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