|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 27adh Mi na Samhna, 1930.Thursday, 27th November, 1930.The Committee sat at 11.30 a.m.
DEPUTY J. T. WOLFE in the Chair. Mr. J. Dwyer (Revenue Commissioners’ Department) called and examined.1092. Chairman.—I understand you are a principal clerk in the Department of Revenue Commissioners?—Yes. 1093. And on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners you wish to make a statement as regards a report which appeared in the “Irish Independent” newspaper probably six months ago?—Yes, that is so. The date was 29th May, 1930. 1094. Will you go ahead with your statement?—I have been asked by the Revenue Commissioners to come here with reference to a statement which was reported in the newspaper. The statement in question was made by Mr. Cussen, District Justice, with reference to the facts of a case which was dealt with by him. The Revenue Commissioners are concerned in the matter in so far as that the statement, as reported, does not contain all the facts of the case. You have in your hands a memorandum which I have prepared and which shows the extract from the newspaper followed by the full facts of the case. I am prepared to furnish any further relevant information that the Committee may require. 1095. I understand, Mr. Dwyer, this statement is similar to that already given in the Dáil by the Minister for Finance on 6th June, 1930?—That may be, sir. The Minister was probably replying to a speech made by somebody else. This memorandum contains the full facts of the case in chronological order and it was thought advisable that, as the statement of Mr. Cussen was made before this Committee, the matter should be brought before this Committee. 1096. When the Minister for Finance was making his statement on 6th June, 1930—I took the precaution for sending for it and looking over it—he purported to give the facts relating to two individual instances. It was an answer to some statement which had been put up in the course of a debate giving facts which he considered were wrong. He gave what purported to be the full facts connected with the case and I take it he did that on the information supplied by the Revenue Commissioners?—Presumably, yes. 1097. We will now come to what Mr. Cussen did say. He said, first of all, that the Revenue Commissioners possessed an unusual power, namely, the power of imprisonment without trial. You agree that is an unusual power?—Imprisonment without trial? Not that—I do not think he would say that. There would be a trial in court before the Revenue Commissioners could send any man to jail. 1098. In every case?—Yes, but you will appreciate that I am dealing only with this particular case. 1099. There is generally a trial in court? Mr. Cussen then said that the Inland Revenue Commissioners have in this country the power of committing a man to jail for an indefinite period. Is not that so?—You will excuse me—— 1100. Is not that so?—I want to explain myself, if you will kindly allow me. I have come here with reference to a statement made by Mr. Cussen and published on 29th May. I have put the full facts of the case that he dealt with before you, and I am prepared to answer any questions relating to that case. I have not come here for any other purpose. 1101. Do I take it you decline to answer any further questions?—I want you to understand that I have not come here for any other purpose. 1102. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I take it your position is that you are simply dealing with one specific instance which Mr. Cussen rather dragged into this inquiry, and that is all you are prepared to deal with?—That is so. 1103. Deputy Wolfe.—Do you hold that this statement of Mr. Cussen was inaccurate or misleading?—I say that certain relevant facts dealing with the case have been left out of the statement as reported. If these relevant facts had been included in the statement the impression one would get from the statement would be altogether different. 1104. What he actually did say—do you dispute the accuracy of it?—What he has said in the first paragraph is, of course, all right. What he said in the second paragraph is correct, with the exception of the words “under a threat of mandamus.” So far as the Revenue Commissioners are concerned, they gave no instructions to issue a threat of mandamus. The third paragraph is an expression of opinion by Mr. Cussen. If you will allow me, I will explain to you in what respect the omission of certain facts could give a false impression to anybody who read the statement. 1105. Chairman.—What Mr. Cussen made was a general statement that the Revenue Commissioners in this country had power to send people to jail for an unlimited period. In support of that he gave a specific instance and referred to other specific instances. Am I to take it that your instructions are to deal with that instance only? As regards the general statement he made, it was that the Revenue Commissioners had power to commit people to prison for an indefinite period; that that power had been taken from them in England fifty years ago, but now things had reached the pass in this country that, when the District Justice before whom the case had primarily been investigated made a recommendation, in many cases his recommendation was disregarded. That is the general statement. You say you do not wish to deal with that statement?—I wish to deal with everything Mr. Cussen said, as reported on 29th May. Some of the things you mentioned about penalties in England were not mentioned on that occasion at all. 1106. You state that you wish to deal with everything he said on 28th May?— Yes. 1107. Have you read what he said?— Yes, in the paper—the “Irish Independent.” 