"It being rumored that the liquor men who so cruelly assaulted Mr. W. W. Smith, President of the Brome County branch of the Dominion Alliance, and station agent at Sutton Junction, were not content with their cowardly conduct, but were making strenuous efforts to get the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to remove Mr. Smith from his position as station agent, a Witness reporter, yesterday afternoon, interviewed Mr. Thomas Tait, Assistant General Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway, on the subject.

"'Is it true, Mr. Tait, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have been asked by men interested in the liquor trade to remove Mr. Smith from Sutton Junction, as they disliked the active interest he takes in the temperance cause?'

"'It has been stated to us that Mr. Smith at times, in order to get convictions against men who broke the liquor laws, used the information which his position as station agent gave him to secure convictions. Of course, you understand none of our employees have the right to use for their private ends information they get as employees of the road. I mean that if Mr. Smith prosecuted liquor men in his private capacity he was perfectly justified in doing so, but if in order to get convictions he had to use information which he could alone get as station agent, he has laid himself open to censure. I have no proof that Mr. Smith has violated the confidence of the Company. Mr. Brady, of Farnham, has gone to Sutton Junction, and is investigating the outrage, and he will let me know whether or not there is any foundation in the charge against Mr. Smith. If Mr. Smith is in the right you may rest assured the Company will take care of him.'

"'Are you trying to find the man who committed the assault?'

"'Yes, we have taken action in that direction, too.'

"Another official of the Company said: 'I was in Richford the day Mr. Smith was assaulted. It was rumored there that the liquor men were incensed against Mr. Smith, as they believed he found out by the way-bills when liquor was addressed to any one at the junction, and used that information to get convictions. I also heard that it was men from Vermont who assaulted Mr. Smith, and that they had been sent to do the deed by liquor men in Vermont, who are enraged at Mr. Smith.'"

In this conversation the acknowledgment was plainly made by Mr. Tait that the liquor men had made complaints to the Company concerning Mr. Smith, so that, whether their reports had any influence with the Company or not, the fact remains without contradiction that these enemies of temperance did make an effort to rob him of the favor of his employers, and they doubtless intended by this means, to accomplish just what was finally, by some means, brought about.

The only accusation which they could make to the Canadian Pacific Railway seemed to be that Mr. Smith was using information which he had obtained through his position as agent in order to prosecute them, but as these hotel keepers were accused and convicted, not of buying liquor and shipping it into the county, but of selling it to others, and as Mr. Smith could not possibly have obtained evidence of this in the capacity of station agent, but only through the testimony of those who had purchased the liquor or witnessed its sale, it is very hard to see the reason of these complaints, which were made by the liquor men, and gravely investigated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

The only explanation which seems to suggest itself is that these hotel keepers felt very angry because their trade in the souls of men had been somewhat interfered with, and not content with the assault which had been committed, could devise no better way of seeking further revenge than by thus arousing the displeasure of the Company by which Mr. Smith was employed. It was no doubt another outcome of the same spirit which had prompted that assault.

It is stated in the above report of the interview with Mr. Tait that the Canadian Pacific Railway had taken action towards discovering Mr. Smith's assailant, but it seems probable that had this statement not been made to the reporter the public would have had no means of knowing that they had made any such attempt, as the results were never seen.

Not only the Witness, but the Dominion Alliance as well, became interested in these rumors concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway and the liquor men of Brome, and wished to learn for themselves the truth of the reports. The following is an extract from an account given in the Daily Witness of an executive meeting of the Quebec Provincial branch of the Alliance:

"Mr. S. J. Carter referred to the outrage committed upon the President of the Brome County Alliance. He had known Mr. Smith all his life, and spoke very highly of the good work Mr. Smith had done for temperance in the Eastern townships. He regretted that there had come rumors from Brome which would indicate that the liquor men were not satisfied with the assault upon Mr. Smith, but were endeavoring to secure his dismissal from the position of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sutton Junction. He wanted to know, and every temperance man in Canada wanted to know, if the Canadian Pacific Railway were going to dismiss an officer of their Company at the behest of illegal liquor sellers of a Scott Act county? He, therefore, moved: 'That we have heard with pleasure through the press, that Mr. Tait, Assistant General Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway, has stated to the press that the Company was doing everything in its power to discover the guilty parties in the attempted murder of their agent at Sutton Junction, Mr. W. W. Smith. That recent reports have come from Brome County to the effect that officials of the Company are in league with the liquor men, and are assisting them to prevent, if possible, further annoyance by bringing pressure upon their agent, and that the Company has made no practical effort to bring the guilty parties in the recent assault case to justice. That we hereby instruct our secretary, Mr. Carson, to ascertain from the officials of the Company if such reports are true, and make a full report for the next meeting of this Alliance.' The resolution was adopted."

Somewhat later the following remarks appeared in the editorial department of the Witness:

"The liquor men who tried to murder Mr. Smith, the President of the Brome County Alliance, by stunning him with a skull-cracker, and then leaving him on the track, failed in that cowardly and brutal attempt, but have escaped punishment at the hands of the authorities, who seem to be, as usual, perfectly helpless in the matter. These same liquor men, who in Brome County are all outlaws, have the impudence to use all sorts of influence with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to get them to dismiss Mr. Smith, who is their agent at Sutton Junction. This is a fine state of things, and the county, which is a prohibition county, is watching to see what the Company will do. Here is a chance for capital to tyrannize at the behest of organized iniquity and lawlessness."

It often happens that people get very much aroused and alarmed when there is no real foundation for their fears, but not so in this case. The following from the Witness of October 8th shows that there was some cause for excitement in the minds of the temperance people:

"The sequel to the lead pipe murderous assault upon Mr. W. W. Smith, President of the Brome County Alliance, occurred on Saturday last. It has been well known that the liquor men, baffled in their attempt to murder Mr. Smith, had, however, not abandoned their plan to ruin him and discourage other temperance workers in the county. Their scheme was known to the temperance people, but it was not thought possible that it would succeed. It was nothing more nor less than the securing of the dismissal of Mr. Smith from his position as agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It has, however, succeeded. Mr. Smith was notified on Saturday last of his dismissal from the Company's employ. Some astonishing revelations may be expected, as the temperance people are intensely indignant that the Company should have yielded to the demands of the liquor party and removed from its service one who has been for years a trusted servant and a faithful officer."

It was indeed a great surprise to most of the temperance community when the news of this dismissal went abroad. They had not been ready to believe that in these days of temperance agitation, in these last years of the nineteenth century, a great and powerful corporation like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, knowing for a fact that nine-tenths of all the terrible accidents that occur on railroads causing loss of life and property are the outcome of intemperance, would become the instrument in the hands of illegal liquor sellers to carry out their will.

