<h2><SPAN name="chap43"></SPAN>Chapter XLIII</h2>
<p>Since it is the privilege of the lawyer for the defense to address the jury
first, Steger bowed politely to his colleague and came forward. Putting his
hands on the jury-box rail, he began in a very quiet, modest, but impressive
way:</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“Gentlemen of the jury, my client, Mr. Frank Algernon Cowperwood, a
well-known banker and financier of this city, doing business in Third Street,
is charged by the State of Pennsylvania, represented by the district attorney
of this district, with fraudulently transferring from the treasury of the city
of Philadelphia to his own purse the sum of sixty thousand dollars, in the form
of a check made out to his order, dated October 9, 1871, and by him received
from one Albert Stires, the private secretary and head bookkeeper of the
treasurer of this city, at the time in question. Now, gentlemen, what are the
facts in this connection? You have heard the various witnesses and know the
general outlines of the story. Take the testimony of George W. Stener, to begin
with. He tells you that sometime back in the year 1866 he was greatly in need
of some one, some banker or broker, who would tell him how to bring city loan,
which was selling very low at the time, to par—who would not only tell
him this, but proceed to demonstrate that his knowledge was accurate by doing
it. Mr. Stener was an inexperienced man at the time in the matter of finance.
Mr. Cowperwood was an active young man with an enviable record as a broker and
a trader on ’change. He proceeded to demonstrate to Mr. Stener not only
in theory, but in fact, how this thing of bringing city loan to par could be
done. He made an arrangement at that time with Mr. Stener, the details of which
you have heard from Mr. Stener himself, the result of which was that a large
amount of city loan was turned over to Mr. Cowperwood by Mr. Stener for sale,
and by adroit manipulation—methods of buying and selling which need not
be gone into here, but which are perfectly sane and legitimate in the world in
which Mr. Cowperwood operated, did bring that loan to par, and kept it there
year after year as you have all heard here testified to.</p>
<p>“Now what is the bone of contention here, gentlemen, the significant fact
which brings Mr. Stener into this court at this time charging his old-time
agent and broker with larceny and embezzlement, and alleging that he has
transferred to his own use without a shadow of return sixty thousand dollars of
the money which belongs to the city treasury? What is it? Is it that Mr.
Cowperwood secretly, with great stealth, as it were, at some time or other,
unknown to Mr. Stener or to his assistants, entered the office of the treasurer
and forcibly, and with criminal intent, carried away sixty thousand
dollars’ worth of the city’s money? Not at all. The charge is, as
you have heard the district attorney explain, that Mr. Cowperwood came in broad
daylight at between four and five o’clock of the afternoon preceeding the
day of his assignment; was closeted with Mr. Stener for a half or
three-quarters of an hour; came out; explained to Mr. Albert Stires that he had
recently bought sixty thousand dollars’ worth of city loan for the city
sinking-fund, for which he had not been paid; asked that the amount be credited
on the city’s books to him, and that he be given a check, which was his
due, and walked out. Anything very remarkable about that, gentlemen? Anything
very strange? Has it been testified here to-day that Mr. Cowperwood was not the
agent of the city for the transaction of just such business as he said on that
occasion that he had transacted? Did any one say here on the witness-stand that
he had not bought city loan as he said he had?</p>
<p>“Why is it then that Mr. Stener charges Mr. Cowperwood with larcenously
securing and feloniously disposing of a check for sixty thousand dollars for
certificates which he had a right to buy, and which it has not been contested
here that he did buy? The reason lies just here—listen—just here.
At the time my client asked for the check and took it away with him and
deposited it in his own bank to his own account, he failed, so the prosecution
insists, to put the sixty thousand dollars’ worth of certificates for
which he had received the check, in the sinking-fund; and having failed to do
that, and being compelled by the pressure of financial events the same day to
suspend payment generally, he thereby, according to the prosecution and the
anxious leaders of the Republican party in the city, became an embezzler, a
thief, a this or that—anything you please so long as you find a
substitute for George W. Stener and the indifferent leaders of the Republican
party in the eyes of the people.”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>And here Mr. Steger proceeded boldly and defiantly to outline the entire
political situation as it had manifested itself in connection with the Chicago
fire, the subsequent panic and its political consequences, and to picture
Cowperwood as the unjustly maligned agent, who before the fire was valuable and
honorable enough to suit any of the political leaders of Philadelphia, but
afterward, and when political defeat threatened, was picked upon as the most
available scapegoat anywhere within reach.</p>
<p>And it took him a half hour to do that. And afterward but only after he had
pointed to Stener as the true henchman and stalking horse, who had, in turn,
been used by political forces above him to accomplish certain financial
results, which they were not willing to have ascribed to themselves, he
continued with:</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“But now, in the light of all this, only see how ridiculous all this is!
