Indeed, at this very time and for some days past now, Messrs. Mollenhauer, Butler, and Simpson were, and had been, considering with Mr. Pettie, the district attorney, just what could be done about Cowperwood, if anything, and in order to further emphasize the blame in that direction, and just what defense, if any, could be made for Stener.  Butler, of course, was strong for Cowperwood’s prosecution.  Pettie did not see that any defense could be made for Stener, since various records of street-car stocks purchased for him were spread upon Cowperwood’s books; but for Cowperwood—­“Let me see,” he said.  They were speculating, first of all, as to whether it might not be good policy to arrest Cowperwood, and if necessary try him, since his mere arrest would seem to the general public, at least, positive proof of his greater guilt, to say nothing of the virtuous indignation of the administration, and in consequence might tend to divert attention from the evil nature of the party until after election.

So finally, on the afternoon of October 26, 1871, Edward Strobik, president of the common council of Philadelphia, appeared before the mayor, as finally ordered by Mollenhauer, and charged by affidavit that Frank A. Cowperwood, as broker, employed by the treasurer to sell the bonds of the city, had committed embezzlement and larceny as bailee.  It did not matter that he charged George W. Stener with embezzlement at the same time.  Cowperwood was the scapegoat they were after.

Chapter XXXIV

The contrasting pictures presented by Cowperwood and Stener at this time are well worth a moment’s consideration.  Stener’s face was grayish-white, his lips blue.  Cowperwood, despite various solemn thoughts concerning a possible period of incarceration which this hue and cry now suggested, and what that meant to his parents, his wife and children, his business associates, and his friends, was as calm and collected as one might assume his great mental resources would permit him to be.  During all this whirl of disaster he had never once lost his head or his courage.  That thing conscience, which obsesses and rides some people to destruction, did not trouble him at all.  He had no consciousness of what is currently known as sin.  There were just two faces to the shield of life from the point of view of his peculiar mind-strength and weakness.  Right and wrong?  He did not know about those.  They were bound up in metaphysical abstrusities about which he did not care to bother.  Good and evil?  Those were toys of clerics, by which they made money.  And as for social favor or social ostracism which, on occasion, so quickly followed upon the heels of disaster of any kind, well, what was social ostracism?  Had either he or his parents been of the best society as yet?  And since not, and despite this present mix-up, might not the future hold social restoration and position for him?  It might.  Morality and immorality?