The correspondence which had passed between Mr. Smith and Assistant Superintendent Brady was preserved and placed in the hands of the Alliance, who requested and obtained its publication in the Witness.

It was also afterwards published in The Templar and in several other papers. It describes many of the events which led to Mr. Smith's dismissal, and seems to show plainly the real cause of that dismissal in spite of all later contradictions. The first communication which the accused agent received from the Assistant Superintendent concerning his temperance work was as follows:

"W. W. Smith, Agent, Sutton Junction.

"DEAR SIR,—I enclose you herewith two letters, one from B. L. Wilson, of Glen Sutton, and one from Nutter & French, of Sherbrooke, both making complaints that you are taking advantage of your position as agent of this Company in getting together testimony to convict hotel keepers and others of selling liquor. It does not seem possible to me that these statements can be true, but the charges are made not only by the parties, writing these letters, but by several other parties in Brome County, and who claim that they are in a position to substantiate them. I desire to know from you whether you have used your position to get evidence as stated above, or whether you have used your evidence which you may have come possessed of through being an agent of this Company for the purpose of convicting liquor sellers. Your immediate reply with the return of the enclosed papers is requested.

"Yours truly, F. P. BRADY, Asst. Supt.

"Farnham, June 11th, 1894."

Below are the letters enclosed in this communication from Mr. Brady, and containing the complaints, or a part of them, which had been received by him concerning the Sutton Junction agent. The first was written by a wholesale liquor firm in Sherbrooke, P. Q., the second by a brother of James Wilson who, Kelly said, drove the team for him on the night of the assault at Sutton Junction.

"F. P. Brady, West Farnham.

"DEAR SIR,—We are having goods shipped by us to Sutton returned to us with the information that your agent at Sutton Junction watches all liquor shipments that go there, and then gives the information to temperance parties, who make complaints, and get the hotel men fined. We are in receipt of two letters to that effect this morning. We think you should take some action in the matter, as it will effectually stop all shipments to that county if it continues.

"Yours truly, NUTTER & FRENCH.

"Sherbrooke, June 6th, 1894."

"Nutter & French.

"DEAR GENTLEMEN,—I can't buy no more goods from you at Sherbrooke, for the agent at Sutton Junction, name W. W. Smith, is pawing over all goods and reporting, and he has been having men to inform of all the hotels in the county. Unless he is out of that job you won't do more business in Brome County. Yours, B. L. WILSON.

"Glen Sutton, June 7th, 1894."

To these accusations, Mr. Smith made the following reply:

"F. P. Brady, Esq., Asst. Supt., Farnham.

"DEAR SIR,—Referring to enclosed, I deny charge made against me, fairly and squarely, and, further than that, I have looked back nearly two years and find no shipments of liquor for these parties in my transfer books. I have never used my position in any way as an agent for this Company to convict liquor sellers, and no man can substantiate such a statement.

"As a member of the Brome County Alliance, I have worked as a private citizen with other members of the Alliance, and the complaints sent to Mr. Jewell, East Farnham, as evidence against the hotel keepers in this county have come from the leading men. I shall use no evidence which I become in possession of as an agent of this Company for the purpose of convicting liquor sellers.

"Yours truly, W. W. SMITH.

"Sutton Junction, June 13th, 1894."

This is certainly a very emphatic denial of the charges made against him, and, coming from a trusted employee of fifteen years, it would seem that it should have been quite satisfactory. However, Mr. Brady appeared to give more credence to the testimony of the liquor men than to that of Mr. Smith, and to allow himself to be influenced by later complaints which were made by them.

Some time after the above letters were written, Mr. Smith made application to the Assistant Superintendent at Farnham for leave of absence to attend a National Prohibition Convention, to be held at Montreal on July 3d and 4th. He received the following reply, which shows how unwilling Mr. Brady was to do anything which might tend to encourage Mr. Smith in his temperance work:

"W. W. Smith, Esq., Agent.

"DEAR SIR,—As per my wire of this date, I cannot arrange to let you off on July 3d and 4th; I have no spare man at liberty. The assistant at Sutton should have all he can properly attend to during the night to necessitate his sleeping during the daytime.

"Yours, etc., "F. P. BRADY, Asst. Supt. "Farnham, July 2d, 1894."

The next letter from Mr. Brady, written the day after the assault, and while Mr. Smith was confined in bed on account of the bruises he had received, was as follows:

"W. W. Smith, Esq., Agent, Sutton Junction.

"DEAR SIR,—Within the past four or five weeks the heads of different departments, as well as Mr. Leonard, the General Superintendent, and myself, have received numerous complaints from shippers and the public generally with reference to your actions with the late prosecution of liquor sellers in Brome County. The basis of these complaints is made that you have used your position as agent for this Company to procure evidence with which to prosecute liquor sellers. I have replied to some of these people that so far as I can ascertain you have not used your position as agent to procure such evidence; but I must inform you that the same rule with reference to temperance agitation that governs employees of this Company with reference to politics must be lived up to, i. e., you must devote your whole and entire time to the Railway Company if you desire to hold your position. You must do nothing whatever to antagonize the interests of the Company, or to create feeling between the Company and its patrons. You will understand by this that you must cease temperance lecturing or taking an active part in temperance gatherings or agitation.

"I make this letter personal as I consider that the contents of it will remain strictly between ourselves.

"Yours truly, "F. P. BRADY. "Farnham, July 9th, 1894."

This letter is very emphatic, and if the spirit of it were carried out in every case as faithfully as Mr. Brady endeavored to carry it out in this case, the employees of the road would be a band of slaves, and the Canadian Pacific Railway a sort of Canadian Siberia with all its positions shunned by every self-respecting laborer. It is well, indeed, for the Canadian Pacific Railway that all its officers do not carry out these tyrannical rules with such precision as this, yet it is plainly inferred by Mr. Brady's words that such rules had been previously applied in the matter of politics.

If so, the Canadian public need to stop and realize what a moderate autocrat they are supporting in their midst in a land of responsible rule.

Mr. Brady says: "You must do nothing whatever to antagonize the interests of the Company, or to create feeling between the Company and its patrons." This seems to be a very strange sentence in two respects. First, how can temperance work "antagonize the interests of the Company?" A railroad is always supported by a community, and must depend entirely upon that community for its success, its wealth and its very existence. The more wealthy and prosperous a people become, the more will they patronize a railroad and contribute to its maintenance and growth. The community, moreover, is made up of individuals, and its prosperity must depend upon the health, enterprise, ability, success and moral character of the people who compose it. Does not temperance tend to build up the virtues and prosperity of individuals, and thus to increase the general prosperity of the country and add to the success of all useful public institutions?