How silly! Frank A. Cowperwood had always been the agent of the city in these
matters for years and years. He worked under certain rules which he and Mr.
Stener had agreed upon in the first place, and which obviously came from
others, who were above Mr. Stener, since they were hold-over customs and rules
from administrations, which had been long before Mr. Stener ever appeared on
the scene as city treasurer. One of them was that he could carry all
transactions over until the first of the month following before he struck a
balance. That is, he need not pay any money over for anything to the city
treasurer, need not send him any checks or deposit any money or certificates in
the sinking-fund until the first of the month because—now listen to this
carefully, gentlemen; it is important—because his transactions in
connection with city loan and everything else that he dealt in for the city
treasurer were so numerous, so swift, so uncalculated beforehand, that he had
to have a loose, easy system of this kind in order to do his work
properly—to do business at all. Otherwise he could not very well have
worked to the best advantage for Mr. Stener, or for any one else. It would have
meant too much bookkeeping for him—too much for the city treasurer. Mr.
Stener has testified to that in the early part of his story. Albert Stires has
indicated that that was his understanding of it. Well, then what? Why, just
this. Would any jury suppose, would any sane business man believe that if such
were the case Mr. Cowperwood would be running personally with all these items
of deposit, to the different banks or the sinking-fund or the city
treasurer’s office, or would be saying to his head bookkeeper,
‘Here, Stapley, here is a check for sixty thousand dollars. See that the
certificates of loan which this represents are put in the sinking-fund
to-day’? And why not? What a ridiculous supposition any other supposition
is! As a matter of course and as had always been the case, Mr. Cowperwood had a
system. When the time came, this check and these certificates would be
automatically taken care of. He handed his bookkeeper the check and forgot all
about it. Would you imagine a banker with a vast business of this kind doing
anything else?”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>Mr. Steger paused for breath and inquiry, and then, having satisfied himself
that his point had been sufficiently made, he continued:</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“Of course the answer is that he knew he was going to fail. Well, Mr.
Cowperwood’s reply is that he didn’t know anything of the sort. He
has personally testified here that it was only at the last moment before it
actually happened that he either thought or knew of such an occurrence. Why,
then, this alleged refusal to let him have the check to which he was legally
entitled? I think I know. I think I can give a reason if you will hear me
out.”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>Steger shifted his position and came at the jury from another intellectual
angle:</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“It was simply because Mr. George W. Stener at that time, owing to a
recent notable fire and a panic, imagined for some reason—perhaps because
Mr. Cowperwood cautioned him not to become frightened over local developments
generally—that Mr. Cowperwood was going to close his doors; and having
considerable money on deposit with him at a low rate of interest, Mr. Stener
decided that Mr. Cowperwood must not have any more money—not even the
money that was actually due him for services rendered, and that had nothing
whatsoever to do with the money loaned him by Mr. Stener at two and one-half
per cent. Now isn’t that a ridiculous situation? But it was because Mr.
George W. Stener was filled with his own fears, based on a fire and a panic
which had absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Cowperwood’s solvency in the
beginning that he decided not to let Frank A. Cowperwood have the money that
was actually due him, because he, Stener, was criminally using the city’s
money to further his own private interests (through Mr. Cowperwood as a
broker), and in danger of being exposed and possibly punished. Now where, I ask
you, does the good sense of that decision come in? Is it apparent to you,
gentlemen? Was Mr. Cowperwood still an agent for the city at the time he bought
the loan certificates as here testified? He certainly was. If so, was he
entitled to that money? Who is going to stand up here and deny it? Where is the
question then, as to his right or his honesty in this matter? How does it come
in here at all? I can tell you. It sprang solely from one source and from
nowhere else, and that is the desire of the politicians of this city to find a
scapegoat for the Republican party.</p>
<p>“Now you may think I am going rather far afield for an explanation of
this very peculiar decision to prosecute Mr. Cowperwood, an agent of the city,
for demanding and receiving what actually belonged to him. But I’m not.
Consider the position of the Republican party at that time. Consider the fact
that an exposure of the truth in regard to the details of a large defalcation
in the city treasury would have a very unsatisfactory effect on the election
about to be held. The Republican party had a new city treasurer to elect, a new
district attorney. It had been in the habit of allowing its city treasurers the
privilege of investing the funds in their possession at a low rate of interest
for the benefit of themselves and their friends. Their salaries were small.
