“No,” retorted Miss Wiggin, “you wouldn’t; and you know it.  In certain cases where the laws are manifestly unjust, antiquated or perhaps do not really represent the moral sense of the community their violation may occasionally call attention to their absurdity, like the famous blue laws of Connecticut, for example; but as the laws as a whole do crystallize the general opinion of what is right and desirable in matters of conduct a movement toward progress would be exhibited not by breaking laws but by making laws.”

“But,” argued Mr. Tutt, abandoning his stogy, “isn’t the making of a new law the same thing as changing an old law?  And isn’t changing a law essentially the same thing as breaking it?”

“It isn’t,” replied Miss Wiggin tartly.  “For the obvious and simple reason that the legislators who change the laws have the right to do so, while the man who breaks them has not.”

“All the same,” admitted Tutt, slightly wavering, “I see what Mr. Tutt means.”

“Oh, I see what he means!” sniffed Miss Wiggin.  “I was only combating what he said!”

“But the making of laws does not demonstrate progress,” perversely insisted Mr. Tutt.  “The more statutes you pass the more it indicates that you need ’em.  An ideal community would have no laws at all.”

“There’s a thought!” interjected Tutt.  “And there wouldn’t be any lawyers either!”

“As King Hal said:  ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,’” commented Mr. Tutt.

“Awful vision!” ejaculated Miss Wiggin.  “Luckily for us, that day has not yet dawned.  However, Mr. Tutt’s argument is blatantly fallacious.  Of course, the making of new laws indicates an impulse toward social betterment—­and therefore toward progress.”

“It seems to me,” ventured Tutt, “that this conversation is more than usually theoretical—­not to say specious!  The fact of the matter is that the law is a part of our civilization and the state of the law marks the stage of our development—­more or less.”

Mr. Tutt smiled sardonically.

“You have enunciated two great truths,” said he.  “First, that it is a ‘part’; and second, ‘more or less.’  The law is a very small part of our protection against what is harmful to us.  It is only one of our sanctions of conduct, and a very crude one at that.  Did you ever stop to think that compared with religion the efficacy of the law was almost nil?  The law deals with conduct, but only at a certain point.  We are apt to find fault with it because it makes what appear to us to be arbitrary and unreasonable distinctions.  That in large measure is because law is only supplementary.”

“How do you mean—­supplementary?” queried Tutt.