Some Absurdities of the Law. the printing of the same; incalculable time and energy have been expended in copying, sen-ing and printing these worthless docu ments, all of which might be abolished and dispensed with by one legislative enactment containing not over one hundred words. If an act were passed, providing that on appeal from a judgment, whether interlocu tory or final, the same should be reviewed both as to the law and the facts, there would be, of course, no necessity for all this foolish ness that now goes on to accomplish the same purpose. If ever there was a freakish plan concocted by man for accomplishing a desired purpose, it is found in the New York Code of Civil Procedure, in those sections which require that in order to review an in terlocutory judgment overruling a demurrer, a decision must also toe filed, and that to overhaul completely a final judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, a separate order must be entered, denying a motion to set aside the same on the ground above related. This one instance must suffice for proced ure. Let us now look at an absurdity of a much graver nature. Under our statute in New York, usury is the exacting of more than six per cent, for the use of money. The theory is that it is not good for the people that one man should charge and another pay a higher rate of interest than six per cent. No man may lend one hundred dollars on a promissory note or one thousand dollars on real estate at a higher rate without running the risk of losing principal and interest. In the case of those persons who are necessi tous, householders who are in straitened cir cumstances, the law has provided a means whereby they borrow money at the rate of two and one-half per cent, a month, with an .additional expense of one dollar and fifty cents a month for examination. Let us say that this measure is just; that the poor may properly be charged thirty per cent, per an num for the use of money. . Why should a man of moderate means or a rich man toe for
bidden to borrow money at the same rate? Consider next the question of the liquor law. One of the most transparent frauds ever perpetuated upon a people by a legisla ture is the "Raines Law" of the state of New York. One sits in a hotel bar and billiard room with a few jolly companions, sipping a few delectable high-balls at the hour of mid night on Saturday. One sees a couple of menof-all-work lug out a lot of bamboo screens or curtains from some hidden place, and then hang them disconnectedly around the sacred precincts of the bar. One sees the barkeeper through the slats of the aforesaid bamboo screens, and he still mixes drinks, and the patrons still guzzle them -until the wee hours of the morning. Nevertheless, the bar is closed, and the dignity of the law is satisfied. Was there ever a humbug equal to this, and is this sort of thing calculated to inspire the people with respect for the laws of the land? Lastly, the question of gambling. We are told that it is a very bad and a wicked thing for men to play poker, roulette, ronge et noir and faro-bank. Policy and pool are especially, tabooed. Why do the people prohibit gam bling in New York city, and license it at Gravesend? How is it that the legislature holds up its hands in pious horror at the idea of roulette at Canfield's, and makes a special law toy which millions of money and thousands of youths are annually lost on the racetracks at Brighton Beach, Morris Park and Saratoga? If pool and policy are wrongin the city of New York, how is the satur nalia of gambling at Saratoga, where bets of fifty thousand dollars on the horse races and losses of eight thousand dollars in a gam bling hell are common, is right enough? How do we expect to bring about any re forms in the conduct of our citizens, and make any considerable headway toward the betterment of the human race, so long as we have before our eyes every day such living instances of the folly, hypocrisy and banefulness of our law-makers?