They had to have some way of eking out a reasonable existence. Was Mr. George
Stener responsible for this custom of loaning out the city money? Not at all.
Was Mr. Cowperwood? Not at all. The custom had been in vogue long before either
Mr. Cowperwood or Mr. Stener came on the scene. Why, then, this great hue and
cry about it now? The entire uproar sprang solely from the fear of Mr. Stener
at this juncture, the fear of the politicians at this juncture, of public
exposure. No city treasurer had ever been exposed before. It was a new thing to
face exposure, to face the risk of having the public’s attention called
to a rather nefarious practice of which Mr. Stener was taking advantage, that
was all. A great fire and a panic were endangering the security and well-being
of many a financial organization in the city—Mr. Cowperwood’s among
others. It meant many possible failures, and many possible failures meant one
possible failure. If Frank A. Cowperwood failed, he would fail owing the city
of Philadelphia five hundred thousand dollars, borrowed from the city treasurer
at the very low rate of interest of two and one-half per cent. Anything very
detrimental to Mr. Cowperwood in that? Had he gone to the city treasurer and
asked to be loaned money at two and one-half per cent.? If he had, was there
anything criminal in it from a business point of view? Isn’t a man
entitled to borrow money from any source he can at the lowest possible rate of
interest? Did Mr. Stener have to loan it to Mr. Cowperwood if he did not want
to? As a matter of fact didn’t he testify here to-day that he personally
had sent for Mr. Cowperwood in the first place? Why, then, in Heaven’s
name, this excited charge of larceny, larceny as bailee, embezzlement,
embezzlement on a check, etc., etc.?</p>
<p>“Once more, gentlemen, listen. I’ll tell you why. The men who stood
behind Stener, and whose bidding he was doing, wanted to make a political
scapegoat of some one—of Frank Algernon Cowperwood, if they
couldn’t get any one else. That’s why. No other reason under
God’s blue sky, not one. Why, if Mr. Cowperwood needed more money just at
that time to tide him over, it would have been good policy for them to have
given it to him and hushed this matter up. It would have been
illegal—though not any more illegal than anything else that has ever been
done in this connection—but it would have been safer. Fear, gentlemen,
fear, lack of courage, inability to meet a great crisis when a great crisis
appears, was all that really prevented them from doing this. They were afraid
to place confidence in a man who had never heretofore betrayed their trust and
from whose loyalty and great financial ability they and the city had been
reaping large profits. The reigning city treasurer of the time didn’t
have the courage to go on in the face of fire and panic and the rumors of
possible failure, and stick by his illegal guns; and so he decided to draw in
his horns as testified here to-day—to ask Mr. Cowperwood to return all or
at least a big part of the five hundred thousand dollars he had loaned him, and
which Cowperwood had been actually using for his, Stener’s benefit, and
to refuse him in addition the money that was actually due him for an authorized
purchase of city loan. Was Cowperwood guilty as an agent in any of these
transactions? Not in the least. Was there any suit pending to make him return
the five hundred thousand dollars of city money involved in his present
failure? Not at all. It was simply a case of wild, silly panic on the part of
George W. Stener, and a strong desire on the part of the Republican party
leaders, once they discovered what the situation was, to find some one outside
of Stener, the party treasurer, upon whom they could blame the shortage in the
treasury. You heard what Mr. Cowperwood testified to here in this case
to-day—that he went to Mr. Stener to forfend against any possible action
of this kind in the first place. And it was because of this very warning that
Mr. Stener became wildly excited, lost his head, and wanted Mr. Cowperwood to
return him all his money, all the five hundred thousand dollars he had loaned
him at two and one-half per cent. Isn’t that silly financial business at
the best? Wasn’t that a fine time to try to call a perfectly legal loan?</p>
<p>“But now to return to this particular check of sixty thousand dollars.
