ose children!" said Dummer, to the man next him.

The event of the trial came, however, when Peter summed up. He spoke
quietly, in the simplest language, using few adjectives and no
invective. But as the girl at the Pierces' dinner had said, "he
describes things so that one sees them." He told of the fever-stricken
cows, and he told of the little fever-stricken children in such a way
that the audience sobbed; his clients almost had to be ordered out of
court; the man next Dummer mopped his eyes with his handkerchief; the
judge and jury thoughtfully covered their eyes (so as to think the
better); the reporters found difficulty (owing to the glary light), in
writing the words despite their determination not to miss one; and even
the prisoner wiped his eyes on his sleeve. Peter was unconscious that he
was making a great speech; great in its simplicity, and great in its
pathos. He afterwards said he had not given it a moment's thought and
had merely said what he felt. Perhaps his conclusion indicated why he
was able to speak with the feeling he did. For he said:

"This is not merely the case of the State _versus_ James Goldman. It is
the case of the tenement-house children, against the inhumanity of man's
greed."

Dummer whispered to the man next him, "There's no good. He's done for
us." Then he rose, and made a clever defence. He knew it was wasting his
time. The judge charged against him, and the jury gave the full verdict:
"Man-slaughter in the first degree." Except for the desire for it, the
sentence created little stir. Every one was still feeling and thinking
of Peter's speech.

And to this day that speech is talked of in "the district."

CHAPTER XVI.

THE CONSEQUENCES.

Nor was it the district alone which talked of the speech. Perhaps the
residents of it made their feelings most manifest, for they organized a
torchlight procession that night, and went round and made Peter an
address of thanks. Mr. Dennis Moriarty being the spokesman. The judge
shook hands with him after the trial, and said that he had handled his
case well. The defendant's lawyer told him he "knew his business." A
number of the reporters sought a few words with him, and blended praise
with questions.

The reporters did far more than this, however. It was the dull newspaper
season, and the case had turned out to be a thoroughly "journalistic"
one. So they questioned and interviewed every one concerned, and after
cleverly winnowing th