-
Главная
-
- Книги
-
- Авторы
-
- Теодор Драйзер
-
- Финансист
-
- Стр. 215/297
Для того чтобы воспользоваться озвучкой предложений, необходимо
Войти или зарегистрироваться
Озвучка предложений доступна при наличии PRO-доступа
Купить PRO-доступ
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
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
is
n'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
.
"
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
?
Is
n'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
did
n'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.
?
"
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
could
n'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
did
n'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
.
Is
n't
that
silly
financial
business
at
the
best
?
Was
n't
that
a
fine
time
to
try
to
call
a
perfectly
legal
loan
?
"
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
could
n'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
.