When Mr. Cowperwood called that last afternoon before he failed, Mr. Stener
testified that he told him that he couldn’t have any more money, that it
was impossible, and that then Mr. Cowperwood went out into his general office
and without his knowledge or consent persuaded his chief clerk and secretary,
Mr. Albert Stires, to give him a check for sixty thousand dollars, to which he
was not entitled and on which he, Stener, would have stopped payment if he had
known.</p>
<p>“What nonsense! Why didn’t he know? The books were there, open to
him. Mr. Stires told him the first thing the next morning. Mr. Cowperwood
thought nothing of it, for he was entitled to it, and could collect it in any
court of law having jurisdiction in such cases, failure or no failure. It is
silly for Mr. Stener to say he would have stopped payment. Such a claim was
probably an after-thought of the next morning after he had talked with his
friends, the politicians, and was all a part, a trick, a trap, to provide the
Republican party with a scapegoat at this time. Nothing more and nothing less;
and you may be sure no one knew it better than the people who were most anxious
to see Mr. Cowperwood convicted.”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>Steger paused and looked significantly at Shannon.</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“Gentlemen of the jury [he finally concluded, quietly and earnestly], you
are going to find, when you think it over in the jury-room this evening, that
this charge of larceny and larceny as bailee, and embezzlement of a check for
sixty thousand dollars, which are contained in this indictment, and which
represent nothing more than the eager effort of the district attorney to word
this one act in such a way that it will look like a crime, represents nothing
more than the excited imagination of a lot of political refugees who are
anxious to protect their own skirts at the expense of Mr. Cowperwood, and who
care for nothing—honor, fair play, or anything else, so long as they are
let off scot-free. They don’t want the Republicans of Pennsylvania to
think too ill of the Republican party management and control in this city. They
want to protect George W. Stener as much as possible and to make a political
scapegoat of my client. It can’t be done, and it won’t be done. As
honorable, intelligent men you won’t permit it to be done. And I think
with that thought I can safely leave you.”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>Steger suddenly turned from the jury-box and walked to his seat beside
Cowperwood, while Shannon arose, calm, forceful, vigorous, much younger.</p>
<p>As between man and man, Shannon was not particularly opposed to the case Steger
had made out for Cowperwood, nor was he opposed to Cowperwood’s having
made money as he did. As a matter of fact, Shannon actually thought that if he
had been in Cowperwood’s position he would have done exactly the same
thing. However, he was the newly elected district attorney. He had a record to
make; and, besides, the political powers who were above him were satisfied that
Cowperwood ought to be convicted for the looks of the thing. Therefore he laid
his hands firmly on the rail at first, looked the jurors steadily in the eyes
for a time, and, having framed a few thoughts in his mind began:</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“Now, gentlemen of the jury, it seems to me that if we all pay strict
attention to what has transpired here to-day, we will have no difficulty in
reaching a conclusion; and it will be a very satisfactory one, if we all try to
interpret the facts correctly. This defendant, Mr. Cowperwood, comes into this
court to-day charged, as I have stated to you before, with larceny, with
larceny as bailee, with embezzlement, and with embezzlement of a specific
check—namely, one dated October 9, 1871, drawn to the order of Frank A.
Cowperwood & Company for the sum of sixty thousand dollars by the secretary
of the city treasurer for the city treasurer, and by him signed, as he had a
perfect right to sign it, and delivered to the said Frank A. Cowperwood, who
claims that he was not only properly solvent at the time, but had previously
purchased certificates of city loan to the value of sixty thousand dollars, and
had at that time or would shortly thereafter, as was his custom, deposit them
to the credit of the city in the city sinking-fund, and thus close what would
ordinarily be an ordinary transaction—namely, that of Frank A. Cowperwood
& Company as bankers and brokers for the city buying city loan for the
city, depositing it in the sinking-fund, and being promptly and properly
reimbursed. Now, gentlemen, what are the actual facts in this case? Was the
said Frank A. Cowperwood & Company—there is no company, as you well
know, as you have heard testified here to-day, only Frank A.
