The Financier a novel by Theodore Dreiser

 
 

---

Chapter XLVIII 
By the time the State Supreme Court came to pass upon Cowperwood's plea 
for a reversal of the lower court and the granting of a new trial, the rumor of 
his connection with Aileen had spread far and wide. As has been seen, it 
had done and was still doing him much damage. It confirmed the 
impression, which the politicians had originally tried to create, that 
Cowperwood was the true criminal and Stener the victim. His semi-
legitimate financial subtlety, backed indeed by his financial genius, but 
certainly on this account not worse than that being practiced in peace and 
quiet and with much applause in many other quarters—was now seen to be 
Machiavellian trickery of the most dangerous type. He had a wife and two 
children; and without knowing what his real thoughts had been the 
fruitfully imaginative public jumped to the conclusion that he had been on 
the verge of deserting them, divorcing Lillian, and marrying Aileen. This was 
criminal enough in itself, from the conservative point of view; but when 
taken in connection with his financial record, his trial, conviction, and 
general bankruptcy situation, the public was inclined to believe that he was 
all the politicians said he was. He ought to be convicted. The Supreme Court 
ought not to grant his prayer for a new trial. It is thus that our inmost 
thoughts and intentions burst at times via no known material agency into 
public thoughts. People know, when they cannot apparently possibly know 
why they know. There is such a thing as thought-transference and 
transcendentalism of ideas. 
It reached, for one thing, the ears of the five judges of the State Supreme 
Court and of the Governor of the State. 
During the four weeks Cowperwood had been free on a certificate of 
reasonable doubt both Harper Steger and Dennis Shannon appeared before 
the judges of the State Supreme Court, and argued pro and con as to the 
reasonableness of granting a new trial. Through his lawyer, Cowperwood 
made a learned appeal to the Supreme Court judges, showing how he had 
been unfairly indicted in the first place, how there was no real substantial 
evidence on which to base a charge of larceny or anything else. It took 
Steger two hours and ten minutes to make his argument, and District-
Attorney Shannon longer to make his reply, during which the five judges on 
the bench, men of considerable legal experience but no great financial 
understanding, listened with rapt attention. Three of them, Judges 
Smithson, Rainey, and Beckwith, men most amenable to the political feeling 
of the time and the wishes of the bosses, were little interested in this story of 
Cowperwood's transaction, particularly since his relations with Butler's 
daughter and Butler's consequent opposition to him had come to them. 
They fancied that in a way they were considering the whole matter fairly and 
impartially; but the manner in which Cowperwood had treated Butler was 

---

never out of their minds. Two of them, Judges Marvin and Rafalsky, who 
were men of larger sympathies and understanding, but of no greater political 
freedom, did feel that Cowperwood had been badly used thus far, but they 
did not see what they could do about it. He had put himself in a most 
unsatisfactory position, politically and socially. They understood and took 
into consideration his great financial and social losses which Steger 
described accurately; and one of them, Judge Rafalsky, because of a similar 
event in his own life in so far as a girl was concerned, was inclined to argue 
strongly against the conviction of Cowperwood; but, owing to his political 
connections and obligations, he realized that it would not be wise politically 
to stand out against what was wanted. Still, when he and Marvin learned 
that Judges Smithson, Rainey, and Beckwith were inclined to convict 
Cowperwood without much argument, they decided to hand down a 
dissenting opinion. The point involved was a very knotty one. Cowperwood 
might carry it to the Supreme Court of the United States on some 
fundamental principle of liberty of action. Anyhow, other judges in other 
courts in Pennsylvania and elsewhere would be inclined to examine the 
decision in this case, it was so important. The minority decided that it would 
not do them any harm to hand down a dissenting opinion. The politicians 
would not mind as long as Cowperwood was convicted—would like it better, 
in fact. It looked fairer. Besides, Marvin and Rafalsky did not care to be 
included, if they could help it, with Smithson, Rainey, and Beckwith in a 
sweeping condemnation of Cowperwood. So all five judges fancied they were 
considering the whole matter rather fairly and impartially, as men will under 
such circumstances. Smithson, speaking for himself and Judges Rainey and 
Beckwith on the eleventh of February, 1872, said: 
"The defendant, Frank A. Cowperwood, asks that the finding of the jury in 
the lower court (the State of Pennsylvania vs. Frank A. Cowperwood) be 
reversed and a new trial granted. This court cannot see that any substantial 
injustice has been done the defendant. [Here followed a rather lengthy 
resume of the history of the case, in which it was pointed out that the 
custom and precedent of the treasurer's office, to say nothing of 
Cowperwood's easy method of doing business with the city treasury, could 
have nothing to do with his responsibility for failure to observe both the 
spirit and the letter of the law.] The obtaining of goods under color of legal 
process [went on Judge Smithson, speaking for the majority] may amount to 
larceny. In the present case it was the province of the jury to ascertain the 
felonious intent. They have settled that against the defendant as a question 
of fact, and the court cannot say that there was not sufficient evidence to 
sustain the verdict. For what purpose did the defendant get the check? He 
was upon the eve of failure. He had already hypothecated for his own debts 
the loan of the city placed in his hands for sale—he had unlawfully obtained 

