are revealed in His Word.\n\nAgain, the laws of God, whether fixed in nature or revealed in His\nWord, are for the highest interest of the physical, mental and\nspiritual man. Every truth in the Word works for the welfare of man's\nbody and soul. The laws of nature, physical and psychological, obeyed,\npromote man's bodily and mental vigor. Strict obedience to the laws of\nGod, as revealed in both Word and nature, produces the completest\nphysical and mental manhood.\n\nGod had the highest welfare of every man at heart when He prepared the\nearth for his abode and gave him dominion over it. And He yearned for\nhis deliverance from a fallen estate when He gave him a revelation of\nHis infinite redeeming love. The eye of God is upon each individual of\nthe race, as upon every sparrow. He has in thought, in word and in\nworks, not the favoring of one of an hundred, while the ninety and\nnine are crushed or neglected, but the happiness and highest good of\nevery one of the hundred.\n\nThe ethics of the Bible and the ethics of nature, as wrought out by\nthe earnest heathen philosophers, mainly agree. It is an astonishment\nto some that there is so much agreement in the systems of heathen\nmorals and the revealed moral law. The moral law is written on men's\nhearts, and can be read there by the diligent and careful student; but\nthe consciences of men, enlightened and quickened by the revealed\nWord, produce the highest ethical types the world knows.\n\nThe Bible is not a work on political economy, yet there is nothing out\nof harmony with the most perfect political institutions. When we find\npolitical principles clearly revealed, we shall find the same truths\nwhen we study the most orderly relations of men in their social\norganization.\n\nThe Bible is not a work on economics, yet it advances no economic\nprinciples that work a hardness or injustice to any. When we find\neconomic principles clearly stated, we shall surely find the same\ntruths confirmed in a careful study of the nature of things.\n\nAs the written Word forbids usury or interest, it can be presumed that\nthe nature of things and man's highest good also forbids it; that it\nis not an arbitrary prohibition, but is given in love because it is in\nits very nature a ruinous evil. As we find a positive prohibition of\ntaking usury or interest in the old dispensation and the confirmation\nof it in the new, both by the words of the Master and the\nunderstanding and practice of the disciples and fathers, we may\nconfidently expect that it will be confirmed by a correct and careful\nstudy of ethics and of the relation of man to things.\n\nWe may learn duty from either or both sources. To some men the Bible\ncomes with the greatest clearness and the utmost force of authority.\nOthers find in nature their highest conception of the Infinite, and\ntheir best directions for a correct life. If usury or interest is\nfound to be a sin from the Word, there is no need for those to enter\ninto the economic proof who have no taste for this character of study\nor reasoning. If it is found to be \"_malum per se_\" from the nature of\nthings, even those who reject the divine revelation must array\nthemselves against it. If it is shown to be evil by both revelation\nand economic law, then all peoples, Christian and heathen, should\ncombine against it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nRIGHTS OF MAN OVER THINGS.\n\n\nMan was the last and the crowning work of the Creator. God made man in\nhis own image and gave him dominion over all creatures.\n\n\"For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast\ncrowned him with glory and honor.\n\n\"Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou\nhast put all things under his feet:\n\n\"All the sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;\n\n\"The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth\nthrough the paths of the seas.\"\n\nThis high position is in entire harmony with man's innate\nconsciousness of his superior powers, and of his nobler spiritual\nnature, and of his rightful dominion over all the other material\ncreations. Man is a person, a thinking intelligent being, and is\nconscious of his personality, and from his lofty height he calls all\nelse the lower and the inferior creatures. Wherever man is found over\nthe whole earth, of whatever faith or grade of civilization, he claims\nthis universal dominion.\n\nMan was commanded to subdue the earth and bring it into subjection as\nhis servant and he is conscious of his right to use all things to\npromote his comfort, convenience and welfare. Anything he can make of\nservice to himself he has a right to appropriate.\n\nA tree is a thing which he may prepare for his own purposes, for fuel,\nfor tools, or for a dwelling, as he pleases.\n\nIsaiah ridiculed the idolater in his time, who made an idol of wood\nand worshiped it, while with another part of the same tree he built a\nfire and warmed himself. A part he served and a part served him. The\nwhole tree was subject to him; in itself it had no rights.\n\nRights belong to persons, and not to things, and personality cannot be\ntransferred to a thing. If there is no personal owner the question of\nrights is never raised. The tree, or any thing whatever, has no rights\nin the matter. Rights belong to the owner, the person, not to the\nthing he owns.\n\nThe game in the mountain forests and the fish in the rivers are things\nwith no owner and whosoever will may take and use them.\n\nLand is a thing, and any person may make it into a farm or garden and\nbuild upon it his home. The land has no rights and makes no protest.\nThe whole earth is subject to man and is to be subdued by him. If no\nowner appears his rights are not disputed. Our fathers found an\nunowned continent, with all its rich resources of soil and forests and\nmines. It was to them free, and with the labor of a few generations\nthey transformed it into farms and plantations and built it over with\nmagnificent cities.\n\nEven that which formerly was the property of another has no rights.\nThe deserted hunter's hut in the mountains can be appropriated. The\nabandoned farm does not resist a new tenant. A derelict vessel, still\nafloat but driven before the winds, whose officers, crew and owners\nare at the bottom of the sea, can be appropriated, for there is no one\nto dispute the claim.\n\nEven force or labor in the abstract is but a thing and has no rights.\nThe wind is unowned and any one who will may harness it to do his\nwork. The electric forces of nature are unowned, whoever will may\ngather and direct them to do his purpose. The waterfall may be made to\ndo man's work and will not resist. The animals have no rights against\nman. The broncho, horse, ox, mule, or animal of any kind, may be\nturned to man's service. All the forces of nature were made for man.\nThey have no rights to be regarded, when his interests can be served.\n\nIt is man's high privilege to stand above all things, to call them to\nhis feet and to compel their service. It is the reversion of the order\nfor him to take the subordinate place and serve the inferior creation.\nThings subdued, such as wealth secured, is to minister to his highest\ngood and to promote his noblest manhood. The order is reversed when\nthis wealth commands his service and sacrifice. The miser both\nreverses the divine order and violates common sense by giving the love\nand service of his shriveling soul to a thing.\n\nThe usurer and the borrower on usury, both, reverse the true order by\nassuming that a thing can claim man's service. Both grant that a thing\nhas rights to be respected. The usurer takes the service as due to the\nthing he owns. It is his property that is exalted, and for which he\nclaims the service must be rendered, and if the borrower will think\nclosely, he will find that in paying usury he is serving a thing.\n\nA man reverses the divine order and degrades himself, and becomes a\ngross idolater, when he serves things unowned instead of commanding\ntheir service, \"stocks and stones.\" He reverses the true order when he\nbecomes a miser and serves that which is his own, \"which his own\nfingers have made,\" instead of compelling it to serve him. He is not\nless degraded when he exalts over himself a thing owned by another and\nserves it. The ownership of another does not change the nature of the\nthing. One can serve his neighbor's idol as truly as he can his own.\n\nThere is nothing above man but God. His fellow man is by his side, his\nequal, and all other material creations are beneath his feet, and he\nis not to permit his fellow man to lift up the inferior thing and\nplace it above him. If he does he must step down from the pinnacle on\nwhich he was placed by his God and which his own consciousness demands\nhe shall occupy.\n\n\"Shall the ax boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall\nthe saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod\nshould shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff\nshould lift up itself, as if it were no wood.\" Isaiah 10:15.\n\nIf he serves the borrowed ax and saw for the claim that the ax and saw\nhave against him, he admits his debt to things and Isaiah's ridicule\nof an idolater can be turned against him and he steps down from the\nposition of conscious inborn dignified lordship and becomes a servant\nof the inferior things.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nEQUAL RIGHTS OF MEN.\n\n\nAll men have sacred rights that must be regarded. That these rights\nare equal is so familiar and stale an expression that it hardly need\nbe spoken. \"All men are created equal,\" each having rights, that are\ninalienable, and each having the right to resist the encroachment on\nhis rights by another. To protect these rights governments are\ninstituted.\n\nThe vital energy of a man is his own and his right to it must be\nregarded. Since the abolition of chattel slavery this has been\nindefeasible except for crime.\n\nHe has a right to his own vital energy and to all that his own vital\nforce produces. He has a right to his property inherited, earned, or\nhowever secured, except by fraud. He has no claim against the vital\nenergy of his fellow man, nor has he any claim whatever against the\nproperty of another.\n\nThe working man needs capital. His vital energy must waste unless\nthere is material upon which it may be expended. There must be the\ntree, land or material in some form, upon which he can work. But give\nhim the world raw and unsubdued and he can transform it again as he\nhas. He can build again everything on land and sea, the farms, towns,\nand cities, and the floating palaces. He can again dig out the mines\nand refine the silver and gold, mould the clay, smelt the ore and\nshape the iron. His needs and his power, however, give him no claim to\nthe property of another.\n\nThe man of property is dependent upon the laborer. He may be the owner\nof farms, forests and mines, of horses, flocks and herds, of railroads\nand oil wells, yet these will not minister to him nor serve him\nwithout the laborer. His coffers may be filled with gold, and his\nbarns bursting with grain and his stalls filled with fatlings, yet all\nthis wealth is useless and lost, unless touched with the vital energy\nof an intelligent laborer. But his dependence and losses give him no\nright to the labor of another.\n\nHe has no right, no just claim, to the services of another man, his\nequal. All his wealth cannot confer the right. Wealth is but a thing,\nin itself without rights, and can therefore add nothing to the rights\nof its owner.\n\nHe may however use his wealth to command service by might, but not by\nright. A club is but a thing having no will and no rights, yet in the\nhands of a savage it adds greatly to his power and may be used by him\nto oppress another of his tribe. A ruffian with his gun meeting a\ndefenseless man may so command him, that he is ready for the most\nabject obedience. An armed highwayman may compel a brave man \"to stand\nand deliver.\" So a man may use his property to secure the service of\nanother but it gives him no right to that service.\n\nThe usurer, who has himself no rights against his fellows, uses a\nthing, his property, as an instrument or weapon to command service.\n\nHe may place his hand upon every material thing another must have, and\nwithhold it, and the other is shut up and compelled, he has no\nalternative. He must yield to the demands or suffer. Many men are\ndriven to the last extremity before they will borrow.\n\nBut if the borrower is very willing and urgent for the loan, this does\nnot change the nature of the act. The game may be shot upon the wing\nas it is endeavoring to escape, or it may be snared in a trap by a\ntempting bait. The wild broncho may be captured in chase, or beguiled\ninto the corral.\n\nThe voluntary sacrifice of others to the usurer does not make his\ngains just. The foolish ones are now willing to invest in lottery\ntickets, yet that does not make the lottery lawful. Slot machines are\nbeing put out of the cities, because so many are ready to part with\ntheir nickels. If there were none ensnared by them, they could stand\nharmless.\n\nThe borrower may be greatly elated with the hope of gain, but the\ninjustice is the same, whether the services be secured by compelling\nforce, or by guile, or by the folly of the victim.\n\nIf we admit the supremacy of man over the material creation, all\nsubordinate to him, and no right to be, except to serve him, and also\nadmit the equal rights of all men, there is no escape from the\nconclusion that the usurer can have no rightful claims to any portion\nof the labor of the borrower, without surrendering to him some portion\nof his property as compensation for the services received. He must\nhave less property when the service is rendered and the borrower must\nhave more property if the rights of both are regarded.\n\nA false impression prevails, that the lender in some way gives the\nloan to the borrower; that the borrower becomes somewhat the owner of\nthe property. The borrower is encouraged in this illusion and it\nbecomes a plausible basis for the claim upon his services.\n\nWhen a loan is made to a bank it is called a \"deposit\" and rightly,\nfor it is only placed in the banker's hands and does not in any part\nbecome his. This is true of any amount, great or small, whether the\ndeposit draws interest or not. The lender never loses his sense of\nownership of the whole amount, nor does the banker encourage the\nfiction that he has become part owner.\n\nEvery loan is but a \"deposit.\" The ownership of no part passes to the\nborrower. It is seldom that the loan or \"deposit\" is not safer in the\nkeeping of the borrower than in the hands of the owner himself, when\nsecured by mortgages or personal sureties. The usurer gains the\nearnings of the borrower but parts with no property. He receives the\nservice but gives nothing.\n\nTwo usurers, A and B, are neighbors. A has a garden he wishes dug. He\nhas an ax but no hoe. B has wood that he wishes cut. He has a hoe but\nno ax. The laborer appears and wishes to do their work. Usurer A\nagrees to lend him his ax to cut B's wood on the condition that he\nshall return it unimpaired and work his garden for its use.\n\nHe cuts the wood, but has no hoe to dig A's garden for the use of the\nax. Usurer B now lends the laborer his hoe to dig the garden, but\ntakes the cutting of the wood for the use of the hoe. The confused\nborrower knows he is defrauded of his work, though each seems to have\na plausible claim upon him.\n\nA does not give the hoe to the laborer. He retains the full ownership\nbut deposits it in the workman's hands to be returned unimpaired. B\ndoes not give away his ax, he only places it in the laborer's hands\nalso to be returned unimpaired. The full hoe and full ax is returned\nand they have taken the services without compensation.\n\nThe result is just the same as if A and B had traded tools and A had\ngiven the laborer a hoe to dig the garden, \"the tool and the material\nwith which to work,\" and B had given him an ax to cut his wood, \"the\ntool and the material with which to work,\" without a pretence of a\npayment for his labor.\n\nTaking only a part of the borrower's or laborer's services does not\nrelieve it of injustice. The nature of the oppression is the same,\nonly less heinous and flagrant. He who took a penny belonging to\nanother is a thief as truly as the man who took a pound. Petit larceny\nand grand larceny differ only in the amount stolen. The man who takes\nthree per cent. of the labor of another wrongfully defrauds as the man\nwho takes fifty per cent. The nature of the wrong is the same; they\nonly differ in degree.\n\nIt is a well known fact, however, often repeated, that ninety-five out\nof every hundred who go into business with borrowed capital, that is,\nwho pay interest on \"their material and tools,\" do give the vigor of\ntheir lives to the service of usurers and at the end have nothing.\n\nThe element of time is only a figment that clouds the question of\nright and deceives the borrower. In order that the labor of another\nmay be appropriated it is necessary to give him time to work. The\nlaborer may dig in A's garden a day or all summer and he may chop wood\nfor B a day or all winter. The result is the same. It is necessary\nthat the borrower be given time to earn something before it is or can\nbe appropriated. The question is, how rapidly can he earn, and how\nsoon can his earnings be collected? Long time loans with the frequent\npayments of the earnings of the victim are the ideal conditions of the\nusurer.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nA FALSE BASAL PRINCIPLE.\n\n\nThat usury or interest must be held under the restraints of law is\nrecognized in nearly all countries. It is treated as a necessary evil\nthat cannot be abolished, and therefore must be controlled. Bacon\nsaid, \"It is permitted on account of the hardness of men's hearts.\"\n\nThe laws differ in the various states. The rate of interest authorized\nby a particular state is not invariably fixed, but is changed as the\ncondition of the people seems to demand.\n\nThat which determines the rate, of any particular people, at any\nparticular time, is the productive ability of the borrower. The rate\nnow in England is about three per cent. The conditions being such that\nthe productive power of the borrower is very limited. In the United\nStates, where the natural resources are not all occupied, and the\navenues for successful effort more numerous, the average is seven per\ncent. In the western states of the United States the rates are higher\nthan in the eastern, for the material resources lie so open and\nundeveloped that the productive power of the borrower is far greater\nthan in the older eastern states.\n\nThe basal for the rate of interest is the benefit or the advantage of\nthe loan to the borrower. What can the borrower do or make with this\ncapital? How great a benefit can he gain by it? The rate is based on\nthe earnings of the borrower.\n\nThe transfer from R. R. station to R. R. station across this city is\ntwenty-five cents. That I may make my train and meet my appointment,\nthat prompt and rapid transfer is of greater value to me, but that\ndoes not give the hackman the right to an increased charge.\n\nThe fare to the distant city is ten dollars, but to me, with important\nbusiness waiting and suffering, it is worth an hundred. The conductor\ndoes not ask me what my profits are to be from this trip. He collects\nthe same fare of all for the same service, whatever their interests\nmay be in the passage.\n\nThe letter which is freighted with a proposition that affects my\nfuture life is two cents. Because of great value to me the postal\nservice is no more than a letter of idle gossip.\n\nRailroad freight rates are at times arbitrarily fixed on the basis of\nthe benefit to the patron. The rates of freight from a coal mine are\nsometimes made by a railroad on the basis of the profits of operating\nthe mine. The rates to a quartz mine in the mountains are often so\nregulated. A contractor, dependent on a transportation company, must\noften share his profits. Such rates are regarded as unjust and\noppressive and efforts are made to correct the evil by law.\n\nA is crossing the city and can without inconvenience carry a note to a\nparty for B. That accommodation without sacrifice or inconvenience on\nthe part of A is no basis for a charge upon B, though the delivery of\nthe message was of value to B, but if A discovers that in delivering\nthat note he can make it a matter of business gain to himself, that\nwould not justify B in claiming a part of the profits A secured for\nhimself. While A served his own business he also favored B. It would\nbe unreasonable and unjust for B to forget the favor and make a charge\nagainst A, because in the delivery of the note A managed to gain a\nprofit.\n\nTwo farmers are without barns. It will require the labor of a number\nof years to secure the requisite amount of lumber and other material\nto enable them to erect their barns. One of the farmers undertakes to\nshelter and protect from decay the lumber of both, until the requisite\namount can be secured. This is a real favor to the other and is\naccepted readily. He even offers to pay him for the care and\nliability. But he discovers afterward that his neighbor, by wise,\ncareful and skillful piling, has made from this lumber a shelter for\nhis stock and grain. That he has so managed as to gain for himself a\nbenefit. Then, with the false principle of usury he makes a charge for\nthe keeping of the very thing for which he was willing to pay a\nprice.\n\nA gentleman not wanting his coach for a time, but wishing it to be\nkept in perfect repair, and his team fed and exercised, to be kept\nsleek and strong, leaves it in his coachman's care. The coachman\nagrees to keep from decay, and to replace should one die, and at the\nend of the term, return the coach in perfect condition, no mar or\nwear, and the team sleek and strong from good care, feed and daily\nexercise. But the coachman discovers that in the daily exercise of the\nteam he can carry a party of business men to and from their offices,\nand secure for himself a gain. He, at the end of the term, returns the\ncarriage and equipage complete as he received it. The owner has had\nhis property perfectly cared for during the term he could not use it.\nBut the owner learning of the benefit to the keeper, which would not\nhave been possible without his equipage, demands a portion of the\nbenefit which cost him nothing, nor in the least diminished his\nproperty.\n\nA gentleman has a warm, rich and beautiful robe, but is about to\ntravel a number of years among the countries of Cuba, Porto Rico, and\nthe Philippines, where he will not need it, and afterward visit\nSiberia, where he will need and use it. Another undertakes to relieve\nhim of all care of it during these years and deliver it to the\nSiberian home ready for his use. He protects it from the moths in\nsummer, and guards it against all touch or taint, and delivers it in\nthe perfect condition in which it was received. In justice he\ndeserves a reward from the owner, and if he received no benefit, would\nreceive it, but it is found that he needed it for his comfort by the\nway, and that without it he should have perished. Then the owner\ndemands a reward for the benefit the carrier received. The owner did\nno service. He received a positive benefit, but the porter, who\ncarried the burden all the way, must pay interest or rental because he\nwas kept from perishing by it.\n\nThe surprise or discovery feature is introduced into the above\nillustrations to emphasize the false basis upon which the rates of\ninterest rest. In the actual practice of usury the lender may have\nfull information as to the use of the loan and its advantages to the\nborrower. If we eliminate this feature the basis still remains\nuntenable. By no tortion of ethics can I demand that he, who does me a\nfavor, shall pay me for the privilege.\n\nA man has one thousand dollars of money he is not using. He gives it\nto another to keep or place in a drawer in his vault. To care for this\nand be responsible for it, a commission is allowed, for it is no\nbenefit to the keeper. Even an amount is asked for the drawer in the\nvault, without responsibility. To care for this a term of years is\ndeserving of a reward. But now keeping the property equally safe, and\nreturning every dollar when the owner calls for it, is not\nsatisfactory to the usurer. If this money has in any way proved a\nbenefit to the keeper, through his wisdom and energy and skill, he\ndemands an increase. What is this loan worth to you? is the question\nof the usurer to the borrower.\n\nThe basis of legal interest rates is the amount of benefit the\nborrower gains by the loan. If his opportunities in a state are\nfavorable, and he may by diligence make a large gain, the rates are\nhigh. If in another state his opportunities are so limited that,\nstrive as he may, he can make little gain, the legal rates will be\nlow.\n\nThe basis is so absurd that many have urged the repeal of all laws\nregulating the rates of interest. \"Why should the laws presume to\nlevel the rates for a whole state? The possibilities and opportunities\nof gain are infinitely varied. Every borrower knows his own conditions\nand the amount of advantage the loan is to him and he should be\npermitted to pay for money whatever he is willing to pay.\"\n\nOne writer thus expresses it, \"No man of ripe years and of sound mind,\nacting freely, and with his eyes open, ought to be hindered, with a\nview to his advantage, from making such bargains in the way of\nobtaining money, as he thinks fit; nor anybody hindered from supplying\nhim upon any terms he thinks proper to accede to.\"\n\nJeremy Bentham is often quoted to prove the absurdity of all laws\nregulating the rates of interest, and yet all his elaborate arguments\nare based on this false principle.\n\nIf usury is wrong only when the borrower can make no profit, and is\nright whenever the borrower can make a gain by it, and the rate of\ninterest is to be measured by that gain, then all laws are illogical\nthat limit the rate, and may be classed among those restraining\ntrade.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nTHE TRUE ETHICAL PRINCIPLE.\n\n\nThe true ethical principle that should govern the relation between the\nowner of property and the person holding that property as a loan, does\nnot differ from the principle that is recognized as prevailing in all\nthe other relations of life. The party to whom the service is rendered\nis under obligation. The party served is the one who must pay for the\nservice. The party served must pay in proportion to the amount of\nservice rendered him. If that service is great, then the payment must\nbe large. If the service is slight, then the payment is small, and\nwhen there is no service then no payment can be claimed.\n\nThis principle is recognized in all worthy and upright transactions.\nIt is the service rendered that is rewarded in a court of justice. An\nemploye recovers his wages from his employer for his services\nrendered. The condition of the employer's business does not enter into\nthe count. It may have been unprofitable or a great success but that\ncannot affect the claim either way.\n\nA physician charges for the services given a patient. The recovery or\ndeath of the patient can neither increase nor diminish them.\n\nIn service we always surrender something of ourselves or of our own,\nand each knows the sacrifice or effort he has made; he cannot know the\nvalue of this to the other, and he need not know. Full compensation is\ndue from the party served but no compensation is due when no service\nis given nor property surrendered.\n\nThe usurer's whole claim is for the service of his property. But he\ndoes not surrender a particle of his wealth. He does not become poorer\nin making his loan. He holds all his wealth as fully as before,\nwhether it be a loan of money or grains or tools. There has been no\noutgo of property for which, in any other relation, he could claim a\nreward or compensation from his fellow. He simply deposits his\nproperty with his fellow and takes security for its safe keeping. It\nmust be preserved perfectly and restored fully.\n\nWhen we consider the true principle, that compensation is due always\nfor services rendered, the obligation is upon the lender for the care\nand preservation of his property. The borrower in any and every case\ngives a real and valuable service in preservation and restoration at\nthe end of the term, while the lender renders no personal service nor\ndoes he part with a particle of his wealth.\n\nThere is always a service rendered in caring for and preserving the\nproperty of another. It may be very great or it may be very small. It\nmay be so great that no one would undertake it though the property\nshould be freely given him.\n\nIn 1800 the \"Faithful Steward\" was wrecked in Delaware bay near the\nshore. It had on board a large number of passengers, emigrants, who\nnearly all perished. Few lives were saved and all the property was\nlost. One young man, of the kin of the writer, swam ashore through the\nbreakers. Before he left the vessel an old man offered him a stocking\nfull of gold if he cared to try and save it. Though young and vigorous\nhe would not undertake to try to save it for it. This was an extreme\ncase of risk and danger.\n\nIn another extreme case the service may be very small, reduced to the\nminimum, for instance, caring for the gold of another by locking it up\nin a fire and burglar-proof safe. For this simple service a\ncomparatively small charge is made. But caring for the property of\nanother is always some service that earns a reward great or small.\n\nThe nature of the service is not changed and the principle still holds\nwhen the deposit is made with a person who gives ample pledges for its\nfull return; the principle still holds when the deposit is made in a\nfarm and secured there by mortgage, making it safer than in the iron\nvault.\n\nThe true ethical principle, equity between man and man, requires that\nthe holder of the property of another shall be compensated by the\nowner of the property for his services in caring for and preserving\nit. The amount of compensation depends on the difficult or favorable\nconditions attending its care. These conditions greatly vary, perhaps\nin no two cases are exactly alike, and so there can be no fixed price\nor rate at which one will receive and care for the property of\nanother. The extreme limit of liberality permitted is that he may care\nfor the property of another for nothing. He is not permitted to pay a\nprice for the privilege. The revealed divine law, true ethics and\nequity and duty of self preservation forbid him. Perfect preservation\nof any amount, large or small, for any time, long or short, whatever\nthe incidental advantages to the borrower, is the highest compensation\na borrower is permitted to give for any loan. The demand for more than\nthis by the owner is to be resisted as unjust and oppressive.\n\nAn express company receives a package of money for which it receipts\nand becomes responsible and agrees to deliver to the owner at some\ndistant point. For this service it receives compensation in accordance\nwith the amount of service. If the conditions are dangerous and the\ndistance great the charge is large. If the conditions are very\nfavorable and safe the charges are small.\n\nIf the amount of service is reduced to the minimum, in rare cases, no\ncharge may be made. But that a price should be paid for the privilege\nof caring for and conveying it, is inconsistent with the management\nof an honest business. The purpose would be either to rob the owner of\nhis wealth or to rob the employes of their services.\n\nAn insurance company undertakes to protect a property for a term of\nyears, to a distant date. A rate is given for protection from a single\nelement, as fire. If all destructive agents are included the rate is\nhigher. The rate is higher for a long than a short period. All the\nbusiness world recognize the value of this service and nearly every\nkind of property may now be insured. The premium is cheerfully paid by\nthe owner of the property for the service rendered him. It is a real\nand valuable service to have his property protected, preserved, or\nrestored, so that it cannot be lost before the distant date. It is\nconceivable that a property might be so indestructible that the risk\nwould be practically nothing and a policy might be issued without a\npremium, but that a price should be paid for the privilege of\nprotecting any property is utterly inconsistent with rational\ninsurance.\n\nNow usury presumes to reverse this ethical order and requires that the\ninsurance company shall pay the owner of the property for the\nprivilege of protecting it. Under usury the property given into the\ncare of another, and called a loan, must be perfectly protected and\npreserved by the borrower, restored if lost, and returned in full to\nthe owner at the agreed distant date, and a price paid for the\nprivilege of performing the service.\n\nThe true ethical principle and equity in the relations between the\nowner of a property and the one who holds, protects and preserves it,\nrequire that the owner shall render to the holder a just compensation.\nThis will vary in different conditions, it may be very small, it may\nin rare cases be entirely eliminated; but they also utterly forbid\nthat the party rendering the service shall pay for the privilege of\nserving.\n\nOne may submit to an injustice in order to gain an advantage. He can\ndo better for himself by submitting than by resisting. His employer\nmay be hard and oppressive but this is the best job he can get and he\nholds on, but that does not justify the oppressions of the employer up\nto the breaking point. It may be to the advantage of a borrower to\nsubmit to the exactions of usury, that is, he may gain more wealth by\nborrowing upon interest than not, but that does not relieve usury of\nits oppression up to the breaking point when it can no longer be\nendured. There is no better ethical basis for low interest than high\ninterest. Low rates of interest are oppressions that may be suffered\nor endured for a possible gain, but high rates are intolerable. The\nprinciple is the same whatever the rate of interest, whether it be low\nor high. They only differ in the degrees of their severity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nWEALTH IS BARREN.