Cowperwood—was the said Frank A. Cowperwood a fit person to receive the
check at this time in the manner he received it—that is, was he
authorized agent of the city at the time, or was he not? Was he solvent? Did he
actually himself think he was going to fail, and was this sixty-thousand-dollar
check a last thin straw which he was grabbing at to save his financial life
regardless of what it involved legally, morally, or otherwise; or had he
actually purchased certificates of city loan to the amount he said he had in
the way he said he had, at the time he said he had, and was he merely
collecting his honest due? Did he intend to deposit these certificates of loans
in the city sinking-fund, as he said he would—as it was understood
naturally and normally that he would—or did he not? Were his relations
with the city treasurer as broker and agent the same as they had always been on
the day that he secured this particular check for sixty thousand dollars, or
were they not? Had they been terminated by a conversation fifteen minutes
before or two days before or two weeks before—it makes no difference
when, so long as they had been properly terminated—or had they not? A
business man has a right to abrogate an agreement at any time where there is no
specific form of contract and no fixed period of operation entered
into—as you all must know. You must not forget that in considering the
evidence in this case. Did George W. Stener, knowing or suspecting that Frank
A. Cowperwood was in a tight place financially, unable to fulfill any longer
properly and honestly the duties supposedly devolving on him by this agreement,
terminate it then and there on October 9, 1871, before this check for sixty
thousand dollars was given, or did he not? Did Mr. Frank A. Cowperwood then and
there, knowing that he was no longer an agent of the city treasurer and the
city, and knowing also that he was insolvent (having, as Mr. Stener contends,
admitted to him that he was so), and having no intention of placing the
certificates which he subsequently declared he had purchased in the
sinking-fund, go out into Mr. Stener’s general office, meet his
secretary, tell him he had purchased sixty thousand dollars’ worth of
city loan, ask for the check, get it, put it in his pocket, walk off, and never
make any return of any kind in any manner, shape, or form to the city, and
then, subsequently, twenty-four hours later, fail, owing this and five hundred
thousand dollars more to the city treasury, or did he not? What are the facts
in this case? What have the witnesses testified to? What has George W. Stener
testified to, Albert Stires, President Davison, Mr. Cowperwood himself? What
are the interesting, subtle facts in this case, anyhow? Gentlemen, you have a
very curious problem to decide.”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>He paused and gazed at the jury, adjusting his sleeves as he did so, and
looking as though he knew for certain that he was on the trail of a slippery,
elusive criminal who was in a fair way to foist himself upon an honorable and
decent community and an honorable and innocent jury as an honest man.</p>
<p>Then he continued:</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“Now, gentlemen, what are the facts? You can see for yourselves exactly
how this whole situation has come about. You are sensible men. I don’t
need to tell you. Here are two men, one elected treasurer of the city of
Philadelphia, sworn to guard the interests of the city and to manipulate its
finances to the best advantage, and the other called in at a time of uncertain
financial cogitation to assist in unraveling a possibly difficult financial
problem; and then you have a case of a quiet, private financial understanding
being reached, and of subsequent illegal dealings in which one man who is
shrewder, wiser, more versed in the subtle ways of Third Street leads the other
along over seemingly charming paths of fortunate investment into an accidental
but none the less criminal mire of failure and exposure and public calumny and
what not. And then they get to the place where the more vulnerable individual
of the two—the man in the most dangerous position, the city treasurer of
Philadelphia, no less—can no longer reasonably or, let us say,
courageously, follow the other fellow; and then you have such a spectacle as
was described here this afternoon in the witness-chair by Mr. Stener—that
is, you have a vicious, greedy, unmerciful financial wolf standing over a
cowering, unsophisticated commercial lamb, and saying to him, his white, shiny
teeth glittering all the while, ‘If you don’t advance me the money
I ask for—the three hundred thousand dollars I now demand—you will
be a convict, your children will be thrown in the street, you and your wife and
your family will be in poverty again, and there will be no one to turn a hand
for you.’ That is what Mr. Stener says Mr. Cowperwood said to him. I, for
my part, haven’t a doubt in the world that he did. Mr. Steger, in his
very guarded references to his client, describes him as a nice, kind,
gentlemanly agent, a broker merely on whom was practically forced the use of
five hundred thousand dollars at two and a half per cent. when money was
bringing from ten to fifteen per cent. in Third Street on call loans, and even
more. But I for one don’t choose to believe it. The thing that strikes me
as strange in all of this is that if he was so nice and kind and gentle and
remote—a mere hired and therefore subservient agent—how is it that
he could have gone to Mr. Stener’s office two or three days before the
matter of this sixty-thousand-dollar check came up and say to him, as Mr.
Stener testifies under oath that he did say to him, ‘If you don’t
give me three hundred thousand dollars’ worth more of the city’s
money at once, to-day, I will fail, and you will be a convict. You will go to
the penitentiary.’? That’s what he said to him. ‘I will fail
and you will be a convict. They can’t touch me, but they will arrest you.