Second, how can temperance work "create feeling between the Company and its patrons?" Surely not all the patrons of the Canadian Pacific Railway are wholesale and illicit liquor sellers? Mr. Brady seems to entirely ignore the great company of law-abiding temperance people who would respect the Company far more if its employees were active temperance men, and with whom Mr. Brady himself, rather than Mr. Smith, created intense feeling.

It was stated in a former chapter that Mr. Smith accompanied Detective Carpenter to Marlboro, Mass., when he went in search of Kelly. Mr. Carpenter "on his own responsibility," went to Mr. Brady, to ask permission for him to do so, and the following leave of absence was sent to Mr. Smith:

"W. W. Smith, Esq., Sutton Junction.

"DEAR SIR,—You may go on No. 11, Conductor will have pass for you.

"Sinclair will be at Sutton Junction on No. 15 to-night to take charge during your absence. O'Regan must look after the business this P. M.

"F. P. BRADY. "Farnham, Aug. 20th, 1894."

As this leave of absence was indefinite as to time, and Mr. Smith was engaged with the assault case for several days after his return from Marlboro, the court having opened on Sept. 1st, he had not yet resumed work at Sutton Junction, when on the evening of September 3d he addressed a temperance meeting at Richford, Vermont. The next day Mr. Brady, who seemed to keep remarkably well informed as to the whereabouts of his agent when off duty, wrote Mr. Smith as follows, labelling this letter like the previous one, "personal:"

"W. W. Smith, Esq., Agent, Sutton Junction.

"DEAR SIR,—I wrote you on July 9th with reference to what you must do if you remained in the employ of this Company. I am aware that last night you delivered a temperance lecture at Richford; this leads me to think that you propose to ignore entirely the wishes of this Company, and do as you see fit. If such is the case you will oblige me by sending me your resignation by the first train, and vacating the Company's premises at Sutton Junction at the earliest possible moment so that they can be occupied by the new agent.

"Yours truly, "F. P. BRADY, Asst. Supt. Farnham, Sept. 4th, 1894."

Strange, indeed, that the Assistant Superintendent should have supposed that an affair like this could always remain personal, and never be subjected to the public gaze! Did he not know there was a temperance community in Canada who would, at least, enquire into the case of a persecuted brother? It is strange, also, that while other roads at the present time are finding it very much to their advantage to employ temperance men to the exclusion of others; while serious accidents are frequently taking place on the different roads in which scores of human beings perish through the recklessness of some employee whose intellect is clouded by the action of strong drink; and while some new roads in the beginning of their existence are adopting very strict temperance rules; when even the Canadian Pacific Railway has been obliged to dismiss or suspend some of its men for excessive drinking; it is very strange in view of all these facts that an official of this great road should ask a station agent, because he delivers a temperance lecture off duty, to "vacate the Company's premises, so that they can be occupied by the new agent."

An example of what intemperance among railway employees often means may be found in the Craigs' Road disaster, which occurred on the Grand Trunk in July, 1895. In this accident, thirteen persons were killed, and thirty-four others, some of whom died soon after, were wounded. At the inquest a Victoriaville hotel keeper testified that the engineer of the wrecked train had purchased from him a quart of ale on the night before the fearful disaster, which hurried so many into eternity.

There were some well-meaning people who are counted in the temperance ranks who advised Mr. Smith to submit to Mr. Brady, and take no more active part in temperance work rather than risk the loss of his agency. This advice was no doubt meant as a kindness, although it did not partake of the martyr's spirit, but Mr. Smith did not see fit to follow it, choosing rather to yield his position than his principles. However, he did not send a resignation, but a few days later wrote Mr. Brady the following letter:

"F. P. Brady, Esq., Asst. Supt., Farnham.

"DEAR SIR,—On account of circumstances which I could not in any way control, I have been obliged to delay answering your letter of the 9th of July last. I regret very much to notice that you have had occasion to refer again to complaints made against me, which you say are numerous, and not only from shippers, but from the public generally. In a former letter to you I denied any just cause for complaint.

I have now been fifteen years or more in the service of the Company, and during that time I have endeavored to render, I trust, a faithful service. I have also received another letter from you, dated September 4th, asking me to send you my resignation by the first train, and ordering me to vacate the Company's premises at the earliest possible moment, so that they can be occupied by the new agent. I wish you would explain why you order me to resign, because I delivered a temperance lecture at Richford, as I have a leave of absence from the Company for the present, and supposed I had a right to lecture off duty on any occasion, time or place. You perhaps cannot realize how much I value my honor and reputation, as it is about the only thing that I have in the world to protect, and I must ask you to supply me with the names of those making complaints against me and the nature of their complaints, and as you also state the public generally have made complaints, I trust there should be no hesitancy on the part of the Company to supply me with the information asked for, as you can readily see it is beyond the realm of privacy. Please reply.

"W. W. SMITH.

"Sutton Junction, Sept. 7th, 1894."

This was Mr. Brady's reply:

"W. W. Smith, Esq., Sutton Junction, Que.

"DEAR SIR,—I have your letter of the 6th inst.; my letter of July 9th to you was perfectly plain. It told you that you must either quit temperance work or quit the Company. It makes no difference whether you are on duty or off duty so far as this Company is concerned. They demand the whole and entire time of their men, and they are going to have it. So far as the leave of absence you speak of is concerned, I am not aware that you had any. Mr. Carpenter came to me, he said, at your request, to get permission for you to be absent three or four days to go down into New England, and I gave such permission, since which time I have heard nothing from you, except that you are disobeying my orders and the wishes of the Company. I was in hopes you would relieve the strain by gracefully tendering your resignation. Unless you see fit to do that I shall have to take other steps.

"Yours truly, F. P. BRADY, Asst. Supt.

"Farnham, Sept. 7th, 1894." Dictated.

It appears from this letter that Mr. Brady wished his agent to resume work immediately on his return with Mr. Carpenter and Kelly from "New England," and did not expect him to help in the search for other guilty parties in the assault case, or even to appear as a witness in court.

How does this compare with the statement which had been made by Mr. Tait that the Company had taken steps towards discovering the man who committed the assault?

After reading these letters from the Assistant Superintendent, it is very difficult for some of the temperance people to believe that Mr. Smith was dismissed for any reason other than that so plainly indicated in Mr. Brady's own words.

Mr. Smith's next letter to Mr. Brady was as follows:

"F. P. Brady, Esq.