1108. You did not think it worth your while to read the Official Report or to ask for it?—The Official Report? 1109. The Official Report of these proceedings?—No, I did not. 1110. Chairman.—You have stated you are willing to deal with everything he said on 28th May. I want you to know what he actually did say. What the witness gave was a general statement of the law regulating the powers of the Revenue Commissioners and the abuses that that law had given rise to. 1111. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—That is hardly my recollection. I think it was in answer to a question by me that Mr. Cussen made this statement. 1112. Chairman.—On page 43 of the Official Report the following appears:— 779. As far as I know, in all legislation dealing with excise matters the summonses are excise summonses. This would be a completely new departure from established procedure?—That is so. 780. There is a minimum fine which you must impose, but which you can mitigate to £25, and you can recommend a further reduction?—Yes, we can recommend a further reduction, but never once to my knowledge has that recommendation been acted on by the Revenue Commissioners. That was Mr. Cussen’s statement. You say that is untrue?—I say that every recommendation made by a District Justice is considered by the Revenue Commissioners and frequently acted upon. 1113. Would you say more frequently disregarded?—I would not say that. Our officers, when they send on a report of legal proceedings send it on a special form. On that form they have to put down any recommendations made by a District Justice for the purpose of consideration by the Revenue Commissioners. 1114. Chairman.—Mr. Cussen said that never once has that recommendation been acted upon by the Revenue Commissioners. I happen to know other people who have a great deal of experience of proceedings by the Revenue Commissioners in summary courts. Their statements, including my own, would corroborate in every detail what Mr. Cussen said here. In fact, instances I could give would be much more difficult to answer. 1115. Deputy Briscoe.—Is it not a fact that if a person commits an offence against the Revenue Commissioners’ regulations and if the matter is not brought to court but is settled with that person, and if the sum to be paid in mitigation of the offence is agreed upon, and if, finally, that sum is not paid, the Revenue Commissioners can put that person in jail without proceeding to court in the ordinary way by means of the issue of a body warrant?—That is not so. To illustrate a case of that kind I would have to state some departmental procedure. There is always an order for proceedings taken by the Revenue Commissioners before any compromise is agreed to. There is an order for the proceedings, and there is a provision that unless the sum is paid the proceedings will be carried out. There are always legal proceedings. 1116. I might put it this way. Have the Revenue Commissioners ever issued a body warrant through their own Department and their own laws, and have there been persons committed on that body warrant?—Not without ordering legal proceedings. 1117. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—We are not really inquiring into the Revenue Commissioners at present. We are inquiring into the question of the mitigation of penalties. I think we will get terribly far afield if we get into the question of body warrants. 1118. Chairman.—We come back now to the general statement of Mr. Cussen, which amounts to this, that from 1878 down to the Treaty the Revenue Commissioners, in the case of the old magistracy, never disregarded the recommendations in favour of the defendants, they acted on those recommendations. Since the Treaty the knowledge of everybody having experience of these matters is that these recommendations are continually disregarded. 1119. Deputy Briscoe.—I suggest that Mr. Dwyer be allowed to retire to read up the verbatim report of that matter. 1120. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—If you take question 780, it seems to me that that is the only thing that is really relevant. There the witness stated that it was a general thing and that “never once to my knowledge has that recommendation been acted on by the Revenue Commissioners.” That is Mr. Cussen’s evidence. Mr. Dwyer says now that he has knowledge that there has been mitigation of penalties. That, of course, does not contradict Mr. Cussen’s statement. What Mr. Cussen says is that he does not know of them. There have been mitigation of penalties of which Mr. Cussen has no knowledge. Then he deals with a specific instance of a man, and he specially wants to emphasise that the man should not be kept beyond four months and that he was released after three months. 1121. Mr. Dwyer.—I would like to emphasise one or two other points. Chairman.—Very well. Mr. Dwyer.—If you compare Mr. Cussen’s statement with my memorandum you will find that there are one or two very vital facts omitted from Mr. Cussen’s statement. If you will kindly look at line 7 of the second page of the memorandum you will find this: “When the application was made to Mr. Cussen for the issue of a body warrant against the defendant he at first adjourned the application.” Then on the renewal of the application on 21st May, 1926, Mr. Cussen said that if at the hearing of the case the previous record of the defendant as regards the evasion of the payment of entertainments duty had been brought to his notice, he probably would not have made the recommendations he did. 1122. Chairman.—Were you present when he stated that?—No. Presumably you are touching on the point as to whether he said it or not, but we have it in writing from the report made by the Assistant to the Chief State Solicitor, and—— 1123. Chairman.