I am an agent merely.’ Does that sound like a nice, mild, innocent,
well-mannered agent, a hired broker, or doesn’t it sound like a hard,
defiant, contemptuous master—a man in control and ready to rule and win
by fair means or foul?</p>
<p>“Gentlemen, I hold no brief for George W. Stener. In my judgment he is as
guilty as his smug co-partner in crime—if not more so—this oily
financier who came smiling and in sheep’s clothing, pointing out subtle
ways by which the city’s money could be made profitable for both; but
when I hear Mr. Cowperwood described as I have just heard him described, as a
nice, mild, innocent agent, my gorge rises. Why, gentlemen, if you want to get
a right point of view on this whole proposition you will have to go back about
ten or twelve years and see Mr. George W. Stener as he was then, a rather
poverty-stricken beginner in politics, and before this very subtle and capable
broker and agent came along and pointed out ways and means by which the
city’s money could be made profitable; George W. Stener wasn’t very
much of a personage then, and neither was Frank A. Cowperwood when he found
Stener newly elected to the office of city treasurer. Can’t you see him
arriving at that time nice and fresh and young and well dressed, as shrewd as a
fox, and saying: ‘Come to me. Let me handle city loan. Loan me the
city’s money at two per cent. or less.’ Can’t you hear him
suggesting this? Can’t you see him?</p>
<p>“George W. Stener was a poor man, comparatively a very poor man, when he
first became city treasurer. All he had was a small real-estate and insurance
business which brought him in, say, twenty-five hundred dollars a year. He had
a wife and four children to support, and he had never had the slightest taste
of what for him might be called luxury or comfort. Then comes Mr.
Cowperwood—at his request, to be sure, but on an errand which held no
theory of evil gains in Mr. Stener’s mind at the time—and proposes
his grand scheme of manipulating all the city loan to their mutual advantage.
Do you yourselves think, gentlemen, from what you have seen of George W. Stener
here on the witness-stand, that it was he who proposed this plan of ill-gotten
wealth to that gentleman over there?”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>He pointed to Cowperwood.</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“Does he look to you like a man who would be able to tell that gentleman
anything about finance or this wonderful manipulation that followed? I ask you,
does he look clever enough to suggest all the subtleties by which these two
subsequently made so much money? Why, the statement of this man Cowperwood made
to his creditors at the time of his failure here a few weeks ago showed that he
considered himself to be worth over one million two hundred and fifty thousand
dollars, and he is only a little over thirty-four years old to-day. How much
was he worth at the time he first entered business relations with the ex-city
treasurer? Have you any idea? I can tell. I had the matter looked up almost a
month ago on my accession to office. Just a little over two hundred thousand
dollars, gentlemen—just a little over two hundred thousand dollars. Here
is an abstract from the files of Dun & Company for that year. Now you can
see how rapidly our Caesar has grown in wealth since then. You can see how
profitable these few short years have been to him. Was George W. Stener worth
any such sum up to the time he was removed from his office and indicted for
embezzlement? Was he? I have here a schedule of his liabilities and assets made
out at the time. You can see it for yourselves, gentlemen. Just two hundred and
twenty thousand dollars measured the sum of all his property three weeks ago;
and it is an accurate estimate, as I have reason to know. Why was it, do you
suppose, that Mr. Cowperwood grew so fast in wealth and Mr. Stener so slowly?
They were partners in crime. Mr. Stener was loaning Mr. Cowperwood vast sums of
the city’s money at two per cent. when call-rates for money in Third
Street were sometimes as high as sixteen and seventeen per cent. Don’t
you suppose that Mr. Cowperwood sitting there knew how to use this very cheaply
come-by money to the very best advantage? Does he look to you as though he
didn’t? You have seen him on the witness-stand. You have heard him
testify. Very suave, very straightforward-seeming, very innocent, doing
everything as a favor to Mr. Stener and his friends, of course, and yet making
a million in a little over six years and allowing Mr. Stener to make one
hundred and sixty thousand dollars or less, for Mr. Stener had some little
money at the time this partnership was entered into—a few thousand
dollars.”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>Shannon now came to the vital transaction of October 9th, when Cowperwood
called on Stener and secured the check for sixty thousand dollars from Albert
Stires. His scorn for this (as he appeared to think) subtle and criminal
transaction was unbounded. It was plain larceny, stealing, and Cowperwood knew
it when he asked Stires for the check.</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“Think of it! [Shannon exclaimed, turning and looking squarely at
Cowperwood, who faced him quite calmly, undisturbed and unashamed.] Think of
it! Think of the colossal nerve of the man—the Machiavellian subtlety of
his brain. He knew he was going to fail. He knew after two days of financial
work—after two days of struggle to offset the providential disaster which
upset his nefarious schemes—that he had exhausted every possible resource
save one, the city treasury, and that unless he could compel aid there he was
going to fail. He already owed the city treasury five hundred thousand dollars.