\n\n\nThat wealth can produce wealth is the assumption of Shylock.\n\nShylock--\"When Jacob grazed his Uncle Laban's sheep--\n          This Jacob from our holy Abraham was\n          The third possessor; ay, he was the third.\"\n\nAntonio--\"And what of him? Did he take interest?\"\n\nShylock--\"No, not take interest; not as you would say,\n          Directly interest. Mark what Jacob did.\" * * *\n\nAntonio--\"This was a venture, sir, that Jacob served for;\n          A thing not in his power to bring to pass--\n          But swayed and fashioned by the hand of Heaven.\n          Was this inserted to make interest good?\n          Or is your gold and silver, ewes and rams?\"\n\nShylock--\"I can not tell; I make them breed as fast.\"\n\n                           --_Merchant of Venice._\n\nIt is only intelligent energy that can produce wealth. Even the\nnatural resources must be subdued and shaped by intelligent energy to\nbe of service to man. Trees do not betake themselves into the form of\nhouses. Land does not transform itself into farms and gardens. Coal\ndoes not come to our fires without hands. Ore is not iron, nor is clay\npottery. They must be carefully manipulated by the intelligent\nlaborer.\n\nNothing man can make has the power of self propagation. All wealth is\nas barren as silver and gold, though Shylock claimed he could make\nthem breed like ewes and rams. Life alone is productive, and the\nsecrets of life man has not touched.\n\nA tree or animal grows by the life that is in it, but the accretions\nof wealth are from the efforts of intelligent energy outside of\nitself. Wealth is an effect, a result. The vital energy of a person,\nof \"a willing intelligent being\" produces wealth, but it does not\nfollow that it has the qualities of its cause. It has no intelligence,\nnor has it self-determining power, nor is it vital, nor has it energy,\nit has not in itself the force to overcome its inertia, the energy\nmust be applied. It has no power to increase or grow. A fortune is\nbuilt, as a building is built, brick after brick is added by\nintelligent hands.\n\nAll wealth must have the living hands applied to cause it to increase\neven the smallest amount. There is no such thing as \"productive\"\ncapital. It is so called when it is used to gather and appropriate the\nearnings of others, but wealth in none of its forms has the quality or\npower of producing.\n\nMoney, the most familiar form, is barren. A bag of dollars stored for\nages will not have increased a single coin. No one holds or handles\nmoney on the assumption that it will increase in his hands. Money is a\ncare, and the broker who holds or handles it relies for his\ncompensation, not on the increase of the dollars in his hands, but on\nthe increase from some producer to whom he lends it. If there is no\nborrower he takes a direct commission from the amount itself, as\ntrustee or administrator or custodian.\n\nMoney is readily exchanged for any other property. Money has a number\nof functions but in exchange it is a medium by which the value of\narticles is conveyed. It takes the place of the bags which conveyed\nthe wheat, of the crates which contained the potatoes, of the baskets\nwhich carried the peaches, and the wrapping which held the cotton or\nthe wool.\n\nCol. Irish, who was chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing at\nWashington, when he died, and under whose administration the present\nbuilding was erected, at one time sent to the wife of the writer a ten\ndollar bill, wrapped up so that it looked like a picture, cabinet\nsize; this was accompanied by a note, to be opened first. In this note\nhe said he took pleasure in sending her an excellent likeness of our\nlate lamented president, which he would be pleased to have her accept.\nIf she should prefer it in some other form, it was a peculiarity of\nthis likeness that it would change instantly at the will of the holder\ninto any form desired; that this was the peculiarity that troubled\nhim, as he had been unable to decide what would please her best, and\nhad finally decided to send it in this form, and let her change it\ninto any other she might like better.\n\nMoney is a peculiar medium which will hold and carry the value of\nanything. You pour in your wheat and take it to the merchant, who\nempties your wheat and fills it with clothes, he carries it to the\ndealer in any article needed and the vessel is instantly emptied and\nrefilled.\n\nThe values of the products of laborers in the various occupations of\nlife or the products of the various climates are thus readily\nexchanged by money, but the gain is not in the money. The art in trade\nis to study and know the products and needs of the laborers of one\nclass or country, and the varied products and needs of the producers\nof another class or local community. The skill in trade is in\nsupplying the needs of one from the products of the other.\n\nThe profit in trade is the gain from securing for an article a greater\nportion of the product of those whose needs are supplied, than was\ngiven to those who produced it. The harvester cost the manufacturer\ntwenty days' work. The farmer, who needs and purchases it, pays forty\ndays' work for it. The farmer may produce one hundred bushels of wheat\nwith twenty-five days' work, but the mechanics in the city, who need\nit for bread, may give twice that amount of labor for that quantity of\nwheat. There is a wide field for skill and profit in trade, when the\nproducts and needs of all classes and all lands are considered. But\nmoney does not add to wealth in trade. There is nothing produced by it\nin trade. It is but the tool by which values are conveyed, and no more\nproductive than baskets or crates or sacks. Intelligent energy\nproduces all the profits that are secured by trading.\n\nModern apologists for usury, knowing that money is unproductive\nitself, call it a tool for production, and as it can be readily\ntransformed into any tool, they try to avoid the logical conclusion\nthat the taking of interest on money is unjust and oppressive to the\nproducer.\n\nBut no tool is productive. All tools are but the reaching out of man\nfor the better control and mastery of material things.\n\nThe tool is but dead matter; the productive efficiency is in the vital\nenergy of the intelligent laborer. The most complicated and ingenious\ntool ever made is useless without the operator. It is as helpless as\nthe wire without the electric current; as helpless as the body without\nits life, for the body is but man's tool, preserved, and kept\nefficient, and made productive, by the living energy alone.\n\nTools are but the reaching out of the vital energy beyond the body.\nTools are but the means, invented and constructed, by which the man\ncan overcome his physical limitations and accomplish wonders, the\nimpossible to a creature wanting in his intelligence.\n\nThese glasses enable dim eyes to see clearly. There is no ability in\nthe glasses to see; they would be of no use on blind eyes. I see,\nthese spectacles cannot see. Enlarge and so place these lenses that I\ncan see bacteria, or the mountains of the moon, yet this microscope or\nthis telescope has no more life nor sight than this single lens. I,\nwith it, see the minute creation or examine the distant planet. It is\nbut the extension of my eye.\n\nThis pen and paper and this book are but the means by which I reach\nand reason with my fellow-men. They are but my tools to convey my\nthought. I am reasoning with you, not this paper and ink.\n\nMy hand is the natural tool with which I labor. I may work in the\ngarden and plant the seed and destroy the weeds with my hand alone,\nand there is no dispute but that I do the work. I take a small weeder\nin my hand and greatly increase my efficiency. I take a hoe and reach\nout further and greatly add to my efficiency. I am the efficient\nagent. There is no power in the weeder or the hoe. I take my plow, as\nmy tool, and I tear up the soil and prepare it for my harvest. I take\nthe complicated harvester and gather it into my barn. In every part of\nthat process the tool is but the reaching out of my energy beyond my\nbody. There is no place where that tool becomes vitalized and\nproductive.\n\nI am a porter, I carry packages in my hands. To increase my efficiency\nI build me a cart, and smooth a roadway, by which I am able to carry\nmore and heavier packages with ease. I construct a roadway across the\ncontinent, and with the power which I employ I carry the commerce of\nthe nation. I build ships and direct them from continent to continent\nand handle the commerce of the world. Now there is no place from this\nsimple carriage in the hand, to the complicated and stupendous system\nof transportation, where the tool is not wholly dependent on the vital\nintelligent energy.\n\nWhen the vital principle leaves this body, then hands, eyes and the\nwhole body is helpless. Withdraw the vital energy from these means by\nwhich man extends his power beyond the body, and all the implements of\nagriculture will not produce a harvest, and the wheels of commerce on\nland and sea would instantly stop.\n\nThere is no place in the most complicated machine where it begins to\nproduce. The machine may show the greatest ingenuity in its invention\nand the perfection of skill in its construction, and the intelligence\nnecessary to its operation may be reduced to the minimum, yet no where\nand at no time can it produce of itself.\n\nWhen a criminal is arraigned in court the responsibility is placed\nupon the person, the intelligent energy, always. It matters not by\nwhat tools the burglary or other criminal act was committed. The man\nwho handled the tools is held accountable for the results. His tools\nmay show the greatest ingenuity and the highest skill in their\nconstruction but they do not share his guilt. He is the efficient and\nresponsible cause. If this were not so justice could be so perverted\nthat the preservation of the order and the security of society would\nbe impossible.\n\nEvery tool is itself produced, and its maker must be rewarded or paid\nonce, but there the claim for the tool ends. The laborer who\nconstructs the machine cannot demand repayment over and over. The\nskilled mechanic who produced this pair of lenses must be paid, but he\nhas no claim for second payment. To secure repayment he must make\nanother pair. The maker of this pen and this paper must be paid, but\nthat ends his claim. The maker of the hoe or cart or engine must have\nthe reward he has earned, but can prefer no second claim.\n\nThere is no question when the laborer makes and owns his own tool. The\nlabor of constructing the tool must be rewarded as well as the laborer\nin its operation.\n\nWhen the tools are complicated and require the skill of many, the\nmakers of the machine are usually different persons from the laborers\nwho operate it. In this case the payment of all must come from the\nfinished product. Those who constructed the machine and those who\noperate it must be paid by the consumers.\n\nIf the shoe plant is built and operated, then from the shoes produced\nmust come the payment for all. The workmen who built the plant and the\nengines and machinery for the manufacture of the different parts of\nthe shoe, must be paid by the consumer of shoes. The workmen who built\nthe plant must be as fully compensated as those who operate it, but\nbeing compensated, they have no claim for recompensation for the same\nwork. To be paid again they must build a new plant. The operators must\nbe compensated for every shoe they make, but they can not reclaim\npayment over and over again. To receive more pay they must make more\nshoes.\n\nBoth classes of laborers have a right to full compensation for all the\nlabor performed. Neither party has a right to demand a second payment\nfor the same labor.\n\nIt would be manifestly as unjust for the constructors of the plant to\ncompel the operators to pay them over and over again, as it would be\nfor the operators of the machine, having supplied the community with\nshoes, to demand payment over and over without making another shoe.\nThe shoes will wear out, so will the machines. It is as unreasonable\nfor the first class of laborers to compel the operators of their\nmachinery to keep the same in repair, as for the operators to compel\ntheir customers to keep their shoes in perfect condition. For the\nfirst laborers to receive a new payment they must build a new plant,\nand for the operators to receive a new payment they must make new\nshoes.\n\nThe confusion of ideas comes in when there intervenes a third party\nbetween these two classes of laborers. This third party meets the\ndemands of the class of laborers who build the plant and machines,\nfrom hoarded wealth, and then exacts payment from those who operate\nit. This is then called productive capital, but it is no more\nproductive than the money in the bank vault. The producing, so called,\nis but the exacting of a part of that which the operators produce. It\nis the exacting of payment that never pays. The operators are\ncompelled to be forever buying, yet the plant is never bought. The\ncapitalist is forever selling, yet the plant is never sold.\n\nUsually, the usurer is a fourth party that stands yet behind the third\nparty, taking no risks, demanding complete security for his loan and\nalso an increase out of the products of the operators. The third party\nassumes all care and guarantees against all losses and depends for his\ncompensation on a portion of the product after the demands of the\nfourth party are satisfied. This third party may be an active\nproducer. All that he receives may be fully earned in care, oversight\nand management of the business of the plant.\n\nBut the fourth party can have no claim for his services, he has no\npart in the production. The absurdity, the figment that his capital is\nproductive, is introduced to cover the evident fraud of appropriating,\nwithout compensation, a portion of the products of the operators. He\nhas no more claim to an increase of his capital year by year and a\ndoubling in a term of years, than the laborers who built it have to\nthe same plant, perfect and unworn at the end of a term, and in\naddition, another plant equal in every respect. They built but one,\nthey have no claim upon a second. For the usurer, who takes their\nplace, to double his wealth, and yet the debt be undischarged, is a\nflagrant fraud.\n\nThe underlying falsehood is that wealth changes its nature when put in\nthe hands of a live man and becomes productive. It is acknowledged\nthat wealth lying in the vault is barren and at the same time it is\nclaimed that it produces in the hands of an intelligent agent. But it\nis the same dead, helpless, barren thing wherever it may be found and\nwhatever form it may be made to take. The dollar taken from the vault\nand exchanged for a hoe does not receive this new quality. The hoe is\nas dead as the dollar. When this hoe is in the hands of the workman it\nis the same barren thing is was before he picked it up. These glasses\nare precisely the same when astride my nose as when lying on the\ntable. It is not true that wealth in any form, though it be that of a\nuseful tool, takes on this new quality or attribute when in the hands\nof a live man.\n\nA man's labor is more productive with suitable tools than without\nthem. The same energy will secure far greater returns. If it were not\nso he would not trouble to make tools or use them. But to call tools\nproductive agents and so reward them is to rob intelligent energy,\nskill and inventive genius of that which they alone can produce. This\ndegrades the man to the level of the tool or exalts the tool to the\nheight of its maker.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nWEALTH DECAYS.\n\n\nAll man-made wealth is subject to inevitable decay. Aristotle said,\n\"Labor produces all wealth,\" but the product has no sooner left the\nlaborer's hands than it begins to perish. The vital energy that\nproduced it must follow to preserve it from the ravages of time.\n\nTake the life, the vital part, from the body, and corruption begins.\nSo with all that has been produced, withdraw the vital force and ruin\nimmediately follows. The vital energy must ever be present and active\nto preserve it.\n\nFruits and grains and provisions of all kinds for human food rapidly\nperish. The laborer must be continually active, producing and\npreserving, or the race would be starving in a fortnight. Even the\nmiraculously bestowed manna became corrupt in a night. It had to be\ngathered day by day.\n\nFlocks and herds need the shepherd's care. They are subject to disease\nand natural enemies and are short lived, so that however large and\nstrong, and healthy the herd of cattle, or the flock of sheep, it\nwould be soon scattered and lost to the owner without watchful care.\n\nTools and instruments of production, great or small, if used, soon\nneed to be renewed, or if unused perish even sooner. Neglected they\nspeedily decay. The locomotive left unattended on the track would soon\nbe utterly useless from the destructive elements of rain and heat,\nfrosts and sunshine.\n\nThe palace, that floats on the ocean, would be a prey to barnacles, to\nwinds and waves, to shoals and rocks, and would soon disappear,\nwithout the constant hand of intelligent vital energy to direct and\npreserve it. Houses untenanted and uncared for soon decay. Leaks\nunstopped, broken windows unrepaired, and vermin unrestrained, soon\nmake them unfit for habitation. Farms and plantations go back speedily\nto weeds and wilderness when uncultivated. Great cities like Babylon\nand Nineveh are soon so covered with dust that we have to dig to find\ntheir ruins.\n\nDecay is written over every form of man-made wealth. There is needed\nconstantly the touch of the laborer for its preservation.\n\nGold, silver and precious stones are the least subject to decay. They\nare not, however, made, but found, and simply refined and polished.\nThe indestructibility of silver and gold have made them the money\nmetals of the world, quite as much as their rarity, their beauty and\nmalleability. In them wealth could be stored and moth and rust would\nnot corrupt.\n\nBut even gold and silver will disappear. The thief will break through\nand steal. They must be, therefore, carefully guarded. The tax or levy\nof the government for its part in the protection must be met, so that\neven gold and silver must also gradually slip away.\n\nDecay is upon all wealth and the hand of the laborer must be ever\npresent for its preservation.\n\nThis law is universal. Even the Divine Creator must continue to uphold\nhis creation. His sustaining hand cannot be withdrawn. He must\npreserve by his power and ever guide and direct, or disorder and chaos\nwill ensue.\n\nUsury or interest presumes to ignore this order of nature and demands\nnot only that the borrower shall resist this tendency of capital to\ndecay, but shall also pay a price for the privilege.\n\nThat any one should undertake to care for and preserve the property of\nanother without compensation is unreasonable, but that any one should\nvoluntarily pay a premium for the privilege can only be explained by\nmisguided judgment or a perverted moral sense.\n\nNo one would be responsible for, and care for and pay tax upon the\nmoney of another and himself get from it no return. Trustees and\nadministrators receive, and feel they earn, a commission for this\ncaring for the property of others.\n\nWhen this wealth is in the form of a tool, or manufacturing plant, the\nresponsibility is greater. The owner asks that it be preserved\nperfectly. There must be no decline in value, from new improved\nmachinery, and all accidents must be made good; if destroyed by fire,\nit must be rebuilt. To take this for a year or term of years, is a\nresponsibility no one would feel justified in assuming in justice to\nhimself. He would be using his own vital force to preserve the\nperishable property of another.\n\nA man has a farm, fertile and well improved, and well stocked. He is\nto be absent for a time. He asks as a favor that another watch it with\ncare, preserve the stock in condition, if any die, replace them, and\nin short, so preserve that he shall have the farm at his return, just\nas fertile, the stock just as young and valuable, the implements\nunworn and no signs of decay on the buildings; if any burn, rebuild\nthem. This would be a favor only the kindest and weakest of neighbors\nor friends would undertake, and what no man would be justified in\nasking of another. This is loaning without interest and this is the\nborrower, who pays only the principal and no increase.\n\nThe usurer says, Care for my property and pay me for the opportunity.\nKeep it intact. Make good every loss and return to me an increase\nwhich you by your energy and effort may produce.\n\nThe rates of interest greatly vary. The average in the United States\nis about seven per cent., by statistics of the government only\nrecently issued. At seven per cent., interest paid annually or added\nto debt for ten years, the debt is doubled.\n\nThe usurer or interest taker says, You take this hundred dollars and\ncare for it for me for ten years and then bring me two hundred\ndollars. Take this wheat and this corn and in ten years bring me back\njust twice the amount. Take these horses and these sheep and cattle\nand care for them for ten years and return them just as good as they\nare now, and other horses, cattle and sheep in equal number, which you\nhave produced in these ten years.\n\nTake this shop with all its tools and implements and care for it so\nthat in ten years you can return it to me in as perfect order as now,\nand also build me with your labor and energy another shop, just like\nit, and equip it in every way just as complete as this, and on my\nreturn give both to me. Take this farm, fertile as it is, with its\nbuildings and animals and implements, and preserve them perfectly, not\na thing shall decay or decline in value; make good every loss, and at\nthe end of ten years return it to me and also another farm which you\nhave earned during these ten years, of equal acreage and fertility,\nequally improved with live stock and implements.\n\nThe usurer gains the preservation of his own perishable property, and\nhe gains also the product of the vital force of his victim.\n\nThis law of decay is a natural limitation to the accumulation of any\nproducer. As decay begins at once, a part of the vital energy must be\nexpended in the preservation of that already produced. As the\naccumulations increase, more energy is required for its preservation,\nand less remains for active production. Time does not relax his work\nof ruin, and the resisting energy must be constant. The tendency to\ndecay is such that soon the energy required to preserve that already\ngained leaves none to produce, and the accumulations must cease.\n\nTo this point the rich fool in the parable had come. He had abundance\naccumulated and the problem was to preserve it, until he could consume\nit. \"This will I do, I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and\nthere will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my\nsoul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine\nease, eat, drink, and be merry.\"\n\nThe usurer hands his goods to another to build the barns and keep for\nhim, while he is free from its care; and, more, he requires of his\nvictim not only that he shall preserve, resisting all decay, but that\nhe shall actually pay him for the privilege.\n\nHad the rich fool not lived in his day, when usury was a crime, but in\nthis age of folly, he would have apportioned his goods among his\nfoolisher neighbors upon interest, to keep for him, and then not only\nhe, for \"many years,\" but his posterity forever, could be at ease,\neating, drinking, and making merry. The silly borrowers would supply\nall the needs of his endowed family, for the privilege of caring for\nthe goods.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nTHE DEBT HABIT.\n\n\nThe debt habit of mind is the disposition or tendency to look to\nthings we have not as necessary to our success: To yearn for other\nopportunities and other means than those we have in our hands: To feel\nhelpless without them and willing to incur debt to secure them. The\nindependent, self-reliant disposition takes account of its own powers\nand opportunities and means, and plans with these to accomplish the\nvery most. This old self-reliant, independent spirit, that scorned\ndebt, has largely passed away. To incur debt is now the common habit\nand has become respectable.\n\nAll evil-doers encourage and stimulate the particular fashion or habit\nor appetite or passion on which they thrive. Usury thrives on debt. If\nno one was in debt then usurers would be harmless. It is this debt\nhabit that gives them the large field for their operations and secures\nto them their harvest.\n\nThe agreement to pay interest preserves for a time the feeling of\nindependence that would be wounded by receiving a loan as a favor.\nThere is usually a feeling of joy and elation in the borrower that\nconfidence in him is so great, and his credit is so high, that he can\nbe entrusted with a loan.\n\nBy incurring a debt there seems to promise the opening up of\nopportunities that have been denied, and a possible field for the\nsuccessful exertion of his pent up energies.\n\nThe present intended use of the loan, too, seems so attractive and\nprofitable, and the buoyant, hopeful spirit does not doubt that the\nloan can be easily and promptly repaid.\n\nThe temptations to debt do not come to the vicious and idle and\nworthless, but to the most worthy, industrious, talented, reliable and\nenterprising, those who will be the most productive in their fields of\neffort. Its very approach is flattering and therefore so hard to\nresist.\n\nA bright, intelligent, noble young man with high aims and worthy\npurposes yearns for an education, but the opportunities seem to be\ndenied him; but there is a fund at low interest at his service.\n\nA lively, energetic young man, with industrious and economical habits,\nis anxious to engage in business; his youth, character and energy\nbring the loan to his feet.\n\nThe young man with pure yearning for domestic life and a home, with a\nreputation that is above reproach and of commendable energy and\nthrift, has a home pressed upon him, to be paid for in long-time\npayments. He can fill it with furniture \"on the installment plan.\"\nWith intellectual taste, he can fill his library with just the books\nhe desires \"on the installment plan.\" Is he musical in his taste, he\ncan fill his parlor with musical instruments \"on the installment\nplan.\" His needs and tastes can all be gratified at once by incurring\ndebt. To avoid debt there must be a determined and unremitted effort\nto resist. Few have been able to escape. The aggregate of private\nindebtedness can not be told.\n\nFew manufacturing plants are free from debt. They are usually carrying\nall the load their credit enables them to secure. Railroads and other\ncorporations are under bonded debts that tax their trade to the utmost\nto sustain.\n\nCounties and municipalities have caught the contagious habit. Bonds\nare issued to build school houses, town halls, viaducts, water-works,\nand pave streets.\n\nThere lies on this table a list of all the cities in this great land,\nthe United States, with their number of inhabitants and their bonded\ndebts. There are but six small cities in the long list without debt.\nIn some the amount is enormous, the city debt in cases running up to\none hundred and one hundred and fifty, and two hundred dollars per\ninhabitant. That is, there is a city debt on each man, woman and child\nof two hundred dollars. On this amount interest must be paid, twelve\ndollars per year, one dollar per month for every man, woman and\nchild.\n\nThere lies also on the table a report of the financial condition of\nthe nearest great city. It is rendered in a cheerful mood and declares\nthe city's credit \"tip top.\" The indebtedness is eight millions, but\nthe assessed valuation of the city is so high that two million more\nbonds can be issued before the limit of indebtedness is reached as\nestablished by the general law. This is regarded as a most favorable\nshowing and the assurance is given that all the contemplated public\nimprovements can be pushed without interruption. There is no thought\nof stopping until the extreme limit is reached.\n\nThis habit extends to the churches and benevolent enterprises. There\nis scarcely a church that is not paying interest on some debt. Local\nsocieties are often greatly hindered in their work. A benevolent\nagency of one of the largest and richest denominations issued a\npiteous appeal to their constituents for help, declaring that the\ninterest on their debts amounted to one thousand dollars per week.\n\nThe debt habit has seized the nations and the most enlightened. This\nis so true that debts are, in pleasantry, spoken of as a sign of a\nnation's progress. These aggregate billions are rapidly increasing.\n\nThe Chancellor of the Exchequer says the debt of England was reduced\nfive hundred millions in twenty years. To the astonishment of all the\nworld, the United States began to pay her debt, eighteen hundred\nmillion, in thirty years. But these stand alone among the nations.\nThe national debts do not grow less, but are rapidly increasing. Both\nthe United States and England are now increasing their indebtedness\neach year.\n\nThe world has gone debt mad. It has become a great harvest field, ripe\nfor the usurers.\n\nDebts may at times be unavoidable. They may at times be positively\nbeneficial. There may be times when the system is in such a condition\nthat it is necessary to take arsenic in small doses, but arsenic has\nno place in the menu of a healthy man. So debts may be necessary to\nthose who have fallen into decay or have been unfortunate, but they\nshould find no place in the normally healthy financial conditions of\nan individual or incorporation or nation.\n\nDebts make no man the richer. A man is no richer when he has secured a\nloan, than he was before. Paying debts makes no man poorer. He but\nrelieves himself of the property of another.\n\nPaying a national debt destroys no wealth. If owed at home, it is but\na transfer from one hand or pocket to another.\n\nAdjusting the world's debts, private, corporate, municipal, or\nnational, the world would remain as rich and productive. Not a\nmaterial thing would perish. No man would suffer the loss of any right\nor of any property, but it would be the destruction of the device by\nwhich the usurers appropriate to themselves the productions of\nothers.\n\nFreed from this debt habit of mind, and the independent, self-reliant\ndisposition replaced, this anomalous condition would disappear; the\nproducer would receive again his full earnings and the great army of\nparasites, that has grown up, and that feed so richly on the labors of\nothers, would be compelled to turn producers or perish.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nTHE BORROWER IS SERVANT TO THE LENDER.\n\n\nSolomon's declaration that, \"The borrower is servant to the lender,\"\nwas spoken without reference to usury. Loaning upon increase was not\nlawful in his day, and was condemned by him in his proverb, \"He that\nby usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it\nfor him that will have pity on the poor.\"\n\nA loan binds the borrower to the lender though he pay no increase.\nThere comes a sense of subserviency and subordination that can not be\nthrown off.\n\nHe becomes steward of another's goods, and frees the owner of their\ncare, but they remain subject to the owner's order. The preservation\nof goods hinder any great accumulation by any single producer, but if\nhe can be freed from its care, then all his energies can be used to\ncontinue production. Many find it as hard to keep property as it is to\nearn it.\n\nThe hunter or fisherman takes with him his lackey to carry his game.\nIf game is plentiful and the hunter successful, he would, otherwise,\nsoon be compelled to discontinue his hunt from the burden of fish and\ngame. But, freed from that care and burden, he can continue his hunt\nindefinitely. So, the borrower, even when he pays no interest, as a\nlackey, without wages, cares for the earnings of the lender, leaving\nhim free to continue his earning unhindered.\n\nA valet cares for the clothes of his master until he calls for them.\nThe borrower, without interest, as a valet, without pay, cares for the\ngoods of the lender until he needs them.\n\nThe independent spirit of the borrower is not immediately lost. The\nservile spirit and conscious sense of bondage may not be felt at once.\nLikely the first sensation on receiving a loan is an elation bordering\non ecstasy.\n\nThe poor man who is offered a loan is usually greatly delighted. There\nis hope of relief from the limitations and restraints that have been\nas a wall round about him. The loan seems to throw down these walls\nand give him an opportunity to secure greater results and achieve\nsuccess. But the delight is transient and the sense of greater liberty\nis brief. The prison walls are down, but the debt holds him like a\nball and chain. He has only exchanged one restraint for another worse;\nhe has leaped from the pan into the fire. The spirit loses its\nhopefulness and independence and becomes servile and cringing.\n\nMilton represents our first parents, after their first sin, as\nintoxicated in delight, but the consciousness of their degradation and\nshame soon followed. So the first sensation from a loan is of relief\nand hope; the future looks bright, but the sense of subjection to the\nlender is sure to follow.