"DEAR SIR,—Your letter of the 7th inst. to hand in reply to mine of that date, which does not cover the information asked for. Now, I would like to know upon what grounds you demand my resignation, viz.: because I addressed an audience in the United States or because complaints have been made against me as you say in your letters of June 11th and July 9th, as I wish to be in a position to answer to any charges made against me. I am very sorry you take the stand against me you do in regard to my temperance principles. I understand perfectly well that I am no longer pleasant to your taste; but I expect fair treatment from the Company, and ask for nothing more. As far as my leave of absence is concerned, I have a telegram from you that I can be absent and Mr. Sinclair will take my place until I resume work again. No time is specified. Since I returned home, I have been busy looking up evidence against the parties who were instrumental in my assault on July 8th last. I intend to resume work again as soon as possible, I think about a week from Monday next, September 24th, unless advised by you that my services are no longer required.

"Yours truly, W. W. SMITH, Agent.

"Sutton Junction, Sept. 11th, 1894."

As no reply came Mr. Smith wrote again:

"F. P. Brady, Esq., Asst. Supt., Farnham.

"DEAR SIR,—Will you please reply to my letter of the 11th inst. in regard to resuming work Monday next, September 24th. I am waiting anxiously to hear from you.

"Yours truly, W. W. SMITH.

"Sutton Junction, Sept. 19th, 1894."

Still there was no answer, and on Monday morning Mr. Smith telegraphed as follows:

"F. P. Brady, Esq., Farnham.

"I am ready to resume work this morning. Please reply.

W. W. SMITH. "Sutton Junction, Sept. 24th, 1894."

To this came the following reply:

"W. W. Smith, Sutton Junction.

"Nothing for you to do this morning. Will advise you when your services are required.

"F. P. BRADY. "Farnham, Sept. 24th, 1894."

This was followed on October 6th by an official announcement from Mr. Brady telling Mr. Smith that his services were no longer required by the Company. And in all this correspondence there is not a hint of unfaithfulness on the part of Mr. Smith to any order of his employers save the one to "quit temperance work." When the above correspondence appeared in the Montreal Daily Witness it was accompanied by the following remarks in the editorial department:

"We are requested by the Brome County Alliance to publish the correspondence which preceded the dismissal of the President, Mr. W. W. Smith, from his position as station agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sutton Junction. We have already pointed out the extraordinary assumption of wage slavery, which is implied in this dismissal as accounted for by the official who did it. The claim made by Mr. Smith's employing officer, and practically indorsed by the Company in concurring in this dismissal, is that the Company owns its employees, soul and body, and that they can only fulfill their rights of citizenship at its pleasure. It is not to be supposed that this power asserted over the lives of its employees is going to be insisted on by the Company as against every thing they do, and that every man who takes part in a baseball match or a mock parliament will be dismissed. It is not to be supposed that the man who busies himself even in politics will be dismissed if he takes care that he does not do so on a side distasteful to the Company. The particular thing which is a capital offence with the Company, according to this correspondence, is to busy one's self with the enforcement of the laws of the land or advocate temperance in public. If temperance advocacy is going to be boycotted by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the interests of the illegal and murderous liquor business, there are ten thousand good customers of the road who will want to know the reason why. This should indeed be asked for in parliament."



CHAPTER VI.

MORE BITS OF PUBLIC OPINION.

The action of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in thus dismissing their agent at Sutton Junction, apparently for no other cause than the vigorous opposition which he offered to the work of the liquor party in his own vicinity, like the assault case previously, elicited much criticism from the public.

We purpose in this chapter reproducing some of the many opinions regarding the dismissal which appeared in the columns of the public press.

It has been said that "the greatest power under heaven is public opinion," and it may be profitable for us sometimes to study such an important power, and especially to consider the opinions of people who uphold peace, temperance and religion. The following is the view of The Templar of Hamilton, as quoted in the Montreal Daily Witness:

"The announcement that the Canadian Pacific Railway has rallied to the aid of the lawless and murderous liquor gang in Brome County, Quebec, is sufficiently suggestive and startling to demand attention. Its dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith, C. P. R. agent at Sutton Junction, and President of the Brome County branch of the Dominion Alliance, because of his activity in the discharge of his duties in the latter office, is one of the most foolish and anti-Canadian acts of that great corporation.

"Mr. Smith, it will be remembered, incurred the hostility of the illegal liquor venders in his locality, and, as the recent legal investigation shows, a conspiracy was formed, and a bartender hired to 'remove' him. One night, while in the performance of his duties at the Sutton Junction station, he was murderously assailed, and barely escaped with his life. Detectives were employed, the assassin was arrested, and has confessed that he was paid by local men, interested in the liquor traffic, for his work. He and two others, including a hotel keeper, are now in jail awaiting trial, bail having been refused.

"Since the committal of the prisoners, Mr. Smith was dismissed by the C. P. R. Upon September 7th, he received a letter from the Assistant Superintendent in which occurred these words: 'You must either quit temperance work or quit the Company. It makes no difference whether you are on duty or off duty, so far as this Company is concerned. They demand the whole and entire time of their men, and they are going to have it.' .............. This subject is broader than Mr. Smith or any individual. It is the question of the right of the citizen to enjoy and exercise the rights of a citizen while employed by such a corporation as the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is the old problem of slave or freeman. The Railway is undoubtedly entitled to the best service of its employees, while on duty; but, after hours, the citizens should be free to engage in those pleasures and pursuits which do not conflict with the welfare of society and the State, Mr. Smith should be free to participate in the agitation to drive the criminal liquor traffic out of the country without being called upon to suffer the loss of income. The man who braved the liquor party, and nearly sealed his devotion to the temperance reform with his life blood, was not the man to abandon his convictions at the command of a railway manager.

"The course of the C. P. R., in dismissing Mr. Smith, has been warmly endorsed by the cowardly and murderous liquor gang in Brome, and is so open to the suspicion of being an attempt to coerce the conscience and abridge the liberties of the citizens to serve the liquor interests as to make it imperative that some member of the Commons, which has so largely subsidized that road, demand in the approaching session a public investigation. A whole army of men are in the service of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the nation cannot afford to allow the despotic authority claimed by the Company over these men. If it can demand the entire time of their men on or off duty, may it not next demand the service of the men at the ballot box? An issue has been raised by this incident which demands the vigorous protest of the press of the country."