—Pardon me for interrupting you. The Minister for Justice gave a reply here, and immediately before it he made a reply to another case. 1124. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—Not the Minister for Justice—the Minister for Finance. 1125. Chairman.—Yes, the Minister for Finance. He replied to another case, the facts of which were purported to be given by a Deputy, and he gave a personal reply. That reply concerned the case of a man who was imprisoned and who was actually out of work at the time. It is the difficulty of the manner of dealing with them. The Minister speaks here about dealing with these other men. “One case referred to by the Deputy was of a man who owed £18.” It is a fact that that man was out of work at the time that the order was made, and here is what we were told: “He had £500 in War Loan; (2) he was the owner of the house in which he lived, and (3) the valuation of that house was £45.” These are three definite statements, and I personally know that all these statements are entirely untrue—each one of them. That is the difficulty you have in accepting statements made. 1126. Mr. Dwyer.—If you will allow me, I have a file here which can be inspected, and on that file there is the report made at the time by the Assistant to the Chief State Solicitor. That report states that Mr. Cussen said that if at the hearing of the case he knew the record of the defendant he would not have made the recommendation he did. I think it is perfectly clear that that remark of Mr. Cussen’s absolutely justifies the action of the Revenue Commissioners in refusing to act on the recommendation he made to them. I submit that the omission of that remark from the statement made by Mr. Cussen before this Committee vitiates that statement, and I also submit that if that remark had been included an altogether different impression would be created. 1127. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—Mr. Cussen asked for further particulars as to the circumstances in which the Commissioners refused to reduce the penalty. Were these particulars furnished?—Yes. They were delivered to him by the Chief State Solicitor. 1128. Have you got them?—Yes. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—Better read them. 1129. Chairman.—From whom is that letter?—It is from the Revenue Commissioners to the Chief State Solicitor. 1130. That will be hardly fair. You must face this fact, that the Senior Justice of the City of Dublin, the most experienced man on the Bench of the District Court and probably the most respected man, came here and made this statement that he was threatened with a mandamus. You come here and you are prepared to say that it is untrue. Now you have stated it. You state that of your own knowledge, not merely on information received. How has it come about that you have got into the position to be able to state that what the Senior District Justice has stated is incorrect and untrue?—I emphatically deny that I stated that it was untrue, I said that the statement so far as it went was correct, but that it omitted relevant facts. 1131. Deputy Briscoe.—I understood you to say that the remark made by Mr. Cussen here to the effect that he refused to sign the penal order until he was threatened with a mandamus is untrue?— I did not say that; I said that as far as the Revenue Commissioners were concerned there was no threat of a mandamus. 1132. Chairman.—He was not personally threatened by the Revenue Commissioners, but he may have been threatened by somebody acting on their behalf?—I repeat that as far as the Revenue Commissioners are concerned there was no threat. 1133. Chairman.—You have now qualified the statement you originally made?— Excuse me, sir, no. 1134. Deputy Doyle.—I think we are getting away from the point altogether. 1135. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I think that the question we are discussing is this particular threat about this particular case, and also the general statement that the Revenue Commissioners did not mitigate the penalties, and the suggestion that in this case they have acted, well, unwisely, in not mitigating the penalty as suggested by Mr. Cussen. I think, in fairness to the Revenue Commissioners, if you have their reasons for so acting, and if you have these reasons in writing, we should have them. Chairman.—I have seen clearly instances in which this has occurred. Deputy Conlon.—We cannot go into other instances. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—There is a minute which the Revenue Commissioners sent to the Chief State Solicitor or whoever acted for them in court, setting out the reasons upon which they refused to mitigate the penalties, and it is as well if the witness would read that minute. 1136. Chairman.—Very well, read it now?—The minute reads: “With reference to Mr. Clarke’s minute of the 21st inst. as to the circumstances in which the Commissioners came to the conclusion that they would not be justified in remitting the amount of the penalties imposed on ——, I am to state that the defendant had been reported for nonpayment of Entertainments Duty on no fewer than five occasions previous to the offences committed on 7th March and 29th April, 1925. These five offences were committed in or about July, 1923, and involved a loss of Entertainment Duty to the Revenue amounting to £47 17s. 6d. Several applications were made for payment of the duty by the Commissioners, who were finally obliged to write off the amount due as irrecoverable. It is evident, therefore, that the further offences committed in March and April, 1925, were deliberate, and that the defendant, who must have been thoroughly familiar with the requirements of the law, was well aware of the risk he was taking in endeavouring to evade payment of the Entertainment Duty.” That was written on 29th May, 1926, and the body warrants were signed a few days afterwards. 