\n\nHe forfeits the free, independent, self-reliant spirit that scorns\ndependence upon any man. He only looks the whole world in the face,\nwho owes no man a cent.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nUSURY ENSLAVES THE BORROWER.\n\n\nTimon of Athens said, \"No usurer, but has a fool for a slave.\"\n\nThe borrower without usury loses his free and independent spirit and\nbecomes cringing and servile, but when interest is paid it increases\nthe severity of the servile service.\n\nThe lackey must not only care for the game taken, but he must add to\nthe bag from his own hunting. He not only cares for the fish his\nmaster caught but must add to the basket from his own catching. The\nvalet must not only perfectly preserve the clothes of his master, but\nmust add to his wardrobe.\n\nThe borrower of the usurer must protect and preserve every farthing in\nvalue of the property or goods, and must also increase the amount.\n\nThe estimate put upon the mental condition of the person who will\nsubmit to such an imposition, by \"Timon of Athens,\" must be admitted\nas fairly just, for a heathen. From the almost universal practice of\nusury, and the vast numbers enslaved, we must also admit that Solomon,\nthe wisest man that ever lived, knew what he was saying, when he slyly\ncalled us all fools in his proverb, \"A wise man's heart is at his\nright hand but a fool's heart is at his left.\"\n\nThe object of the usurer in making a loan is to secure the service of\nthe borrower; it may be called a favor, an opportunity, an\naccommodation, but that is its purpose and its effect. It may be\ncalled capital or a tool for production, but the appropriation of the\nservice of the borrower is the result sought and secured.\n\nTo secure the service of a horse, there must be an outgo of wealth in\nits purchase price and in its harness and the vehicle. The service\nreceived is the return, the compensation for the payment made. That is\nmoney invested and repaid in service. The price was in accordance with\nthe service the animal would be able to render. For more and better\nservice a higher price must be paid.\n\nThere must be an expenditure to secure the service of a chattel slave.\nThe purchase price must be paid and the tools and material or\nplantation must be supplied before his services are available. The\nprice paid is in accordance with a reasonable estimate of the service\nthe slave will be able to render during life. The outlay is made in\nconsideration of an equivalent in service.\n\nA loan is made for the same purpose and secures the same result. The\nprice of the horse or slave must be paid before the service can be\nclaimed. The loan must be made before there can be a pretext of a\nclaim upon the services of the borrower.\n\nThere is this difference, however, that the purchaser pays for the\nservices he expects to receive; he makes a real outlay for what is to\nbe given him. The usurer pays nothing, he does not give a farthing; he\nmakes no outlay; he merely changes the deposit from the bank vault, or\nhis strong box, to his victim, and requires from him such an ample\nsecurity that it is as safe in his hands as remaining in the vault.\nThat he has bought the service of the borrower as another bought the\nservice of the horse or chattel slave is untrue. He has given no\nequivalent. He retains every farthing of his wealth safely deposited\nwith his victim. The service he receives does not diminish the value\nof his property nor discharge any portion of his claim.\n\nThe usurer, like all those who appropriate the labors of their slaves,\nclaims that he is a real benefit to his borrower. He has given him an\nopportunity of advancement that he could not otherwise have had. He\npoints to him possibly with some degree of pride, especially if he\nseems greatly prospered. The owner of colored slaves pointed to his\nwell-fed and well-clothed and happy people, merry in their cabins, and\nmade a claim that was equally plausible; that these people are far\nbetter off and far happier than they could be in freedom.\n\nTheir well-kept, happy, care-free condition did not make them freemen.\nThey were slaves, though they may have been happy. They were slaves,\nthough they preferred bondage to being their own masters. The\nusurer's prosperous victim is not therefore a freeman. Though he\nshould prefer debt to independence, that does not make him free.\n\nNo one prefers to be in debt. Debts are chosen as the least of the\nevils. The natural resources are occupied and the opportunities of\nlife are denied. Lands and all tools of production are withheld and\nthe horns of the dilemma are debt or privation. The independent spirit\nshrinks from debt until the struggle of life becomes desperate, when\nhe turns to the other evil and is enslaved.\n\nThis is not a temptation that comes to the idle and vicious. They\ncould not secure a loan though they tried. An indolent, dissipated and\nvicious chattel slave would not find a purchaser in the market.\n\nIt is the industrious, virtuous and economical young man that is of\nvalue to the usurer, and the better his character, the greater his\nworth. For this reason their virtues are cried up to the usurers, as\nthe favorable qualities of the chattel were presented in the slave\nmarts. To secure a loan is an evidence of confidence in his business\nability, and an evidence of the appreciation of his character. It is a\nflattering compliment, and promising relief to a condition that seems\nhopeless, he permits the yoke of bondage to be fastened upon him.\n\nThe usurer's slave is cheaper than the chattel. It requires less\nwealth to secure an equal amount of service. A loan of five thousand\ndollars at the prevailing rate of seven per cent. will bring to the\nusurer more than one dollar, clear gain, for every working day. That\nis as much as any one man, not professional or specially skilled, can\nhope to produce with that amount of capital, after caring for himself\nand his home. The borrower secures the lender from all loss, he\nlargely relieves him from oversight, he directs his own labors,\nsupports himself wholly; if sick, he supplies a substitute that the\nservice does not stop, and when from the infirmities of age he is no\nlonger able to give the required amount of service, one dollar per\nday, he returns the loan in full, which may be bound upon another\nvictim, and thus continued forever.\n\nIn the days of chattel slavery labor was not so cheap. The price of a\nstrong, faithful young colored slave, and the value of the tools for\nhim to use, and the proportionate part of the plantation necessary for\nhim to work, was about equal to the above loan. Then he must be\nclothed and fed; his work must be directed; if sick his labor was\nlost, and he must receive medical and other care; all risks of harvest\nfrom drouth or flood must be incurred by the owner, and the slave's\nterm of service was limited by his death, when his purchase cost was\nlost, and there must be an outlay by a new purchase. One chattel slave\ncould not bring his master such enormous returns.\n\nNot only does financial slavery exact more labor for the amount\ninvested, but it is more heartless than chattel bondage. The master\nhad a personal interest in the slave he bought. His health and\nstrength was an object of his care and his death a great loss. There\nwas also often a mutual affection developed, as is sometimes found\nbetween a man and his horse or affectionate dog. There was sometimes\nreal unfeigned mutual love. The master had a tender care over his\nslaves in their sicknesses and in their decrepit age, and sorrowed at\ntheir graves. The slaves were inconsolable in their grief at the death\nof their master.\n\nThe usurer has no personal interest in his slave. He has no care for\nhis health or his life; they are of no interest to him. He may live in\na distant state and has no anxiety about those who serve him. Their\npersonal ills give him no concern. When they die, there is no loss nor\nany additional outlay required; the bonds are simply transferred to\nothers, and the service is not interrupted.\n\nMany faithful, industrial and honest borrowers are unable to return\nthe loan. It is as difficult to retain property as it is to earn it.\nNew inventions, new processes, new methods, new legislation and the\nchanging fashions and customs, often sweep property from the shrewd\nand careful. \"Riches make themselves wings; they fly away.\" If for any\ncause the borrower fails there is scant sympathy from the usurer. He\ncharges him with being deficient in business management and\nthriftless. If the yoke of bondage galls and becomes so painful that\nin his distress the debtor turns from the struggle in one direction to\nstruggle in another in hope of relief, he calls him fickle; and if at\nlast, after a long and hard service, he is unable to return the loan\nin full, he calls him dishonest. His ear is deaf to the voice, \"Is not\nthis the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to\nundo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free.\"\n\nThere are those in debt yet struggling against hope to be free. They\nare slaving at work, but making no progress toward relief. The crisis\nmust come. In the race with biting usury that knows no rest, night nor\nday, year in and year out, that knows no sickness nor delay, that\nkeeps step with time, there is but one possible result. There can be\nbut one final result, though the debtor may have a start far in\nadvance, but if in the race it has become neck and neck, the end is\nnear. Usury will sweep on with full wind, and unslacking pace, when\nthe debtor falls exhausted. There is comfort, however, though the race\nbe lost, for the distress of poverty is less than the agony of\nhopeless debt.\n\nThe old and ruined, who have lived honorable and industrious lives,\nwho have endeavored to do their part in all the relations of life, yet\nhave been in the slavery of debt all their days, and when their powers\nbegan to fail were stripped of the earnings of years, and besides, are\ncompelled to bear the name of dishonorable debtors, are the most\nworthy of sympathy of any the world knows. The decrepit old chattel\nslave had hope of a home until the end, and a decent burial, but the\ndebtor has nothing, not even an honorable name.\n\nThe young, who are yet free from personal debt, should be warned, and\nshould not permit themselves to be beguiled by any of the allurements\nheld out, nor by flatteries. As one prizes his independent spirit and\nfreedom from the dictation of others, as he desires a successful life\nand a peaceful old age, he should avoid debt. As a Christian, who\ndesires unrestrained Christian fellowship, whose benevolence will be\nfrom the kindness and love of his own heart, as one who wishes to\nbless all he meets, and to leave a name associated only with hallowed\nmemories, he should avoid debt.\n\n\"Owe no man anything, but love one another.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nUSURY OPPRESSES THE POOR.\n\n\nMoses, Solomon and the prophets connect usury with the oppression of\nthe poor. For this reason many have thought the divine prohibition of\nusury applied only to loans to the poor. By careful attention we will\nfind that its evils are not confined to the immediate participants in\nthe transaction. In the natural operation of economic laws the\nultimate burden rests upon the poor. It is clear that when each member\nof a community contributes his portion to the common welfare the\nburdens are equally distributed. When any one fails to contribute his\nproportion the burdens are made heavier for the other members, and the\nburdens increase as the number increases of those who for any cause\nfail to contribute their part.\n\nThis is true in the family home life. When every member of the\nhousehold is able, and with cheerful willingness does his full part\nfor the family support and comfort, the burden is equally distributed.\nLet one member of the family be in any way disabled and his duties\nmust be performed by others. If several are disabled the burdens upon\nthe others may be greatly increased. If any are indolent the burdens\nare made heavy upon those who are industrious.\n\nThe same is true in the larger family, the community and the state,\nfor political economy is but enlarged home economy. The burdens are\nlightest when every one contributes his full share to the general\nwelfare. When any are idle the duties become heavier upon those who\nare faithful.\n\nUsury makes it possible for many to live upon incomes from their\nproperty. They are not classed, nor do they class themselves, among\nthose who are personally productive. This makes it necessary for the\npoor, those who have no property, to produce more in order to house\nand clothe and feed the community.\n\nBut those non-productive persons are consumers and are the most active\nconsumers. They make heavy drafts upon the energies of others. They\nbecome extravagant in their habits and the spendthrifts of the world;\nwhile in proportion to their extravagant habits there must be severity\nand simplicity in the habits of the industrious and productive, on\nwhom the support of the community rests.\n\nThe world does not grow richer nor are the conditions of life for one\nclass eased by the extravagance of another class.\n\nIt is sometimes said that the idleness and the wasteful habits of some\nare for the benefit of others because they make a demand for more\nwork. It would give the lumberman and nail-cutter and carpenter and\nglazier and plasterer and painter more work to call back the fire\ndepartment and let the house burn, but that is not the way to house\nthe houseless. Extravagance is wasteful destruction of property.\n\n\"It is insisted upon both moral and economic grounds that no public\nbenefit of any kind arises from the existence of a rich idle class.\nTheir incomes must be paid, though inconsistent with the public good.\nTo illustrate, the London and Southwestern railroad contemplated a\nreduction of fares in cars of the third-class. It was defeated because\nit might reduce the dividends. The poor could not be relieved lest it\nshould reduce the incomes of the idle.\"--Ruskin.\n\nThat family is happy and prosperous in which every member contributes\npersonally his portion to its support and comfort. That condition\naffords the highest measure of relief for all. It is unfortunate if\nthere should be an idler in the home who, as a parasite, feeds on the\nindustry of the others; it is a double misfortune if that idler proves\na spendthrift to waste the thrifty gatherings of the diligent. The\nsame economic principles make it necessary for the highest good of\nevery individual in the community that each shall contribute his\npersonal part. \"If any will not work neither shall he eat.\" If any\ninsist upon eating and yet will not work, it imposes an oppressive\nburden on others to compel them to supply his table.\n\nAgain: The limiting of production is a hardness to the poor. Their\nwelfare requires the largest possible product along every line of\nhuman needs. Over-production is a term of the trade and means only\nthat the supply has become so great that it cannot be sold at prices\nsatisfactory to the trade. But as the prices fall the market broadens.\nConsumption increases with the increasing abundance, and that which it\nwas not possible for certain classes to enjoy now comes within their\nreach and may become possible to even the poorest. There never can be\nan over-supply of fruits and vegetables and grains and meats and shoes\nand clothes and salt and oil and fuel and houses until the wants of\nthe poorest are supplied. Their welfare requires that there shall be\nno restraining of the supply until they come out of their huts into\nhouses; until they can shed their rags and dress in clothes both\ncomfortable and attractive; until their tables are supplied with\nnutritious food; until they have the means of discovering and\ncultivating their aesthetic nature by shaking off the repellant\nconditions in which they are mostly compelled to live.\n\nThe practice of usury restrains the supply by freeing so large a part\nof the people from the necessity of active productive effort by the\nincomes from their properties. Many born to wealth have never felt the\nnecessity, and have never made an effort nor turned a thought along\nproductive lines. The world has lost all that they might have added to\nthe world's supply for human needs. Many, who have been successful in\naccumulation early in life, retire from active work while yet in full\nvigor, because they are relieved of the necessity by the income of\nusury or increase, and the most valuable portion of their lives is\nlost to the world.\n\nProduction is further limited by the demand that it shall yield an\nincrease on the property employed. The shop is shut down when the\ngoods cannot be sold at such a price as to pay a satisfactory profit\non the investment. The shop stands idle until the stock is depleted\nand the demand raises the price of the goods and then the shop is\nagain opened. The workmen could go on with their work, supplying the\nworld with their goods, bringing the price down until within the reach\nof the poorest, but it is the owner of the shop that holds the key and\ndemands that the supply shall be so far restrained that the price\nshall yield a satisfactory increase on the property.\n\nInventions and improved tools are a blessing to the poor when they\nmake labor so productive that they can enjoy results of labor that\ncould not be enjoyed by them before. They are not a blessing when used\nto gain an increase on wealth by employing less labor. Their proper\nuse is to make labor more productive; their perverted use is to make\nproperty more profitable.\n\nThere is a natural restraint by the law of supply and demand when all\nneeds are so supplied that there is no longer a sufficient\ncompensation to the producer; but it is a perverted and unrighteous\nrestraint to place property between productive labor and human needs\nand demand a reward for it before these human needs shall be\nsatisfied. There is an utter want of pity for the poor in permitting\nthem to go unhoused, unfed and unclothed, unless there shall be a\nprofit by increase in supplying their wants. True benevolence requires\nthat labor shall be made so effective as to fill every human need, but\npure selfishness uses property to supply the need for a gain. This\nrestraint for an increase on property is oppression of the poor for a\nprice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nUSURY OPPRESSES THE POOR--Continued.\n\n\nThe influence of any act is not limited to the person acting. The\nrighteous act of a righteous man blesses himself and his generation\nand generations yet unborn. So the influence of a wrong act is not\nlimited to the wrong-doer, but extends to others and is harmful to\nthose who had no voluntary part in the act. Though the wrong be a\npersonal habit and the sinner be himself the greatest sufferer, yet it\nis impossible to avoid causing distress to others who are themselves\ninnocent.\n\nEquity between those who participate in a wrong does not make a wrong\nact righteous. Thieves may be just among themselves, in the division\nof the spoils secured from others, but that does not make them upright\nmen, nor does it make their business honest. If it were possible to\npreserve equity between the borrower and the lender upon usury, yet\nthat would not justify the act nor remove the evil. The collection of\ntheir profits, which they divide equitably among themselves, imposes a\nburden upon others who have no part in the transaction. Their\nsatisfactory agreement does not make the transaction less detrimental\nto the general good. It may the rather partake of the nature of a\nconspiracy against the public welfare.\n\nThe promoter of an enterprise on borrowed capital is practically but\nthe agent of the lender. He may be the director and manager but he so\nconducts his undertaking as to gather the usury from others. When the\nopportunities for profitable investments become rare, and money\naccumulates and is lying idle, such promoters with their schemes are\nencouraged in order to gain a profit on the investment, though others\nsuffer by it.\n\nThere lies upon this table a booklet, written in 1841, which charges\nand proves complicity between the bankers and brokers of New York at\nthat time. The bankers loaned the brokers the money which they\nreloaned at very high rates. The banks refused accommodations to those\nin pressing need, compelling them to go to the brokers and to submit\nto their extortionate demands.\n\nThough there may be an equitable arrangement between the owner of\nproperty and his broker and between the broker and his promoter, yet\nin the last analysis it will be found that this equitable arrangement,\nin its ultimate result, is of the nature of a conspiracy to compel the\ninnocent poor to pay the profits of both; their consent is not first\nsecured nor do they gain a single advantage and they are helpless to\nresist.\n\nThough the transaction may have been between the rich, a rich lender\nand a rich borrower, yet the final result is that the interest is paid\nby the poor. In Calvin's letter of apology he supposes a case of\nequity between a rich land owner who is in need of ready money and the\nman who has money to buy a farm, but instead lends to his rich\nlandlord and takes a mortgage. In this case the tenants of the\nborrower must pay the interest and finally the principal also. This\nincreases the hardness of their hard lot. Though Calvin seems to\nappreciate the severe conditions of the ordinary tenant in his day,\nyet he fails to recognize that the very illustration he gives would\nresult in greater oppression.\n\nWhen one entrusts his money to a broker for investment he does not\ncome in contact with those who earn the interest. It may pass through\na number of agents and the source from which the interest is drawn is\nnot regarded. When one entrusts his money to the \"Security Co.\" in\ntheir great building, surrounded by all appearances of unlimited\nwealth, it is not realized that the interest returned is wrung from\nthe poor. Money does not lie in the vaults. It is loaned to others who\nas agents do collect or gather from the poor. A loan is made to a\nmilling company and the interest is gathered from all who buy their\nflour. A loan is made to a landlord and he collects the usury from his\ntenants. A loan is made to a street car company and increase is\ncollected from the employes and from every rider. A loan is made to a\nmerchant and he collects from his customers.\n\nIt is easy to see who pay the interest when we make a common\npawnbroker our agent and see in his dingy rooms the evident distress\nand needs of his callers. Many shrink from his oppressions who are\ndeceived by the splendid surroundings of the \"Security Co.\" But the\ninterest is exacted from the same class as truly by one as by the\nother.\n\nUsury oppresses the poor by raising the price of all that he consumes.\nWithout being consulted and without the power of resistance he must\npay tribute to property for the very necessities of life.\n\nHe lives in a rented house. The owner has placed a mortgage on this\nhouse and the tenant must pay the interest and more in his rental or\nbe ejected. The bread he must have is from wheat raised on mortgaged\nland and the interest must be met in the price of wheat. The mill is\nmortgaged in which it is ground and the interest must be paid in the\nincreased price of flour. The railroad is bonded and the interest on\nthe bonds must be paid in the price of its transportation, and the\nmerchant has a loan to enable him to do business and the interest on\nthis loan must be met in the increase of the profits on flour and all\nother goods he handles. By usury a tribute is levied on his bread from\nthe wheat in the field until it reaches his tables.\n\nIn the same way he pays interest in the price of his meat, which is\nraised on a mortgaged farm, transported over a bonded railroad,\ndressed in a mortgaged abattoir and sold by a dealer doing business\non borrowed capital.\n\nThe same is true of his clothes; a first tribute must be paid to\nproperty by the raw cotton or wool, then the transportation and the\nfactory and the merchant, in addition to the compensation for their\nservices, must meet also the interest upon their loans, and the whole\nis summed up in the price the poor man must pay. He has no option in\nthe matter; he has no alternative, no method by which he can escape.\nThe same is true with regard to his fuel and his light.\n\nThe same is true with regard to car fares. In every ride he pays an\nenormous tribute to invested wealth. The writer made a careful\nestimate of the accounts of a car line in a small city where the\nnumber of riders bore small comparison with the crowded cars of any\nmetropolis. When the cost of maintenance of the plant, including the\nwear and tear and all repairs, and the cost of operation, covering all\ncurrent expenses, including taxes, were compared with the receipts\nfrom the patrons of the road, it was found that less than two cents\nper passenger was necessary to pay these charges and that three cents\nhad gone to pay the interest on the enormous bonded indebtedness and\ndividends on the inflated stock.\n\nThe wage-earner, the pensioner and every person living upon an annuity\nor fixed income from any source, must thus pay usury or interest on\nobligations they never incurred. A large portion of their living is\nthus taken from them, and under a system of general usury they have no\nway of avoiding it. They must pay an enormous tribute to property in\nproviding the common necessaries of life.\n\nUsury lowers the poor man's wages. The owners of property forbid its\nuse until such a concession is made by the laborer as they may demand\nfor the material and tools of production. Those who will use them and\ngive the owner the highest return for their use secure the work,\n_i.e._, those who will bid the labor the lowest, who will use the\ntools and work up the material the cheapest.\n\nThe demand of capital has come to absorb a large portion of the\nproduce of labor. In 1890 the wage-earners created a value of\n$3,579,168,172 and received out of it wages amounting to\n$1,981,228,321, leaving in the hands of the employers $1,687,939,851.\nLabor thus received a little less than 53 per cent. of its product. In\n1900 the wage-earners created a value of $4,640,784,931 and received\nout of it wages amounting to $2,323,407,257, leaving in the hands of\nemployers $2,317,377,674. The employers and employes divided labor's\nproduct so evenly that the difference does not amount to one-eighth of\none per cent.\n\nThe decade 1890 to 1900 has been of unprecedented prosperity to\ncapital, but the advantages to labor have not appeared. When the\nnumber of laborers at the beginning and the close of the decade are\nconsidered the annual income of the wage-earner at the close of the\ndecade is actually $7 per year less than ten years ago.\n\nThe tribute to property must first be gained, the wages are secondary.\nIf the tribute is not paid the enterprise is regarded as not\nsuccessful and the industry closes.\n\nThere is no protection for the laborer except the selfishness of\ncapitalists themselves in competition to secure the services of labor.\nBut the selfish strife has rather resulted in the combination of their\ncapital to dispense with labor or to cause the same labor to produce\nmore by the employment of more capital. The effect is to give\nemployment to capital rather than to labor. If labor can be dispensed\nwith by borrowing more capital, then a loan is secured and the laborer\nis dismissed. Thus capital is made to crowd out the laborer and gains\nfor itself his reward. This diminishes the call for labor and\nincreases the number of the unemployed and they become competitors for\nthe privilege of working. The opportunities for labor becoming fewer,\nthe strife for work becomes fiercer. The laborer is helpless to\nresist, as his wants do not stop; his family must be fed and clothed\nand housed. The struggle is unequal between \"flesh and blood\" and a\nmaterial thing that, by a false economy, is given not only the power\nof self-support but also continuous increase. For this reason\ncombinations of laborers never have been and never can be successful\nin a conflict with capital. So long as the false principle is\nadmitted, all efforts must fail. So long as it is granted that\nproperty has earning power, the effort will be made by the owners of\nproperty, and always successfully made, to have property receive the\nlarger portion of the reward. The true order will be reversed; the\nlaborer will be given a mere subsistence while the increase will be\nclaimed for the capital; the very opposite of the true order, the mere\npreservation or subsistence of the capital, while all the increase\nbelongs to the laborers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nUSURY OPPRESSES THE POOR--Continued.\n\n\nUsury makes it possible to impose on the poor the principal burden of\ntaxation. Though taxes are levied upon property it is a delusion to\nthink that those who own no property pay no taxes. By usury the taxes\nare easily slipped upon the poor.\n\nIf the tax levy is one per cent. on property then in a year the one\nhundred dollars has been decreased by one dollar and is but\nninety-nine, unless that dollar has been supplied from other earnings\nof the owner. Thus vacant lots, jewels and hoarded stores are a burden\nto their owner. But when the property can add to itself an increase,\nthen there need be no diminution of the amount, and no sacrifice is\nnecessary on the part of the owner. If the wealth is placed in the\nform of a loan on mortgage on a house, the tenant in his rental pays\nthe interest on that mortgage, which meets the tax and also yields a\nrevenue to the owner, and leaves the wealth undiminished. The tenant\nearned the tax, and both property and owner are relieved. The mortgage\nmay be upon a manufacturing plant, when the operatives pay the tax\nfrom their earnings.\n\nThe bonded debt of a city or state, in the ultimate result, is\ncollected from the productive labor. To pay the interest and\nprincipal of the bonded debt of a city the tax levy is increased, and\na greater proportionate amount of labor is appropriated. Laboring\npeople without property are often amazed at the indifference of\nproperty holders when a great bonded debt is incurred, as both\ninterest and principal are to be paid by a tax upon property. Those\nwho make the loan to the city, and all who hold mortgages and dividend\npaying properties, are complacent because the taxes of a hundred years\nwould never diminish their property a dollar, though the tax levy\nshould be doubled. It would raise the interest on money, diminish the\nprice of labor and raise the price of goods, but those who profit by\nthe gain of usury are untouched by it.\n\nRecently complaints were made by the tenants of one of the poor\ndistricts of London because their rentals had been greatly increased.\nThe reply of the landlord was direct and clear: \"You have voted for\npublic improvements and now you must pay for them.\"\n\nThe same is true of the interest and principal of the national debt.\nThe revenue is raised from a levy upon importations, as, for example,\ntea, the tax on which is ten cents per pound. The tax is collected\nfrom the importer and by him attached to the price for which it is\nsold to the wholesale dealer and by him attached to the price he\ncharges the retail dealer and by him the amount is collected from the\nconsumer. Sufficient notice is usually given that the importer and\nthe dealers may dispose of all their goods before the tariff is\nremoved. A public announcement of such a purpose was recently made in\nreference to the tax upon tea.\n\nThe tax collected from the consumer is far heavier than the mere levy\nof the government. The importer demands a profit on the amount of\nrevenue tax he has paid as well as on the amount he pays for the\ngoods. This results in greatly increasing the burdens of the poor. The\nrevenue tax recently imposed by Great Britain of three pence per cwt.\non wheat and five pence per cwt. on flour resulted immediately in the\naddition of one penny to the price of the four-pound loaf to the\nconsumers.\n\nAgain: This attributing to property the quality of self-perpetuation\nand increase has led to its incorporation and in a manner separation\nfrom those who own it. Property must always have an owner.\n\nPersonality must always come in else there are no rights to be\nconsidered. Labor apart from a person laboring and property apart from\na person owning are impersonal and no ethical or moral laws can be\napplied to them. They are only physical forces and material things.\nThe wind may push against a tree and overcome its resistance and the\ntree falls. That is merely an abstract force against a material thing.\nBut when my energy is exerted against your tree and destroys it, then\npersonal responsibility and personal rights must be considered. A\nrighteous adjustment between labor and capital can never be arrived at\nwithout the consideration of the personal elements on both sides. The\nmoral and ethical laws must be applied as well as the physical and\neconomic.\n\nIncorporated property, however, has eliminated from it the ethical and\nmoral responsibility of personality and is regarded as possessed only\nof economic and physical qualities and restrained only by legal\nstatutes.\n\nIncorporated properties are not generally managed by those who own\nthem. The managers are employed by the owners, who are ready to pay\nlarge compensation to those who have the tact and brain and nerve\npower and peculiar quality of conscience to gain for them a\nsatisfactory increase. It is their work to press this irresponsible\nmaterial body up against \"flesh and blood.\"\n\nThe incorporation employs the laborer when his labor earns a\nsatisfactory dividend on the capital, and lays him off or discharges\nhim whenever it seems most to the advantage of the investment. A plant\nis built and operated for a time and then the plant is closed, or the\nlocation is changed without the slightest regard to the sacrifices of\nthe poor laborers who have gathered around and are left stranded.