Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:The Financier
.pdf
THE FINANCIER
ket; and then after him, Cowperwood’s brothers, Edward and Joseph,
who testifi ed to instructions received from Rivers as to buying and
selling city loan on that occasion – principally buying.
The next witness was President W. C. Davison of the Girard National Bank. He was a large man physically, not so round of body as
full and broad. His shoulders and chest were ample. He had a big
blond head, with an ample breadth of forehead, which was high and
sane-looking. He had a thick, squat nose, which, however, was forceful, and thin, fi rm, even lips. There was the faintest touch of cynical
humor in his hard blue eyes at times; but mostly he was friendly,
alert, placid-looking, without seeming in the least sentimental or
even kindly. His business, as one could see plainly, was to insist on
hard fi nancial facts, and one could see also how he would naturally
be drawn to Frank Algernon Cowperwood without being mentally dominated or upset by him. As he took the chair very quietly,
and yet one might say signifi cantly, it was obvious that he felt that
this sort of legal-fi nancial palaver was above the average man and
beneath the dignity of a true fi nancier – in other words, a bother.
The drowsy Sparkheaver holding up a Bible beside him for him to
swear by might as well have been a block of wood. His oath was
a personal matter with him. It was good business to tell the truth at
times. His testimony was very direct and very simple.
He had known Mr. Frank Algernon Cowperwood for nearly
ten years. He had done business with or through him nearly all of
that time. He knew nothing of his personal relations with Mr. Stener, and did not know Mr. Stener personally. As for the particular
check of sixty thousand dollars – yes, he had seen it before. It had
come into the bank on October 10th along with other collateral to
offset an overdraft on the part of Cowperwood & Co. It was placed to
the credit of Cowperwood & Co. on the books of the bank, and
the bank secured the cash through the clearing-house. No money
was drawn out of the bank by Cowperwood & Co. after that to create an overdraft. The bank’s account with Cowperwood was squared.
381
THEODORE DREISER
Nevertheless, Mr. Cowperwood might have drawn heavily, and
nothing would have been thought of it. Mr. Davison did not know
that Mr. Cowperwood was going to fail – did not suppose that he
could, so quickly. He had frequently overdrawn his account with
the bank; as a matter of fact, it was the regular course of his business to overdraw it. It kept his assets actively in use, which was
the height of good business. His overdrafts were protected by collateral, however, and it was his custom to send bundles of collateral
or checks, or both, which were variously distributed to keep things
straight. Mr. Cowperwood’s account was the largest and most active in the bank, Mr. Davison kindly volunteered. When Mr. Cowperwood had failed there had been over ninety thousand dollars’
worth of certifi cates of city loan in the bank’s possession which Mr
Cowperwood had sent there as collateral. Shannon, on cross-examination, tried to fi nd out for the sake of the effect on the jury, whether Mr. Davison was not for some ulterior motive especially favorable to Cowperwood. It was not possible for him to do that. Steger
followed, and did his best to render the favorable points made by
Mr. Davison in Cowperwood’s behalf perfectly clear to the jury by
having him repeat them. Shannon objected, of course, but it was of
no use. Steger managed to make his point.
He now decided to have Cowperwood take the stand,
and at the mention of his name in this connection the whole
courtroom bristled.
Cowperwood came forward briskly and quickly. He was so calm,
so jaunty, so defi ant of life, and yet so courteous to it. These lawyers,
this jury, this straw-and-water judge, these machinations of fate, did
not basically disturb or humble or weaken him. He saw through
the mental equipment of the jury at once. He wanted to assist his
counsel in disturbing and confusing Shannon, but his reason told
him that only an indestructible fabric of fact or seeming would do
it. He believed in the fi nancial rightness of the thing he had done.
He was entitled to do it. Life was war – particularly fi nancial life; and
strategy was its keynote, its duty, its necessity. Why should he both-
382
THE FINANCIER
er about petty, picayune minds which could not understand this?
He went over his history for Steger and the jury, and put the sanest, most comfortable light on it that he could. He had not gone to
Mr. Stener in the fi rst place, he said – he had been called. He had
not urged Mr. Stener to anything. He had merely shown him and
his friends fi nancial possibilities which they were only too eager to
seize upon. And they had seized upon them. (It was not possible for
Shannon to discover at this period how subtly he had organized his
street-car companies so that he could have «shaken out» Stener and
his friends without their being able to voice a single protest, so he
talked of these things as opportunities which he had made for Stener and others. Shannon was not a fi nancier, neither was Steger. They
had to believe in a way, though they doubted it, partly – particularly Shannon.) He was not responsible for the custom prevailing in
the offi ce of the city treasurer, he said. He was a banker and broker.
The jury looked at him, and believed all except this matter of
the sixty-thousand-dollar check. When it came to that he explained
it all plausibly enough. When he had gone to see Stener those several last days, he had not fancied that he was really going to fail.
He had asked Stener for some money, it is true – not so very much,
all things considered – one hundred and fi fty thousand dollars;
but, as Stener should have testifi ed, he (Cowperwood) was not disturbed in his manner. Stener had merely been one resource of his.
He was satisfi ed at that time that he had many others. He had not
used the forceful language or made the urgent appeal which Stener
said he had, although he had pointed out to Stener that it was a mistake to become panic-stricken, also to withhold further credit. It was
true that Stener was his easiest, his quickest resource, but not his
only one. He thought, as a matter of fact, that his credit would be
greatly extended by his principal money friends if necessary, and that
he would have ample time to patch up his affairs and keep things
going until the storm should blow over. He had told Stener of his
extended purchase of city loan to stay the market on the fi rst day of
the panic, and of the fact that sixty thousand dollars was due him.