He had already used the city treasurer as a cat’s-paw so much, had
involved him so deeply, that the latter, because of the staggering size of the
debt, was becoming frightened. Did that deter Mr. Cowperwood? Not at
all.”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>He shook his finger ominously in Cowperwood’s face, and the latter turned
irritably away. “He is showing off for the benefit of his future,”
he whispered to Steger. “I wish you could tell the jury that.”</p>
<p>“I wish I could,” replied Steger, smiling scornfully, “but my
hour is over.”</p>
<blockquote> <div>
<p>“Why [continued Mr. Shannon, turning once more to the jury], think of the
colossal, wolfish nerve that would permit a man to say to Albert Stires that he
had just purchased sixty thousand dollars’ worth additional of city loan,
and that he would then and there take the check for it! Had he actually
purchased this city loan as he said he had? Who can tell? Could any human being
wind through all the mazes of the complicated bookkeeping system which he ran,
and actually tell? The best answer to that is that if he did purchase the
certificates he intended that it should make no difference to the city, for he
made no effort to put the certificates in the sinking-fund, where they
belonged. His counsel says, and he says, that he didn’t have to until the
first of the month, although the law says that he must do it at once, and he
knew well enough that legally he was bound to do it. His counsel says, and he
says, that he didn’t know he was going to fail. Hence there was no need
of worrying about it. I wonder if any of you gentlemen really believed that?
Had he ever asked for a check like that so quick before in his life? In all the
history of these nefarious transactions was there another incident like that?
You know there wasn’t. He had never before, on any occasion, asked
personally for a check for anything in this office, and yet on this occasion he
did it. Why? Why should he ask for it this time? A few hours more, according to
his own statement, wouldn’t have made any difference one way or the
other, would it? He could have sent a boy for it, as usual. That was the way it
had always been done before. Why anything different now? I’ll tell you
why! [Shannon suddenly shouted, varying his voice tremendously.] I’ll
tell you why! He knew that he was a ruined man! He knew that his last
semi-legitimate avenue of escape—the favor of George W. Stener—had
been closed to him! He knew that honestly, by open agreement, he could not
extract another single dollar from the treasury of the city of Philadelphia. He
knew that if he left the office without this check and sent a boy for it, the
aroused city treasurer would have time to inform his clerks, and that then no
further money could be obtained. That’s why! That’s why, gentlemen,
if you really want to know.</p>
<p>“Now, gentlemen of the jury, I am about done with my arraignment of this
fine, honorable, virtuous citizen whom the counsel for the defense, Mr. Steger,
tells you you cannot possibly convict without doing a great injustice. All I
have to say is that you look to me like sane, intelligent men—just the
sort of men that I meet everywhere in the ordinary walks of life, doing an
honorable American business in an honorable American way. Now, gentlemen of the
jury [he was very soft-spoken now], all I have to say is that if, after all you
have heard and seen here to-day, you still think that Mr. Frank A. Cowperwood
is an honest, honorable man—that he didn’t steal, willfully and
knowingly, sixty thousand dollars from the Philadelphia city treasury; that he
had actually bought the certificates he said he had, and had intended to put
them in the sinking-fund, as he said he did, then don’t you dare to do
anything except turn him loose, and that speedily, so that he can go on back
to-day into Third Street, and start to straighten out his much-entangled
financial affairs. It is the only thing for honest, conscientious men to
do—to turn him instantly loose into the heart of this community, so that
some of the rank injustice that my opponent, Mr. Steger, alleges has been done
him will be a little made up to him. You owe him, if that is the way you feel,
a prompt acknowledgment of his innocence. Don’t worry about George W.
Stener. His guilt is established by his own confession. He admits he is guilty.
He will be sentenced without trial later on. But this man—he says he is
an honest, honorable man. He says he didn’t think he was going to fail.
He says he used all that threatening, compelling, terrifying language, not
because he was in danger of failing, but because he didn’t want the
bother of looking further for aid. What do you think? Do you really think that
he had purchased sixty thousand dollars more of certificates for the
sinking-fund, and that he was entitled to the money? If so, why didn’t he
put them in the sinking-fund? They’re not there now, and the sixty
thousand dollars is gone. Who got it? The Girard National Bank, where he was
overdrawn to the extent of one hundred thousand dollars! Did it get it and
forty thousand dollars more in other checks and certificates? Certainly. Why?