\n\nLaborers everywhere throughout Christendom need and beg for a Sabbath\nof rest, but neither physical needs nor conscientious scruples are\nregarded when a greater dividend can be gained in seven days than in\nsix.\n\nOn the part of the workman, resistance is useless. He can do nothing\nbut yield to the economic and physical force managed by those in whom\nhuman sympathy and pity for the suffering and helpless are not\npermitted. The dividend must be gained though it be necessary to grind\nthe poor.\n\nThe owner of this steel plant is in a distant city. All employes, from\nthe manager down to the porter, must so serve that he shall receive\nthe dividend. This mercantile house is owned by a woman on a pleasure\ntrip round the world. All who are connected with this business must so\nserve and sacrifice that she shall receive her income regularly. This\nrailroad is owned by those who have gone a-yachting in southern seas.\nIt must be so managed that the revenues shall not fail whatever the\nsacrifice required of others.\n\nThe writer once heard an American statesman, who afterward became\nPresident of the United States, deliver an elaborate and carefully\nprepared oration on a great occasion, in which he discussed the\ngrowing power and controlling influence in state and national affairs\nof incorporations. He did not formulate a remedy but said, \"The\nproblem to be solved by the next generation is, how shall the people\nbe protected against the encroachments of incorporated wealth?\" It\nneed scarcely be said that there was no discussion of that question\nduring the campaign which closed with his election to the presidency.\n\nUsury is both the basis of the incorporation and the instrument of its\noppression. Incorporated wealth must not be permitted to claim\npersonal rights and yet escape personal responsibility. It must be\nheld to the same ethical and moral laws as the individual. Personal\nresponsibility must not be eliminated from property. It must not be\ndivested of personal responsibility and then pressed as a mere\nmaterial thing up against \"flesh and blood.\"\n\nNo instrument of oppression ever surpassed in severity the usury of\nincorporated wealth and retained the pretense of respectability. It is\nsucking the blood of the poor every hour, yet they cherish and pet the\nvampire, not realizing that it is their blood upon which it feeds.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nUSURY OPPRESSES THE POOR--Concluded.\n\n\nUsury increases its burdens in proportion to the poverty. It is the\nmost oppressive upon the poorest. Property in any measure is a relief.\nHowever small the amount may be, to that degree it assists in bearing\nthe burden. Those who have a home are relieved of the burden of usury\nby rent. Those who own their shops or farms on which they can employ\ntheir labor are relieved of the usury of tools and material. From the\nconditions now prevailing the burden of usury rests on all those, the\nhalf of whose income is the product of their own labor. The one who\nreceives one-half his income from the interest on property and\none-half from his own labor has no advantage from usury. The income of\nhis labor would bring him as many of the comforts of life as his labor\nnow does, plus the income from his property. There is no advantage\nuntil a greater part of the income is derived from property. A small\nsavings account, adding a few dollars annually to the income, is a\nvery small offset to the constant drain from usury in all that we buy\nand upon all our earnings. The full burden however is upon those who\nhave nothing but their own productive energy; who receive only wages\nand must buy in the market. As the relief afforded by property\ndecreases, the oppressive burden of usury in present conditions\nincreases.\n\nIt is a fair estimate that usury is oppressive until relieved by the\nincome from property to the amount of one-half of the entire income\nreceived. When less, the oppression begins and leans its full weight\nand without pity upon the poorest and most helpless.\n\nHe that has no property is dependent upon others for employment and in\nhis wages must give a part of his product as tribute to the capital he\nuses. This, in the case of the average wage earner in this country, is\nnot less than one-third, that is, he who earns one dollar and a half\nwill receive as wages one dollar, the other half dollar is retained by\nthe employer as due for the capital invested. Then having no home he\nmust pay tribute to property in shelter for himself and family. The\nrent will be higher in proportion to the poverty of the apartments.\nThe poorest tenement returns the highest rate of interest to the\nlandlord.\n\nHis decreased wages do not make the necessities of life\nproportionately cheap to him. He pays usury in the price of the fuel\nwhich he burns, of the oil, gas or electric light in his home. In the\nprice of vegetables, bread and clothes and shoes. There is an\nincreased outgo at every turn which he cannot avoid. He is helpless to\nresist.\n\nHe can but struggle staggering along while work is given and his\nhealth and strength remain. When these fail he falls and must become\nentangled in debt, from which there is no hope of being able to\nextricate himself.\n\nThe state recognizes the hopelessness of the poor man who is in debt\nand has provided a relief by bankruptcy, by which he may again arise\nand struggle on. This discharge in bankruptcy is an act of mercy but\nthe relief from the oppressions of usury would be an act of justice.\nGrinding the helpless poor between low wages and high prices and then\nrelieving them by the act of bankruptcy is only pulling them out of\nthe mill to throw them into the hopper again, for the wage earner who\nhas no protection from any property is between these upper and nether\nmill stones.\n\nThose who defend the fraud of usury always take to cover behind the\nwidow and the fatherless. They plausibly pretend to be zealous for\ntheir protection while endeavoring to hide their own greed. Their\npleas are often touchingly pathetic. \"A thrifty loving father was\ntaken away by death from a dear wife and sweet little ones. They had\nalways leaned on his strong arms. He was their joy, their protector\nand their support. This widow and her fatherless children are left\nwith nothing to support them except the saved hard earnings of this\nhusband's life. As these earnings are their only support they are\ndeposited with care with the 'Security Co.' for safety and that the\nregular interest dues may be received without fail. If there should be\none failure they would suffer. The 'Security Co.' loan their deposits\nas opportunity offers. They take some local mortgages and also some\nmortgages on western lands. They buy some bonds of a milling trust and\nalso of a railroad and street car line and some national bonds and\nloan on personal security to local merchants and traders. From all\nthese sources the interest is regularly collected and regularly paid\nto this widowed mother, without which she and her little fatherless\ndear ones must suffer. 'Certainly,' they say 'usury is not oppressive\nto the widow and the fatherless. Usury comes to the help of the\nhelpless.'\"\n\nAnother faithful industrious father was taken away from his wife and\nhis little ones. He had been their stay and support. He was sober and\nthrifty but sickness and untoward conditions made accumulations\nimpossible. When he, the head of the home, was taken away there was\nnothing for the support of these helpless little ones and their\nwidowed mother but her own arms and head and heart. There was no time\nfor sentiment and tears. These little ones must be sheltered and their\nhungry mouths must be fed. Restraining her grief, she bravely\nundertakes the heavy task.\n\nShe rents a room but the rental is high, for the interest must be paid\non a mortgage held by the Security Co. She finally finds a shop where\nshe secures employment but the wages are low, for the shop is heavily\nmortgaged to the Security Co. and the interest must be paid or the\nshop will be closed and even this opportunity for scant wages will be\nlost. The distance requires that she shall ride to her work but the\nround trip costs two nickels and one of them goes to the Security Co.\nfor interest on their bonds and stock. She buys a loaf of bread but\nthe wheat was raised on a western farm mortgaged to the Security Co.\nand the interest was charged up against the wheat. The wheat was\nfloured in a trust mill and the interest on the Security Co. bonds\nwere charged up against the flour. It was transported by a railroad\nthat charged up against it the interest on the bonds held by the\nSecurity Co. It was baked in a mortgaged oven and handled by a local\ndealer doing business on capital he had borrowed of the Security Co.\nHow much of her bread money went for interests is an intricate\nproblem. She only notices that her loaf is small.\n\nThe same oppressive tribute must be paid on all that she buys to feed\nand clothe herself and her little ones.\n\nThe first widow does not live upon the earnings of her husband. They\nare untouched at the end of a year nor diminished as the years pass.\nBy the operation of usury she has lived upon the hard earnings of this\npoor widow. The laborers on the western farms contributed to her\nsupport in decreases of wages; the operatives of the railways, the\nworkmen in the mill, the baker and merchant all contribute a portion,\nbut it cannot be denied that the heaviest burden comes upon the\npoorest. The rich widow has fed her children with the bread which the\npoor widow earned.\n\nThe flaunting sympathy for the poor of those who themselves feed upon\nthem, is rank hypocracy. Nor can those who have grown fat by the\npractice of usury, condone the crime by tossing back to them a portion\nof the unjust gain.\n\n\"Is it such a fast that I have chosen? A day for a man to afflict his\nsoul?... Is not this the fast that I have chosen?... To undo the heavy\nburdens and to let the oppressed go free?... Is it not to deal thy\nbread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to\nthy house?\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nUSURY CENTRALIZES WEALTH.\n\n\nThe dictum of Bacon that \"Usury gathers the wealth of the realm into\nfew hands\" is readily proven and fully verified in the experience of\nthese times. The tendency to centralization under a system of usury or\ninterest-taking is so strong, and the modern result so apparent that\nthe statement only is necessary.\n\nUsury not only enslaves the borrower and oppresses the poor who are\ninnocent of all debt, but it also affects the rich by gathering the\nwealth of the wealthy into fewer and fewer hands. There is a\ncentralizing draft that threatens and then finally absorbs the smaller\nfortunes into one colossal financial power. It is as futile to resist\nthis as to resist fate. Wealth cannot be so fortified and guarded as\nto successfully resist the attack of superior wealth when the practice\nof usury is permitted. The smaller and weaker fortune, using the same\nweapon as the larger and stronger, must inevitably be defeated and\novercome, and ultimately absorbed.\n\nRates of interest do not affect the ultimate result. Under a high rate\nthe gathering is rapid, under a low rate the accretions are slower,\nbut the gathering into few hands is none the less sure. Rates of\ninterest only place the convergent center at a nearer or more remote\nperiod.\n\nIf any interest is right, compound interest is right. When simple\ninterest is due and paid, it may be loaned to another party, and thus\nthe usurer secures interest upon his interest, though not from the\nsame debtor. When the interest is to be paid annually, it is to be\nassumed, if not paid, that the debtor takes it as a loan in addition\nto the face of the note of his obligation. This saves the care of\nreceiving and re-loaning to another. The custom of usurers, however,\nis to renew the note, adding the interest to the face, if unpaid. The\nmass of bank paper is renewed each ninety days: Compounded four times\na year, whether to the same or to another debtor, the result in\naccretion is the same.\n\nFew realize the rapidity at which a loan increases, accelerating in\ngeometrical progression as time passes. Any loan will double itself at\nthree per cent. in twenty-three and a half years; at seven per cent.\nin ten and a fourth years, and at ten per cent. in seven and a third\nyears. One dollar loaned for one hundred years, at three per cent.,\nwould amount to nineteen dollars; at seven per cent. one thousand\ndollars, and at ten per cent. thirteen thousand.\n\nThe island upon which New York stands was bought from the Indians for\nthe value of twenty-four dollars by Peter Minuits in 1626. Yet, if the\npurchaser had put his twenty-four dollars at interest, where he could\nhave added it to the principal at the rate of seven per cent., the\naccumulation would now exceed the total value of the entire city and\ncounty of New York.\n\nM. Jennet quotes the elaborate calculation of an ingenious author to\nshow that 100 francs ($20) accumulating at five per cent. compound\ninterest for seven centuries, would be sufficient to buy the whole\nsurface of the globe, both land and water, at the rate of 1,000,000\nfrancs ($200,000) per hectare (nearly four square miles). From this we\ncan gather that $20 at five per cent. compound interest for 700 years,\nwould buy all the earth, mountains, and swamp lands, and water, at $80\nper acre.\n\nAnother mathematical genius says, had one cent been loaned on the first\nday of January A.D. 1, interest being allowed at the rate of six per\ncent. compounded yearly, then 1895 years later--that is on January 1,\n1895--the amount due would be $8,497,840,000,000,000,000,000,000,\n000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (8,497,840,000 decillions). If it were\ndesired to pay this in gold, 23.2 grains to the dollar, then taking\nspheres of pure gold the size of the earth, it would take\n610,070,000,000,000,000 to pay for that cent. Placing these spheres in a\nstraight row, their combined length would be 4,826,870,000,000,000,000\nmiles, a distance which it would take light (going at the rate of\n186,330 miles per second) 820,890,000 years to travel.\n\nThe planets and stars of the entire solar and stellar universe, as\nseen by the great Lick telescope, if they were all in solid gold,\nwould not nearly pay the amount. A single sphere to pay the whole\namount, if placed with its centre at the sun, would have its surface\nextending 563,580,000 miles beyond the orbit of the planet Neptune,\nthe farthest in our system.\n\nIt may be added that if the earth had contained a population of ten\nbillions, each one making a million dollars a second, then to pay for\nthat cent it would have required their combined earnings for\n26,938,500,000,000,000,000,000 years.\n\nAnyone can figure on this and see if it be correct.\n\nHad Peter only thought to put one cent at interest, there would be no\ncall now for Peter's pence.\n\nWith any accretion allowed, the concentration of wealth is\nirresistible. However small the amount of capital, if permitted to\ngrow at any rate of increase it will ultimately absorb everything. Any\nfinite quantity permitted any finite rate of increase, will, in finite\ntime, gather all that is less than infinite.\n\nThe only difficulty in this accretion is to secure debtors that will\nnot die. We inherit the property of our fathers, but fortunately we do\nnot inherit their personal debts. This difficulty is being overcome by\nbonds of corporations and nations that live on, though the individuals\ncomposing them may, age after age, pass away. This makes the increase\nperpetual. Generations may come and go, but the concentration of\nwealth goes uninterruptedly on.\n\nThis is not visionary theory, but is shown in the practical results\neverywhere apparent.\n\nThe usurers of England, a little over two hundred years ago, secured a\ncharter for a bank on the condition that they loan the crown or\ngovernment 1,200,000 pounds sterling, about six million dollars.\n\nThis was a perpetual loan, never to be repaid, but annual interest at\neight per cent. was to be paid by the government forever. This\nconstant annual interest paid to this bank has made it such a\nfinancial power that it reaches and draws to itself of the resources\nof all lands. The aggregated wealth of the institution, if the\naccretions were continuous, would now be $25,165,824,000,000. The\nwealth of the United Kingdom is estimated at fifty billions, and all\nEurope two hundred billions, the United States seventy billions, and\nthe whole world's wealth at five hundred billions.\n\nWere the accretions of the bank at eight per cent. undisturbed and\nunconsumed, it would now take fifty worlds as rich as ours to pay that\ndebt. It is sometimes wondered how there can be such an accumulation\nof wealth in one institution as to control the finances of the world.\n\nIt is often attributed to superior wisdom or some profound, occult\nmanipulation. It is but the natural operation of the principle of\ninterest--accretion from age to age.\n\nThe managers may be stupid dolts, only so they do not interfere with\nthe usurious principle in its eternal pull on the resources of\nmankind.\n\nThe interest bearing debt of the United States, at this date, is about\none thousand millions. This in one hundred years at six per cent.\nwould amount to $340,000,000,000; five times the whole present wealth\nof the nation.\n\nThe smallest national bank organized, by the deposit of $25,000 of\nbonds yielding two per cent. interest, and permitted to re-loan the\nsame funds to its private customers at eight per cent., could gather\nto itself in one hundred years, $345,225,000.\n\nThe wealth of an individual or of a family may also grow with the\nyears as they pass. The property may be in public bonds or that of\nincorporations, requiring no care or effort on their part, yet it may\nbe continually increasing. A usurer in any community in one life comes\nto absorb the wealth of that community, though the amount loaned at\nthe beginning was small.\n\nThe accretions are the irresistible result of the principle of usury.\n\nThe wealth is more and more centralized as the years pass. Great trees\nin the forest shadow the smaller, and rob them of the sunshine and\nmoisture until they perish. Great fish in the crowded pond feed upon\nthe smaller. Individual manufacturers are absorbed by the great\ncombinations called trusts. The stockholders of a railroad are\nabsorbed by those who have large and controlling interest. But the\nrailroad is itself absorbed by another yet greater corporation, and\nthis again by a great combine that eliminates the influence of all but\nthe chief control, and tends to a complete centralization of all the\nsystems.\n\nThere is no escaping from this centralizing draft upon all resources,\nwhen the system of interest-taking is as general as now. Freedom from\npersonal debt does not deliver us. The farmer, the most independent of\nmen, in his own home, free from personal debt, yet must contribute to\nthis centralizing by paying interest on bonds in every shipment of\nproduce, and every mile of railroad travel. He pays tribute also in\nall the tools that he buys, in the food that he eats and the clothes\nthat he wears.\n\nThis centralizing draft is constant, though not always equally\napparent. Certain favorable conditions may hold in check, for a time,\nthe adverse influence and cause a temporary distribution of wealth to\nthe producers. Its force is not, however, destroyed, but only\nrestrained for a time, and then draws with accumulated power.\n\nTimes of industrial depression and commercial disasters are occurring\nover and over again. Some economists attribute them to the peculiar\nindustrial and monetary conditions of the periods in which they\noccur; but they have seldom agreed as to the causes of any particular\npanic. They are so regular in their recurrence that some economists\nhave thought they must be produced by some constant cause; like the\nmoon causing the tides of the ocean. Both are true. There is a general\nand there is also a secondary or superficial cause.\n\nThe times of greatest commercial disasters in this country were in the\nyears 1809, 1818, 1837, 1873, 1893.\n\nThe political economists can assign as reasons some peculiar\nconditions prevailing in each of these periods, but the wisest have\nnever gone deep enough to discover the general cause; this constant\ncentralizing draft of usury.\n\nIn these periods of commercial disaster there is no destruction of\nproperty. There is only a general shake up and redistribution. All the\nwealth of the country remains, but after the disaster wealth is always\nfound to be in fewer hands. Some have become rich, many who were\nthought to be wealthy are ruined, and the number of the poor has been\nmultiplied.\n\nA patient may be afflicted with some deep-seated, chronic disease that\nmakes him very easily affected by a change of the weather, by a change\nof his diet or of his bed, and these may be assigned as the causes of\nhis frequent relapses, and they are the immediate or secondary\ncauses, but the real cause is the deep-seated, chronic disease. Cure\nthat disease and the changes in conditions, now so serious, would not\nbe noticed by the healthy man.\n\nThe real and constant cause of our recurring financial disasters is\nthis centralizing usury that directly opposes the distribution of\nwealth that is natural, when the producers of wealth are permitted to\nreceive and enjoy it. Root out this evil, and then the trifling\ndifferences in our harvests, changes in our tariff laws, currency\nlegislation, and the score of other things that now affect us, would\nbe unfelt by the healthy body politic.\n\nIf this centralizing power is destroyed then the natural distribution\nwould be undisturbed, and these, so-called, panics would be unknown.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nMAMMON DOMINATES THE NATIONS.\n\n\nThe debt habit has been diligently cultivated and encouraged, until\nthe nations are enslaved. Public bonds imply bondsmen, and the nations\nare no longer free. There is a mortgage upon the inventive genius,\nindustry and productive energy of the world.\n\nUsurers greatly prefer an organized government as a debtor. The\nindividual may die, but a nation's debts bind from age to age, are\nbequeathed by the fathers to the children, and thus descend from\ngeneration to generation. The bonds of no corporation, however great\nand rich, can be so secure. They embrace special industries, while\nnational debts are a claim upon every industry and a mortgage upon\nevery foot of soil, and every dollar of present personal property, and\nof all that may be produced in the whole realm.\n\nIf we express the world's indebtedness, the national debts, in the\nterms of our currency, as nearly as we can reduce the currency of\nother nations to such an expression, we find the national debts as\nfollows, in 1890:\n\n  Denmark                           $   33,004,722\n  Great Britain                      3,848,460,000\n  United States                        915,962,112\n  Germany                            1,956,217,017\n  Austria-Hungary                   $2,666,339,539\n  France                             4,446,793,398\n  Russia                             3,491,016,074\n  Italy                              2,324,826,329\n  Spain                              1,251,433,096\n  Netherlands                          430,539,653\n  Belgium                              360,504,099\n  Sweden                                64,220,807\n  Norway                                13,973,752\n  Portugal                             490,493,599\n  Greece                               107,306,518\n  Turkey                               821,000,000\n  Switzerland                           10,912,925\n                                   ---------------\n    These debts aggregate          $22,955,386,008\n\nHundreds of millions have been added to these national debts in the\nlast ten years. Nearly every nation has increased its indebtedness,\npossibly no nation has decreased it, and others, like China, with its\nrecent great loan, and little Korea, with its twelve millions, must be\nadded to the list. The debts of the nations of Europe have been\nincreased until they now amount in the aggregate to twenty-three\nbillions. The debts of the nations of all the world have increased\none-half since 1890, and now aggregate thirty-three billions.\n\nThese great national debts are practically perpetual, and though they\nmay be at so low a rate of interest as three per cent., they absorb\nthe energies of the people, and, like a glacier grinding over the\nearth, crush all beneath them.\n\nPublic debts are incurred to relieve the present wealth of the burden\nof present duty. Debts place the whole burden on producers of the\nfuture. They relieve those who hold the wealth now, but are a draft\nupon those who make the wealth that is to be.\n\nAn individual incurring debt places a mortgage upon his productions;\nby a pledge of future production he relieves himself of the strain of\nthe present.\n\nA family incurs debt; a part of the members of the house are strong\nand capable of productive labor, and a part are not; the whole burden\nof the payment comes upon the productive members of the home. The weak\nand helpless and the indolent, though strong, bear no part of the\nburden. This family has a home, and a mortgage is placed upon it to\nsecure the present needs. The burden of paying the interest on this\nmortgage, and the final payment of the principal, is wholly on the\ncapable and industrious members of the family.\n\nNational debts are incurred to relieve the present wealth of the\nburden of present government calls and obligations, and to roll it\nupon those who shall produce wealth in the future. So the debt of a\ncity, state, or nation is a present relief to property holders, by\nplacing the producers under future obligations.\n\nA street in a city is to be paved; no additional tax is levied; but\nbonds are issued running twenty years.\n\nThis relieves the present wealth of the burden, placing it upon those\nwho shall produce the wealth that shall be in twenty years.\n\nThe expenses of a great war must be met. Present taxes may be slightly\nincreased, but to meet the burden consols or public bonds are issued\nto be paid at a distant date. This relieves the present wealth, but\nbinds it upon those who shall be the producers of wealth in the\ngenerations to come. Hume says, \"The practice of contracting debts\nwill almost invariably be abused by every government. It would\nscarcely be more imprudent to give a prodigal son a credit with every\nbanker, than to empower statesmen to draw bills in this manner on\nposterity.\"\n\nThese public bonds are the golden opportunity of the usurers. Not only\nis their wealth relieved of all burden, but it affords an opportunity\nof profitable investment with the best possible debtor. They can pose\nas enterprising citizens, and urge great public improvements, and at\nthe same time gain a most sure and profitable investment. They can\npose as patriots in time of war, and urge that it be pressed with\nenergy at whatever cost of treasure and blood. It is not their blood\nthat is shed, nor their wealth that is wasted. It gives them the\nopportunity of binding their burdens on the nation for the producers\nof the coming generations to carry.\n\nUsurers never wish public debts paid. They wish them issued for as\nlong time as possible, and then reissued, or the time extended before\nthey are due. This is done by the figment called refunding, as if it\nwere a concession and favor to a poor debtor. It is but a device to\nkeep the burden on the public back. It is not a financial feat and\ntriumph for the chancellor of the exchequer to refund a public debt.\nHe but yields himself as a tool to the usurers to continue their\nloans. They resist the payment when due, but when an officer is found\nwilling to extend them before they are due all trouble is avoided and\nthe accretions of interest are not interrupted for a day.\n\nThose who hold the bonds of a nation direct its destinies. The nation\nborrowing is servant to the lender, just as an individual. The nation\ncompromises its freedom and becomes the slave of its bond-holders. The\nusurers use their power for the advancement of their own material\ninterests, and hold all other purposes of government as inferior to\ntheir own ends. This subordination of a people, to the creditors, is\nfatal to republican and constitutional governments; the form may be\npreserved for a time, but the substance of free government has\ndeparted.\n\nThe concentration of wealth carries with it the concentration of\npower, and is inimical to republican institutions. A proper\ndistribution of wealth and power must be preserved or popular\ngovernment is put in jeopardy.\n\nThe first bank of deposit and discount was the Bank of Venice, in the\nrepublic of Venetia. It continued its existence for six hundred years,\nuntil the government that gave it life itself perished. From its long\ncontinuous business, and its success as a bank, it has been spoken of\nin every work on banking as a model. It began its association with the\nrepublic in 1171, and dominated it, sapping its life, and assuming\nits functions, until the bank practically ruled the state, and when\none fell both perished in 1797. The usurers received their hold on the\nstate in a time of the greatest need. The republic had been\nimpoverished by the crusades, and was in dire financial straits.\nAdvantage was taken of this by the usurers to so bind the bank and\nstate together that when one lived the other must, or both must die\ntogether. Stock in the bank was a loan to the state at four per cent.\nannual interest. The union seemed to promise great prosperity for a\ntime, but really absorbed all the republic's vitality during the last\nhundred years of their life.\n\nVenetia was at the first a pure democracy. The Doge was elected by the\npeople and administered the government, himself being the responsible\nhead. He, later, chose advisers, or a cabinet, to be associated in the\nresponsible duties. After this, and about the time of the association\nwith the bank, a representative council was elected by the people, and\nthe government was administered by the Doge and this council. This was\ngradually transformed from a government of the people to an oligarchy;\nand as the years passed there were no steps taken toward a return, but\nthe authority and power was more and more centralized. The ruling\nclass was, in a hundred years, limited to those families enrolled in\nthe \"Golden Book.\" In another hundred years the government was in\ncontrol of the \"Council of Ten.\" Later the secret tribunal of three\nwas the terror of the people and the instrument of their oppression.\nThe republic was only such in name, the people were deprived of all\nvoice in the government, and the Doge became a puppet to obey the\nruling cabal.\n\nShakespeare went to Venice to find his typical usurer in Shylock the\nJew. He found there also his typical Christian, Antonio. Antonio was a\nbenevolent great soul, who loved his friends, supported all\nbenevolences, and hated the usurers. Shylock hated him because he\nwould lend without interest, and was constantly reproving him for his\nusurious practice.\n\nThe contest between the usurers and the people of the Venetian\nrepublic was a struggle for the life, but the usurers never relaxed\ntheir hold. They dominated until the end.\n\nAnother great triumph of the usurers was in England at the time of\ngreat need. William and Mary had been placed upon the throne by the\nProtestants, but were in need of money to carry on the struggle for\nits complete establishment. This was the usurers' opportunity. Former\nkings, in like straits, had confiscated the wealth of the usurious\nJews, Lombards and Goldsmiths, and appropriated their property as a\npenalty for their unchristian practice, but William and Mary entered\ninto a contract with them to gain their assistance, giving them\nspecial privileges to secure a permanent loan. They were to loan the\ncrown 1,200,000 pounds sterling. This was never to be repaid, but\ninterest at the rate of eight per cent. per annum was to be paid\nforever. This loan was a marvel of success. There was a great rush of\nusurers to place their money with the crown as a perpetual loan at\nthat rate of increase. Their usuries, which had hitherto been counted\ndishonest gain, were henceforth to be honorable, and they esteemed as\npatriots.\n\nThus, the first Protestant power in the world was established in the\nhands of usurers, and bound to continue associated with them forever.\nThe story, by Macauley, of the establishment of the Bank of England,\nis familiar to all students of English history.\n\nThis bank is a great corporation; the Board of Directors is composed\nof twenty-six members, who elect their own successors, and thus it is\nentirely independent. It makes laws for its own direction in the name\nof the people or defies their control. In 1797 it secured an order\nfrom the privy council ordering itself to suspend specie payment. It\nobeyed its own order promptly, and at the same time announced their\nstrength and that the order would be temporary; but for one excuse and\nanother it was continued for twenty-five years.\n\nSir Robert Peel, in 1844, having become convinced of the dangerous and\ndisastrous influence, expanding and contracting its loans, secured the\nenactment of a law to regulate and limit its circulation. This law\nwas distasteful to the bank, and was, upon its enactment, defied by\nopen disobedience. It has not only dictated the laws for its own\nregulation, but directed both the domestic and the foreign policy of\nthe government. It has subordinated the public weal to financial\nprofit. This corporation of usurers manage all the finances of the\nkingdom, and has more influence than Crown and Parliament combined. As\na great uncrowned king it dictates the diplomatic policies of the\nUnited Kingdom. Its influence has not been extended to promote\nProtestant Christian faith, Jews are not zealous for any Christian\nsect; nor for the purpose of lifting up the degraded and enlightening\nthem; nor in the east has it exercised its power to relieve human\nsuffering, but its diplomatic policy has been mercenary greed always.