did not dare to
come out openly and say what they thought. The chief facts had already
been in the hands of the various editors and publishers for a week and
more, but word had gone around from Mollenhauer, Simpson, and Butler to
use the soft pedal for the present. It was not good for Philadelphia,
for local commerce, etc., to make a row. The fair name of the city would
be smirched. It was the old story.

At once the question was raised as to who was really guilty, the city
treasurer or the broker, or both. How much money had actually been lost?
Where had it gone? Who was Frank Algernon Cowperwood, anyway? Why was
he not arrested? How did he come to be identified so closely with the
financial administration of the city? And though the day of what later
was termed "yellow journalism" had not arrived, and the local papers
were not given to such vital personal comment as followed later, it
was not possible, even bound as they were, hand and foot, by the local
political and social magnates, to avoid comment of some sort. Editorials
had to be written. Some solemn, conservative references to the shame and
disgrace which one single individual could bring to a great city and a
noble political party had to be ventured upon.

That desperate scheme to cast the blame on Cowperwood temporarily, which
had been concocted by Mollenhauer, Butler, and Simpson, to get the odium
of the crime outside the party lines for the time being, was now lugged
forth and put in operation. It was interesting and strange to note
how quickly the newspapers, and even the Citizens' Municipal Reform
Association, adopted the argument that Cowperwood was largely, if not
solely, to blame. Stener had loaned him the money, it is true--had put
bond issues in his hands for sale, it is true, but somehow every one
seemed to gain the impression that Cowperwood had desperately misused
the treasurer. The fact that he had taken a sixty-thousand-dollar check
for certificates which were not in the sinking-fund was hinted at,
though until they could actually confirm this for themselves both the
newspapers and the committee were too fearful of the State libel laws to
say so.

In due time there were brought forth several noble municipal letters,
purporting to be a stern call on the part of the mayor, Mr. Jacob
Borchardt, on Mr. George W. Stener for an immediate explanation of
his conduct, and the latter's reply, which were at once given to the
newspapers and the Citizens'