1137. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I take it that this memorandum will be incorporated in our minutes? Chairman.—Yes. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—As the evidence of this witness. 1138. Deputy Briscoe.—This statement was actually read to Mr. Cussen?—Yes, in reply to his request to be furnished with the reasons for the Commissioners refusal to mitigate the penalty. 1139. Deputy Doyle.—The man got four months?—No. I want to come to that point. In the file in Mr. Cussen’s own handwriting there is the statement: “The defendant should not be kept in custody under annexed warrant for longer than four months.” I submit a fair inference is that Mr. Cussen would be satisfied to keep the man in jail for any time up to four months. Perhaps if I wanted to draw a little bit closer to the mark he might have sent the man to jail himself for four months. As a matter of fact, the man was kept in jail for three months and was then released by the Revenue Commissioners. Mr. Cussen said here that “The City was placarded with bills bearing the words: “Shall So-an-So rot in jail?” As far as I can see, the only object in saying that was to indicate that there was more or less of a public outcry about the case, and that, in fact, there was justification for a public outcry. It is difficult to see why that could emanate from the same source that recommended that the man should not be kept in custody longer than four months. 1140. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I cannot agree with that at all. Mr. Cussen simply told us that there was, certainly amongst some persons, a feeling that the man should not have been sent to jail. I think when we had Mr. Cussen’s statement everyone would accept everything he said. I am perfectly certain that he saw these placards?—There were placards, and I am prepared to mention confidentially to the Committee the name of the periodical that was responsible for them. 1141. Deputy Doyle.—They were not ordinary posters?—I understand they were ordinary newspaper placards. 1142. Chairman.—At all events, after the issue of the posters the man was released?—I did not say that, and I now say emphatically that they had nothing to do with the man’s release. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I am sure that is so. No one is influenced by posters on the street. Deputy Conlan.—Not even the Minister for Justice. 1143. Chairman.—Will you inform the Committee whether the Revenue Commissioners take upon themselves the power to put people in jail for an unlimited period?—I came here for a specific purpose as already explained. I say that the Revenue Commissioners are simply carrying out the law, and I will say no more on that point. Deputy Conlan.—Quite right. 1144. Deputy Little.—You understand that this is really a conflict of principle. A big principle is involved, so that really judicial powers are being exercised where they should not be exercised. That is to say, the Revenue Commissioners are really exercising judicial powers here which is contrary to Article 64 of the Constitution. I would like to ask you under what Act of Parliament these powers were granted? —Do you mean with regard to the mitigation of penalties and the power of putting people in jail? Section 35 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act of 1890 gives power to mitigate penalties. Chairman.—They had powers long before that. 1145. Deputy Little.—Can you give the dates?—The other powers reach back to the Excise Management Act of 1827. 1146. Down to 1890?—Yes. 1147. You understand that a Judge feels himself in a very invidious position where he is reduced simply to an administrative act, while the judicial power is exercised by someone else who, according to Article 64 of the Constitution, shall not exercise it?—I do not want to offer any opinion on that. Deputy Conlan.—I think you are quite right. Deputy Doyle.—I do not think it is fair to go outside the business we have before us. 1148. Chairman.—The legal position is this, that the law of this country and England was the same up to 1878. It is true that England was as backward as we are to-day in such legislation up to 1878. The Revenue Commissioners there had the same emphatic powers that we have to-day. In 1878 these powers were taken from the Commissioners in England, and the point now is that we are advancing to the position that England advanced to in 1878. Mr. Cussen gave evidence, and I think everyone will be in agreement with the general tone of his evidence. It may be—and I take it from the Revenue Commissioners’ official—that facts connected with the particular instance which he gave may not be strictly accurate. Mr. Cussen was not speaking from notes, but in reply to a question. 1149. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—And without notice; merely incidentally. Deputy Conlan.—The whole discussion is incidental. 1150. Chairman.—It was a mere incident in the examination. I have told you what his evidence was—a general recommendation to put the law in this country forward to where it was put in England in 1878. Beyond that he did not go?—I merely wished to give certain facts fully and I thank the Committee for hearing me. Witness then withdrew. Mr. Julius Solomons called and examined.1151. Deputy Briscoe.—Perhaps Mr. Solomons would make a statement generally on the Bill and give his views on it? —To a certain extent I approve of the Bill. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I would like if this witness was introduced. 1152. Deputy Briscoe.