The opinion of the Witness itself may be learned from the following article in the Daily Witness of November 24th, 1894:

"We have received a number of letters from persons who have determined to give the preference of their railway patronage against the Canadian Pacific Railway, as a testimony against the attitude of that Company towards the temperance reform, as manifested in the dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith from his position as station agent at Sutton Junction, for his active advocacy of temperance and enforcement of prohibitory law. Is it right for us to publish these letters, which are evidently only the beginning of what is yet to come, for the feeling throughout the country is very bitter in many quarters where this challenge to the advocates of law and order has become known? The question amounts to this: Is it right for persons who condemn the course of the Company to punish it in this way, and is it right for them to make a public question of it by publishing their action? The reason given for the dismissal of Mr. Smith, as shown by the correspondence which was recently made public in these columns, was that he was making things uncomfortable for certain customers of the Company who were importing liquor into Brome County. As Brome is a prohibition county, those who import liquor for sale within its bounds are outlaws. In Mr. Smith's painful experience they are also assassins. As a matter of fact, according to Mr. Smith's statement, no shipments of liquor passed through his station, and he did not use his position as agent of the Company to bring the lawbreakers to justice. Why both the Company and its agents should not be ranged on the side of the law of the land, and why the Company should so protect its share in an unlawful business against any promoter of law and order, are questions not raised. Commercial corporations do not pretend to have souls or conscience. Nobody expects them to have any, and consequently no one is angry when they show that they have not. Quite apart from all questions of morals, the money interests of the Company are those of the country, and the liquor business does not promote the business of the country. Moreover, it is in the interest of the railway, and eminently so of its customers, to have railway servants protected from drink, and the enforcement of the laws against liquor is the most direct way to protect them from drink. This is all by the way, however; Companies are not abstract reasoners.

"But there is that in this action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which the public are inclined to resent even at the hands of a Company. In the first place the Company declares that it so values the custom of the liquor men of Brome, that it can afford for their sake to boycott the advocates of temperance and the enforcers of law. A station agent, or even a superior officer, might be long and notoriously a victim of these same liquor men, and still remain an officer of the Company, but if he becomes their active enemy, and the active friend of mankind, he is dismissed. This is and it is evidently accepted as being a challenge to all friends of law and order, who are in a position to make the Company suffer in its sensitive pockets, to show whether the custom of the friends of law cannot be made as powerful an engine for the defence of right as that of the enemies of law and order is for the defence of crime. This is what temperance men throughout the country seem to be turning over in their minds just now, and are likely to go on doing so, so long as the position taken by Mr. Brady towards Mr. Smith remains the approved action of the Company, and so long as one holding the intolerable views of Mr. Brady remains its approved agent.

"There is another aspect of the Company's action through Mr. Brady which is rankling in the minds of the wage-earning population. Mr. Brady told Mr. Smith that the Company wanted all his time, and was going to have it, and that whether on duty or off it would not allow him to give temperance lectures. It is not sufficient to answer that this is not the position of the Company; that its employees, as a rule, are allowed to go to what church they think best, to take part in Christian Endeavor, or football, or whatever they may prefer as the occupation of their leisure. The fact remains that the Company has, through Mr. Brady, announced its right to check a man, if it chooses, in the exercise of his ordinary rights and duties as a citizen and as a Christian, and has, by sanctioning Mr. Smith's dismissal for temperance lecturing, formally approved Mr. Brady's attitude. The Company may summon to its defence any other reasons for Mr. Smith's dismissal that it chooses. It cannot alter the fact that the reason given in Mr. Brady's letters is the one which was given to him, and which was the real cause of his act. This claim of a soulless Company to own its employees, body and soul, is one of the most daring and intolerable enunciations of what is in the language of our day termed wage slavery that we have seen, and one for which the great public will probably call it to account. The Canadian Pacific Railway is a national institution, constructed at the public expense, and a ruling influence in the land, and its attitude towards the liquor question and the rights of employees is a matter of national interest, open to free discussion in the newspapers and in the parliament, and if there are citizens who, for the purpose of making it feel in its only sensitive spot how it has outraged public sentiment and done a public wrong, are willing to sink their private advantage and convenience in the public good, by going out of their way to patronize another road, we think it is nothing but right that the railway should be plainly seized of all the facts."

The comments of another Canadian paper, the Toronto Star, are thus quoted in The Templar:

"It is a most regrettable condition of affairs when a corporation like the Canadian Pacific will dismiss an employee because he is active in the cause of prohibition, yet that is the case of a Mr. Smith, who lost his position as agent at Sutton Junction, Quebec, because the liquor dealers whom he opposed had sufficient influence to secure his dismissal.

"No charge of neglect of duty could be made against Mr. Smith, and the only justification the Company offered was the plea that the agent should give his whole time to the Company, and do nothing to antagonize the interests of the Company. There is in this no claim that Mr. Smith had ever neglected his duty, and the whole thing narrows down to the fact that he had incurred the enmity of the liquor dealers, who induced the Company to dismiss him. This action of the Company may please the men who hired a thug to assault Mr. Smith, and nearly batter his life out, but it is a poor way to make friends of peaceful citizens. It speaks poorly for personal liberty when a man is dismissed from a railway because he opposes the liquor traffic,—a traffic which the Company itself acknowledges to be wrong when it requires its employees not to touch liquor while on duty."

In The Templar of November 23d appeared these remarks with reference to one paper which upheld the C. P. R.:

"The dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith from the services of the C. P. R., because he was obnoxious to illicit whiskey sellers in Brome County, has evoked strong expression of disapproval from not a few of the papers of the Dominion.

"Others have preserved a silence, or feebly and unfairly stated the case, not daring to rebuke the C. P. R. So far as we know, the Hamilton Spectator alone has had the courage to defend the gross injustice done a fellow-citizen, and its defence is peculiar.

"Would The Spectator permit us to clear the issue? The Templar, in giving the C. P. R.-Smith correspondence to the public, pointed out the danger to the country involved in suffering the C. P. R. contention to prevail. If that corporation can justly dismiss a man because he employs a portion of his time off duty to demand respect for the law of the land, on the ground that he is antagonizing the interests of the Company, may it not logically demand, under pain of dismissal, that he shall vote as the Company judges to be in its interests? What right has the citizen that the Canadian Pacific Railway may not require him to give up to serve its ends? Is The Spectator prepared to defend such tyranny, and, yes, we will say it—treason to the State?"

Not only the journals of the Canadian Interior, but those of the Maritime Provinces as well, showed their interest in this affair, which had so aroused the temperance people of Quebec and Ontario. The following, published in The Templar, is taken from The Intelligencer, Fredericton, New Brunswick:

"We have set out the facts of the case at some length, because it involves much more than the position and prospects of the dismissed official. His case is certainly a hard one. It is not denied that for fifteen years he served the Railway Company faithfully. No charge of neglect of duty is made against him. Even the charge of the rumsellers, that he used information obtained as the Company's officer to aid in their prosecution, is not proven. He denies it, and the Assistant Superintendent admits that he has failed to find proof of it.

