tion to our Council for confirmation, as is required by our rules, and during this time I had recurring to me constantly the feeling that one of the men at least was guilty. I held up the recommendation long enough to have another interview with him. At this interview I said to him that though the members of our committee had believed his story and thought him innocent, as I had thought over his manner of giving his evidence I was convinced that he was guilty, that without the other man's knowledge, he had had access to his data and had copied his experiment. My frankness seemed to make an appeal to him, and he confessed that my surmises were correct.
One of the merchants near the campus not long ago had a number of checks presented to him which turned out to be forgeries. The custom of taking any one's check is so common with our local merchants that it is usually impossible to remember who passed such checks when finally they are detected. As usual he brought these checks—three of them—to me, to see what I could make of them. They all bore the name of a well known student, but when I compared his writing with that of the signature on the checks, though there was a similarity, there was no doubt that the signatures were forged. It was evident to me, however, that the man who had committed the forgery had been familiar with the student whose signature he had forged, that he knew his signature, the name of his bank, and something of the amount of money he was accustomed to keep on deposit. "Who is your room-mate now?" I asked the man whose bank account had been threatened, "and