383
THEODORE DREISER
Stener had made no objection. It was just possible that he was too
mentally disturbed at the time to pay close attention. After that, to
his, Cowperwood’s, surprise, unexpected pressure on great fi nancial
houses from unexpected directions had caused them to be not willingly but unfortunately severe with him. This pressure, coming collectively the next day, had compelled him to close his doors, though
he had not really expected to up to the last moment. His call for
the sixty-thousand-dollar check at the time had been purely fortuitous. He needed the money, of course, but it was due him, and his
clerks were all very busy. He merely asked for and took it personally to save time. Stener knew if it had been refused him he would
have brought suit. The matter of depositing city loan certifi cates in
the sinking-fund, when purchased for the city, was something to
which he never gave any personal attention whatsoever. His bookkeeper, Mr. Stapley, attended to all that. He did not know, as a matter of fact, that they had not been deposited. (This was a barefaced
lie. He did know.) As for the check being turned over to the Girard
National Bank, that was fortuitous. It might just as well have been
turned over to some other bank if the conditions had been different.
Thus on and on he went, answering all of Steger’s and Shannon’s searching questions with the most engaging frankness, and
you could have sworn from the solemnity with which he took it
all – the serious business attention – that he was the soul of socalled commercial honor. And to say truly, he did believe in the justice as well as the necessity and the importance of all that he had
done and now described. He wanted the jury to see it as he saw it –
put itself in his place and sympathize with him.
He was through fi nally, and the effect on the jury of his testimony and his personality was peculiar. Philip Moultrie, juror No.
1, decided that Cowperwood was lying. He could not see how it
was possible that he could not know the day before that he was going to fail. He must have known, he thought. Anyhow, the whole
series of transactions between him and Stener seemed deserving of
some punishment, and all during this testimony he was thinking
384
THE FINANCIER
how, when he got in the jury-room, he would vote guilty. He even
thought of some of the arguments he would use to convince the others that Cowperwood was guilty. Juror No. 2, on the contrary, Simon
Glassberg, a clothier, thought he understood how it all came about,
and decided to vote for acquittal. He did not think Cowperwood
was innocent, but he did not think he deserved to be punished. Juror No. 3, Fletcher Norton, an architect, thought Cowperwood was
guilty, but at the same time that he was too talented to be sent to
prison. Juror No. 4, Charles Hillegan, an Irishman, a contractor,
and a somewhat religious-minded person, thought Cowperwood
was guilty and ought to be punished. Juror No. 5, Philip Lukash,
a coal merchant, thought he was guilty. Juror No. 6, Benjamin Fraser,
a mining expert, thought he was probably guilty, but he could not
be sure. Uncertain what he would do, juror No. 7, J. J. Bridges, a broker in Third Street, small, practical, narrow, thought Cowperwood
was shrewd and guilty and deserved to be punished. He would vote
for his punishment. Juror No. 8, Guy E. Tripp, general manager of
a small steamboat company, was uncertain. Juror No. 9, Joseph Tisdale, a retired glue manufacturer, thought Cowperwood was probably guilty as charged, but to Tisdale it was no crime. Cowperwood
was entitled to do as he had done under the circumstances. Tisdale
would vote for his acquittal. Juror No. 10, Richard Marsh, a young
fl orist, was for Cowperwood in a sentimental way. He had, as a matter of fact, no real convictions. Juror No. 11, Richard Webber, a grocer, small fi nancially, but heavy physically, was for Cowperwood’s
conviction. He thought him guilty. Juror No. 12, Washington B.
Thomas, a wholesale fl our merchant, thought Cowperwood was
guilty, but believed in a recommendation to mercy after pronouncing him so. Men ought to be reformed, was his slogan.
So they stood, and so Cowperwood left them, wondering whether any of his testimony had had a favorable effect.
CHAPTER XLIII
Since it is the privileg e of the lawyer for the defense to address
the jury fi rst, 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:
«Gentlemen of the jury, my client, Mr. Frank Algernon Cowperwood, a well-known banker and fi nancier 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 fi nance. 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
386
THE FINANCIER
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 testifi ed to.
«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 offi ce 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 fi ve 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 testifi ed 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?
«Why is it then that Mr. Stener charges Mr. Cowperwood with
larcenously securing and feloniously disposing of a check for sixty
387
THEODORE DREISER
thousand dollars for certifi cates 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 certifi cates for which he had
received the check, in the sinking-fund; and having failed to do that,
and being compelled by the pressure of fi nancial 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 fi nd a substitute for George W. Stener and the indifferent leaders of the Republican party in the eyes of the people».
And here Mr. Steger proceeded boldly and defi antly to outline
the entire political situation as it had manifested itself in connection with the Chicago fi re, the subsequent panic and its political
consequences, and to picture Cowperwood as the unjustly maligned
agent, who before the fi re 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.
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 fi nancial results, which they were not willing to
have ascribed to themselves, he continued with:
«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 fi rst
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
388
THE FINANCIER
transactions over until the fi rst 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 certifi cates in the sinking-fund until the fi rst 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 testifi ed 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 offi ce, or would be saying to his head bookkeeper, ‘Here,
Stapley, here is a check for sixty thousand dollars. See that the certifi cates 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 certifi cates 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?»
Mr. Steger paused for breath and inquiry, and then, having satisfi ed himself that his point had been suffi ciently made, he continued:
«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 testifi ed 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
389
THEODORE DREISER
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».
Steger shifted his position and came at the jury from another
intellectual angle:
«It was simply because Mr. George W. Stener at that time, owing to a recent notable fi re 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 fi lled with his
own fears, based on a fi re 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 certifi cates
as here testifi ed? 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 fi nd a scapegoat for the Republican party.
«Now you may think I am going rather far afi eld 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
390
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]