“‘I think we had, Mr. Tadpoddle; but let them be told after the other facts have been related--nothing like beginning at the right end, you know. There are two ways to tell anything--one right way, and one wrong way; always commence a story at the right end, you see. What your sister knows comes last, in order to make the chain of evidence complete.’
“‘Ah, yes, Dabbs, I perceive now that you are right. Well, you tell Mr. Wallingford about the other things, and when it comes to my sister’s part, then let me in.’
“I was losing my self-possession, and felt as if I must do something rash very soon; I think I should have hurled a lump of coal at Mr. Tadpoddle’s little gourd head, but my attention was diverted to Mr. Dabbs, who began to take something from his pocket-book.
“‘This little parcel, Mr. Wallingford, is a dose of strychnine similar to the one that killed Miss Bramlett’s little brother. Well, what of that? is the question that naturally would come up in your mind. You’ll observe, Mr. Wallingford, that I am only drawing an inference as to ideas, etc., which would be likely to present themselves. Well, what if that is strychnine? you say. Very good! I reply, The deceased was murdered with strychnine. Some one administered the poison. Who? ah! that’s the question. I answer without hesitation: Miss Bramlett.’
“‘Tis false!’ exclaimed Harry, as he made at the detective with eyes flashing with rage. ‘I’ll choke the breath from the villain’s lungs who dares to accuse Miss Bramlett.’
“I quickly placed myself before Harry, and prevented him from choking Mr. Dabbs, and endeavored to keep him quiet, though I thought a little pressure on Dabbs’ wind-pipe would have been justifiable. I succeeded in getting Harry to resume his seat, then requested Mr. Dabbs to proceed.
“‘If Mr. Wallingford is unwilling to hear facts,’ said Dabbs, ‘we had better let the interview terminate here. It is our duty, as officers of the law, to close our eyes to consequences, and bring facts to light. We can’t consider the feelings and wishes of individuals, in our searches after truth; if we did, we should accomplish nothing. We do not make evidence, we only bring to light that which is made by circumstances and concealed by fraud. If the evidence that we have discovered does not please Mr. Wallingford, we will not thrust it on his hearing, but will deliver it to the officers of the law, whose duty it is to use it in punishing the guilty, and protecting the innocent.’