—Mr. Solomons is in the moneylending business, and is registered. I know him all my life and I have discussed the Bill with him. I asked Mr. O’Toole to invite him to come before the Committee as he was anxious to give his views on the Bill. Chairman.—I am very glad you did. 1153. Mr. Solomons.—My practice in the moneylending business is that if anyone comes and gives me security that the banks will not accept, sometimes a lease, if the applicant is respectable and progressive I give him money at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. If a man who has no security comes, and if he has no one to back him in the bill, in that case I charge at the rate of 48 per cent. In that case the man wants, say, £100, which no bank would advance. As there is no security, and as I am running a risk, I point out that that is the reason I have to charge that rate. I was before the late Recorder of Dublin, Sir Frederick Faulkiner, in a case of that kind, and he held that 48 per cent., or £12 per £100 for three months was a reasonable rate of interest. It is very seldom that I have any case in court. 1154. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—You say that you advance £100 and charge £12 interest?—Yes. 1155. Do you give the borrower £88?— No; I give the full amount and that works out at the rate of 48 per cent. That was held to be reasonable by the Recorders, the late Sir Frederick Faulkner and by Sir Thomas O’Shaughnessy. If a man gets money that he wants badly, he pays £6 for a loan of £50 for three months. These are temporary loans that are sometimes very useful to people. It helps them in a difficulty. A landlord may be pressing for rent, or the money may be wanted to pay a bill. I was glad to see that this Bill was introduced to deal with abuses practised in moneylending and with sharp practices. I suggest to the Committee that it is necessary to insert a provision in the Bill so that money should not be given to married women without the knowledge of their husbands. That is very essential. Misleading advertisements appear on behalf of people on the other side of the water, stating that money is advanced at 5 per cent., when really the charge sometimes is 100 per cent. and even 200 per cent. The other objection I have is to the sending out of circulars inviting people to borrow money. 1156. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—Is the minimum rate at which you do business 48 per cent.?—I do not think it is practical to ask less. If a man makes a hard bargain and wants £100, and if he is solid, sometimes he may get the money at 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. The moneylender averages the charge on doubtful cases. A man might pay at the end of three months, but he might take five years to pay a bill that carries only five per cent. on it. I find that the average works out at about 10 or 12 per cent. 1157. What class of persons do you find come into you for loans?—Merchants and professional men. Any man, no matter what station in life, may want £25, £50 or £100. 1158. Have you regular customers? Do they come back time and again?—Yes, they come back from time to time. I am nearly forty years in the business. 1159. When somebody comes to borrow does he ever get free of the habit?—Yes, many a man takes a temporary loan. A successful man may want to take a temporary loan perhaps to settle up a point with his bank. In England they deal with lords, and noblemen and dukes, and they have a big turnover, and on that big turnover they are allowed 48 per cent. which is much better than 48 per cent. here, where we are limited to a certain class. 1160. Deputy Briscoe.—I take it that you agree with our Bill on general principles. The only thing is that you claim that 20 per cent. is too small?—Yes, if you take our losses and overhead charges. Other men in business have a turnover of 33⅓ per cent., but they make that four or five times a year. A man buys a suit of clothes and pays cash for it. If the tailor has only a return of 12 per cent. on that transaction he gets that return ten or twelve times a year. 1161. You are aware, of course, that the reason this Bill is introduced is because of the necessity arising out of sharp practices by many men in this business? —Yes. 1162. You say in a case where a man could give good security and where he is of the right sort that 10 per cent. is as good as 20 per cent. where the security is not so good, but you never go beyond 20 per cent. in such cases?—Yes, never beyond 20 per cent. 1163. It is only where you have no security and take a man on his face valu that you charge a man extra rates?—That is so. 1164. The difficulty in this case is that if the committee were to accept the request to make the rate 48 per cent. they have no guarantee that those in the business would not take advantage of that and charge 48 per cent. in all transactions in spite of the fact that there was security?—A man having security will protect himself. He will say that he has security and generally you will agree on a certain figure. 1165. You do not do this house to house business on small loans?—No. I never practise that. I do mostly three months and six months bills. If I get security I leave the money out and a man pays 10 per cent. annually, half yearly or quarterly. 1166. Deputy Little.—Do you understand that in the Bill the rate of per centage is set as a standard but it is within the discretion of the judge to allow a higher or a lower rate?—They generally reduce the rate to a lower rate. If we charge 48 per cent. and go before a judge he reduces it to 20. I have had cases myself. 1167. The Bill is so drafted that it does not actually fix the thing. It fixes a rate of 20 per cent. and leaves it to the discretion of the judge to give 48 per cent. if he wishes to allow it?