the judge’s thumb and nose.  “Your honor, in the thirty-second volume of the Revised Reports of Massachusetts, page so and so, line so and so, in Arundel versus Bannerman, you will find, etc.”  How often have you heard that in a court of law?  The reasoning that is left to do in most cases is not much.  And the sanctity of the law is raised like a great banner by which the pride of the incumbent is strengthened.

Payderson, as Steger had indicated, could scarcely be pointed to as an unjust judge.  He was a party judge—­Republican in principle, or rather belief, beholden to the dominant party councils for his personal continuance in office, and as such willing and anxious to do whatever he considered that he reasonably could do to further the party welfare and the private interests of his masters.  Most people never trouble to look into the mechanics of the thing they call their conscience too closely.  Where they do, too often they lack the skill to disentangle the tangled threads of ethics and morals.  Whatever the opinion of the time is, whatever the weight of great interests dictates, that they conscientiously believe.  Some one has since invented the phrase “a corporation-minded judge.”  There are many such.

Payderson was one.  He fairly revered property and power.  To him Butler and Mollenhauer and Simpson were great men—­reasonably sure to be right always because they were so powerful.  This matter of Cowperwood’s and Stener’s defalcation he had long heard of.  He knew by associating with one political light and another just what the situation was.  The party, as the leaders saw it, had been put in a very bad position by Cowperwood’s subtlety.  He had led Stener astray—­more than an ordinary city treasurer should have been led astray—­and, although Stener was primarily guilty as the original mover in the scheme, Cowperwood was more so for having led him imaginatively to such disastrous lengths.  Besides, the party needed a scapegoat—­that was enough for Payderson, in the first place.  Of course, after the election had been won, and it appeared that the party had not suffered so much, he did not understand quite why it was that Cowperwood was still so carefully included in the Proceedings; but he had faith to believe that the leaders had some just grounds for not letting him off.  From one source and another he learned that Butler had some private grudge against Cowperwood.  What it was no one seemed to know exactly.  The general impression was that Cowperwood had led Butler into some unwholesome financial transactions.  Anyhow, it was generally understood that for the good of the party, and in order to teach a wholesome lesson to dangerous subordinates—­it had been decided to allow these several indictments to take their course.  Cowperwood was to be punished quite as severely as Stener for the moral effect on the community.  Stener was to be sentenced the maximum sentence for his crime in order that the party and the courts should