"But in spite of this, the Company, yielding to the clamorings of the rum gang, dismiss an officer against whom it has not been possible to make any charge of neglect, and not even to substantiate the complaints of those who were bent upon his dismissal. Mr. Smith's offense was that he was too good a citizen to suit the views of the outlaws who are engaged in the illicit rum-traffic. They sought to take his life, hiring one of their own brutal gang to commit the murder. The attempt was made, but failing to kill him, they renewed their efforts to have him dismissed. And in this they were more successful. It is scarcely possible that the outlawed rumsellers of Brome County had sufficient influence alone, to accomplish Mr. Smith's discharge. They were probably backed by the traffic in Montreal and elsewhere. And this goes to show that the traffic is one; that distillers, brewers, wholesalers and saloon and hotel keepers are united; that licensed and illicit sellers make common cause, and that they use their awful power not only to defy all laws and regulations which hamper them, but are ready to rob of their means of livelihood, and their good name, and even to murder such men as they think stand in their way. These are things which might be expected of the traffic. But it is quite amazing that a great corporation like the C. P. R. should become its ally. Most employers would stand by an employee who had suffered at the hands of murderous ruffians, because of his sympathy with law enforcement, and the promotion of the moral welfare of his community. But the Assistant Superintendent of the C. P. R., under whom Mr. Smith worked, was not moved by such consideration, a mere sentimental consideration he would probably call it. He preferred to cooeperate with the rum traffic—to become its tool.

"We find it difficult to believe that the General Manager or the Directors can approve the dismissal of an employee for the reason stated in this case. If they do, then men interested in temperance reform can no longer have a place in the employ of the Company. And further, the Company declares its willingness to be known not only as the ally of the legalized rum traffic, but as the friend and helper of the outlaws and would-be murderers of the traffic.

"This case should not be allowed to fade out of the memory of the people. It asserts the right of an employer, not only to the time of the employee, but to his conscience, his sense of the duties of good citizenship, and his self-respect. If permitted, unrebuked and uncorrected, it helps to establish the right of capital to do any unjust and tyrannical thing, either of its own will or at the dictation of the conscienceless rum traffic, or of other organized evil.

"There ought, certainly, be some way of getting redress for what on the face of it appears to be an act of cruel injustice, done at the behest of the rum traffic, legal and illicit.

"Not those alone who are interested in temperance, but every man who believes that men are other than serfs, and who would have established beyond question the right of a man to have his own conscience in matters which relate to himself and the community, should be concerned to make impossible such tyrannical exercise of power."

Not only the Canadian, but some of the American papers also, took up the cry of tyranny, as is shown by the following, which was published in the Presbyterian Observer, Philadelphia, and repeated in the Montreal Witness:

"A Canadian Railway Company has been guilty of a piece of mean persecution against one of its agents on account of his temperance activity. The station master at Sutton Junction, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in the Province of Quebec, was recently notified that he 'must quit temperance work, or quit the Company.' The letter further states the ground upon which this action is based. 'It makes no difference whether you are on duty or off duty, so far as this Company is concerned. They demand the whole and entire time of their men, and they are going to have it.' Short, sharp, peremptory this, but is also a high-handed proceeding—an infringement upon personal rights. It does not appear that this man had been derelict in duty to his employers, or that he took the time that belonged to them in promoting the cause of temperance. His only offence was that, while conscientious in daily work, he thought of others, and labored for their welfare in his spare moments. For that he incurred official reprobation, and was given the choice of quitting temperance work or the Company.

"The railway magnates claimed entire control over all his time, whether on duty or off duty, demanding in their tautological language, 'The whole and entire time' of their men, and bluffly adding that 'they are going to have it.' They would leave no room for doubt, parley or protest. Accordingly, nothing was left a man of conscience but to retire and seek employment where he could exercise a little personal liberty. It is no new thing for men to give up railway positions on conscientious grounds, when compelled to work on the Sabbath, but this is the first instance we have known where a Railway Company has forced a person out of its employ because of his temperance principles. In our country, other things being equal, total abstainers are preferred by railway men. This Canadian Company is away behind the age."

An affair like this must indeed be very widely discussed, and awaken considerable interest, when the general opinion in any place with regard to it is published in the local news from that vicinity, yet the following paragraph appeared among other items in the Witness of November 24th, as Danville news:

"Railways have a right to all the time of employees in hours of duty, but many are grieved at the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway in demanding of Mr. W. W. Smith, whom they dismissed for activity in the temperance cause, that he must not give any of his time to it when off duty, as such demand is un-British and strongly in the direction of serfdom. Many spirited people are going to resent the injustice."

Various associations discussed this dismissal in their meetings, and passed resolutions concerning it. The following is an extract from a report, which appeared in the Witness of November 20th, of a meeting of the Quebec Evangelical Alliance, held in the city of Quebec just previous:

"It was also voted that the following resolution be placed on record, and a copy furnished to the press for publication:

"'That this Alliance voice its sympathy through the press with the different moral and religious organizations of the Province, which have taken action condemnatory of the arbitrary procedure of the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the dismissal of Mr. Smith, their station agent at Sutton Junction, for no other offence than that of being deeply interested in the moral and religious welfare of the people of his own district.

"'And further, that this Alliance regrets that the Canadian Pacific Railway, as a Company subsidized by the Government of Canada, should see fit to interfere with the civil and religious rights of its employees, and ally itself with those who are evading established law, and doing their utmost to destroy social order in this country.

"'And this Alliance is of the opinion that if the Canadian Pacific Railway management seriously desires to retain the sympathy and support of the best element in the community in building up their business as public carriers, they will, at the earliest possible moment, do full justice to their late agent, Mr. Smith.'"

The following, also published in the Witness, is from a report of the meeting of a temperance society in one of the sister Provinces:

"PRESCOTT, Ont., Dec. 5th.—The forty-fifth session of the Grand Division of the Sons of Temperance was held here to-day. The question of the discharge of Mr. W. W. Smith, of Sutton Junction, by the Canadian Pacific Railway, for his loyalty to the temperance cause, was brought up, the following report of a special committee on the subject being unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. W. W. Smith of Sutton Junction, President of the Brome County Alliance, in the Province of Quebec, whose attempted assassination for his fidelity to law and order is a public fact, has been summarily dismissed from his position as agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway, for the express reason of his advocacy of the cause of temperance, this Grand Division desires to express the view that this action of the Railway Company is a distinct violation of the rights of citizenship, and deserves strong condemnation as being tyrannical and unjust in the extreme, and is calculated, if not redressed, to destroy public spirit and inflict deep injury to the civil rights of the people."

We will now look at some of the opinions of individuals, as expressed in letters sent by them to the temperance papers.

