“Well, I’d feel better if he did. I really feel hurt, now, to think he might be as tricky as that other dealer,” said Polly.
“But it would not be called ‘tricky,’ Polly, in clever business circles,” said Mrs. Fabian.
“Maybe not, but to me it looks a lot like selling goods under false representations. I’d rather not sell anything than have to sell that way.”
“When you come right down to ‘brass tacks’ and study out the whole scheme of things, Polly, we might be accused of tricky works, too,” remarked Eleanor.
“What do you mean?” demanded Polly, astonished.
“Well, when you think of how we got that pair of old candle-sticks in exchange for a brass lamp! We had no lamp to exchange, but Mrs. Fabian rushed off to a store and got one. Then there were those old pictures at Van Styne’s. We were afraid he’d suspect them of being valuable, so we dusted them well again, as they had been originally, and placed them with two others to make a ‘job lot’ of them, to hide the facts about them.”
“But,” remonstrated Polly, “the lady who had no use for the candle-sticks did want a brass lamp the worst way. And Sally Dolan, who never appreciated the pictures when she had them, did appreciate the money we paid for them—while we appreciated the old things other folks failed to value.”
“Polly is right, there, Nolla,” added Mrs. Fabian. “I do not see a trick in giving a person exactly what they ask for a thing—whether they realize the true value of it, or not. That is their affair. In Law, the Judge says there is no excuse or cause, for mitigating a sentence because the prisoner claims he was ignorant of consequences of a deed. So it is in other lines: Ignorance can never claim excuse from consequences—whether it be a sale of a candle-stick or a piece of old land that turns out to have gold on it.”
“Then I should say, ignorance on the part of the buyers at this vendue, exonerates the dealer from all blame,” said Eleanor.
“Legally it does, but we were thinking of the moral,” explained Mrs. Fabian.