Do you suppose the Girard National Bank might be in any way grateful for this
last little favor before he closed his doors? Do you think that President
Davison, whom you saw here testifying so kindly in this case feels at all
friendly, and that that may possibly—I don’t say that it
does—explain his very kindly interpretation of Mr. Cowperwood’s
condition? It might be. You can think as well along that line as I can. Anyhow,
gentlemen, President Davison says Mr. Cowperwood is an honorable, honest man,
and so does his counsel, Mr. Steger. You have heard the testimony. Now you
think it over. If you want to turn him loose—turn him loose. [He waved
his hand wearily.] You’re the judges. I wouldn’t; but then I am
merely a hard-working lawyer—one person, one opinion. You may think
differently—that’s your business. [He waved his hand suggestively,
almost contemptuously.] However, I’m through, and I thank you for your
courtesy. Gentlemen, the decision rests with you.”</p>
</div> </blockquote>
<p>He turned away grandly, and the jury stirred—so did the idle spectators
in the court. Judge Payderson sighed a sigh of relief. It was now quite dark,
and the flaring gas forms in the court were all brightly lighted. Outside one
could see that it was snowing. The judge stirred among his papers wearily, and
turning to the jurors solemnly, began his customary explanation of the law,
after which they filed out to the jury-room.</p>
<p>Cowperwood turned to his father who now came over across the fast-emptying
court, and said:</p>
<p>“Well, we’ll know now in a little while.”</p>
<p>“Yes,” replied Cowperwood, Sr., a little wearily. “I hope it
comes out right. I saw Butler back there a little while ago.”</p>
<p>“Did you?” queried Cowperwood, to whom this had a peculiar
interest.</p>
<p>“Yes,” replied his father. “He’s just gone.”</p>
<p>So, Cowperwood thought, Butler was curious enough as to his fate to want to
come here and watch him tried. Shannon was his tool. Judge Payderson was his
emissary, in a way. He, Cowperwood, might defeat him in the matter of his
daughter, but it was not so easy to defeat him here unless the jury should
happen to take a sympathetic attitude. They might convict him, and then
Butler’s Judge Payderson would have the privilege of sentencing
him—giving him the maximum sentence. That would not be so nice—five
years! He cooled a little as he thought of it, but there was no use worrying
about what had not yet happened. Steger came forward and told him that his bail
was now ended—had been the moment the jury left the room—and that
he was at this moment actually in the care of the sheriff, of whom he
knew—Sheriff Adlai Jaspers. Unless he were acquitted by the jury, Steger
added, he would have to remain in the sheriff’s care until an application
for a certificate of reasonable doubt could be made and acted upon.</p>
<p>“It would take all of five days, Frank,” Steger said, “but
Jaspers isn’t a bad sort. He’d be reasonable. Of course if
we’re lucky you won’t have to visit him. You will have to go with
this bailiff now, though. Then if things come out right we’ll go home.
Say, I’d like to win this case,” he said. “I’d like to
give them the laugh and see you do it. I consider you’ve been pretty
badly treated, and I think I made that perfectly clear. I can reverse this
verdict on a dozen grounds if they happen to decide against you.”</p>
<p>He and Cowperwood and the latter’s father now stalked off with the
sheriff’s subordinate—a small man by the name of
“Eddie” Zanders, who had approached to take charge. They entered a
small room called the pen at the back of the court, where all those on trial
whose liberty had been forfeited by the jury’s leaving the room had to
wait pending its return. It was a dreary, high-ceiled, four-square place, with
a window looking out into Chestnut Street, and a second door leading off into
somewhere—one had no idea where. It was dingy, with a worn wooden floor,
some heavy, plain, wooden benches lining the four sides, no pictures or
ornaments of any kind. A single two-arm gas-pipe descended from the center of
the ceiling. It was permeated by a peculiarly stale and pungent odor, obviously
redolent of all the flotsam and jetsam of life—criminal and
innocent—that had stood or sat in here from time to time, waiting
patiently to learn what a deliberating fate held in store.</p>
<p>Cowperwood was, of course, disgusted; but he was too self-reliant and capable
to show it. All his life he had been immaculate, almost fastidious in his care
of himself. Here he was coming, perforce, in contact with a form of life which
jarred upon him greatly. Steger, who was beside him, made some comforting,
explanatory, apologetic remarks.</p>
<p>“Not as nice as it might be,” he said, “but you won’t
mind waiting a little while. The jury won’t be long, I fancy.”</p>
<p>“That may not help me,” he replied, walking to the window.
Afterward he added: “What must be, must be.”</p>
<p>His father winced. Suppose Frank was on the verge of a long prison term, which
meant an atmosphere like this? Heavens! For a moment, he trembled, then for the
first time in years he made a silent prayer.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.