The following communication was sent to the Witness before the publication of Mr. Brady's letters. Doubtless, the writer of this article may, after reading those letters, have entertained some doubts as to the infallibility of the opinions here expressed, but they show, at least, how impossible it seemed to some citizens that such a corporation as the Canadian Pacific Railway could oppose temperance activity on the part of its employees. The letter, addressed to the Editor of the Witness, is as follows:

"SIR,—In your issue of October 9th, a statement occurs which suggests the necessity of a word of caution. The following is the sentence: 'Some astonishing revelations may be expected, as the temperance people are intensely indignant that the Company should have yielded to the demands of the liquor party, and removed from its service one who has been for years a trusted servant and faithful officer.' From a personal acquaintance with several gentlemen who control the appointment of officials of this and similar grades of office in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, I wait an explanation of this act of executive power which will present it in an altogether different light from that in which it now appears. I cannot believe that officers of any Company, transacting business with, and dependent upon, the public, as the Canadian Pacific Railway is, would descend to an act as described in the case in hand. What the explanation will be, I will not conjecture, but I can easily conceive it is susceptible of an explanation which will remove all cause of censure from the Company. In more than one instance, I have known the officials of this Company to firmly support an employee in the maintenance of moral principle, even at a financial loss to the Company. But, apart from all loyalty to right principle, on the part of the officiary of the Company, it is to me simply inconceivable that shrewd business men as these officials are known to be would be guilty of an act which from a purely business point of view would be a stupidly suicidal one. It taxes one's credulity to too great a degree to ask one to believe that, in view of the recent plebiscite taken in several Provinces, that any officer, possessed of mental qualifications sufficient to secure a position of power in the Company, would ally himself with a coterie of lawbreakers in a secluded village, and perpetrate an act which would be resented by thousands of business men and tens of thousands of the travelling public in our Dominion, and attach a stain to the name of the Company which would challenge contempt for years future. The facilities afforded by other competing lines at so many points in our Dominion for such as would resent an act of this character are too great to permit a Company that is hungering for freight and passenger traffic to yield to such inconsiderable and immoral influences as the liquor men of Sutton Junction and their sympathizers could command. The Company knows well how slight a matter often creates a prejudice for or against a railway which affects its dividends for years, and they know well also that when an act of this kind is actually done and unearthed, that it appeals to principles held as sacred by the public of our Dominion. They also know that, however the temperance ballot holders may be divided in their political allegiances, in a matter of this kind, when no political ties bind them, they would be practically a unit in resenting an act not only tyrannical, but under the circumstances cowardly and immoral. One cannot believe that this shrewd Company of high-minded and acute business gentlemen would be guilty of the folly attributed to them. Their effort is in every way honorable to attract their own line, and it is past belief that they should play into the hands of the Grand Trunk and other competing lines in any such manner as the accusation, if proved, would mean. Give them time and opportunity for an explanation before any expression of indignation manifests itself, and especially before any hasty and inconsiderate act of discrimination against the Company is made."

SPECTATOR.

The publication of the correspondence between Messrs. Brady and Smith brought a flood of letters from the public to the Editor's offices. It would be scarcely possible in this place to give all the letters which appeared in the various papers, but we quote a few. The following is from the Witness of November 23d:

"SIR,—I read with much pleasure the letter from 'A Total Abstainer' in your issue of November 4th, and his purpose not to travel by the C. P. R. in future, when he has the privilege of another route. I would like to assure him that he does not stand alone, that there are many others who feel just as strongly. It was only to-day that I learned of two persons who, at some inconvenience to themselves, took passage by the Grand Trunk Railway in preference to the Canadian Pacific Railway, on account of the way in which the Company has played so miserably into the hands of the liquor dealers; and I know of other travellers who are resolved to use the C. P. R. only when it cannot be avoided. I am informed that some of the temperance organizations to which he refers are not going to let the matter rest where it now is, but will manifest their indignation in their own way and time.

"It is almost beyond belief that a Company like this should treat a servant with such inhumanity.

"After being almost murdered when on duty by an employed agent of the liquor party, and when about recovered from his wounds, he is dismissed from the service for taking part in temperance work in his own time. These are the facts as stated in the published correspondence, and they need only to be stated to call forth the indignation and condemnation of all honorable men.

"ANOTHER TOTAL ABSTAINER."

Another letter, published in the Witness of December 29th, and signed "Disinterested," is given below. The allusion to the queries of the Alliance and the replies of the Assistant General Manager will be more fully explained in the next chapter.

"To the Editor of the Witness:

"SIR,—I am usually of moderate temperament and seldom take extreme views or measures on any subject, but if I understand rightly the present state of the controversy between the Dominion Alliance and the Canadian Pacific Railway, unless the latter has a secret compact with the brewers, distillers and liquor venders of this county, to warrant their taking the present stand, they are adopting the most extraordinary course of any corporation seeking public patronage I have ever known. The following is, as I understand it, the present position of the affair:

"1. There are lawbreakers in the county of Brome.

"2. An employee of the C. P. R. aids in detecting them, and bringing them to justice.

"3. The lawbreakers hire a man to murder him, who fails to quite accomplish his task.

"4. The employee, in his hours off duty, denounces the practices of the lawbreakers, and the traffic that creates such lawbreakers and murderers.

"5. A district superintendent of the C. P. R. informs him that for so doing he is dismissed.

"6. The Dominion Alliance asks why this should be so? Is it not interfering with the liberty of the British subject? Is not slavery revived in another form for an employer to say to an employee, 'You must not express an opinion on any subject of social reform or otherwise on pain of being dismissed from my employ.'

"7. The Assistant General Manager comes out in a two-column letter explaining the attitude and act of the C. P. R. The purport of that letter is that the man who antagonizes a considerable portion of the community is therefore ... less useful than he otherwise would be in any position (such, for instance, as a station agent) in the employ of a railway company, whose main object must be to increase the business, from every possible source, and who must be careful not to antagonize any portion of the community upon whose patronage, as a part of the general public, the success of the Company depends. In all this letter there is no distinction between the law-abiding and lawbreaking sections of the community. The logical inference of the whole letter is, the agent at Sutton antagonized the lawbreakers of Brome, and those who abetted their doings, and, therefore, the superintendent of the road was justified in dismissing him. But by that act the superintendent 'antagonizes' a very large section of the community, stretching from Halifax to Vancouver, but he is sustained by the Company in his act. 'Consistency, thou art a jewel!' As a Canadian I have felt just pride in the C. P. R., I have advocated its claims against all other transcontinental routes, especially have I compared it with the Grand Trunk Railway, and advised my friends to patronize the former. Now, however, as a free and law-abiding citizen I must, on principle, change my method unless Mr. Tait, or some one else, can explain the act of the Company. If both employees interested in the Sutton matter had been dismissed, I could see that there was an honest effort on the part of the Company to do justly, but as it is I can only see underneath all this the intention of the Company to favor the lawbreakers of Brome and liquor interests generally at the expense of the temperance and Christian community. If my views are wrong, and anyone will do me the kindness to correct them, I shall owe him a debt of gratitude; for I am exceedingly loath to believe such things of the management of our noble Canadian Pacific Railway. Until then, however, I must say that I shall not travel on one mile of the C. P. R. when I can take another line. I am constantly on the road between Quebec and Toronto, with headquarters in Montreal. I take this stand not by choice nor caprice, but on the principles of a free citizen."