---

five hundred thousand dollars in cash as loans; and it is reasonable to 
suppose that he could obtain nothing more from the city treasury by any 
ordinary means. Then it is that he goes there, and, by means of a falsehood 
implied if not actual, obtains sixty thousand dollars more. The jury has 
found the intent with which this was done." 
It was in these words that Cowperwood's appeal for a new trial was denied 
by the majority. 
For himself and Judge Rafalsky, Judge Marvin, dissenting, wrote: 
"It is plain from the evidence in the case that Mr. Cowperwood did not 
receive the check without authority as agent to do so, and it has not been 
clearly demonstrated that within his capacity as agent he did not perform or 
intend to perform the full measure of the obligation which the receipt of this 
check implied. It was shown in the trial that as a matter of policy it was 
understood that purchases for the sinking-fund should not be known or 
understood in the market or by the public in that light, and that Mr. 
Cowperwood as agent was to have an absolutely free hand in the disposal of 
his assets and liabilities so long as the ultimate result was satisfactory. 
There was no particular time when the loan was to be bought, nor was there 
any particular amount mentioned at any time to be purchased. Unless the 
defendant intended at the time he received the check fraudulently to 
appropriate it he could not be convicted even on the first count. The verdict 
of the jury does not establish this fact; the evidence does not show 
conclusively that it could be established; and the same jury, upon three 
other counts, found the defendant guilty without the semblance of shadow 
of evidence. How can we say that their conclusions upon the first count are 
unerring when they so palpably erred on the other counts? It is the opinion 
of the minority that the verdict of the jury in charging larceny on the first 
count is not valid, and that that verdict should be set aside and a new trial 
granted." 
Judge Rafalsky, a meditative and yet practical man of Jewish extraction but 
peculiarly American appearance, felt called upon to write a third opinion 
which should especially reflect his own cogitation and be a criticism on the 
majority as well as a slight variation from and addition to the points on 
which he agreed with Judge Marvin. It was a knotty question, this, of 
Cowperwood's guilt, and, aside from the political necessity of convicting him, 
nowhere was it more clearly shown than in these varying opinions of the 
superior court. Judge Rafalsky held, for instance, that if a crime had been 
committed at all, it was not that known as larceny, and he went on to add: 
"It is impossible, from the evidence, to come to the conclusion either that 
Cowperwood did not intend shortly to deliver the loan or that Albert Stires, 
the chief clerk, or the city treasurer did not intend to part not only with the 

---

possession, but also and absolutely with the property in the check and the 
money represented by it. It was testified by Mr. Stires that Mr. Cowperwood 
said he had bought certificates of city loan to this amount, and it has not 
been clearly demonstrated that he had not. His non-placement of the same 
in the sinking-fund must in all fairness, the letter of the law to the contrary 
notwithstanding, be looked upon and judged in the light of custom. Was it 
his custom so to do? In my judgment the doctrine now announced by the 
majority of the court extends the crime of constructive larceny to such limits 
that any business man who engages in extensive and perfectly legitimate 
stock transactions may, before he knows it, by a sudden panic in the market 
or a fire, as in this instance, become a felon. When a principle is asserted 
which establishes such a precedent, and may lead to such results, it is, to 
say the least, startling." 
While he was notably comforted by the dissenting opinions of the judges in 
minority, and while he had been schooling himself to expect the worst in 
this connection and had been arranging his affairs as well as he could in 
anticipation of it, Cowperwood was still bitterly disappointed. It would be 
untrue to say that, strong and self-reliant as he normally was, he did not 
suffer. He was not without sensibilities of the highest order, only they were 
governed and controlled in him by that cold iron thing, his reason, which 
never forsook him. There was no further appeal possible save to the United 
States Supreme Court, as Steger pointed out, and there only on the 
constitutionality of some phase of the decision and his rights as a citizen, of 
which the Supreme Court of the United States must take cognizance. This 
was a tedious and expensive thing to do. It was not exactly obvious at the 
moment on what point he could make an appeal. It would involve a long 
delay—perhaps a year and a half, perhaps longer, at the end of which period 
he might have to serve his prison term anyhow, and pending which he 
would certainly have to undergo incarceration for a time. 
Cowperwood mused speculatively for a few moments after hearing Steger's 
presentation of the case. Then he said: "Well, it looks as if I have to go to jail 
or leave the country, and I've decided on jail. I can fight this out right here 
in Philadelphia in the long run and win. I can get that decision reversed in 
the Supreme Court, or I can get the Governor to pardon me after a time, I 
think. I'm not going to run away, and everybody knows I'm not. These people 
who think they have me down haven't got one corner of me whipped. I'll get 
out of this thing after a while, and when I do I'll show some of these petty 
little politicians what it means to put up a real fight. They'll never get a 
damned dollar out of me now—not a dollar! I did intend to pay that five 
hundred thousand dollars some time if they had let me go. Now they can 
whistle!" 
He set his teeth and his gray eyes fairly snapped their determination. 

