Mr. CONKLING. The propriety of the proposition of the member from Iowa is a eat deal more obvious to him at present than it would have been if his profession, like that of many of us had led him to try a great many usur cases. He would then understand better than he does the ins and outs of the usury laws. Now, I submit to every lawyer in the House that the striking out of the word “ debt” and inserting “ interest” in place of it is nothing more than a bungling, shambling way of striking out the whole section. If the Gentfrom Iowa will ive me his attention I think he will agree with me that if his amendment were adapted this section of the bill would become a more dead letter, and that we had better strike it out altogether; or, to be more frank and lain speaking, insert a section striking off the shackles from these banking institutions, and letting them range free and uncontrolled, to feed upon the necessities of the business community. There is a very good argument to be made on the other side, and it has been made over and over a in in all the State Legislatures in regard to the expediency of usury laws; butIsu mit that there is no argument that can be made in favor of a usury law which confines the banks to the legal rate of interest, at the same time providing that if they violate the statute they shall forfeit the interest a merebagatelle. They might as well be re nired to forfeit a black bean or a button. the provision amounts to nothing at all. Now, sir, I have an amendment which Ipro pose to offer, and which I will offer if this amendment does not prevail, and the section is left with an utility at all in it, providing not only what is provided now, that the taking of usury shall lead to a forfeiture of the debt. but that all bills notes, and obligations tainted with usury shall be void in the inception. Otherwise, even as the section now stands, it amounts to nothing. Because a bank may take usu, and having taken it may turn around and mud the note to my friend before me, for instance, [Mr. Piiicn, ] and take his check for the amount of the note, and he may go on and sue the note at once, and the right of the defendant amounts to nothing more than the right to furnish a fleece to be shorn without having a share in the fleece. I submit that we ought to do one of 2 things. If we are prepared to repeal the usury laws as to this particular class of corporations, and allow them to demand just what they please, then so be it. But do not enact a usury statute, and then provide that the 3 dollars or the 5 dol ars or in the case of a large sum the ten dollars of usury shall be fo 'eited, for we know that that would never pay the cost of a suit, and thus no party would be enabled to insure himself against the extortions of these mon eyed corporations.