Mr. Danforth looked after him, and seemed perplexed.  Could Paul be guilty after all?

“I never could have suspected him if I had not this evidence in my hand,” said Mr. Danforth, to himself, fixing his eyes upon the bill which he had drawn from Paul’s overcoat.

“Dawkins, did you observe whether Paul remained long in the office?” he asked.

“Longer than sufficient to lay the letters on the desk?”

“Yes, sir, I think he did.”

“Did you notice whether he went to his overcoat after coming out?”

“Yes, sir, he did,” said Dawkins, anxious to fix in Mr. Danforth’s mind the impression of Paul’s guilt.

“Then I am afraid it is true,” said his employer sadly.  “And yet, what a fine, manly boy he is too.  But it is a terrible fault.”

Mr. Danforth was essentially a kind-hearted man, and he cared much more for Paul’s dereliction from honesty than for the loss of the money.  Going home early to dinner, he communicated to his wife the unpleasant discovery which he had made respecting Paul.

Now, from the first, Paul had been a great favorite with Mrs. Danforth, and she scouted at the idea of his dishonesty.

“Depend upon it, Mr. Danforth,” she said decisively, “you have done the boy an injustice.  I have some skill in reading faces, and I tell you that a boy with Paul Prescott’s open, frank expression is incapable of such a crime.”

“So I should have said, my dear, but we men learn to be less trustful than you ladies, who stay at home and take rose-colored views of life.  Unfortunately, we see too much of the dark side of human nature.”

“So that you conclude all to be dark.”

“Not so bad as that.”

“Tell me all the circumstances, and perhaps a woman’s wit may help you.”

Mr. Danforth communicated all the details, with which the reader is already familiar.

“What sort of a boy is this Dawkins?” she asked, “Do you like him?”

“Not particularly.  He does his duties passably well.  I took him into my counting-room to oblige his father.”

“Perhaps he is the thief.”

“To tell the truth I would sooner have suspected him.”

“Has he cleared himself from suspicion?”

“He was the first to suggest a search.”

“Precisely the thing he would have done, if he had placed the bill in Paul’s pocket.  Of course he would know that the search must result favorably for him.”

“There is something in that.”

“Besides, what could have been more foolish, if Paul wished to hide the money, than to multiply his chances of detection by hiding it in two different places, especially where one was so obvious as to afford no concealment at all.”

“Admitting this to be true, how am I to arrive at the proof of Paul’s innocence?”

“My own opinion is, that George Dawkins has the greater part of the money stolen.  Probably he has taken it for some particular purpose.  What it is, you may learn, perhaps, by watching him.”