—Well if you would make a flat rate of 48 per cent. you would give the lenders a chance. That I should think would be the average. I would not charge 48 per cent. to everybody. If a gentleman comes into me and I think he is all right I might give it to him at 10 per cent. I average the interest and it works out at 10 per cent. I suggest that 48 per cent. would be reasonable between the lender and the borrower. There would be no hardship in giving a loan say of £100 if the rate is 48 per cent. I might give the loan at 12 per cent. and the borrower would get the full £100, but at the end he would pay £112. If a man paid £50 off that, then there would be a renewal until he had paid off the £100. 1168. How much do you calculate you lose yearly?—Nearly 33⅓ per cent. 1169. Deputy G. Wolfe.—You mean taking it over the whole year?—It works out from ten to twelve as an average. But taking the overhead charges, losses and rebates and bankruptcy cases, where you get 2/ in the £ perhaps, that would very considerably raise the figure of 12 per cent. 1170. Deputy Little.—Would you not consider one of the abuses of the profession lending money to reckless people who want to gamble?—I do not think you could stop that. You always have sportsmen and gamblers coming in. 1171. I suggest you could stop them by getting rid of them, and the effect would be that moneylenders would be conservative as to whom they lend and they would not lend to reckless men?—You can look at two sides of the question, because of course if a man gets money cheaply he will gamble all the more. 1172. Moneylenders love to exercise discretion?—The moneylender will exercise his discretion; if a gambler comes in whom he does not like he will give him no money at all. 1173. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—Surely half your clients come about because of their losses in gambling?—I would not say that. Sometimes a man comes because he wants to extend his business or for various other reasons. The bookmaker may sometimes come to us if he thinks that the Revenue people intend to put him to jail for not paying up his fine. 1174. Do you consider bookmakers gamblers?—Well, he makes his living by gambling. The private bookmaker makes his book to his best advantage, not to the advantage of the backers. 1175. Deputy Little.—Would you consider one of the abuses that one moneylender would hand on a debtor to another? You know the practice. A person gets hopelessly into debt to one moneylender, and he recommends him to another?—I think that is more or less a practice in England. I do not think it is the practice in this country. 1176. You would regard it as an abuse? —Well, I would, but the three abuses I mentioned are the great abuses, and that is the reason why I approved of the Bill when Mr. Briscoe gave me a chance of explaining. 1177. You know that in America the rate of interest is much less?—I was there three years ago, and I discussed the matter with the lenders. They charge an investigation fee. They may charge £50 for investigating a man’s financial position, and that is where they make it up. The investigation fee would compensate them for a lower rate of interest. We do not charge investigation fees. I suggest that no fees whatever should be charged. 1178. As a result, I understand in America the Jews have very largely got away from that atmosphere of being merely moneylenders, and have a much higher status in the States as a result?— There are moneylenders all over the world. Rothschild is a moneylender. It only means that you must restrict sharp practices. 1179. Deputy Briscoe.—In connection with America and Germany, where the rate is fixed at 10 per cent., the moneylender, in order to get a high rate, will make a deal with the borrower to buy some particular article. It might be a chair or anything you like?—It was the same in this country at one time. 1180. Deputy Little.—Would you regard it as an abuse of the profession if moneylenders were allowed to engage in any other trade? Should they be confined to moneylending and not allowed to engage in selling articles in trade?—It would be very hard to answer that. 1181. Would you confine the moneylenders to one profession?—Not to deal in another commodity, I think that would be unfair. 1182. Deputy Briscoe.—It has come to your knowledge that certain gentlemen who do not give out that they are moneylenders themselves sell soft goods and I think sometimes lend money. What Deputy Little wants to know is to get your opinion on that. Would you consider it advisable that where a man is big enough to register under this Bill he should confine himself to this business? Do you agree with that?—I would say so. We do not want people to trade with married women without their husband’s knowledge. If there is a bill for £5 or £50 it should show that there was no goods in the matter. Very likely to protect himself he may get a receipt showing that he gave the party cash. I do not know how you can protect him. 1183. Chairman.—You suggest that the moneylender could not carry on if the rate per cent, per annum was under 48 per cent?—That is my honest opinion. 1184. If you were lending money at 48 per cent. per annum on a three months’ bill, would you deduct the interest in advance?—No, I would not. I would say the person should receive the full amount and the interest should be added to the bill. 1185. You could carry on by lending the full £100 at 48 per cent.?—Yes. 1186. Deputy G. Wolfe.—48 per cent. in a doubtful case?—Yes, without any security. 1187. Supposing at the end of three or six months he does not pay, what do you do then?—You do the best you can. 1188. Do you increase the percentage? —No. If he could not pay the principal he will very likely pay the interest and you renew the bill for a further period. 