\n\nIt should be noted that the enlightened Christian people of the United\nKingdom are not the English government. There has been, for two\nhundred years, a power behind the Throne, behind Parliament, behind\nthe people, essentially selfish and commercial. This has controlled\nIndia for profit, while the benevolent people were anxious to\nchristianize and uplift. It has befriended the Turk while England wept\nover the Turkish barbarities. It forced opium upon China while the\nChristian people sent missionaries. The people of England love\nfreedom, yet the government has endeavored to crush it in the American\ncolonies and everywhere throughout the world, when in conflict with a\nselfish commercial policy. The English people cry out against human\nslavery, yet in the struggle in the United States, when slavery was in\nthe balance, the English government earnestly espoused the cause of\nthose who upheld slavery. The English people rejoiced that the slave\ntrade in Africa was abolished, yet the government enacted the hut tax,\nand compels now the service of the young and vigorous blacks in the\nmines, sending them back to their people when their strength declines.\n\nIn the establishment of the republic of the United States there was a\nstrong resistance to any debt or subordination to usurers. The history\nof banks in the United States shows a struggle at the birth of the\nnation between the usurers, who demanded the management of the\nfinances, and the people who resisted. This struggle continued for\nhalf a century, when the people triumphed, and for thirty years there\nwas no hint of a purpose to overthrow what was regarded as the settled\npolicy of the nation.\n\nThe first bank was incorporated in 1791. Its establishment was\nstrongly resisted, but being urged by the Secretary of the Treasury, a\ncharter was granted for twenty years. When that charter expired by\nlimitation in 1811, there was a struggle by the usurers to secure its\nrenewal, but they were defeated. They did not, however, abandon their\neffort. In 1816 they secured the charter of the second bank of the\nUnited States. This charter was also limited to twenty years,\nexpiring in 1836. There was a tremendous struggle for its renewal, but\nthe chief executive, backed by a strong political party, so completely\ndefeated it that the usurers for the time yielded, and for thirty\nyears the settled policy of the government forbade the alliance with\nusurers and the making of any public debt. Many of the leading\nstatesmen of that period were very pronounced in their opposition.\n\n\"The banking system concentrates and places the power in the hands of\nthose who control it.\n\n\"Never was an engine invented better calculated to place the destines\nof the many in the hands of the few, or less favorable to that\nequality and independence which lies at the bottom of our free\ninstitutions.\"--J.C. Calhoun.\n\n\"I object to the continuance of this bank because its tendencies are\ndangerous and pernicious to the government and the people. It tends to\naggravate the inequality of fortunes; to make the rich richer, and the\npoor poorer; to multiply nabobs and paupers, and to deepen and widen\nthe gulf that separates Dives from Lazarus.\"--Thomas H. Benton.\n\n\"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous\nthan standing armies. I am not among those who fear the people. They\nand not the rich are our dependence for continued freedom. And to\npreserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with\nperpetual debts.\"--Thomas Jefferson.\n\n\"Events have satisfied my mind, and I think the minds of the American\npeople, that the mischief and dangers which flow from a national bank\nfar overbalance all its advantages.\"--Andrew Jackson.\n\nThe usurers were compelled to remain under public condemnation during\nthirty years, as sentiment was strongly against them and conditions\nwere not in their favor, but they did not relax their watchful effort\nnor abandon hope of ultimate success. When the nation was struggling\nto prevent its dissolution in 1861-5, and unusual war measures seemed\nnecessary to meet the great emergency, the usurers saw their\nopportunity and came forward, as they did in Venice and England; they\nwould loan the government the funds necessary to carry on the war, if\nthe government would comply with their conditions and grant them the\nprivileges demanded. They asked that their loan be perpetual, like the\nEnglish loan; that they should be freed from the burdens of the\ngovernment; that their loan should be free from taxation; that they\nshould receive their interest semi-annually, and not in the common\nlegal tender, but in coin; that they be permitted to issue their own\nnotes as currency to be loaned to their customers; that the government\ndiscredit its own issues and endorse theirs; and that they be given a\nmonopoly by taxing out of existence all opposition.\n\nThese were great demands, and were regarded as extortionate and\noppressive. The struggle was severe, but the enemy in the field was\nthreatening the life of the nation, while the usurers were urgent and\nposing as patriots, that they might accomplish their ends. True\npatriots, anxious to defeat the enemy in arms, regarded these usurers\nat home as equally the enemies of freedom. They were in a strait\nbetwixt two foes.\n\nSecretary McCullough said, \"Hostility to the government has been as\ndecidedly manifested in the efforts that have been made in the\ncommercial metropolis of the nation to depreciate the currency as has\nbeen by the enemy.\"\n\nThe opposition to the usurers was very strong and bitter, but the\nconditions were in their favor and they gained a decided advantage. In\nthe Senate the vote stood twenty-three yeas to twenty-one nays. It was\ncarried only as a war measure. There was an effort to limit the\nusurers' privileges to the war and one year after its close. This was\nnot successful, but their loan was confined to the war debt, and their\ntime to its payment, limited to twenty years.\n\nThis action caused great distress and dark forebodings of evil to many\nof the thoughtful. It was setting aside the policy of the nation,\nwhich had been generally acquiesced in as wise and judicious and safe\nfor many years. The old patriot Thadeus Stevens, in the opening of a\nspeech in a preliminary skirmish between patriotism and usurers,\nsaid: \"I approach the subject with more depression of spirits than I\never before approached any question. No personal motive or feeling\ninfluences me. I hope not, at least. I have a melancholy foreboding\nthat we are about to consummate a cunningly devised scheme, which will\ncarry great injury and great loss to all classes of people throughout\nthe Union, except one.\" Later he said, in excuse of the action, \"We\nhad to yield, we did not yield until we found that the country must be\nlost or the banks gratified, and we have sought to save the country in\nspite of the cupidity of its wealthier classes.\"\n\nThe usurers have never relaxed the hold they secured by this victory,\nand have since been continually increasing their power. They obtained\nan extension or \"refunding\" of the war debt, and a renewal of their\ncharters by the general laws, so their hold is indefinitely extended.\nBonds are no longer limited to the covering of war expenses, but are\nissued freely in times of peace. The traditions of the fathers have\nbeen cast to the winds, and their fears derided and their policy\nchanged. The usurers have been firmly in the saddle for many years,\nand have defeated every effort that has been made to unseat them.\n\nThe great debts of the nations have brought all mankind into\nsubjection to the usurers. Those who hold the bonds have the destinies\nof the race in their hands. They pervert the ends of government; the\nprotection of life, liberty and the highest good of all the people;\nthey make governments their tools to gather and appropriate the\nearnings of the many.\n\nThey have exalted Mammon upon the throne of the world, and scoff at\nthe God of heaven, who seeks the poor and needy, and who would in love\nlift up every son and daughter of the whole race.\n\nMilton presents Mammon as one of the devils cast out of heaven with\nSatan, and as saying in the council of the demons, \"What place can be\nfound for us within heaven's bound, unless heaven's Lord we\noverpower?... How wearisome eternity so spent in worship paid, to one\nwe hate.\"\n\nThe reign of Mammon subordinates character and virtue and liberty and\nhuman life to sordid gain, yet he holds the scepter of power.\n\nHe elects legislators and senators. He elects governors or directs\ntheir arrest if they refuse to obey him. He elects presidents and\ndictates their policies. He places kings on their thrones and holds\nthem there while they do his bidding. He strips a Khedive of power,\nand yet retains him as a collector of revenue. He steadies the\nSultan's tottering throne, and compels six great Christian powers to\nstand by in silence while humanity is outraged. The Armenian's blood\nmust be permitted to flow because the persecution is by a great\nservant, the Sultan, who pays interest on bonds, and his victims are\nonly freemen. The murder of one hundred thousand Armenians meant\nnothing to Mammon. But when the Cretans were persecuted by the same\nSultan, the suffering and bloodshed was soon ordered stopped by these\nsame six powers, at Mammon's command. The Cretans were servants of the\ncommon master; the Cretan bonds were endangered. The cry of suffering\nhumanity came up to deaf ears, but the cry of endangered bonds was\nheard from afar by this reigning god of wealth.\n\nThe little republics of Africa were freemen, and therefore Mammon sees\nthem strangled with indifference. Mammon gathers the civilized nations\naround China and demands that she shall be enslaved by all the bonds\nshe can safely carry or submit to vivisection and distribution.\n\nThis enslavement of the race is not by the destroying of intelligence,\nnor by denying the first principles of civil liberty, nor by crushing\nthe aspirations for freedom, but by producing conditions that make the\napplication of these principles and the exercise of freedom\nimpossible. Though the race may increase in intelligence and\ntheoretically have correct views of personal freedom and civil\nliberty, yet the conditions produced necessarily by usury utterly\nprevent their realization. The intelligence and aspirations of the\nrace never were higher than at present, their subjection and\nsubordination to material wealth was never more complete.\n\nThe scepter wherein lies Mammon's power to sway the nations is usury.\nWhen bonds bear no increase his sovereignty is gone. All motive to\ninvolve the nation in debt at once disappears, and the power to\ncontrol is lost. Moses' law was divinely wise that forbade interest,\nthat his people could not be enslaved and might remain a free people\nforever.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\nEFFECT ON CHARACTER.\n\n\nThe greatest factor in life in all ages is not material wealth, nor\nsocial position, nor genius, nor education, but character. Since man\nis above things, the highest purpose is not the gathering of that\nbeneath him, but the developing of the best and noblest that is in\nhim.\n\nThe highest possible purpose and work is the developing of virtuous\nmanhood.\n\nThis was the thought of our fathers when they came to these shores and\nbuilt their homes and established the free institutions which we now\nenjoy. They sacrificed material advantages that they might be free men\nand secure for themselves and for their children the opportunity to\nreach in faith and practice the ideal manhood.\n\nNo material advantage can be regarded with favor that is detrimental\nto the characters of men. Position, wealth, education, are worse than\nworthless when associated with a corrupted manhood.\n\n    \"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,\n    Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.\"\n\nThe test of truth is its developing of the virtues and graces.\nFalsehood is detected by its quickening the vices that degrade and\ndestroy. \"By their fruits shall ye know them.\"\n\nVirtues are linked together so that the promoting of one gives\nstrength to the others. All vices are also so linked that the\nstimulating of one quickens other vices.\n\nVirtues and vices are opposite, so that the encouraging of a vice or\nfault discourages the opposing virtue. When you discourage a virtue,\nyou encourage a vice.\n\nThe old-fashioned virtues which our fathers prized, and which they\nregarded essential elements of worthy manhood, were industry, and\nhonesty, and self-reliance, and brotherly sympathy, and the devout\nrecognition of God's divine sovereignty.\n\n1. Usury discourages industry and encourages idleness. The laborer is\nstirred to diligence when he gets good wages. When his wages are\nmeager he becomes discouraged, relaxes his efforts and may abandon his\nwork altogether. When he knows that he is receiving less than he is\nearning, and that a part of his earnings are appropriated by another,\nhe is embittered and becomes indifferent. When he receives all he\nearns, and the more diligent he is in his work the more he receives,\nhe is stimulated to the utmost.\n\nThis will be especially true if it is made impossible to secure a gain\nwithout earning it. The benefit of full wages may be largely lost by\nthe knowledge of persons who, without productive effort, are\nappropriating the earnings of others. The influence of their easy,\nindolent lives may destroy or counteract the beneficent influence of\ngood wages. The laborer may be led to despise his well-paid tasks and\nyearn for their ease, and thus become indolent.\n\nOne is encouraged to idleness when he discovers that he can secure his\nbread by the sweat of another's face. He is likely to relax his\nefforts if he does not forsake all personal productive occupations. He\nmay give great care and the closest attention to the management of his\nwealth, loaning to others and collecting the increase, but not to\nproductive industry.\n\nThere are activities that look like virtues, but they are perverted\nefforts. The slave-driver may work as hard as the slave in his efforts\nto appropriate the earnings of others. The thief may work in the night\nand endure more hardness to secure the property of another than would\nbe necessary to honestly earn it. The usurer may give his thought,\nnight and day, to the placing of his wealth the most securely and at\nthe best rates of interest, and at the same time abandon all effort in\nthe direct management of useful productive enterprises.\n\nThe complete result of usury upon the habit of industry can be\nrealized in those who have grown up under its influence; those who\nhave an income secure from invested funds. When there is no need,\npresent nor prospective, there is no motive to active industry, and\nthe love of ease and pleasure grows and drives out all heart for\nproductive effort.\n\nThe industrious habit coupled with economy is called thrift. It is not\nparsimony or unwillingness to give, but a disposition to save. Our\nLord, who was the prince of givers and inculcated unlimited giving\namong his followers, gave a lesson in thrift when he said after his\nmiracle, \"Gather up the fragments, that nothing be lost.\"\n\nEnforced industry and economy is not thrift. When by low wages or\ngrinding conditions the necessities of life are with difficulty\nsecured, the very opposite disposition may be cultivated. When the\nexternal restraints are removed, the wildest extravagance may be\nindulged in. This is sometimes given as an excuse for low, grinding\nwages; that \"the workmen and their wives have no idea of saving;\" that\nhigher wages would be wasted in foolish extravagance.\n\nNo one in normal conditions will be wasteful of that which has cost\nhim hard labor. His care for it will naturally be in proportion to the\neffort that was necessary to secure it. Those who waste the wealth of\nthe world are not those who by the sweat of their faces have produced\nit. The habit of thrift comes from the knowledge of the value of a\nthing, learned by earning it. Only that which comes without effort\nwill be spent without thought. Those who have livings secured from the\nincrease or interest of \"productive\" capital, having no need of\nindustry, are wholly occupied with the spending; but in spending only,\nthe value of the thing spent is not appreciated, the habit of\nextravagance grows and they become the idlers and the spendthrifts of\nthe world.\n\n2. It prevents open and frank honesty. When the thought is turned to\nan endeavor to secure a dollar that is not earned, there is\nsecretiveness of purpose and inward guile. No person doing business on\nborrowed capital advertises the number and amount of his loans nor\ndoes he welcome inquiry by others. In a column of advertisements by\nmoney lenders in a newspaper lying on this table every one promises\n\"privacy\" or \"no publicity.\" No one can be so open and frank as the\none who earns every dollar that he receives or seeks.\n\nThe possibility of speculation is ruinous. The first step in the wreck\nof integrity in a young man's character is when he becomes absorbed in\nsome scheme by which he can secure gain without honestly earning it.\nLotteries are outlaws not only because they defraud but they undermine\nintegrity and honest industry.\n\nWhen property earns property, and the gain is secured with no struggle\non his part, the temptation is presented and the disintegration of his\ncharacter has begun. When there is no gain except by production, the\nwhole thought and energy of the man is directed to that end, and his\ndesire to secure that earned by another is restrained. The frank,\nopen disposition is preserved. Honest productive toil drives out the\nspirit of speculation. Under usury, both lender and borrower are in\nthe attitude of expectants of unearned gain.\n\n3. It discourages the spirit of self-reliance.\n\nUsury causes a broad separation between a man of property and the man\nof mere muscle or brain. It makes such large combinations of capital\npossible in immense shops and department stores and other enterprises,\nthat the individual workman is belittled. Under the principle of\nusury, property can produce as well as brain or muscle. One having\nproperty can control both.\n\nHis property places him in a position as a superior. He comes to\nforget the relations he bears to men as equals, and requires that\nthose who have only their natural gifts shall be cringing supplicants\nbefore him or be denied his favor. The borrower or the laborer who\nasserts his rights is endangered by the man controlling property, who\nhas him in his power.\n\nThat independent, self-reliant spirit, that looks every man in the\nface as an equal yet lingers in the country among the hills and\nmountains, but is fast disappearing from the city. There has come to\nthe laborer in the town or city a feeling of dependence upon others\nand a desire to secure their favor. They almost feel that they must\napologize for being laborers, and beg for an opportunity to earn a\nliving in some one's employ. One of the saddest facts, and most\nthreatening of disaster in these present commercial conditions, is the\ncommon desire to be employed, to get a job, dependent on the whim of\nanother, instead of a determination to direct one's own labor and be\nthe manager of one's own business. The sound educational development\nis wanting in the daily occupation of the hired laborer, and there is\na loss of manhood that has no compensation.\n\nThe independent spirit slips away so gradually that its going is\nscarcely noticed, but when once gone the degradation is complete.\n\nA family of free Hebrews went down into Egypt, and for a long time was\nin favor with the rulers, but they gradually lost their independence\nand became more and more servile and cringing until the Egyptian\nmasters dared to go into their homes and pick up their boy babies and\ntake them out and drown them as if they were worthless puppies.\n\nThe hopelessness of the Ottoman Empire today is more in the cringing\nsubordination and broken spirit of the people than in the oppression\nof the Sultan. His government might be overthrown in a day, but it\nwould take ages to lift up that empire of prostrate slaves and to\ncultivate in them the self-assertion and self-reliance necessary to a\nfree people.\n\nEvery man who loves his country and his race must view with alarm this\ngrowing feeling of subordination and cringing disposition. It is the\nvery reverse of that democratic spirit or consciousness of equality\nthat must prevail to secure the permanency of our republican\ninstitutions.\n\n4. It destroys fraternal sympathy. Two classes are found in every\nmodern community. The one is the laborers with muscle or brain, the\nother class, those whose property produces for them. Between these\nclasses there is a great wall fixed. It cannot be expected that they\nwill mingle harmoniously and be in sympathy in civil and social\nrelations. Producing and non-producing classes can never be\ncongenially associated.\n\nThe question is frequently discussed in church circles, \"How can the\nlaboring man be attracted to the churches?\" The discussion often\npresumes that the non-laboring man does find the church congenial. If\nhe does, all efforts to win the other class will be in vain. The\nchurch itself needs to correct its teachings and reform its spirit.\n\nThe moral law commands \"Six days shalt thou work,\" and there is no\nrelease because a man has property. So long as a man has brain or\nbrawn he is bound by that law. If he is not, he is not a moral man,\nand has no rightful place in the church of God. Honest, upright,\nindustrious Christian men, engaged in all lines of production for\nhuman needs, may be congenial and co-operate most harmoniously, but\nthey never can be made comfortable in association with those who are\nunproductive and idle, yet living in luxury.\n\n5. Usury promotes that \"Covetousness which is idolatry.\"\n\n\"As heathens place their confidence in idols, so doth the avaricious\nman place his confidence in silver and gold. The covetous person,\nthough he doth not indeed believe his riches or his money to be God,\nyet by so loving and trusting in them, as God alone ought to be loved\nand trusted in, he is as truly guilty of idolatry as if he so\nbelieved.\"\n\nIdolatry is the act of ascribing to things or persons properties that\nare peculiar to God. The principal objects of worship are those things\nwhich bring to men the greatest good.\n\nThe sun has been the most general object of idolatrous worship in all\nthe ages. It is the most conspicuous object, and is the source of\nlight and heat, and rules the seasons. Its worship was so general that\nthe Hebrew people, when they lapsed from the worship of God, turned to\nthe worship of the sun or Baal. No natural object is more worthy of\nworship. Job declaring his integrity and freedom from idolatry, said\nthat he had not kissed his hand in salute of the sun in his rising.\n\nThe river Nile was an object of idolatrous worship for ages. Its\nsource was a mystery, and its annual rise in its rainless valley was\nso beneficent, that it was given the worship which belonged to the\nDivine alone. All the hope of the harvest depended on its annual\noverflow. It moistened and fertilized and prepared the ground, and\nthen receded until the harvest was grown and gathered. Moses showed\nthe Egyptians the impotence of their idols by making this chief idol,\nand the things that came out of it, a curse. The cow was worshiped\nbecause it was the most useful and necessary of their animals. A real\nor supposed power to give or withhold favors has been from the\nbeginning the source and spring of idolatry.\n\nRiches, property, as the means of supplying our needs, is an object\nmore coveted than any other. The principle of usury greatly aggravates\nthis tendency. The principle of usury makes it imperishable; it can be\nperpetuated, unimpaired from year to year and from age to age; it is a\nconstant source of benefit; it is productive of all that is necessary\nto supply human needs.\n\nIt supplies, too, without effort on the part of the recipient. The\nsun, with his light and heat, makes the labor of the farmer\nsuccessful. The rising Nile moistening and fertilizing the land,\nprepares the way for the sower. The cow draws the plow and the harrow,\nand threshes the grain, but usury makes property bring all needed\nmaterial good without effort on the part of the owner. It brings him\nthe matured fruits of the farm, though he neither plows or sows nor\nreaps. No labor on his part is needed. His property clothes and feeds\nhim, and yet does not grow less, but is endowed with perpetual youth,\never giving yet never exhausted or diminished. He may die, but his\nidol knows no decay, and may continue to bless his children through\nthe generations. This quality of riches makes them a greater source of\nblessing than the sun or any other object of idolatrous worship. This\nleads to unlimited self-denial and sacrifice to gain and retain\nproperty. The devotees subordinate their own ease and physical\ncomfort, their own intellectual development, to secure it, they will\nthemselves shrivel in body and soul; like other idolaters they will\neven yield the highest interests of their children, when this idol\ndemands their sacrifice.\n\n6. It destroys spirituality. Property is matter and not spirit. With\nthe thought and heart and effort directed to a material thing, the\nspirit is neglected. The heathen Greek artist directed his whole\nattention to the material part of man. The symmetry of the human\nphysical form was his study. The perfect man was the most\nsymmetrically developed specimen of physical form. His thought of man\nwas matter. The Christian directs his thought to the spirit, his mind\nand heart, his noble purposes, and all the qualities of true manhood.\nThe material part is subordinated to the spiritual.\n\nThe tendency now is to appreciate a man for what he has rather than\nfor what he is, to ignore both symmetry of form and the graces of the\nnoble character, and to worship what he holds in his hands. The truly\nspiritual loves true manhood and is indifferent to the possessions.\n\nIf a noble soul is found in a Lazarus, the true child of Abraham will\ntake him to his bosom. A perverted manhood will receive no favor\nthough clothed and surrounded with all material splendor.\n\nIt destroys spirituality, too, because it holds the mind to a material\nthing as the source of all good. The spiritual man rises to the true\nsource of our blessings, the author of all temporal good, from whose\nhand every living thing is fed.\n\nThis, as all idolatry, leads to a breaking away from the restraints of\nthe moral law. The devotion to the material leads, logically and\npractically, to a neglect of the restraints of the spiritual, and a\npreponderance of subserviency to the material. Practices that will\npromote the material are indulged though the moral law may be broken.\nThe material is not held subject to the needs of the higher nature,\nnor subject to the promotion of the kingdom of God, but man's noblest\ngifts and the worship of God are all made, if possible, to minister to\nthe material interests.\n\nTo break this idol's power, the true nature of property must be shown.\nIt is not immortal, but perishable. It can not preserve itself, but\nmust be carefully preserved by man's own effort. It can not protect\nhim, but he must protect it. It is but a thing which man has himself\nmade. It must be shown absurd, as Isaiah ridiculed it, \"They worship\nthe work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made.\"\n\nOther forms of gross external idolatry are exposed by the advancing\nlight of these progressive years, but this musty old form has taken\nnew life and now receives the service of the race. The whole world is\nrunning pell-mell after this idol. It stands in the market places, it\nis not a stranger in the courts of justice, and is in high favor in\nlegislative halls. Solon is relegated and Croesus is elected.\n\nIt is given a high place in the temple of God. Pious Lazarus is\nneglected but Dives is promoted.\n\n\"What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?\"\n\nUntil this idol is cast out the church will and must languish.\nSpiritual life will be low and fervor impossible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\nAX AT ROOT OF THE TREE.\n\n\nIt is easier to cut down an evil tree than to climb up and lop off it\nbranches; besides the branches will grow again if the stock is left\nundisturbed. It is easier to destroy the mother of vipers than it is\nto chase after, catch and kill her poisonous progeny. The reptiles\nwill not become extinct while the mother is left to breed without\nrestraint. There are a large number of industrial and financial evils\nthat derive their strength from usury, which have received the close\nattention of benevolent reformers, but they have not exposed the\ncause, nor have they suggested a sufficient remedy. That the evils\nexist is apparent to them all, but they seem too high to reach or too\nswift to be caught.\n\nIt is only possible to hint at the prevailing evils in one chapter. It\nwould require a volume to discuss them in detail and to apply the\nremedy.\n\n1. There is a tendency to divergence in the material and financial\nconditions of men. Some are growing richer, while others are growing\npoorer.\n\nThe prayer of Agur, \"Give me neither poverty nor riches,\" is the\nprayer we should offer and the prayer we should try ourselves to\nanswer. We are to seek freedom from poverty on the one hand and from\nensnaring riches on the other. This is the condition we should try to\nsecure in the community and in the commonwealth. We should discourage\nexcess of riches and we should endeavor to relieve all of distressing\npoverty. We should hedge about accumulation with such conditions as to\nmake it very difficult to gain great wealth, and at the same time we\nshould so ease the conditions of accumulation that only gross\nindolence or great misfortune could cause dependent poverty.\n\nThe so called middle class are those who neither have great riches nor\nyet are they in fear of want. The great mass of our people belonged to\nthis class until very recent times. Now we find the excessively rich\nhave multiplied and a vast number of our industrious, honest and\nvirtuous population are struggling for life's necessities. The middle\nclass is less numerous while both those in opulence and those in\npoverty have been increasing.\n\nWe should level up and level down to the medium which is best for the\ndevelopment of the highest manhood and best also for the strength and\nperpetuity of our republican institutions.\n\nThe rich should be limited in their accretions while the poor are\nlifted out of their poverty; but how can this be accomplished without\ninterfering with individual liberty and our personal rights? The\nproblem is not easily solved. While usury remains, which is an ever\nactive centralizing force adding wealth to wealth, no remedy can be\nfound. Do away with usury, and the evil is overcome.\n\n(_a_) When it is recognized that vital energy alone produces all\nwealth, no great fortune can be gathered in the life time of one man.\nThe earnings of any life, however long, or the earnings of a\nsuccession of industrious, energetic ancestors, could not amass a\nfortune to interfere with the rights and activities of others.\n\nOne may inherit a large fortune from wealthy kindred; he may discover\na fortune; he may draw a grand prize in a lottery; he may as a Turk\nseize the properties of others and then bribe the courts to confirm\nhis claims; or a people may be \"held up\" by law and one, selfish and\nconscienceless as a ghoul, may jump at the opportunity and appropriate\ntheir earnings and their property and yet the robber keep out of the\npenitentiary; but no one, however great his skill or brilliant his\ngenius, can earn one million dollars, nor the tenth of it, in his\nnatural life. To gain one million dollars one must earn twenty\nthousand dollars each year for fifty years and save it all. He must\nspend nothing for pleasure nor benevolence. He must spend nothing for\nfood nor for clothes.\n\n(_b_) Wealth decays unless cared for and preserved. As wealth\nincreases, the task of protecting and preserving it increases. There\ncomes a time when production must cease, and all energy will be\nrequired to preserve that already gained. When others preserve and\npay a price for the privilege, as in usury, the vital energy can\ncontinue production, indefinitely.\n\n(_c_) Abolish usury and the instant one ceases to produce he begins to\nconsume that which he has earned. He can not live upon the increase of\nhis earnings, but he must begin at once to diminish the supply.\nExacting usury he may consume only the increase and preserve the\nprincipal untouched. He may not consume all the increase and add the\nremainder to his capital and thus grow richer in decrepit age. Many of\nthose who have not inherited wealth, have not been wealthy until\nadvanced age. It came to them by the accretions of interest after the\nproductive period of life was past.\n\n(_d_) It is not possible to secure perfect equality of conditions. If\nall wealth was equally distributed today differences would begin to\nappear tomorrow. This has seemed to some disheartening and they\nabandon all hope of correcting the evil. They should look deeper and\npromote the natural and God-ordained remedy.\n\nThe natural force for the preservation of the level of the ocean is\ngravity. But the surface is seldom smooth. The winds lash it into fury\nand pile high its waves, but gravity pulling upon every drop of water\ntends to draw it back to its place and smooth down the surface again.