---

"Well, I've done all I can, Frank," pleaded Steger, sympathetically. "You'll do 
me the justice to say that I put up the best fight I knew how. I may not know 
how—you'll have to answer for that—but within my limits I've done the best 
I can. I can do a few things more to carry this thing on, if you want me to, 
but I'm going to leave it to you now. Whatever you say goes." 
"Don't talk nonsense at this stage, Harper," replied Cowperwood almost 
testily. "I know whether I'm satisfied or not, and I'd soon tell you if I wasn't. I 
think you might as well go on and see if you can find some definite grounds 
for carrying it to the Supreme Court, but meanwhile I'll begin my sentence. I 
suppose Payderson will be naming a day to have me brought before him now 
shortly." 
"It depends on how you'd like to have it, Frank. I could get a stay of sentence 
for a week maybe, or ten days, if it will do you any good. Shannon won't 
make any objection to that, I'm sure. There's only one hitch. Jaspers will be 
around here tomorrow looking for you. It's his duty to take you into custody 
again, once he's notified that your appeal has been denied. He'll be wanting 
to lock you up unless you pay him, but we can fix that. If you do want to 
wait, and want any time off, I suppose he'll arrange to let you out with a 
deputy; but I'm afraid you'll have to stay there nights. They're pretty strict 
about that since that Albertson case of a few years ago." 
Steger referred to the case of a noted bank cashier who, being let out of the 
county jail at night in the alleged custody of a deputy, was permitted to 
escape. There had been emphatic and severe condemnation of the sheriff's 
office at the time, and since then, repute or no repute, money or no money, 
convicted criminals were supposed to stay in the county jail at night at 
least. 
Cowperwood meditated this calmly, looking out of the lawyer's window into 
Second Street. He did not much fear anything that might happen to him in 
Jaspers's charge since his first taste of that gentleman's hospitality, 
although he did object to spending nights in the county jail when his general 
term of imprisonment was being reduced no whit thereby. All that he could 
do now in connection with his affairs, unless he could have months of 
freedom, could be as well adjusted from a prison cell as from his Third 
Street office—not quite, but nearly so. Anyhow, why parley? He was facing a 
prison term, and he might as well accept it without further ado. He might 
take a day or two finally to look after his affairs; but beyond that, why 
bother? 
"When, in the ordinary course of events, if you did nothing at all, would I 
come up for sentence?" 

---

"Oh, Friday or Monday, I fancy," replied Steger. "I don't know what move 
Shannon is planning to make in this matter. I thought I'd walk around and 
see him in a little while." 
"I think you'd better do that," replied Cowperwood. "Friday or Monday will 
suit me, either way. I'm really not particular. Better make it Monday if you 
can. You don't suppose there is any way you can induce Jaspers to keep his 
hands off until then? He knows I'm perfectly responsible." 
"I don't know, Frank, I'm sure; I'll see. I'll go around and talk to him to-
night. Perhaps a hundred dollars will make him relax the rigor of his rules 
that much." 
Cowperwood smiled grimly. 
"I fancy a hundred dollars would make Jaspers relax a whole lot of rules," he 
replied, and he got up to go. 
Steger arose also. "I'll see both these people, and then I'll call around at your 
house. You'll be in, will you, after dinner?" 
"Yes." 
They slipped on their overcoats and went out into the cold February day, 
Cowperwood back to his Third Street office, Steger to see Shannon and 
Jaspers.