ous to
reveal myself to him as one who has thriven on the views he condemned,
as one in whose unity of mind there is no rift. He was alone, apparently
waiting for someone, leaning against a steam radiator in one of his
awkward, angular poses, looking out of the court-house window.

"How are you?" I said blithely. "So you've left Elkington for a wider
field." I wondered whether my alert cousin-in-law, George Hutchins, had
made it too hot for him.

He turned to me unexpectedly a face of profound melancholy; his
expression had in it, oddly, a trace of sternness; and I was somewhat
taken aback by this evidence that he was still bearing vicariously the
troubles of his client. So deep had been the thought I had apparently
interrupted that he did not realize my presence at first.

"Oh, it's you, Paret. Yes, I've left Elkington," he said.

"Something of a surprise to run up against you suddenly, like this."

"I expected to see you," he answered gravely, and the slight emphasis he
gave the pronoun implied not only a complete knowledge of the situation
and of the part I had taken in it, but also a greater rebuke than if his
accusation had been direct. But I clung to my affability.

"If I can do anything for you, let me know," I told him. He said
nothing, he did not even smile. At this moment he was opportunely joined
by a man who had the appearance of a labour leader, and I walked away.
I was resentful; my mood, in brief, was that of a man who has done
something foolish and is inclined to talk to himself aloud: but the mood
was complicated, made the more irritating by the paradoxical fact
that that last look he had given me seemed to have borne the traces of
affection....

It is perhaps needless to add that the court reversed its former
decision.

XVI.

The Pilot published a series of sensational articles and editorials
about the Galligan matter, a picture of Galligan, an account of the
destitute state of his wife and family. The time had not yet arrived
when such newspapers dared to attack the probity of our courts, but
a system of law that permitted such palpable injustice because of
technicalities was bitterly denounced. What chance had a poor man
against such a moloch as the railroad, even with a lawyer of such
ability as had been exhibited by Hermann Krebs? Krebs was praised, and
the attention of Mr. Lawler's readers was called to the fact that Krebs
was the man who, some years before, had opposed single-han