\nThe wind cannot build permanently a mountain of water in the ocean.\n\nThe consumption and decay of wealth tends unendingly to equalize the\nconditions of men. In the wild rush of the struggle for supremacy and\ngain, like a whirlwind in the affairs of men, with their diverse gifts\nand tastes and plans, there will be inequalities appearing, but\nconsumption and inevitable decay are ever present leveling powers.\nUsury suspends this beneficent law and aggravates the evil, making the\ndifferences in condition permanent and increasing them.\n\nDo away with usury and there is a natural limitation to riches. The\nrich will find that he can not grow constantly richer; not because he\nis by statute deprived of any personal rights, but he is hindered by\nthe natural law embedded in things by the Creator.\n\nDo away with usury and the problem of poverty is solved. If we credit\nvital energy with the increase of wealth and give the laborer all he\nearns, he has a fair and equal chance, and equity requires no more. It\nis justice and opportunity, a fair chance, that the poor need, not\npity and gifts of charity.\n\n2. Great combines of capital in business and especially in industrial\ntrusts are receiving the closest attention of the thoughtful. Some\nregard them as the necessary result of successful and enlarging\nbusiness. Many others regard them as hostile to the public good and\nare anxiously seeking a means of restraining their great and\nincreasing power.\n\nThese were at the first associations of manufacturers who co-operated\nto maintain prices. In the competitive system there is a constant\npressure on the part of the consumer for lower prices. The\nmanufacturer who is conscientious and a model employer, seeking to\nmaintain prices sufficiently high to afford him a profit and living\nwages for his employes, must ever be resisting this pressure. They\nunited for this purpose and were benevolent and just in their design.\nBut the manufacturers were paying tribute on borrowed capital. They\nmust meet the demands of interest on their debts and also the wages of\ntheir workmen. Between these two they struggled to secure for\nthemselves comfortable wages. The capitalists, seeing the advantage of\nthis co-operation and the resultant profits, undertook and\naccomplished the combination of their capital to secure for themselves\nthe profits at first sought for the operators and their employes.\n\nThese great combines are the natural result of successful business\nwith the practice of usury. They threaten evil.\n\nThe purpose and plan of the present trust is to increase the increase\nof the capital; to make the capital more productive; to bring larger\nreturns for the wealth invested.\n\n(_a_) They are not organized for the benefit of the laborer. The\nobject is to decrease the cost by producing with less labor. The less\nthe labor, other things being equal, the greater the returns for the\ncapital invested.\n\n(_b_) They are not organized for the benefit of the consumer. When\nthey do favor the consumer it is only incidental and generally\ntemporary to meet competition. They make no pretence of being\nbenevolent in their purposes. They are organized for the purpose of\nbusiness gain.\n\n(_c_) These capitalists combine their interests because they can\nthereby secure a greater return from their investments than they can\nby operating separately. They combine that they may mutually increase\nthe rate of interest or dividends on their capital. This is the motive\nthat draws them into cooeperation.\n\nThe learned and benevolent statesmen, teachers of economy and\nreformers, have not suggested an adequate remedy. The remedy is not\nfar to find. Do away with usury and they will fall apart like balls of\nsand; the cohesive power will be gone; the centralization will cease\nand the wealth will speedily return to the various individuals from\nwhom it was gathered. This remedy may seem heroic, but it is a\nspecific and is the simplest of all possible methods.\n\n3. How to secure a just distribution of the great advantages from\nimproved machinery, new inventions and new discoveries, is a problem\nthat is engaging the best thought of many of the wise and good. That\nthe present distribution is inequitable and unfair; that it gives the\ncapitalist an undue advantage over the laborer; that it aggravates the\ndifference in conditions, seems generally admitted.\n\nAn improved machine, owned by a capitalist, enables one man to do the\nwork that formerly required ten. One man is employed and the nine are\nin competition for his place and there is no advance over the wages\nbefore the machine was introduced. The owner of the machine secures\nthe gain. His wealth is greatly increased while the laborer plods on\nwith his old wages. With the new machine the one man produces what ten\nmen did before, but the product of the nine are credited to the\nmachine and becomes the capitalist's gain.\n\n(_a_) The falsehood on which this claim rests must be seen and\nrejected before the evil can be overcome; that the machine is\nproductive. It is but a tool in the hands of the one man, who now with\nit produces as much as ten men did without it. If one does the work of\nten he earns the reward of ten. Because by this machine he multiplies\nhis strength, and adds to his efficiency, he can not justly be\ndeprived of his full reward.\n\n(_b_) \"But the machine is owned by another.\" His not owning the\nmachine does not change its nature and make it a productive force.\nWhether it belongs to him or to another, it is his intelligent vital\nenergy that produces all that is produced. The machine is but his tool\nwith which he works.\n\n(_c_) \"But the machine must be paid for.\" Certainly, the inventors and\nskilled mechanics, who produced this wonderful tool, should be fully\ncompensated, but once paid they have no claim upon it or on what\nanother may produce with it. No honest workman objects to paying a\ngood price for good tools. It is not the purchase of tools by one set\nof workmen of another that causes the unequal conditions.\n\n(_d_) It is the usurer or interest taker that perverts the conditions.\n\nHe lays hold of those great inventions and discoveries, like railroads\nand telegraphs and telephones, and demands a perpetual compensation.\nHe asks that the laborer shall be forever buying his tool, yet it\nshall be never bought, that the public shall be forever paying for\nprivileges and the obligation remain forever unmet. This is but one of\nthe forms of usury, by which wealth is heaped from the earnings of the\nmany.\n\n4. The difficulties between employers and their laborers do not cease.\nThe continued strikes and lock-outs show how general and deep the\ntrouble is. Laborers organize into unions to protect themselves from\ndischarge and to promote their interests. They ask for better wages\nand shorter hours. They urge their petition with forceful arguments;\nthey make demands with an implied threat; they stop work or \"strike.\"\nThen follows a test of strength and endurance in which both parties\ngreatly suffer and both are embittered and neither is satisfied.\n\nThe correction of this common evil has received close study from those\nwho have the welfare of all classes at heart and wish to be\nbenefactors of the race. The remedies have not been thorough but\nsuperficial, and the benefits temporary. The branches have been cut\noff but they grow again.\n\n(_a_) The complaint of too small wages implies that more is earned\nthan is received; but there is no standard recognized by which what a\nman does earn can be measured. The capitalist claims the output as the\nearnings of his capital and his claim is allowed by the workmen. The\nworkmen may claim that wages are too small for a comfortable living.\nThis is not a plea of free workmen, but of slaves begging to be better\nfed.\n\n(_b_) They may complain of too many hours of labor; but the number of\nhours of labor is arbitrarily fixed. There is no valid constant reason\nwhy one should wish to work less. In the management of one's own work,\nand the collection of his own earnings, there are times when long\nhours, of the strain of labor, are necessary, and there are other\ntimes when ease can be taken. With no standard of earnings or time, it\nis impossible to arrive at a just and satisfactory settlement.\n\nThe reasons given sound to the employers like the pleadings of\nservants for richer food and more play.\n\n(_c_) The laborer should find a solid basal reason for his demands.\nThat will be found only in the utter rejection of the theory and\npractice of usury.\n\nThe selfishness of human nature will remain; conflicts between men in\nall conditions and all businesses will remain; feuds and rivalries\nwill remain; but when employer and employe are enabled to see that\ncapital is dead, and decaying, and that all the earnings above its\npreservation belong to the laborers, there will be a recognized and\ntrue basis upon which the rightful claims of each can be adjusted.\n\n(_d_) In a co-operative shop, where the workmen are the owners, each\nreceives his share of the gains. With usury done away it is possible\nfor workmen, who are poor, to ultimately become the owners, by the\naccumulation of earnings, but under the pull of the usurers,\ncontinually appropriating the earnings, they are doomed to hopeless\npoverty.\n\n5. There is a widespread determination to overcome the evil of war.\nNon-combatants are numerous and peace societies are organized in all\nlands. Their literature is widely distributed and their petitions, for\nthe preservation of peace, are poured upon every \"power\" that is\nthought to have an occasion, or a disposition, to engage in warfare.\nThe waste of treasure and blood, the cruelties and suffering that are\na military necessity, are pleaded in favor of peace. The shame of\nintelligent rational men settling differences with brute force is\npresented.\n\nThe unchristian spirit, that in this age of light and saving grace\nshould be so wanting in brotherly love as to wish to destroy those who\nharm us, is deprecated.\n\nWhen differences do arise between nations, they urge a just settlement\nor mutual concessions. Or if one is found to be unreasonable, unjust\nand oppressive, it is better and more christian-like, they claim, to\nendure hardness, submitting under protest, than by force, which the\nMaster forbade, attempt to establish righteousness.\n\nRulers of the greatest nations on the earth have become conscious of\nthe cruel burdens upon their people, in the support of their great\narmaments. On the invitation of the Czar of Russia, peace\ncommissioners from many nations recently met in The Hague, to devise\nmeans by which the burdens of armaments might be diminished and actual\nwarfare avoided. This peace council advised that differences be\nsubmitted to arbitration, but while it was yet speaking two Christian\npowers, began open war, without having so \"decent a regard to the\nopinions of mankind\" as to make known to the world the cause of their\nconflict. Wars continue, and among the most highly civilized and\nenlightened and christianized, in the face of the arguments and advice\nand pleadings of non-combatants and peace societies and peace\ncommissions.\n\nMammon, a sordid greed of gain, is now on the world's throne and\ndirects the movements of the nations in peace or war.\n\nHis purposes may be often accomplished in peace by purchases of\nterritory for which interest bearing bonds are issued. The irritation\nor hurts between peoples may be molified and healed by indemnities,\nwhich also serve his purpose because they necessitate the incurring of\na bonded debt, interest bearing. But the history of the world for\ncenturies proves that a condition of war is Mammon's opportunity to\nfoist a debt upon a free people and to increase the burden of those\nwhose bonds he already holds.\n\nHis ears are deaf to advice and reason, when material and commercial\nadvantages are to be secured. He cares not for human suffering and\nshed blood, if riches can be increased. When concessions can be\nsecured, and mortgages placed, and a people exploited with profit, the\ncry of suffering, the pleading for pity and the call for justice are\nall in vain.\n\nTo stop these modern wars they must be made unprofitable to Mammon.\nWhen they are made to deplete his treasury and to waste his wealth,\ninstead of increasing it, he will call a halt in strife, and the\ngentle spirit of peace will be permitted to hover over the nations.\n\nAway with national debts and interest bearing bonds, which are the\ndelight of the usurers. Make present wealth bear the burden of present\nduty. Try the patriotism of the usurers by making war a real\nsacrifice of their wealth, while the blood of others is being poured\nupon the field. Do not permit war to be an advantage to the rich to\nincrease his riches. A patriot's life is given and it goes out\nforever, let wealth be no more sacred than life; let it not be\nborrowed but consumed. Let the rich grow poorer as the war goes on,\nlet there be a facing of utter poverty, as the patriot faces death on\nthe field.\n\nWhile Mammon is permitted this usury, his chief tool, he will use it\nfor the oppression of the world. He will direct the movements among\nthe nations to further his ends, although it may require a conflict\nbetween the most christianized and enlightened of the earth. The\nnations will be directed in peace or put in motion in war to make\nwealth increase.\n\nGive wealth its true place as a perishable thing, instead of a\nproductive life, and wars will cease in all the earth. The holders of\nthe wealth of the world will never urge nor encourage war, when the\nproperty destroyed is their own and not to be replaced. When wars are\nno longer the usurer's opportunity, but the consumption of his wealth,\nMammon himself will beg that swords may be beaten into plow-shares and\nspears into pruning-hooks.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\nPER CONTRA; CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS.\n\n\nEvery argument favoring the continuance of the practice of usury can\nbe met from the propositions established in the preceding chapters.\nIndeed, there are no true arguments to be presented in its favor.\nTruth is consistent with truth. We are not placed in a dilemma and\ncompelled to decide which are the strongest of the arguments arrayed\nagainst each other. We are not deciding which is the greater of two\nblessings nor which the less of two evils, but this is a question of\nevil or good, of sin or righteousness. If usury is wrong then every\nargument brought forward to support it is a falsehood, though it may\nbe covered with a very beautiful and attractive and plausible form in\nits presentation.\n\n1. The old Wilson Catechism published in Dundee in 1737 is perhaps the\nmost familiar defense.\n\n    \"Q. Is the gaining of money by usury unlawful?\n\n    \"A. Yes, Prov. 28:8. Psalm 15:5.\n\n    \"Q. What is usury?\n\n    \"A. The taking unlawful profit for money that is lent out.\n\n    \"Q. Is it lawful to take any interest or gain for money lent?\n\n    \"A. Yes, when it is taken according to the laws of the land, and\n    from these who make gain by it, by trading or purchasing of\n    lands; seeing it is equally just for the owner of money to ask a\n    share of the profit which others make by it, as for the owner\n    of the land to demand farm from the tenant of it, money being\n    improvable by art and labor as well as land.\n\n    \"Q. What is the unlawful profit for money, which may be called\n    usury?\n\n    \"A. The taking profit for money from the poor who borrow for\n    mere necessity, or taking needful things from them in pawn for\n    it; or the taking more profit for any than law allows, as these\n    who take ten, fifteen, or twenty in the hundred. Exod. 22:25,\n    26. Deut. 24:12, 17. Ezek. 18:7, 8.\n\n    \"Q. But were not the people of Israel discharged to take any\n    usury or profit for lent money from their brethren? Deut. 23:19.\n\n    \"A. This law seems to have been peculiar to the Jewish state,\n    and that in regard of their estates being so divided, settled,\n    and secured to their families by the year jubilee, and their not\n    being employed in trading or making purchases like other\n    nations, so that they had no occasion to borrow money but for\n    the present subsistence of their families. But for strangers,\n    who had another way of living, the Israelites were allowed to\n    lend upon usury, and to share with them in their profits, Deut.\n    23:20, which shows that the taking of interest is not oppressive\n    in itself; for they are frequently prohibited to oppress a\n    stranger, and yet allowed to take usury from him. Exod. 22:21,\n    and 23:9.\"\n\nThe reader will notice that the definition of usury is defective. The\nreader will also notice that there are no Scripture references given\nto prove that any interest can be taken. This is singular, since\nthroughout the Catechism Scripture references are profuse in\nconfirmation of the answers. If a single passage had been found that\ncould be twisted into an approval the reference would have been given.\nHe rests the permission to take usury wholly on human reason, though\nin direct opposition to the Scripture references he had first given\nto prove that the gaining of wealth by usury was unlawful. He does not\nclaim to get this answer from the Bible. He rests this answer on the\nlaw of the land and the purposes of the borrower, and says it is not\nworse than taking a rental for land anyway.\n\nThe questions with regard to the customs of the people of Israel are\ncompletely met in the Second and Third Chapters of this book.\n\nFisher, also, we find from his catechism published in 1753, thought it\nnecessary to make some excuse for the custom in his time. High\ninterest he finds condemned, but moderate interest he tries to defend.\n\n    \"Q. 32. What is it to take usury, according to the proper\n    signification of the word?\n\n    \"A. It is to take gain, profit, or interest, for the loan of\n    money.\n\n    \"Q. 33. What kind of usury or interest is lawful?\n\n    \"A. That which is moderate, easy, and no way oppressive. Deut.\n    23:20, compared with Ex. 22:21.\n\n    \"Q. 34. How do you prove that moderate usury is lawful?\n\n    \"A. From the very light of nature, which teaches, that since the\n    borrower proposes to gain by the loan, the lender should have a\n    reasonable share of his profit, as a recompense for the use of\n    his money, which he might otherwise have disposed of to his own\n    advantage. 1 Cor. 8:13.\n\n    \"Q. 35. What is the usury condemned in scripture and by what\n    reason?\n\n    \"A. It is the exacting of more interest or gain for the loan of\n    money, than is settled by universal consent, and the laws of the\n    land. Prov. 28:8. 'He that by usury, and unjust gain,\n    increaseth his substance, shall gather it for him that will pity\n    the poor.'\n\n    \"Q. 36. How do you prove from scripture, that moderate usury, or\n    common interest, is not oppression in itself?\n\n    \"A. From the express command laid upon the Israelites not to\n    oppress a stranger, Ex. 23:9; and yet their being allowed to\n    take usury from him, Deut. 23:20; which they would not have been\n    permitted to do, if there had been an intrinsic evil in the\n    thing itself.\n\n    \"Q. 37. Is it warrantable to take interest from the poor?\n\n    \"A. By no means; for, if such as are honest, and in needy\n    circumstances, borrow a small sum towards a livelihood, and\n    repay it in due time, it is all that can be expected of them;\n    and therefore the demanding of any profit or interest, or even\n    taking any of their necessaries of life in pledge, for the sum,\n    seems to be plainly contrary to the law of charity. Ex.\n    22:25-28. Ps. 15:5.\n\n    \"Q. 38. Were not the Israelites forbidden to take usury from\n    their brethren, whether poor or rich? Deut. 23:19: 'Thou shalt\n    not lend upon usury to thy brother.'\n\n    \"A. This text is to be restricted to their poor brethren, as it\n    is explained, Ex. 22:25, and Lev. 25:35, 36; or, if it respects\n    the Israelites indifferently, then it is one of the judicial\n    laws peculiar to that people, and of no binding force now.\"\n\nIn the answer to the 34th question he appeals to the light of nature.\nThat light, as he interprets it, may be applied as follows. We follow\nhis language closely and his argument perfectly.\n\nFrom the very light of nature which teaches, that since the borrower\nof the hoe purposes to dig his own garden with it, the lender should\nhave a reasonable amount of his garden dug, as a recompense for the\nuse of the hoe, which he might otherwise have used himself to dig his\nown garden.\n\nFisher confirms his conclusion with a Scripture reference but it is so\nirrelevant that it would seem Wilson was wiser in omitting Scripture\nreference altogether. 1 Cor. 8:13, \"Wherefore, if meat make my brother\nto offend, I will eat no meat while the world standeth, lest I make my\nbrother to offend.\"\n\nThe only explanation the writer ever saw or heard of, that was\nseriously made was this: \"If using my brother's money without interest\noffends him, then I will never while the world standeth accept his\nmoney without interest lest I make my brother to offend.\" If this is\nthe intended application then it may be further applied. If using a\nbrother's money at six per cent. offends him then I will surely give\nhim ten per cent. lest I cause my brother offence. Could there be a\nmore absurd application of a Scripture passage?\n\nThe later theologians have seldom mentioned usury and none have\ndiscussed it at any length, and no divine to our knowledge has\nundertaken a defence. The \"Systematic Theology\" of Dr. Charles Hodge\nis perhaps the most elaborate and exhaustive. He does not more than\nrefer to usury; he does not even mention it by name. But in his\ndiscussion of the violation of the eighth commandment, he ridicules\nthe idea that \"a thing is worth what it is worth to the man who\ndemands it.\" He says: \"If this be so, then if a man perishing from\nthirst is willing to give his whole estate for a glass of water it is\nright to exact that price; or if a man in danger of drowning should\noffer a thousand dollars for a rope, we might refuse to throw it to\nhim for a less reward. Such conduct every man feels is worthy of\nexecration.\"\n\nHe closes the discussion of the eighth commandment with this\nsignificant and emphatic sentence: \"Many who have stood well in\nsociety and even in the church will be astonished at the last day to\nfind the word 'Thieves' written after their names in the great book of\njudgment.\"\n\n2. \"To prohibit usury is revolutionary.\"\n\nRevolutions are not necessarily evil. They have been justified in all\nthe ages to overthrow tyranny and oppression and to secure freedom and\nestablish justice. Oppressors and evil-doers in power have ever been\nanxious to maintain the \"statu quo\": that is, to be let alone. The\n\"Man of Galilee\" is the prince of revolutionists. He has overthrown\nand turned down the civilizations of the world and has brought in his\nown, called by his name, Christian civilization. His followers were\nrevolutionists. The idolatrous craftsmen of Ephesus, not wishing to be\ndisturbed in their profitable business, in order to defeat the work of\nPaul and his associates, raised the cry of revolution. \"These that\nhave turned the world upside down have come hither also.\"\n\nThe things that are wrong side up must be revolved. When material\nthings are found superior to true manhood and womanhood, they must be\nreversed. When the works of men's hands are given a place above the\nhands that formed them, when the results of labor are given a place\nabove the vital energy of the laborer, there is call for revolution.\n\nBut this revolution should be the most peaceful the world ever saw.\nThis need not require the destruction of any property nor the shedding\nof one drop of blood. It need interfere with no man's rights nor\nenforce upon any man a burden he should not be willing to bear. A man\nis not interfering with the rights of another when he is paying his\ndebts, and a man should not feel that there is placed upon him a\nburden he is unwilling to carry, when his own property is returned to\nhim. Yet that is the ultimate, the extreme goal, to be reached by the\nabolition of usury; every man free from debt and every man caring for\nhis own property.\n\n3. \"If usury is not permitted, the great modern enterprises are\nimpossible.\"\n\nA great modern enterprise that is not for the general good has no\nright to be. Splendid enterprises are often made possible by the\nsacrifice of the welfare of the many for the interests of the few. The\nsplendid plantations of the southern states flourished in time of\nslavery, when the labor of many was subordinate to the welfare of one.\nThey are not now possible; yet the present and future general good is\nbetter secured by the sacrifice of the splendid past. A splendid\nmilitary campaign is only possible by the complete subordination of\nthe many to the will and order of the commanding head. One hundred\nthousand in an army is now receiving the attention of the world. One\nhundred thousand in happy homes are commonplace. The pyramids are\nsplendid monuments, but they were not a blessing to the slaves, who\nbuilt them.\n\nSplendid enterprises in which the few command the many may be an\nunmitigated curse.\n\n    \"Ye friends to truth, ye statesmen who survey\n    The rich man's joys increase, the poor's decay;\n    'Tis yours to judge, how wide the limits stand,\n    Between a splendid and a happy land.\"\n\nNo enterprise, however brilliant, can be in the model state, that\nblesses the few by the losses of the many.\n\nGreat and benign enterprises are possible without usury. There is no\ngreater enterprise than the postal system in this land and extending\nto all the nations in the postal union. You owe it nothing; like poor\nRichard, \"you pay as you go.\" It owes nothing, pays no interest and\nrenders a great service for the small amount you pay. It is a standing\nillustration of the success of a strictly cash business.\n\nThe great benevolent missionary enterprises, that send their\nmessengers to all lands, over the whole earth, receive and disburse\nthe gifts of the benevolent. Their work is not interrupted, but\ncontinues from age to age.\n\nThe commerce of the world can be carried on just as effectively\nwithout usury. A mortgage does not make a farm more productive nor\ndoes a bonded debt make a railroad or a navigation company more\nefficient. The railroads and express and telegraph and telephone and\nother enterprises are greatly hindered in the service of the public by\nthe tribute they are returning to the usurers. Had this farmer not\nthis mortgage he could improve his farm and bring from his land better\nresults. Were it not for the unceasing drain upon the income of great\nenterprises to meet the interest on bonds, the properties could be\nimproved and the public better served at greatly reduced rates. Indeed\nthe most successful enterprises are now operated by the owners.\n\n4. \"It will be hard to borrow, if you will not pay interest.\"\n\nIt would be a happy condition if no one should want to borrow except\nin urgent need from an accidental strait; if that old independent,\nself-reliant spirit that refused to be indebted to any man could be\nuniversal, that preferred frank and honest poverty in a cabin, to a\nsham affluence in a mortgaged palace.\n\nIt should be hard to borrow, but easy to pay. Usury makes it easy to\nborrow, but hard to repay. Usurers even make it attractive and entice\nthe victim into the trap of debt and then it is all but impossible to\nfind a way out. An honest, industrious man of good habits must be ever\non the alert or he will be entangled, sooner or later, with debts.\n\nIt will not be harder for an honest man, who is in need, to borrow.\nHe will not be able to borrow more than his need requires. The debt\nwill not increase during the period of disability, and it will be\neasier to repay without increase. The usurer requires more than\nhonesty for the security of his loan. The loan to him is precious\nseed, that must be planted where it will grow. To merely have the loan\nreturned without increase does not meet his claim. To remit the\nincrease, to make it easier for the poor debtor to pay, he would\nregard as a positive loss to himself and a gift to his victim. The\nusurer prefers rich debtors, who have abundant property to secure the\nloan and its increase.\n\nThere is a despised class of pawn usurers who prey upon the poor. They\nare regarded as robbers of the poor in their distresses, but their\nbusiness would be impossible, were it not that all avenues of relief\nare closed by usury; \"interest must be paid anywhere; why not borrow\nof them though the rates are high?\" The moral quality of the act is\nthe same; the difference is wholly in the degree of turpitude.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\nPER CONTRA; LAND RENTALS.\n\n\n\"If no interest should be charged on money, then no rents should be\ncollected.\"\n\nThe early Christian apologists for usury, who felt it imperative to\nexplain why it was permitted and practiced among Christians, found few\narguments. They all agreed that the letter and spirit of the\nScriptures forbade lending to the poor, upon interest. They also found\nit impossible to show from reason the right of money to an increase,\nbut as money can readily be changed into other forms of property, as\nlands, they reversed the arguments; beginning with the assumed premise\nthat it is right to charge rental for lands, and as money may\nrepresent lands, it is therefore right, they say, to charge interest\non money.\n\n\"It seems as lawful for a man to receive interest for money, which\nanother takes pains with, improves, but runs the hazard in trade, as\nit is to receive rent for our land, which another takes pains with,\nimproves, but runs the hazard of in husbandry.\"\n\nTrue logic would have led them to reason forward from the truth they\nhad determined; that there is no valid reason justifying interest on\nmoney. Resting on this truth, and then discovering that money may\nrepresent lands, the necessary conclusion must be, that land rentals\nare without justice. Reversing the order of their argument, they\nassumed a false premise, and from it attempted to prove true the very\nproposition they had found to be false.\n\nThere is the usury of lands as well as of \"money or victuals.\"\n\nForty years ago the Omaha Indians went across the river and cut some\nfine grass growing on open land, and carried it to their reservation.\nThe owner of the land, living in a distant state, learning of this,\nclaimed pay of the Indians and brought suit against them before the\nagent to recover it. The Indians admitted that they had cut and taken\nthe grass; they also admitted its value. Their defense was that this\nman had no right superior to theirs. This was a natural growth that\nhad cost him no labor, and they had not injured the land. Their\nspeaker said, \"If the man had dug the land and planted it in corn and\nhoed and tended the corn, the corn would have been his; but the Great\nSpirit made the grass grow and this man gave it no labor nor care; the\nbuffalo or the cattle could eat it. Have we not the rights of the\ncattle? This man has no right to it.\"\n\nThe agent decided against them and compelled them to pay the man. They\nwere much dissatisfied and felt they were unjustly treated and\noppressed, because they had to pay that which the man had never\nearned. The red men were not versed in legal statutes nor educated in\nthe tutelage of usury, but it can not be denied that they interpreted\nvery accurately the law written in the reason and conscience: that no\nman has any especial claim to that which he has not earned.\n\nThe convictions of white men, and their method of compelling absentee\nowners to pay for the increase in value of their lands, came under the\nwriter's observation in a new settlement near the Indians'\nreservation. He found three poor families in a district. They had\nlittle land and extremely plain homes, but there was a good\nschool-house and a good school and an expensive bridge had been built\nacross a stream to enable one of the families to reach it. Enquiring\nhow they could afford to erect such improvements and support such a\nschool, they replied that the lands all around them were owned by\nabsentees, speculators in the east, who were holding the lands for the\nadvance in value, which they, in their struggling poverty, should make\nby the improvement of the country, when they would gather in an\n\"unearned increment.\" They said they had the power to levy taxes for\nbridges and for schools and they had determined to make the absentees\nin this way compensate them, in part, for the increment they were\nearning for them.\n\nThe conviction of right and justice in the white settler did not\ndiffer from the innate and untutored argument of the Indian. The\nIndians felt oppressed because they were compelled to pay the man for\nwhat that man had never earned. The white settlers determined to\nthwart the purpose of the absentee owners to gain an increment from\ntheir sacrifice and labor.\n\nThe landlord has a right to all that he has produced. When he has\ncleared away the forest or broken up the land; when he has planted the\nvineyard and builded the winepress, he has a right to let this out to\nhusbandmen to gather the fruits of his preparation and planting and to\nshare with them in the proportion each has contributed to the\nproduction, but to hold all that he himself has produced and yet claim\na part of the product of another, is usury. A farmer retires from his\nfarm because no longer able or willing to continue its cultivation. He\nhas an undisputed right to a full reward for all his own labor, and\nfor all he has purchased from others that he leaves in the farm. There\nmust be a compensation for the transformation of the wilderness into a\nfarm at the first, for the fertility that may have been added to the\nsoil, for the orchards, vineyards, houses, barns and every improvement\nhe may have made and left on the farm. He has an undisputed right to\nall the labor remaining in the farm. If he sells he expects\ncompensation for all this.