1189. Supposing he does not pay the interest?—Then you have to sustain a loss on the transaction. 1190. Deputy Briscoe.—The witness made it clear that when he lends to a borrower who fails to pay and he goes to the Court, the Court only allows at the rate of five per cent. per annum on the balance due. Mr. Solomons.—Yes, when the bill becomes due you have to nurse the account and wait for a certain period. 1191. Chairman.—That is, subject to this correction: that in some cases in Dublin a moneylender would provide for a larger rate than 5 per cent. after the bill becomes due?—I do not think the judges would give it to you. The bill only carries 5 per cent. 1192. “And if after that any money shall remain due on foot of this promissory note the sum shall bear interest at the rate of 35 per cent. per annum”—we have seen it here copied from an English Bill. There is nothing to prevent that being done?—It could be done. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—You have got decrees for money due to you?—Yes. 1193. Sometimes you get nothing, sometimes you do get something?—Once you have to go to the Court you get very little out of them. If sometimes a man cannot pay you, you look into the circumstances. If a man cannot pay that is all. It is no use throwing away good money after bad. 1194. There are people who can pay and who will not pay?—That is right. We give them time. It sometimes takes two or three years to get it. 1195. Deputy Briscoe.—I myself have knowledge that Mr. Solomons finances big undertakings and big concerns in the city. Mr. Solomons.—Yes, at the rate of 10 per cent. 1196. You are out of the category of the ordinary money hawker. You are a financier. £10,000 would not frighten you?—Yes, I sometimes go in for developing or taking over a business from a liquidator and helping it. My ratio in that case is 10 per cent. If I think the business can be saved from bankruptcy, I finance it. There are a good many moneylenders who transact their business in a very straightforward manner because it is to their advantage to do so. You do not have to advertise if you conduct your business in a proper manner and you charge 48 per cent. I have never heard anyone complaining. I am very friendly with my customers and they appreciate it. I think you should make a flat rate of 48 per cent. The English legislators have looked into the matter very carefully and examined many witnesses—borrowers, lenders, solicitors, barristers, etc. They came to the conclusion that 48 per cent. is a very reasonable rate considering all things. If you make it 48 per cent. it does not mean that any lender will charge that. 1197. Deputy Little.—You must admit, however, that in England persons like Lord Carson protested at fixing the rate so high as 48 per cent.?—He was prejudiced, I think. 1198. Would you prefer to lend money for productive purposes rather than for mere gambling or consumption purposes? —Yes. When a gambler goes to a moneylender and borrows money the moneylender risks his money. He charges 48 per cent., but it is a gamble. If it comes off well and good. 1199. What really happens is that the good borrowers have to pay for the bad ones?—Yes. It is just the same thing with shopkeepers—the good customer always pays for the bad one. 1200. Deputy Doyle.—Do you advertise or circularise clients in any way?—I never advertised or sent a circular. My other speculations turned out well. I invested well and have quite a lot in the bank. My credit is unlimited. I do not mind personally what kind of a Bill you pass—it does not matter to me, but with less than 48 per cent., I really say, for the borrower’s sake as well as for the lenders, it would not be practicable to work the business of a moneylender. I just came here to make that suggestion. The witness withdrew. Mr. K—— called and examined.1201. Chairman.—You reside in the City of Dublin?—Yes. 1202. You have a situation there?—I have. 1203. Are you a married man?—Yes and have two children. 1204. How long have you been married? —14 years. 1205. Did you recently discover that your wife had been dealing with moneylenders?—Yes, a fortnight ago she made a confession to me. 1206. Up to that had you any suspicion that she was dealing with moneylenders? —Not the slightest. There was no reason for it as far as I knew. 1207. Was there any reason as regards her habits or methods of life?—None whatever. 1208. Did you inquire into it?—I did. She made a confession to me. It has taken a lot out of her and at present her health is absolutely broken up. She got into the hands of Jewish moneylenders through an introduction from a lady she knew. I would not have allowed her in the ordinary way to have anything to do with this particular lady. She has now got into the hands of 12 moneylenders. 1209. You find she is now in the hands of 12 moneylenders?—Yes, for small sums each time. 1210. What would be the largest sum? —One is £13 from a female lender. She actually received only £1 7s., but £9 is charged to her. The rest was for other loans she got which were deducted, and interest added on. 1211. Did she admit to you that she asked the moneylenders under no circumstances to let you know?—Absolutely. 1212. And in fact they carried out that part of the contract?—Absolutely. 1213. You only knew it as a result of her confession?—Yes. She is absolutely broken up in health. 1214. Did you find, in addition to these 12 transactions that she is now involved in, that she was engaged as security for other ladies?—Yes. The people with whom she got involved as a security are trading under the name of a company. She got in with them by showing the card of another lender who was looked upon as really a sharp chap who would not run many risks, and, therefore, when she showed that card it was all right. 