Procter v. Sprague

Where are the candidates of five years ago? Harding is dead. Requiescat. Cox exists. Requiescat. Coolidge sits in the White House, where there is no rest. Lowden is busy farming and perhaps planning for the campaign of '28. McAdoo resides not many miles from San Francisco, where he failed of the nomination in '20. And Wood? Wood is across the Pacific with the Igorots and the Moros and their more civilized but equally quarrelsome neighbors.

But in Chicago, Judge Thomas W. Slick sits on the bench sifting the chaff which is all there is left from the winnowing of ambitions and aspirations of five years ago. Before him last week was a case, Procter v. Sprague, a suit to recover $50,000, a part of the $1,750,- 000 that went glimmering with the hopes of both gentlemen in that great year of glimmerings, 1920.

The Procter of Procter v. Sprague is Colonel William C. Procter of Cincinnati, whose name is more frequently coupled with another name, the name of Gamble, with which it is associated in the manufacture of Ivory Soap, which floats and is 99.44% pure.

The Sprague is Colonel A. A. Sprague, who is Commissioner of Public Works in Chicago. Formerly a Republican, he is now a Democrat and was the Democratic nominee for Senator last fall (being defeated by Mr. Deneen).

The Attorney for Colonel Sprague declared: "There was a meeting in New York fin 1920] of a group of wealthy men, friends of General Wood. They agreed that the campaign would cost $1,000,000 and that they would underwrite it. A substantial part of that amount was raised and taken by Procter and spent in an expensive and elaborate campaign, and he continued to spend to a total of $1,750,000."

Of this, amount $450,000 came in the, form of notes from Colonel Procter, which were on exhibit in court, and he declared on the stand that the grand total of his contributions was in the neighborhood of $600,000. In spite of this massing of money, the fund was exhausted in May of that year and the campaign "collapsed."

One of the depositions introduced by Colonel Sprague's attorney was made by Herbert L. Satterlee, Manhattan lawyer, brother-in-law of J. P. Morgan, and one of the original Wood promoters:

"Colonel Procter said that he had not been active in politics before, in a national campaign at least, but that he had had some experience, in fact, a lot of experience, in business, and was very familiar with the manner of reaching the people in the homes of the country, but that it took money to do it. He said that in these days it was his idea -- to use a commercial expression -- to 'sell' the candidate to the people just as if he were an unknown new proprietary article or useful appliance or invention.

"In the discussion of campaign methods he did not place much importance, if any, on the old mass meetings, torchlight parades, great processions, and public speeches by the candidate. He thought the time had gone by for all that and that up-to-date business methods must be employed, and that that was the way he intended to run the campaign for General Wood."

The contest in question was over a $100,000 note signed by Procter and Sprague. Colonel Procter was obliged to pay off this note, and sued to recover half of the money from Colonel Sprague. Procter asserted that they were equally responsible for the note. Sprague asserted that Procter ran the whole campaign, spending money lavishly in spite of Sprague's protest, and that he signed the note with Procter merely as a secondary endorser so that the bank which discounted the note might know he was co-guarantor and had a part in the transaction.

Another suit is pending before the Illinois Superior Court in which Colonel Procter is seeking to recover from Colonel Sprague half of what he spent in paying up the liabilities left over after the campaign -- an amount which is supposed to be several times as large as that at issue in the present v suit.

If General Wood had been nominated and elected in 1920 matters might have been a great deal different. Colonel Sprague would probably be a Republican today, and Colonel Procter, when he was home from his post at the Court of St. James's, might have dined amicably at the home of Postmaster General Sprague.