\n\nBut if he sells, he must begin at once to consume its price, unless he\nbecomes a usurer and is supported by the interest. If he does not\nsell, but retains his farm, he must also begin at once to consume the\nfarm.\n\nFor him to demand of his tenant that the farm shall remain as valuable\nas when he left it, the soil not permitted to become less fertile,\nthe buildings to be kept from decay and restored when destroyed, the\norchards to be kept vigorous and young by the planting of new trees\nand vines; in short, the farm to be preserved in full value and yet\npay a rental, is usury in land.\n\nThe preservation of a farm or land and its restoration to the owner\nunimpaired after a term of years involves far more than persons not\ninformed suppose. It seems to them unreasonable to farm a field and\nonly return the unimpaired field to the owner.\n\nWhile land is stable and possibly the most easily preserved of all\nforms of property, at least a thief cannot carry it away, yet the\npreservation of land involves great care and risk.\n\nThe taking of any crop from any land reduces its fertility. On the\nvirgin, western fertile lands the farmers laughed at the thought that\nthey should ever need to return fertilizers, but it was only a few\nyears until they yearned for the fertility they had extravagantly\nwasted. Buildings inevitably decay and they may be destroyed by fire\nor storm. Orchards may be overturned by a cyclone or be destroyed by\nblight or by the thousand enemies of the various varieties of fruit\ntrees. The land may be injured by washing that may require years to\nrepair. A single storm has destroyed fields in this way that never can\nbe restored. Noxious weeds take possession of land that can only be\neradicated by infinite pains. In this state certain weeds are\ndeclared outlaws and must be destroyed by the farmer for the\nprotection of his neighbors. The farmer in this locality must have an\nalert eye for Canada thistles and oxeye daisy. It often causes more\nlabor to eradicate them than the land is worth on which they are\ngrowing.\n\nIf the annual renter was required to give bond for the return of the\nfarm unimpaired, returning that which the crops and time must consume\nand destroy, taking all risks of every character upon himself, a\nthoughtful man, though poor and needing the opportunity, would\nhesitate. It might involve him in an obligation he could not discharge\nin his whole life through conditions and providences over which he has\nno control.\n\nPractically in this country the owner renting a farm from year to year\ndoes consume it. It begins at once to decline in fertility, the\nimprovements begin to fall into decay, weeds take possession, washes\noccur and are not repaired, and in a few years the half of the value\nis gone. The owner is fortunate if he has received in rentals\nsufficient to restore its former value.\n\nUnder a system of perpetual tenantry the case is different. If the\nfertility declines it is the tenant's loss. The improvements are his\nand may be sold as one could sell ordinary farm tools, but not to be\nremoved. If they are impaired or destroyed it does not affect the\nannual rental.\n\nThe landed proprietor in city or country, who has permanent tenants,\nwho are required to make every improvement and keep up perfectly the\nfertility, and who pay an annual rental, is in the same class as those\nwho are receiving annual interest. The landlord practically holds a\nperpetual mortgage, and the rental is the interest or increase exacted\ngeneration after generation.\n\nThe debtor working under a mortgage is cheered by the hope that he may\nbe able, some day, to lift it, but the perpetual tenant on entailed\nlands knows that he is doomed to hopeless tenantry. He can never own\nthe land and he is in the power of the landlord, who is often\noppressive.\n\nCalvin, in his letter of apology for usury of money, speaks of the\ninjustice of the landlords in requiring a rental for \"some barren\nfarm\" and of the \"harsher\" conditions imposed upon the tenants. Indeed\nhis whole argument, when summed up, is, that the usury of lands is\nmore cruel and oppressive than the usury of money.\n\nWhile it is not yet true in America, yet considering the landlordships\nof Ireland and Great Britain and the older countries, with their\nunremitted exactions, grinding the life out of their tenants for a\nmere subsistence, it is likely that the race is today suffering more\nfrom the injustice and oppression of usury of land than from the usury\nof money.\n\nThe land question is too large for one short chapter or for one small\nbook. It requires more and deeper study than the subject has ever yet\nreceived. The ownership of lands cannot be absolute; it must be\nlimited by the rights of those who live upon them, but the limitations\nhave never yet been clearly defined. If a man has a right to live he\nmust have a right to a place to live. If a child has a right to be\nborn it must have a right to a place to be born. It cannot be that the\nmass of our race only touch the earth by the sufferance of those who\nclaim to own it.\n\nThe unprecedented rapidity of the development of this country is owing\nmore to its wise and beneficent land laws than to anything else. They\nare not perfect but the most favorable to the landless that the world\nhas ever known. No landlordism, no binding up lands by entail to make\nit forever impossible to gain a title to a portion of the soil, but\nour land laws, wisely devised, gave hope of a home to the homeless\neverywhere. The result was that our people from the eastern part of\nour own country, and the landless from across the seas, swarmed over\nthe mountains and filled the Ohio valley and pushed on to the great\nMississippi and Missouri valleys, and in three generations have\ntransformed this waste into happy homes. The possession of land, of a\nhome, ennobles the character, produces a patriotic love of this\ncountry and stimulates devotion to her institutions. The landless\nforeigner who makes here a home of his own is unwavering in his\nloyalty to the country of his adoption. Those foreigners, who do not\nfall in love with our institutions and do not become assimilated with\nour people, are tenants here as they were before they came here. They\nare not attached to our soil; they do not secure homes of their own\nand are therefore restless and a menace.\n\nA dangerous tendency has been developing throughout our whole land in\nthese later years. The usury of lands is on the increase. Tenantry is\nbecoming more common on the farms in the country, while the mass of\nour city populations are living in rented houses or flats or crowded\ntenements.\n\nThe yearning for a home of one's own is deeply imbedded in human\nnature. To be denied the privilege of living in one's own house is one\nof the greatest trials of a life. This tendency to tenantry is not\nbecause our people have come to care less for a home of their own, but\nthe conditions are not such as to make a purchase of a home\nprofitable; the interest on the purchase price is greater than the\nusury of the land or rental. The natural and desirable state is for\nevery family to own and occupy their home, and those conditions should\nbe encouraged which make it unprofitable for any one to own real\nproperty he does not himself occupy, and which make it easy and\nprofitable for every family to own their own home.\n\nWhen all lands are owned by those who occupy them, the prophet Micah's\npicture of the millennial dawn will be realized. Every man shall sit\nunder his own vine and under his own fig tree and no one shall molest\nhim or make him afraid, by demanding a rental or by serving a writ of\nejectment.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV.\n\nPER CONTRA; POLITICAL ECONOMIST.\n\n\nThe students of political economy are not always reformers. It is not\ntheir purpose nor the object of their studies to transform society.\nThey only endeavor to explain why things are as they are. They find\nthe taking of usury all but universal, and they endeavor to give the\nreasons for the prevailing custom. The subject is usually but slightly\ntouched upon and dismissed with a few sentences.\n\nFew economists claim that interest or rental is a part of the cost of\nproduction. They mostly affirm that it is no part of production; that\nit is merely the price paid for the opportunity to produce. The lender\nof money makes a loan to the borrower and thus gives him a better\nopportunity to produce than he had before. The landlord for the rental\nwithdraws his hand from over his land and gives the renter the\nopportunity to produce a harvest.\n\nIn justification, or at least in explanation of this exaction for an\nopportunity, three reasons are usually given. These may be briefly\nstated as risk, time and abstinence.\n\n1. There is some risk in every investment. There is a possibility that\nthe most honest, industrious and careful debtor may by some\nmisfortune not be able to return the loan and it would therefore be\nlost. To guard against this the usurer requires the rate of interest\nto be graded by the measure of risk.\n\nThis is claimed to be of the nature of insurance, the borrower paying\nthe premium. The profits of insurance are secured by collecting a\nlarger premium than necessary to pay all losses. On this theory, the\ngain of usury is in the excess that can be secured of increase over\nthe amounts lost.\n\nThis is the reverse of insurance. Insurance is the payment by an owner\nof property to a company who guarantees its preservation. Usury is the\npayment by the company to the owner for the privilege of guaranteeing\nthat he shall not suffer loss.\n\nBusiness involves a risk usually covered by insurance, but no honest\nman expects to make a profit out of his insurance.\n\n2. A loan is made for a more or less extended time. Time is therefore\nclaimed to be a ground for usury charges.\n\nThis claim rests on the assumption that time will increase wealth. But\ntime is the great destroyer; time does not make gardens and farms, but\ncovers them with weeds and sends them back to a wilderness; time does\nnot erect a house, but pulls it down; time does not build a city, but\ncauses it to crumble and a few ages buries it under the dust; time\ndoes not \"incubate eggs, but turns them putrid; it does not transform\ninto fowls. If eggs are developed into chickens the difference between\neggs and chickens is the reward of the incubator.\"\n\nAside from the spirit of benevolence and sympathy with the needy there\nare three selfish reasons why a time loan may be made. First, the\nowner has no present need of it and wishes to be rid of its care.\nSecond, the owner shall need it at a distant date and he wishes it\npreserved intact against that time. But these afford no ground for a\ncharge of increase. He who stands and resists the ravages of time\nuntil the day it is needed does a positive service and deserves a\nreward. Third, the lender wishes to appropriate the earnings of\nanother during the period of time given. This is the usurer's reason,\nand were it not for this time would lose its importance as an element;\nit is certain that long time loans would not be so attractive.\n\n3. \"The reward of abstinence\" is a reward for refraining from\nconsuming one's own wealth.\n\n\"You can not have your cake and eat it. If you do not eat it, you have\nyour cake, but not a cake and a half. Not a cake and a quarter\ntomorrow, dunce, however abstinent you may be, only the cake you have,\nif the mice do not eat it in the night.\"--Ruskin.\n\nThe usual illustration is that of Jacob. He practiced abstinence in\nrefraining from eating the bowl of pottage and giving it to his\nhungry brother. The reward of his abstinence was his brother's\nbirthright.\n\nIf I do not take my soup now it is a great favor to have it preserved\nfor me and served later, not cold and stale, but fresh and hot. If I\ndeny myself now, for any cause, I can ask no more than that my meal\nshall be served, perfectly, later. This was all that Jacob could in\njustice demand of Esau.\n\nIt should be remembered, that because Jacob took Esau's birthright, as\na reward of his abstinence, he was accounted a robber, was compelled\nto flee from his home, and not for twenty years see his father's face;\nthat the consciousness of this sin and of the merited vengeance of the\nbrother, whom he thereby defrauded and whom he thought was on his\ntrack, caused that night of struggle when he could not let the angel\ngo, until he had his promise of deliverance.\n\nAbstinence, to be benevolent, must be an act of personal loving\nself-sacrifice for another. Benevolent abstinence is its own reward\nand asks no more. Abstinence in hope of gain, denying himself while\nanother is using his wealth, cannot be regarded as an act of\nbenevolence, but of a selfish grovelling greed; more gratified to see\nhis wealth increase than to himself enjoy its use. That is the spirit\nof the miser and receives the contempt of all right thinking people.\n\nThat the political economists are right in their analysis of the\ncommon thought of usury; that risk, time and abstinence are the\nelements of its basis in the popular mind, may not be denied, but if\nthese are in fact the elements, then usury has no standing in equity\nand must be condemned by every enlightened conscience.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI.\n\nUSURY IN HISTORY.\n\n\nIt would require volumes to fully present the history of usury. A very\nbrief summary must suffice in this place. Yet this synopsis may serve\nas a guide to those who may wish to pursue the investigation further\nand who have access to any considerable library of general and\necclesiastical history.\n\nThe exacting of usury has always been more or less practiced, and\nthere has always been a contention against it as impolitic and wrong.\nIn heathendom the philosophers and economists and common people were\nusually arrayed against it, and the voice of christendom has been\npractically unanimous in its denunciation until the 17th century. (For\nHistory of Usury in the Church, see Chapter X.)\n\nGreece: Greece had no laws forbidding usury. The trade in money was\nleft, like the trade in every thing else, without legal restraint. The\nlaw declared that the usurer should not demand a higher rate than that\nfixed by the original contract; it also advised \"Let the usury on\nmoney be moderate.\" One per cent. per month was the usual rate.\n\nThere were among the Greeks at various times thoughtful men, who\nviolently opposed the taking of increase. Solon, of aristocratic\nblood, but with strong sympathies for the oppressed classes, led a\nNehemiah-like reformation. Solon was wise and patriotic. His name is a\nsynonym for unselfish devotion to the public good. He was given\nauthority in Greece in times of great financial distress. Debts were\nincreasing. Mortgage stones were erected at the borders of each tract\nof land, giving the name of the creditor and the amount of his claim.\nThe interest could not be paid. Interest taking had concentrated the\nwealth and power of the state in a few hands. The farmer lost all hope\nand was only a laborer on the farm he once owned. The debtor who had\nno farm to work for his creditor was yet in a worse condition; he was\nthe mere slave of his creditor and could be sold by him. The free\nfarmers were fast disappearing. The most of them were struggling with\nmiserable poverty. Solon at once came to the relief of this suffering\nclass. He released those who were enslaved and brought back those who\nhad been sold abroad. The great work of Solon for this oppressed class\nhas caused his name to be revered by all who have studied the history\nof his times.\n\nPlato opposed usury, but he does not give extended reasons. Also the\nphilosopher, Aristotle. His name is yet illustrious in the departments\nof natural and moral science and economics. With regard to usury he\nsaid: \"Of all modes of accumulation, the worst and most unnatural is\ninterest. This is the utmost corruption of artificial degeneracy;\nstanding in the same relation to commerce that commerce does to\neconomy. By commerce money is perverted from the purpose of exchange\nto that of gain; still this gain is occasioned by the mutual transfer\nof different objects; but interest, by transferring merely the same\nobject from one hand to another generates money from money, and the\nproduct thus generated is called offspring (toxos) as being precisely\nthe same nature as that from which it proceeds.\"\n\nRome: In the early ages of Rome there were no laws regulating the\nloans of money. The practice was common and was one of the most\nfrequent subjects of popular complaint. In the celebrated secession of\nthe lower classes of the people to Mons Sacer, when civil strife and\nfraternal bloodshed was threatened, the loudest outcry was against the\noppression of exhorbitant interest exacted by wealthy citizens of\nthose who were obliged to borrow. The common rate was twelve per cent.\nper annum. This is inferred from the fact that six per cent. was\ncalled half interest and three per cent. one-fourth interest.\n\nThe early records of Rome prove conclusively the odium attached to the\nbusiness of money-lending for profit. In the codification of laws in\nthe fifth century B.C. the rate of usury was fixed at one per cent.\nper month. This limitation of usury was enacted after a long and\nbitter contest between the rich lenders and the poorer classes.\n\nA compromise seems to have been made in the assigned punishments. The\nlaws for the collection of debts and the punishment of exacting more\nthan the law permitted were alike extremely cruel.\n\nThe creditors of an insolvent debtor were given the power of cutting\nhis body in pieces and the power of selling his children into slavery.\nThe penalty of taking more than this legal interest was punished with\nmore severity than theft. The thief must restore double, but the\nusurer must restore fourfold. This we learn from Cato's treatise on\n\"Agriculture.\" Cato's own opinion of usury is shown in the answer\nwhich he made when he was asked what he thought of usury, his reply\nwas, \"What do you think of murder?\"\n\nNearly a hundred years later the Licinian law forbade all increase. A\nlittle later we find the one-half of one per cent. permitted by law.\nThen under Sylla the legal rate is made three per cent. In the time of\nAntony and Cleopatra it is four per cent. For a time there was utter\nconfusion and intolerably oppressive rates prevailed. Horace, in his\nSatires, speaks of one lending at sixty per cent. In the reign of\nTiberius Caesar, Rome was again shaken with another usury sedition, an\nuprising of the people against the usurers. The law was finally\nadjusted in the Justinian Code, by a compromise permitting six per\ncent. and severely restraining the exorbitant rates.\n\nThree hundred and twenty-three years B.C., Livy speaks of a creditor\nwho kept his debtor in irons, claiming, besides the debt, the interest\nwhich he exacted with greatest severity. It was soon after decreed\nthat this cruelty should end and that no citizen should be placed in\nirons or sold into slavery for debt.\n\nAt the close of the republic the rate was twenty-four per cent.\n\nEngland: In the earliest periods of which we have any records we find\nthat the doctrine, that letting money to hire was sinful, prevailed\nuniversally over the island of Great Britain. It was the prevailing\nopinion that interest, or usury, as it was then called, was unjust\ngain, forbidden by divine law, and which a good Christian could\nneither receive nor pay. In common law the practice of taking increase\nwas classed among the lowest crimes against public morals. So odious\nwas it among Christians that the practice was confined almost wholly\nto the Jews, who did not exact usury of Jews but of the Christians.\n\nThe laws of King Alfred, about 900 A.D., directed that the effects of\nmoney-lenders upon usury should be forfeited to the king, their lands\nto the lords under whom they were held, and they should not be buried\nin consecrated ground.\n\nBy the laws of Edward the Confessor, about 1050 A.D., the usurer\nforfeited all his property and was declared an outlaw and banished\nfrom England. In the reign of Henry II, about the close of the\ntwelfth century, the estates of usurers were forfeited at their death\nand their children were disinherited.\n\nHis successor, Richard I, was yet more severe, forbidding the usurers\nattending his coronation, nor would he protect them from mob violence.\n\nDuring the thirteenth century the severities against the usurers were\nnot relaxed. King John confiscated their gathered wealth without\nscruple. It is recorded that he exacted an enormous fine of a Jew in\nBristol for his usuries, and when the Jew refused to pay he ordered\none of his teeth to be drawn daily until he should pay. The Jew is\nsaid to have endured the pulling of seven, but then weakened and paid\nthe fine.\n\nHenry III was equally harsh and severe in his measures. He exacted all\nhe could and then turned them over to the Earl of Cornwall. \"The one\nflayed and the other emboweled.\" It is written in the chronicles of\nEngland, 1251 A.D., \"By such usurers and licentious liurs as belong to\nhim, the realme had alreadie become sore corrupted.\"\n\nIn the fourteenth century, under the three Edwards, the taking of\ninterest was an indictable offence and Edward III made it a capital\ncrime.\n\nIn the fifteenth century, under Henry VII, the penalty was fixed at\none hundred pounds and the penalty of the church added, which was\nexcommunication.\n\nAttorney General Noy, in the reign of James I, thought the taking of\nmoney by usury was no better than taking a man's life. He said:\n\"Usurers are well ranked with murderers.\"\n\nIn the sixteenth century, under Henry VIII, it was enacted that all\ninterest above ten per cent. was unlawful. Less was not collectable by\nlaw, but was not a punishable offence.\n\nEdward VI revived the old laws condemning all interest.\n\nMary I, next following, executed these laws with extreme severity.\n\nElizabeth restored the laws of Henry VIII, in which usury less than\nten per cent. was not a punishable offence. This edict of Elizabeth\nadds: \"In the interpretation of the law it shall be largely and\nstrongly construed for the repression of usury.\"\n\nThis law of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, with the rate of interest\nreduced, was the statute law of England until 1854, when all the usury\nlaws were repealed.\n\nIn 1694 William and Mary II entered into a contract to secure a\npermanent loan and pledged the kingdom to pay interest on it forever.\n\nThe loan marked the turning point in the popular mind with regard to\nusury. As it was approved in their necessity by the king and queen at\nthe head of the Protestant world, ecclesiastics began to shift their\nground and to apologize for, and excuse, that which had been formerly\nunequivocably condemned. As the crown was the head of both the church\nand the state, the condemnation of usury seemed tinged both with\ndisloyalty and heresy. The courts too began to modify their decisions\nto bring them into harmony with the action of the crown.\n\nThe change in the usury laws were not made by enactments of\nParliament, but by the decisions of courts. The precedents were\ngradually accumulated and the statutes were merely made to conform to\nthem.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII.\n\nFRANCIS BACON.\n\n\nFrom the short dissertation on usury found in the works of Bacon we\nlearn that the taking of usury was a recognized evil and odious in his\ntime.\n\nIt will be noticed that he eliminates risk from usury and sees that\n\"In the game of certainties against uncertainties\" usury is sure to\nwin. It will be noticed also that he mentions only economic arguments\nagainst usury. He does not give ethical and moral reasons. He does not\nmention the want of sympathy for the poor and their oppression.\n\nIn his statement of the arguments in defence he implies that the\nusurer is less grasping than the man he knew who said \"The devil take\nthis usury.\"\n\nThis is the very opposite of the picture of the usurer given by his\ncontemporary, Shakespeare, in his character, Shylock.\n\nHis specious argument for the regulation of the evil \"For some small\nmatter for the license\" is familiar to modern reformers in connection\nwith other sins. He speaks of the reduction of the usury rates as a\ngeneral good and believes \"It will no whit discourage the lender.\"\nWrong-doers in all the ages have been ready to part with a portion of\nthe profits of an unlawful business for the cover of the authority of\nthe state.\n\nThe following is his discussion in full\n\n\nOF USURY.\n\n\"Many have made witty invectives against usury. They say that it is a\npity the devil should have God's part, which is the tithe. That the\nusurer is the greatest Sabbath breaker, because his plough goeth every\nSunday. That the usurer is the drone that Virgil speaketh of:\n\n\"_Ignavum fucos pecus a praesepibus arcent._\n\n\"That the usurer breaketh the first law that was made for mankind\nafter the fall, which was, _in sudore vultus tui comedes panem tuum;\nnon in sudore vultus alieni_; (in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat\nbread--not in the sweat of another's face.) That usurers should have\norange-tawney bonnets, because they do Judaize. That it is against\nnature for money to beget money; and the like. I say only this, that\nusury is a _concessum propter duritiem cordis_; (a thing allowed by\nreason of the hardness of men's hearts): for since there must be\nborrowing and lending, and men are so hard of heart as they will not\nlend freely, usury must be permitted. Some others have made suspicious\nand cunning propositions of banks, discovery of men's estates and\nother inventions. But few have spoken of usury usefully. It is good to\nset before us the incommodities and the commodities of usury, that the\ngood may be either weighed out or culled out; and warily to provide,\nthat while we make forth to that which is better, we meet not with\nthat which is worse.\n\n\"The discommodities of usury are, first, it makes fewer merchants. For\nwere it not for this lazy trade of usury, money would not lie still,\nbut would in great part be employed upon merchandising; which is the\n_vena porta_ of wealth in a state. The second, that it makes poor\nmerchants. For as a farmer can not husband his ground so well if he\nsit at a great rent, so the merchant can not drive his trade so well,\nif he sit at great usury. The third is incident to the other two; and\nthat is the decay of customs of kings or states, which ebb or flow\nwith merchandising. The fourth that it bringeth the wealth or treasure\nof a realm or state into a few hands.\n\n\"For the usurer being at certainties, and others at uncertainties, at\nthe end of the game most of the money will be in the box; and ever a\nstate flourisheth when wealth is more equally spread. The fifth that\nit beats down the price of land; for the employment of money is\nchiefly either purchasing or merchandising; and usury waylays both.\nThe sixth, that it doth dull and damp all industries, improvements and\nnew inventions, wherein money would be stirring, if it were not for\nthis slug. The last, that it is the canker and ruin of many men's\nestates; which in process of time breeds a public poverty.\n\n\"On the other side, the commodities of usury are, first, that\nhowsoever usury in some respect hindereth merchandising, yet in some\nother it advanceth it; for it is certain that the greatest part of\ntrade is driven by young merchants upon borrowing at interest; so as\nif the usurer either call in or keep back his money, there will ensue\npresently a great stand of trade. The second is, that were it not for\nthis easy borrowing upon interest, man's necessities would draw upon\nthem a most sudden undoing; in that they would be forced to sell their\nmeans (be it lands or goods) far under foot; and so, whereas usury\ndoth but gnaw upon them, bad markets would swallow them quite up. As\nfor mortgaging or pawning, it will little mend the matter; for either\nmen will not take pawns without use; or if they do, they will look\nprecisely for the forfeiture. I remember a cruel monied man in the\ncountry that would say: 'The devil take this usury, it keeps us from\nforfeitures of mortagages and bonds.' The third and last is, that it\nis a vanity to conceive that there would be ordinary borrowing without\nprofit; and it is impossible to conceive the number of inconveniences\nthat would ensue if borrowing be cramped. Therefore, to speak of the\nabolishing of usury is idle. All states have ever had it, in one kind\nor rate, or other. So as that opinion must be sent to Utopia.\n\n\"To speak now of the reformation and reiglement of usury; how the\ndiscommodities of it may be best avoided, and the commodities of it\nretained. It appears by the balance of commodities and discommodities\nof usury, two things are to be reconciled. The one, that the tooth of\nusury be grinded that it bite not too much; the other, that there be\nleft open a means to invite monied men to lend to the merchants for\nthe continuing and quickening of trade. This can not be done except\nyou introduce two several sorts of usury, a less and a greater. For if\nyou reduce usury to one low rate it will ease the common borrower, but\nthe merchant will be to seek for money. And it is to be noted, that\nthe trade of merchandise, being the most lucrative, may bear usury at\na good rate: other contracts not so.\n\n\"To serve both intentions, the way would be briefly thus: That there\nbe two rates of interest; the one free and general for all, the other\nunder license only, to certain persons and in certain places of\nmerchandising. First, therefore, let usury in general be reduced to\nfive in the hundred; and let that rate be proclaimed free and current;\nand, let the state shut itself out to take any penalty for the same.\nThis will preserve borrowing from any general stop or dryness. This\nwill ease infinite borrowers in the country. This will, in great part,\nraise the price of land, because land purchased at sixteen years'\npurchase will yield six in the hundred and somewhat more; whereas this\nrate of interest yields but five. This, by like reason, will encourage\nand edge industrious and profitable improvements; because many will\nrather venture in that kind than take five in the hundred, especially\nhaving been used to greater profit. Secondly, let there be certain\npersons licensed to lend to known merchants upon usury at a higher\nrate; and let it be with the cautions following: Let the rate be, even\nwith the merchant himself, somewhat more easy than that he used\nformerly to pay; for by that means all borrowers shall have some ease\nby this reformation, be he merchant or whosoever. Let it be bank or\ncommon stock, but every man be master of his own money. Not that I\naltogether mislike banks, but they will hardly be brooked in regard of\ncertain suspicions. Let the state be answered some small matter for\nthe license, and the rest left to the lender; for if the abatement be\nbut small, it will no whit discourage the lender. For he, for example,\nthat took before ten or nine in the hundred, will sooner descend to\neight in the hundred than give over his trade in usury, and go from\ncertain gains to gains of hazard. Let these licensed lenders be in\nnumber indefinite, but restrained to certain principal cities and\ntowns of merchandising; for then they will be hardly able to color\nother men's monies in the country. So as the license of nine will not\nsuck away the current rate of five; for no man will lend his monies\nfar off, nor put them into unknown hands.\n\n\"If it be objected that this doth in a sort authorize usury, which\nbefore was in some places but permissive; the answer is, that it is\nbetter to mitigate usury by declaration, than to suffer it to rage by\nconnivance.\"\n\n(Works of Francis Bacon, Vol. 12, Page 218.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII.\n\nWHY THIS TRUTH WAS NEGLECTED.\n\n\nThat we may find the way of return, we must consider the reasons of\nour wandering. We must reverse our direction and retrace our steps.\nThese reasons are not occult or hard to find.\n\n1. The departure had its root in man's depraved nature. The natural\ntendency is evil, while the graces must be cultivated with great\ndiligence. Evils grow as weeds grow in the garden, as thorns and\nthistles and briers cover the untended fields. This evil has not been\ndisturbed by any book exposing its harm for a hundred years, and it\nhas been two hundred since it was treated as a violation of the Eighth\nCommandment. This evil, thus left undisturbed, has flourished and\nspread over all the world.\n\n2. Two and three hundred years ago the great doctrines were occupying\nthe thought of Christendom. The doctrines of free grace, by repentance\nand an exercise of faith, were receiving close attention. The creeds\nof the denominations were being unfolded, and their defense and proof\nabsorbed the thought of the wise and good. What shall we believe was\nthe question?\n\n3. Other great evils stood before the faces of those who labored for\nthe uplifting of the race. Practices attached to the ecclesiastics,\nand degrading the organized church, were flaunted before the eyes of\nthose who stood for true faith and pure living. These were attacked\nwith vigor, while this evil, which had been especially the sin of the\nJew, crept in and entrenched itself.\n\n4. Covetousness is one of those secret sins that may lurk in the heart\nwhile there is maintained a fair outward life. Few will admit this\nsin. Priests declare that this is the one sin that is never\nvoluntarily confessed. Usury is the common outward activity of this\ninward state, and when usury was made lawful by the statutes of the\nrealm, the voice of conscience was silenced. The conscience that would\ncry out in protest against a rate of interest forbidden by law, will\npermit the same rate when the statutes of the state are changed.