1215. You found, in one instance, that she, at the suggestion of the moneylender, had two transactions under two different names?—She had. 1216. When the second matter came to life, did you find that the moneylender threatened her with a prosecution, she having adopted his suggestion and taken the transaction in a different name?— Yes. This woman’s card is here. Then her assistant came along and threatened that she would hand my wife over to the police for false pretences. She said that she would not sleep any night in the house, and that she would have her shadowed. 1217. Your suggestion is that at least one of the moneylenders with whom your wife was dealing suggested to her that she should adopt an assumed name?— Yes. 1218. Run a second transaction in the assumed name?—Yes. 1219. And when the money was not paid used the result of that suggestion to threaten her with the prosecution?—That is my belief. 1220. Deputy Briscoe.—Have you any idea how long the transactions have been going on?—Four years. 1221. Can you say what the other sums involved were?—It began with a sum of £2. When that was almost paid this particular man said to her: “You had better have a little more.” There was 5/- due and he deducted that and added another £1 on for the £2 lent. 1222. Have you the cards of these transactions?—I have. (Cards handed in.) 1223. Deputy G. Wolfe.—Has your wife a separate estate from you?—No. 1224. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney. — What would be her total indebtedness?—£92. 1225. Chairman. — Can you give an example of any case as to the amount actually lent and the amount now alleged to be due?—She could not answer me that really. 1226. Deputy Little.—How much was first lent?—£2. This particular moneylender got her through this lady, who introduced her. He asked this lady, who is now deceased, to get him more clients. 1227. Deputy Wolfe.—Is your wife in the hands of these twelve moneylenders, or only in the hands of one?—She is in the hands of all. 1228. Deputy Doyle.—You were asked to give the total amount involved during the four years. How many pounds were borrowed in the various transactions?— All I know is that the amount is now £92. 1229. What amount of interest was charged on that?—The latest one is fifty per cent. She signed for £6 on 4th October. 1230. You mentioned a sum of £2; was that handed to your wife?—Yes. 1231. Was a deduction made for interest?—£2 was handed over and £3 was charged. 1232. Chairman.—And signed for?— No, not in the first instance. 1233. Deputy Doyle.—Was that £3 paid?—Over and over again. 1234. And another loan obtained?—Yes. 1235. What were the conditions of the next loan?—The same rate of interest. 1236. Was the next loan a larger sum? —£3. 1237. And these were repeated?—Yes, every time. 1238. And paid up to date in all cases? —Yes. 1239. And the same rate of interest was charged?—Yes. 1240. Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney.—If you do not object perhaps you would give us in writing the amount of your income so that we might have some idea whether this debt would be a mill stone around your neck or whether it is one which you could shoulder with ease?—I shall give you the particulars. 1241. Deputy Briscoe. — The people mentioned here are three different people? —Yes. 1242. Deputy Wolfe.—But your wife is responsible?—To that person’s knowledge my wife is using that money. 1243. Deputy Briscoe.—You say that on October 3rd, £9 was got though there was money due?—Yes; my wife signed for £9 and got £1 7s. There are three people carrying on this business and my wife got the money from one to pay the other. 1244. Deputy Little.—Have you any objection to putting on record the names of these moneylenders?—No, not the slightest. 1245. Deputy Briscoe.—Will you allow us to keep these books for a few days and we will return them in due course?—Certainly. 1246. Deputy Doyle.—There are three names mentioned in regard to certain loans. Were these three different loans on different dates to three different people?—Yes. 1247. But only one person was paying? —Yes. 1248. Deputy Little. — Perhaps you would now give us the names of those moneylenders?—Yes. D. Morris, 66 Abbey Street. I told my wife to let me know when they called. This lady would not see me, but she met my wife yesterday and told her she need not worry as she would not press her. The next name is Mofsovitz, Exchequer Street. Then there is Mofsovitz, 7 Trinity Street; Stein, who keeps a furniture shop; Boland, of Charlemont Street; Mrs. Eppel —she is not a moneylender, she is a clothes dealer, but she lent the money; Sevitt, Harcourt Road; Elkinson, Aungier Street; The Commercial Loan and Discount Banking Company, Limited, 57 Middle Abbey Street (Watchman, owner; Finucane, manager); Tuohy, Fownes Street. I may say that this time last year my wife broke down. One of these women terrorised her and said that she would wait until I came in. As a result she was in the doctor’s hands. She was a mass of sores. I have suffered absolute hell, and my wife broke down recently through sheer worry and strain. She was quite recovered until yesterday, when one of these people came along and threatened her and acted like a virago. 1249. Chairman.—I desire on behalf of the Committee to thank you not merely for the evidence which you have given, but for the courage and civic spirit which you have shown in coming forward and revealing matters which in the ordinary course you would naturally wish to keep private. You have shown considerable courage, and I desire to say that it is greatly appreciated by every member of the Committee. The Committee then adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
