“And so you committed us first and then put in the evidence,” said Dr. Brayton. “The fact is, Professor Loder, that the great danger in these discussions lies, not in any difference in ideals, but in the vagueness of our notions as to what constitutes proof of guilt or innocence. I am inclined to think Mr. Melvin’s method has tended to bring us sooner to an agreement.”
Professor Loder made no reply. The Chronicle passed slowly around the table. Mr. Harkins conceived some new plan, and returned to the discussion.
“To tell the truth, I don’t like this kind of evidence,” he began, solemnly.
Professor Loder gave him a look of disapproval. “I don’t see how you can honestly object to it. It is of the same kind as that of the poster, but much more definite and authoritative.”
The words brought a glint of gratitude and respect into the Seaton manager’s eyes. It was apparent that there were fair and honest men in the Hillbury Faculty as well as at Seaton.
“Is this the only case cited under the charge?” asked Mr. Harkins, turning with impatience to McGee.
“The only one I know of,” answered the lad. Mr. Harkins relapsed into ill-humored silence.
“Am I then to assume that we have reached a definite conclusion?” asked the chairman.
“I move that the committee report itself satisfied as to the groundlessness of the charges, and that the Hillbury manager be given leave to withdraw the protest,” said Professor Loder, promptly.
The motion was put and unanimously carried. The meeting broke up. Mr. Harkins alleged important business, offered a general farewell, and hurriedly departed. Dick lingered to thank Professor Loder and Dr. Brayton for their courtesy and fairness, arranged with McGee a few details concerning the games, and then hastened to the telegraph office to send the joyful news ahead.