\n\n5. Early education and natural buoyancy have led the debtors to be\nless sensitive to the burdens of usury upon them.\n\nA large portion of our present arithmetic is taken up with percentage.\nThe position of the student, in mind, is that of the creditor. This is\npresumed in the statements of the problems and lies in the thought of\nthe student in all the calculations. If the statements of propositions\nand their conclusions were made to place the student on the debtor\nside, then the study of percentage would educate him to a horror of\nthis sin.\n\nWhen a loan is made, the attention of the borrower is seldom called to\nthe rapidity of increase and the dangers of accumulation. If this were\ndone, and a prompt return of both principal and interest required, at\nthe end of the term the borrower would soon be alarmed at the\nhopelessness of permanent gain through debt.\n\nPeter Cooper, it is said, taught this lesson to a friend who was\ntalking of borrowing for six months at three per cent. We clip the\nfollowing story:\n\n\"Why do you borrow money for so short a time?\" Mr. Cooper asked.\n\n\"Because the brokers will not negotiate bills for longer.\"\n\n\"Well, if you wish,\" said Mr. Cooper, \"I will discount your note at\nthat rate for three years.\"\n\n\"Are you in earnest?\" asked the would-be borrower.\n\n\"Certainly I am. I will discount your note for ten thousand dollars\nfor three years at that rate. Will you do it?\"\n\n\"Of course I will,\" said the merchant.\n\n\"Very well,\" said Mr. Cooper. \"Just sign this note for ten thousand\ndollars, payable in three years, and give me your check for eight\nhundred dollars, and the transaction will be complete.\"\n\n\"But where is the money for me?\" asked the astonished merchant.\n\n\"You don't get any money,\" was the reply. \"Your interest for\nthirty-six months at three per cent. per month amounts to one hundred\nand eight per cent., or ten thousand eight hundred dollars. Therefore,\nyour check for eight hundred dollars just makes us even.\"\n\nThere has come to this table, a letter recently sent by a wise uncle\nto his nephew, who sought from him his first loan. Usually the\ninterest is minimized while the hopeful youth is permitted to indulge\nhis dreams of fancied good, to be easily gained by a loan.\n\n\"My Near Nephew:\n\n\"I enclose a draft for forty dollars with a note for the amount to me,\ndue in one year at six per cent., which please sign and return to me.\nThis is probably the first note that you have ever given, and there\nare one or two things about a note that maybe you have never\ndiscovered. One striking peculiarity is, that they always come due,\nthough they are drawn for a year. It may seem a long time, but when\nyou have a note come due at the end of the year it seems altogether\ntoo short and has gone before you are aware of it. Another peculiar\nthing is, that while interest is a little thing apparently, yet it\nnever works on the eight-hour system, but continues steadily through\nthe whole twenty-four, and through the whole seven days in the week.\nIts about the most industrious animal of my acquaintance, working\nnights and Sundays as well, and apparently never becoming in the\nleast fatigued, consequently, though it appears to be so slow, still\nif you do not watch it closely, the first thing you know you will be\nastonished at what an amount of work it has accomplished. There are\nother things equally striking about notes, but these two are the most\nimportant, and the ones I particularly wish to impress on your mind.\n\n                                               \"_________________\n\n\"P.S.--Don't think from the tone of this that I'm not willing to let\nyou have the money. I merely want to impress on you what it means to\ngo in debt.\"\n\n6. The evil was not hitherto so much felt. This, especially, is true\nin the United States. Great natural resources, unclaimed wealth, made\nthe burden of a small debt unfelt. By appropriating the vast unbroken\nforests and untilled lands and unopened mines of precious metals, of\ncoal and iron and gas and oil, there seemed such evident advantages\nfrom the borrowed capital that the evils were unnoticed, until these\nnatural resources had been appropriated and were held in private\nhands, and the opportunities are found to be denied those who have\ncome so closely after.\n\nThis system made it possible for one generation to grasp a continent;\nto grasp all its natural resources and hold them, and compel tribute\nfrom all that came after. Taking only a limited and short-time view,\nthe advantages seemed great and the evils small. But looking at the\nwelfare of the generations its evils might have been clearly\ndiscerned.\n\n7. The evil was never before so great. The vast accumulations of\nwealth, so sure to follow the operation of usury, was hitherto\nunknown. Corporations, combinations for the handling of great\ninterests, grasping the natural resources and monopolizing the natural\nwealth, gaining franchises covering a monopoly of privileges in\ntransportation, light and communication by the telephone or telegraph,\nare comparatively recent.\n\n8. The first appearance of indebtedness is a seeming, but false,\nprosperity. The young man who takes possession of a tract of land and\nthen, with borrowed capital, improves it, building his house and his\nbarns and his permanent buildings, and stocking it with animals that\nplease his taste, has the appearance of abounding prosperity, but as\nthe unending grind of usury continues, these, he comes to feel, are\nbut weights to which he is chained, and in an agony of sweat he is\ncompelled to wear out his life.\n\nA city incurring debt is seemingly prosperous. Bonds are issued for\nthe erection of attractive public buildings, for the paving of muddy\nstreets, for the beautifying of public parks. These bond issues are\nsigns of the prosperity of only one class, the usurers. The ultimate\nburden is upon the laborers, who must pay every bond, interest and\nprincipal.\n\n9. The opponents of usury have not always been wise. They have\nindulged in bitter invective rather than solid argument. The language\nof the fathers, especially, was unqualified in severity.\n\nWhen the absurdity and unmitigated evil of usury is seen, and one\nfeels that adequacy requires superlatives, it is not easy to restrain\nlanguage and use mild terms. The divine prohibition was so clear and\nthe effects so oppressive, especially to the poor, that it did not\nappear to the fathers to require argument. The divine authority was\nnot, therefore, followed up with the economic basis or reasons for the\nprohibitions.\n\nUsury crept in because it was not barred out by the sound reasoning of\nthose who knew its evils. The vituperations were ignored as the\nrantings of ill-balanced minds.\n\n10. Like every other wrong, it feeds upon itself. The very conditions\nit produces fosters and promotes its growth. At first directing effort\nand thought along material lines, ultimately the ideals become\ngroveling. The purposes of a worthy life and the characteristics of a\nnoble manhood are perverted. There comes a wrong idea of true\ngreatness. There arises a false measure of manhood. That measure is\nwealth, and of all the grounds of distinction among men, wealth is the\nmost sordid. Success is accumulation of wealth. Prosperity is getting\nrich. Whatever else a man may accomplish in life, if he remains poor\nhe is accounted a failure. Yet to this pass, such a pass, have we\ncome, that our national and age characteristic is that of material\ngain, commonly called commercialism. This was not the thought of our\nfathers who subordinated material gain to the development of noble\nmanhood. This is a perversion of our American traditions, and is a\nmenace to better development of the individual and of the state.\n\n11. Wrong laws mislead the judgment and pervert the conscience. If\nthere is a want of harmony between the moral and statute law when\nselfish interests are served, the moral law will be ignored. State\nlaws ease the conscience that would be otherwise troubled. The rate of\nusury fixed by a state is used as a moral guide. When the legal rate\nis six per cent. it is wrong to take eight, but when the legal rate is\nten per cent. then it is not wrong to take ten. The familiarity of our\npeople with laws recognizing and enforcing interest rates has\nperverted their ideas of right and justice by substituting the statute\nfor the divine moral law. But state laws can also trouble the\nconscience that is at ease and be a teacher of righteousness. Let the\nancient laws forbidding usury be placed upon our statute books and\nenforced, and it would not be half a generation till the conscience\nand reason both approved.\n\nNothing in history more shocked the conscience of Christendom than the\ncompact of William and Mary with usurers in 1694. That was in direct\nconflict with the teachings and practice of all the ages among\nChristians. It has taken two hundred years for courts and states and\nfinancial institutions to first dull the Christian conscience and then\nsecure its approval. The world now awaits the coming of some captain\nof righteousness, equal in authority and influence in church and\nstate, who will organize a return to the faith and practice of the\nfathers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX.\n\nCRUSHED TRUTH WILL RISE AGAIN.\n\n\nThe practice of usury is so general, and it is apparently so fully\napproved and sanctioned by many of the most intelligent and virtuous\nof our people, that those who believe in its prohibition and are\ndisposed to pessimism may be utterly discouraged.\n\nTruth must eventually prevail. Any custom or system built upon\nfalsehood must sooner or later yield. The house built upon the sand\nmust in time fall. It may be undermined by years of instruction and so\ngradually give way that the date of its overthrow can hardly be\ndetermined, or it may in its strength be taken in a storm and fall.\nThe whole commercial credit system built on this monstrous falsehood\nmust either crumble or tumble.\n\nThe prophet Isaiah was hopeful and happy in the midst of the most\nunfavorable conditions of corruption and alienation from the truth,\nfor he was able with his prophetic eye to catch a glimpse of the good\ntime coming, when righteousness should completely triumph. \"He shall\nteach us of His ways and we shall walk in His steps.\" \"With\nrighteousness shall He judge the poor.\" \"Righteousness shall be the\ngirdle of His loins.\"\n\nNo prophet has fixed a date for the suppression of usury, yet no\nintelligent man of faith, familiar with the reforms of the past, when\nas thoroughly entrenched and as giant evils were attacked and\noverthrown, need be in despair.\n\nWe were enslaved by superstitions. Haunted houses were numerous and\nthe bewitching of people was frequent. Two hundred arrests for\nwitchcraft were made in a single year, 1692, and twenty of these\npersons were put to death. These persecutions were urged and defended\nby Cotton Mather, a representative of the highest intelligence and\nculture of the times. His mother was a daughter of John Cotton, and\nhis father the President of Harvard College. Now black cats and\nepilepsy inspire no fear, and ghost stories do not now terrify and\nunnerve our children.\n\nDuelling prevailed among men of honor. Public opinion made it\ncompulsory that personal differences between gentlemen should be\nsettled in this way. Persons were branded as cowards who would not put\ntheir lives in jeopardy. Few had the courage to resist. Duels were\ncommon among the political leaders at Washington. Many a shot rang out\nat sunrise in the little valley at Bladensburg, the noted duelling\nground. Jackson and Benton and Clay and De Witt Clinton were\nduellists. After the killing of Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr, in\n1804, the whole country was aroused and an agitation began against the\ncustom, but it yielded slowly. In 1838 and 1841 there were duels\nbetween distinguished congressmen. But now public opinion is so\ntransformed that the \"honorable and brave\" duellist is a moral coward.\n\nGambling was a common sin. There were lotteries organized for the\nraising of funds for state and municipal expenses. There were raffles\nat church fairs to support the ordinances in the sanctuary. The rules\nof the games were protected by the laws of the state. No one who had\nlost in a game could recover by law unless he proved that the rules of\nthe game had not been followed. The rules for gambling were regarded\nas legitimate as the regulations of any business. The gambler was only\na law-breaker when he \"cheated.\" Now gambling is unlawful in every\nstate and territory, and any newspaper advertising a lottery is shut\nout of our mails. Even an \"honest\" gambler is now classed among\nrobbers.\n\nIntemperance was rampant through the eighteenth century and more than\nhalf the nineteenth. Whisky was king. Through a false physiology it\nbecame the almost universal opinion that in the great portion of the\nUnited States the climate required the use of \"ardent spirit.\"\nMinisters and all classes of the people were thus deluded, and almost\nevery person, adult or child, was a consumer.\n\n\"Upon rising in the morning a glass of liquor must be taken to give an\nappetite for breakfast. At eleven o'clock the merchant in his\ncounting-room, the blacksmith at his forge, the mower in the hay\nfield, took a dram to give them strength till the ringing of the bell\nor the sounding of the horn for dinner. In mid-afternoon they drank\nagain. When work for the day was done, before going to bed, they\nquaffed another glass. It was the regular routine of drinking in\nwell-regulated and temperate families. Hospitalities began with\ndrinking. 'What will you take?' was the question of host to visitor.\nNot to accept the proffered hospitality was disrespectful. Was there\nthe raising of a meeting house, there must be hospitality for all the\nparish: no lack of liquor; and when the last timber was in its place a\nbottle of rum must be broken upon the ridge-place. In winter men drank\nto keep themselves warm; in summer to keep themselves cool; on rainy\ndays to keep out the wet, and on dry days to keep the body in\nmoisture. Friends, meeting or parting, drank to perpetuate their\nfriendship. Huskers around the corn-stack, workmen in the field,\nmaster and apprentice in the shop, passed the brown jug from lip to\nlip. The lawyer drank before writing his brief or pleading at the bar;\nthe minister, while preparing his sermon or before delivering it from\nthe pulpit. At weddings bridegroom, bride, groomsman, and guest\nquaffed sparkling wines. At funerals minister, friend, neighbor,\nmourner, all except the corpse, drank of the bountiful supply of\nliquors always provided. Not to drink was disrespectful to living and\ndead, and depriving themselves of comfort and consolation. In every\ncommunity there were blear-eyed men with bloated, haggard faces;\nweeping women, starving children.\" (Building of a Nation. Page 271.)\n\nWhile \"temperate\" men were grieved at the tide of wretchedness and\nprotested, they did not think it possible to get on without whisky.\nDr. Prime, for so many years editor of the New York Observer, told of\nthe meeting of the family physician and the pastor at his father's\nhome in a case of severe illness. When the physician took his leave\nthe pastor followed him into the yard, where they had a long\nconsultation. The pastor was anxiously seeking advice. Three drinks\nmade his head swim, and the problem was how he could make more than\nthree calls and not become unsteady. The doctor gave directions and\nDr. Prime said that neither the minister nor the physician thought of\nthe simple remedy, \"not drinking.\"\n\nIt has taken two generations, but the transformation is marvelous. The\nminister can now call in every home in his parish and never once have\nan opportunity to drink. If Rev. John Pierpont was yet living, who was\nput out of his pulpit in Boston by an ecclesiastical council because\nhe publicly protested against the use of the basement of his church as\na storeroom for whisky, he would see every minister losing his pulpit\nwho would not publicly protest against such a desecration. Rev. George\nB. Cheever, the dreamer, in 1830, woke up the stupid consciences of\nthe fuddled men and women; he wrote out his dream and published it,\n\"Deacon Giles' Distillery,\" and went to jail for it, but even he never\ndreamed of the greatness of the temperance reform that has followed.\n\nThe overthrow of chattel slavery is complete and the human rights of\nthe inferior peoples are recognized. Human slavery was of old, as\nancient as history; it was widespread over the world; there was an\nimmense and profitable commerce in human flesh; luxurious wealth and\nease was secured by appropriating labor without compensation; it was\nthought that the Scriptures in both Testaments approved the holding of\nbondmen; there was a consciousness of superior gifts; there was a firm\nbelief that the negroes, especially, needed the care of the superior\nrace; that they were better off and happier than they would be in\nfreedom; there was a deep-seated race prejudice that remains\nunyielding till this day. Yet the slave trade has ceased, stopped by\narmed vessels patroling the seas. The slaves, eight hundred thousand,\nin the West Indies were set free; the shackles were stricken off by\nthe sword in the United States; Brazil adopted gradual emancipation,\nand chattel slavery disappeared forever from the civilized world.\n\nThe reform battles fought and won are assurances that victory shall\nalso reward those who contend against this sin of usury. There are\nalso other good grounds for confidence.\n\n1. They are seeking only a return--a reform: \"a restoration to a\nformer state;\" they are not seeking for the establishment of some new\nand untried theory, but they are seeking a return to the faith and\nconduct of the righteous from the beginning and up seventeen centuries\nof the Christian era. The race is but temporarily deflected to the\nworship of the golden calf.\n\n2. There is coming forward a great army of intelligent, virtuous young\npeople. They are made intelligent by our high schools, seminaries and\ncolleges. They are made students of the Bible and stimulated in\nrighteousness by Sunday Schools, Christian Associations, Endeavors,\nLeagues and Unions. From these there shall rise up defenders of the\ntruth, free from the burden of debt and unbiassed by life-long\nassociation with conditions familiar to those older. The reformers in\nall ages have been young, and this reform will be no exception. There\nis a rashness in youth that needs direction, but there is also a dash\nand hope and confidence that is necessary to break away from old\ncustoms. One generation of intelligent, virtuous young people could\ngive this evil its fatal blow.\n\nUsury cannot flourish among the vicious and the unreliable. Other\nevils may flourish among the idle, the indolent, the treacherous, the\ndeceitful and the dishonest, but industry and economy and integrity\nand faithfulness and honor and even God-fearing piety are desirable\nqualities in the usurer's victims. The higher the civilization, yes\nChristian civilization, the more is produced and the richer the\nharvest. The usurer has no use for a savage. This worm thrives in the\nliving body and sucks its vitality. It cannot flourish in putrid\nflesh. Let the highest types of our young manhood avoid this sin and\nits death knell is sounded.\n\n3. Present conditions stimulate an interest in this question. The\nunequal distribution of the vast wealth now being produced: the\nearnings of the many turned into the coffers of a few; the struggles\nbetween the employers and their employees; organized labor and\ncombinations of wealth; lead to a closer study of this and allied\neconomic questions than they have ever received before. The solution\nof these questions will expose the fraud of usury.\n\n4. The patriotic spirit has not decayed in our people and rulers. They\nare as strongly attached to our free, popular institutions as were the\npatriots of '76. There is alarm at the tendency to slip away from the\nearly traditions, at the centralization of power, at class\nlegislation. The influence of usury is so strong to promote a favored\nclass and to concentrate power, that it must be resisted as an enemy\nto our republican institutions. It gradually undermined and then\ndestroyed the republic of Venice, and it is now doing its first work\nwith us. It must soon emerge from its cover. Then our people will\narouse with their patriotic fervor and fell it with one blow, and then\nbury it with the other enemies of the government that have from time\nto time arisen.\n\n5. In the studies in sociology there is now a strong current toward\nSocialism. There is a desire to preserve the individual's interests\nand yet a stronger disposition to merge him in the general welfare.\n\nThere is a conviction that the privileges of individuals have been\nunduly guarded while the rights of the public were neglected, that the\nrights of individuals have received an excess of protection while the\nwelfare of the great mass of the people has been sacrificed. The\npresent problem of the student of sociology is, How can the rights of\nindividuals be adjusted, yet so as to maintain the superior interests\nof all the people? This can be accomplished largely, if not\ncompletely, by the abolition of usury.\n\nLet the Government receive on deposit the surplus wealth of the\nindividuals for safe keeping and subject to their orders. Let the\nPostal Savings Bank be established. The Government is the best\npossible security. The certificates of deposit would be as good as\nGovernment bonds. They could take the place of the National Bank\ncurrency. The Postal Department now transfers money and in a manner\nreceives deposits and issues postal notes.\n\nThese deposits as they accumulated would lift from the people the\nburden of the interest bearing debt. As they increased the Government\ncould invest them in public utilities to be operated for the general\nwelfare. The Government thus caring for the surplus wealth the people\nare entitled to any benefits that may accrue from its use. All would\nhave an interest in preserving and all would share in the advantages\nof the property thus cared for by the State, while each would have his\nindividual earnings subject to draft for his personal needs or\npleasure.\n\nThis would preserve the rights of the individual and secure to him\nperfectly his surplus earnings, and at the same time the whole people,\nthrough the Government, would have the use of this accumulated wealth\nfor its safe-keeping. This will preserve the stimulating incentives of\nindividualism and also gain, practically, the blessings of Socialism.\nThis will be the natural conclusion in the balancing and adjustment of\nthe present sociological discussion.\n\n6. The prohibition of usury would be to the material advantage of the\ngreat mass of our people. It would be a blessing to all, though it\nmight hinder the material gain of a few, but the hindered would not be\na tithe of our people. It is not easy to forsake the wrong when\nappetite or passion or selfish interests plead for it. The martyrs who\nwill stand by the right \"though the heavens fall\" are not a majority\nof our people. The paths of righteousness are easy, broad and smooth,\nand crowded with enthusiastic shouters when self-interest can walk\nhand in hand with a reform. Opposition to usury is self-defense to the\npoor, the pensioners, the producers, and they form a mighty,\nirresistible army.\n\n7. Reason remains. The laws of logic have not changed nor has the\nhuman mind lost its power of tracing premises to their conclusion. The\ncustom of usury was never reasoned into practice, but was permitted to\ncreep in while reason was diverted to abstract, abstruse, scholastic\nsubjects by those who claimed to be scholars. Had the fathers reasoned\nmore about practical subjects, and scolded less, this sin would never\nhave appeared in Christian society and claimed respectability. When\nthe people begin to think and to turn their reasoning powers to this\nsubject, as light dispels darkness, this gross error will flee away.\n\n8. The conscience is yet alert to condemn the wrong and to approve the\nright. The public conscience was never more tender nor more delicately\nadjusted, but it is wanting in intelligence in this matter. The eye\ncannot see to determine the nature of an object without light, so the\nconscience must be enlightened, or made intelligent by the reason, to\nenable it to give a right decision. Conscience is the same in all ages\namong all peoples, and when informed by investigation and reasoning,\nthe condemnation of usury will be as unanimous as in the centuries of\nthe past.\n\nPrayer is also a means to this righteous end. God is still on His\nthrone. His ear is not heavy. He hears the cry of the raven and\nsparrows and lions. He hears the cry of His suffering children and\nwill not fail to come to their relief. In all the past, man's\nextremity has been God's opportunity. Relief has come at unexpected\ntimes and by ways that were not known. Sometimes by means that were\ninsignificant and inadequate in order to show that it was not by human\nmight or power; sometimes by the faith of one humble believer.\n\nThis writer has been familiar with the story of David and Goliath from\nhis infancy. To him, Mammon, whose head is usury, is the giant\nPhilistine who now stalks forth to defy \"the armies of the living\nGod,\" and with a grain of David's faith, he flings this stone.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAbstinence, 255\n\nAgar--Prayer of, 219\n\nAmerican Revision, 87\n\nAmerican Statesman, 172\n\nAristotle, 132, 259\n\nAverage Interest, 135\n\n\nBank of England, 184, 195\n\nBank of Venice, 193\n\nBank, First in U.S., 198\n\nBanks and Brokers, 161\n\nBacon, 108, 180, 266\n\nBanking, Claim for, 56\n\nBarriers Broken Down, 45\n\nBorrower, 62\n\nBorrowing, 241\n\nBenton, Thomas H., 199\n\nBankruptcy, 176\n\nBasil, 169\n\nBeza, 71\n\nBible and Nature, 93\n\nBible Encyclopedia, 8, 21\n\nBlock Stone, 10\n\nBrotherhood--Christian, 47\n\nBush, Prof. Geo., 14\n\nBureau of Engraving, 123\n\n\nCapital Combines, 223\n\nCatechism, 233\n\nCato, 261\n\nCar Fares, 164\n\nCalvin, Institutes of, 78\n\nCalvin, Letter of, 73, 162, 248\n\nCalhoun, J.C., 199\n\nCapital Demands, 165\n\nCretan Bonds, 204\n\nChalmers, 62\n\nCharlemagne, 70\n\nChanged Conditions, 81\n\nChattel Slave, 147\n\nCharacter in Fathers, 206\n\nCheever, Rev. Geo., 286\n\nCreeds, 272\n\nCroesus, 218\n\nCovetousness, 61, 214, 273\n\nCooper Anecdote, 274\n\nCity Debts, 140, 168\n\nCriminal in Court, 127\n\nCoachman, 111\n\nChrysostom, 69\n\nChrist-like Soul, 42\n\nCouncil of Ten, 195\n\nCyrus, 36\n\n\nDavid, 26\n\nDebts, Discharged, 63\n\nDebts, Stimulated, 138\n\nDebts, Church, 141\n\nDebts, National, 142, 189\n\nDecay, Limits, 136\n\nDeposit or Loan, 105\n\nDiligence, 60\n\nDisciples, Practice of, 58\n\nDeacon Giles' Distillery, 286\n\nDives, 218\n\nDoge, The, 194\n\nDueling, 282\n\n\nEdward III, 263\n\nEdward VI, 264\n\nEngland, History, 262\n\nEnglish People, 192\n\nElizabeth, 264\n\nEsau's Abstinence, 256\n\nEquality Impossible, 222\n\nEthics in Bible, 94\n\nEquity Between Thieves, 160\n\nExchanges, 56\n\nExpress Company, 118\n\nExtravagance, 155\n\nEzekiel's Protests, 31\n\nEzra, 36\n\n\nFamily Economy, 154\n\nFarm Preserved, 135, 247\n\nFarm Consumed, 246\n\nFaithful Steward, 117\n\nFathers, Apostolic, 69, 80\n\nFathers, Later, 70, 80\n\nFinancial Slavery, 150\n\nForce in Abstract, 99\n\nFishers' Catechism, 235\n\nFreight Rates, 109\n\n\n\"Golden Book\", 194\n\nGambling, 283\n\nGiving, 51\n\nGravity Levels, 222\n\nGreat Enterprises, 239\n\nGreek Artist, 216\n\nGreece, History, 258\n\nGuile, Taken by, 104\n\n\nHebrews in Egypt, 212\n\nHenry II, 262\n\nHenry III, 263\n\nHenry VII, 263\n\nHenry VIII, 264\n\nHindoo Widow, 24\n\nHonesty Hindered, 210\n\nHodge, Dr. Charles, 237\n\nHome Wanted, 251\n\nHorace, 261\n\nHuman Nature, 81\n\nHume, 192\n\n\nIncorporated Properties, 171\n\nIndustry Discouraged, 207\n\nIndians, Omahas, 244\n\nInjustice, Submitted, 120\n\nInterest Defined, 9\n\nInsurance Company, 119, 254\n\nInterest, Compound, 180\n\nInstallment Plan, 140\n\nIntemperance, 283\n\n\nJackson, Andrew, 200\n\nJefferson, Thos., 200\n\nJennet, M., 182\n\nJeremy Bentham, 113\n\nJeremiah Protests, 30\n\nJubilee, Year of, 45\n\nJustinian Code, 261\n\n\nKing Alfred, 262\n\nKhedive, 203\n\n\nLand Question, 249\n\nLombards, 195\n\nLondon Tenants, 169\n\nLuther, 71\n\n\nMacauley, 196\n\nMachinery, Improved, 226\n\nMammon, 203, 221\n\nMelancthon, 71\n\nMessiah's Character, 42\n\nMoral Law, 82\n\nMilton, 145, 203\n\nMinuits, Peter, 181\n\nMiddle Classes, 220\n\nMons Sacer, 260\n\nMoney Barren, 83, 122\n\nMoses, 57\n\nMosaic Laws, 11, 14\n\nMcCullough, Sec., 201\n\n\nNature and Bible, 93\n\nNehemiah, 36, 40, 57, 63\n\nNile Worship, 214\n\n\nObsolete Words, 7\n\nOne Cent Loaned, 182\n\nOttoman Empire, 212\n\nOver-production, 156\n\n\nPanics, 187\n\nPaul to Timothy, 59\n\nPaulist Fathers, 65\n\nPounds, Parable of, 54\n\nPeel, Sir Robert, 196\n\nPhysicians' Charges, 115\n\nPoor Richard, 240\n\nPoor, Oppressed, 154\n\nPoor, to the Spirit, 48\n\nPopes, 70\n\nPolygamy, 85\n\nProduction, Limited, 158\n\nPromoter, 161\n\nPrime, Dr., 285\n\n\nRates, Differ Why, 108\n\nRentals of Land, 243\n\nRevolution, 238\n\nRidpath, 71\n\nRich Fool, 49, 137\n\nRights, Personal, 98\n\nRights, Equal, 102\n\nRisk, 253\n\nRobe, 111\n\nRome, History, 250\n\nRuskin, 72, 156, 255\n\n\nSands, Bishop, 70\n\nSabbath of Rest, 85, 171\n\nSchaff-Herzog, 8, 69\n\nScripture Passages:\n  Genesis 21:26, 7\n  Exodus 32:1, 7\n  Exodus 22:25, 13, 20\n  Leviticus 19:33, 34, 21\n  Leviticus 22:22, 19\n  Leviticus 23:23, 22\n  Leviticus 34:10, 22\n  Deut. 5:14, 24\n  Deut. 25:19, 17\n  Deut. 15:7-9, 44\n  Numbers 15:15, 16, 19\n  Joshua 9:23, 22\n  Psalm 15, 26\n  Psalm 92, 7\n  Psalm 112:1-3, 15\n  Proverbs 22:4, 15\n  Proverbs 28:20, 15, 27\n  Jeremiah 31:29, 32\n  Isaiah 10:15, 101\n  Ezekiel 24:15-18, 31\n  Ezekiel 22:7-12, 31\n  Ezekiel 18:117, 33\n  Matthew 5:17, 43\n  Matthew 6:12, 45\n  Matthew 13:22, 48\n  Matthew 19:24, 49\n  Matthew 25:14, 52\n  Luke 6:35, 44\n  Luke 51:52, 53, 47\n  Luke 19:12, 52\n  John 15:12, 46\n  John 13:34, 46\n  Romans 1:13, 7\n  Romans 13:8, 62\n  Acts 3:17, 7\n  Acts 2:44, 45, 58\n  1 Corinthians 1:27, 28, 58\n  1 Corinthians 13, 8\n  Ephesians 4:28, 60\n  1 Thess. 4:15, 7\n  1 Timothy 5:8, 59\n  James 5:1-6, 61\n\nSlaves, Happy, 148\n\nSlaves, Chattel, 286\n\nSelf Reliance, 211\n\nStrangers, Three Classes, 18\n\nShoe Plant, 128\n\nShylock, 121, 195\n\nSlot Machines, 104\n\nSolomon and Usury, 27, 144\n\nSolon, 218, 259\n\nSocialism, 289\n\nSpirituality Destroyed, 216\n\nStevens, Thadeus, 201\n\nStrikes, 227\n\nSultan, 203\n\nSun Worship, 214\n\nSuperstitions, 282\n\n\nTaxes Off the Poor, 168\n\nTenantry, 250\n\n\"The Hague\", 230\n\nTalents, Parable of, 52\n\nThrift, 51, 209\n\nTime, 107, 254\n\nTemptation to Upright, 149\n\nTimon of Athens, 146\n\nTools, Not Productive, 135\n\nTrade, Profits in, 124\n\nTrusts, 186, 224\n\n\nUsury, Definition, 8\n\nUsury and the Stranger, 18\n\n\nValet, 145\n\nVenice, 193\n\nVienna, Council of, 70\n\n\nWar, Evils of, 229\n\nWebster, Definition, 9\n\nWealth Decays, 132\n\nWealth, Barren, 131\n\nWilliam and Mary, 195, 264, 279\n\nWilson's Catechism, 233\n\nWrong Laws, 279\n\n\nYoung Reformers, 187\n\n\nZaccheus, 49\n\nZerubbabel, 36\n\n\n\n\nThe Anti-Usury League\n\n\n    The object, the purpose and work of the Anti-Usury League is to\n    expose the evils, the oppressions, the fraud and the sin of\n    usury or interest, by publications, by lectures, by conventions\n    and by every other practical method.\n\n    All persons in sympathy with this object, and who can in any way\n    co-operate by distributing its literature or by other\n    publications or by lecturing or by arranging for lectures or\n    conventions, are requested to enter into correspondence.\n\n    Also all persons who have become interested by reading the\n    preceding pages and who seek further information and who desire\n    to keep in touch with the work of this League should send their\n    names and addresses for enrollment.\n\n                            THE ANTI-USURY LEAGUE,\n                                Millersburg, Ohio.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    +-----------------------------------------------------------+\n    | Typographical errors corrected in text:                   |\n    |                                                           |\n    | Page  39: coveteousness replaced with covetousness        |\n    | Page  54: ponds replaced with pounds                      |\n    | Page  61: Sabbaoth replaced with Sabbath                  |\n    | Page  61: weap replaced with weep                         |\n    | Page  64: bankrupty replaced with bankruptcy              |\n    | Page  70: degredation replaced with degradation           |\n    | Page 113: opportunites replaced with opportunities        |\n    | Page 119: employes replaced with employees                |\n    | Page 145: degredation replaced with degradation           |\n    | Page 211: forbodings replaced with forebodings            |\n    | Page 225: mutally replaced with mutually                  |\n    | Page 228: neighors replaced with neighbors                |\n    | Page 294: Dicharged replaced with Discharged              |\n    | Page 297: Shoff, Herzog replaced with Schaff-Herzog       |\n    | Page 299: Zacheus replaced with Zaccheus                  |\n    |                                                           |\n    +-----------------------------------------------------------+\n\n       *       *       *       *       *","title":"Usury : $b a scriptural, ethical and economic view","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":68013}