Two usurers, A and B, are neighbors. A has a garden he wishes dug. He has an ax but no hoe. B has wood that he wishes cut. He has a hoe but no ax. The laborer appears and wishes to do their work. Usurer A agrees to lend him his ax to cut B's wood on the condition that he shall return it unimpaired and work his garden for its use.
He cuts the wood, but has no hoe to dig A's garden for the use of the ax. Usurer B now lends the laborer his hoe to dig the garden, but takes the cutting of the wood for the use of the hoe. The confused borrower knows he is defrauded of his work, though each seems to have a plausible claim upon him.
A does not give the hoe to the laborer. He retains the full ownership but deposits it in the workman's hands to be returned unimpaired. B does not give away his ax, he only places it in the laborer's hands also to be returned unimpaired. The full hoe and full ax is returned and they have taken the services without compensation.
The result is just the same as if A and B had traded tools and A had given the laborer a hoe to dig the garden, "the tool and the material with which to work," and B had given him an ax to cut his wood, "the tool and the material with which to work," without a pretence of a payment for his labor.
Taking only a part of the borrower's or laborer's services does not relieve it of injustice. The nature of the oppression is the same, only less heinous and flagrant. He who took a penny belonging to another is a thief as truly as the man who took a pound. Petit larceny and grand larceny differ only in the amount stolen. The man who takes three per cent. of the labor of another wrongfully defrauds as the man who takes fifty per cent. The nature of the wrong is the same; they only differ in degree.
It is a well known fact, however, often repeated, that ninety-five out of every hundred who go into business with borrowed capital, that is, who