The following is an extract from a letter discussing the same subject, published in The Templar of Jan. 4th, 1895, and signed J. W. Shaw:

"Without giving names, let me state what I have learned directly affecting the moneyed interests of the C. P. R. Thinking of visiting a certain station on one of their lines I asked a friend who had just returned from it: 'What is the fare to that place?' He replied, 'I don't know; I never buy a ticket; I can't say.' When remonstrated with, he just said: 'I pay whatever is handy, sometimes more and sometimes less!' Another individual, in the habit of travelling in the same way, and boasting of his smartness, casually remarked: 'My trip this time was a failure, for Conductor —— was on the train, and you know I could not work him.' It did me good to hear that, for the conductor in question is a well-known gospel and temperance worker, who labors as he has opportunity for the uplifting of fallen humanity. On this low plane then it would pay these companies to employ such conductors, and give them all the scope required outside their own business. Such employees save more to them than they will ever lose through the fidelity to principle of any Mr. Smith. Sterling honesty of principle that such men manifest, instead of proving an objection, should merit the recognition if not the approval of the wisest directorate, and should denote their qualification rather than the reverse."

Part of another letter, which was signed W. J. Clark, and appeared in the same issue of The Templar, is as follows:

"Now, suppose the 'section' which Mr. Smith had antagonized had been the temperance people instead of the liquor element, what would gentlemen Brady and Tait have said then if the matter had been brought to their notice? Would they have dismissed Mr. Smith? I trow not. They would in all likelihood have attributed the complaint to what they would mentally designate as a handful of cranks, and paid no attention to it. But when the liquor element complains, what then? Their complaint is attended to at once. Why? Because they are the most law-abiding and influential section of the community? No, but because they are just at the present time the most powerful section of the community. Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean that the temperance people of our land have not the balance of power in their own hands. They certainly have, but they do not make use of it, while the liquor element use what power they have for all it is worth. The C. P. R., and all other such like corporations know full well this state of affairs, and as Mr. Tait says: 'Their objects do not extend beyond the promotion of their business,' and consequently they are ready at all times to cater to the commands of those who are making their power felt in the land, and to ignore almost entirely the wishes of those who have the power, but fear to use it. Mr. Editor, what are the temperance people doing? Are we sleeping on guard? It seems to me that we are. How many of us, after reading the two last issues of The Templar, will not deliberately step on board of a C. P. R. train, and pay our money to that corporation when in many cases we could just as conveniently transfer our patronage to some other road. What is our plain duty in the case? Is it not to show the Canadian Pacific Railway that we are a power in the land, and that we intend to plainly show that corporation that the rights of good citizenship are not to be trampled upon with impunity? The action of the C. P. R. in the Smith case should call vividly to our minds the action of the Grand Trunk a few years ago, when they discharged their agent at Richmond, Que., because he openly opposed the temperance people."

In concluding this chapter, we will give the opinion of an eminent clergyman, Rev. J. B. Silcox, as expressed by him from the pulpit of Emanuel Church, Montreal. Nor is this by any means the only voice which sounded from Canadian pulpits on the same subject. The Witness of December 31st, 1894, has the following:

"Referring to the C. P. R., Mr. Silcox denounced it vigorously for its action in dismissing an employee because he saw fit to fight the drink traffic. There was nothing in the world so heartless as a great corporation. The C. P. R. had shown itself more heartless than a despotic king. It had come to a sorry pass when an employee was robbed of the right of exercising his own free will. By its action the Company had thrown all its weight on the side of the liquor party to which it catered. He had lived in the Northwest several years, and had seen other instances of how this great Company had ground others under its iron heel. 'In discharging the man I refer to, the Canadian Pacific Railway has shown that it lays claim to both the body and soul of its employees. In the history of this country did you ever hear of anything more shameful? It makes one's blood boil. And the men who commit these acts can boast of knighthood. Alas!'"



CHAPTER VII.

THE DOMINION ALLIANCE PROTEST.

We have been considering some of the opinions of the temperance and law-abiding public regarding the dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith. However, the temperance people were not all content with simply discussing the matter, and blaming the C. P. R. for the action they had taken, nor even with transferring their patronage to another road. The Alliance took steps to obtain an explanation of Mr. Brady's conduct and the policy which he had attributed to the C. P. R., and if possible to gain some reparation for an act which seemed to them unreasonable and unjust. It was stated in a former chapter that the secretary of the Quebec Provincial Branch had been instructed to enquire into the rumored attempt of the liquor men to secure Mr. Smith's dismissal, and report the facts in the case at the next meeting of the Alliance. His conclusions after this enquiry are embodied in the following letter, dated October 9th, and addressed to "Thomas Tait, Esq., Assistant General Manager, Canadian Pacific Railway":

"DEAR SIR,—I herewith return the correspondence concerning Mr. Smith which you allowed me to have, and which our committee very carefully considered. The action taken by your Company in dismissing Mr. Smith from his position as your agent at Sutton Junction, notice of which he received on Saturday last, October 6th, renders futile any further conference between the Company and this Alliance on behalf of Mr. Smith. I am, however, instructed to say that after a very careful consideration of all the correspondence referred to us, after a thorough investigation of the whole matter, we have come to the conclusion that the paramount reason for Mr. Smith's dismissal is his activity as a temperance man. Your Assistant Superintendent in his letter to Mr. Smith, dated September 7th, makes this as clear as possible. He says: 'You must either quit temperance work or quit the Company. It makes no difference whether you are on duty or oft duty, so far as this Company is concerned. They demand the whole and entire time of their men, and they are going to have it.' These are as plain words as the English language can produce, and their meaning cannot be misunderstood. The complaints made subsequent to my interview with you on the 19th of September have, in our opinion, the appearance of an effort to find a reason to explain the one given by your Assistant Superintendent; a reason which we think your Company will find exceedingly difficult to sustain at the bar of public opinion to which it must now go. As regards these recent complaints, Mr. Smith has never seen them. He has never been given an opportunity to deny them, or offer any explanation. If these or other charges of a similar character are the essential ones, then he has been condemned without a hearing, either before your superintendent or any other officer of the Company. Mr. Smith informs us that he is quite prepared to defend himself against any charge of neglect of duty or unfaithful service to the Company. His record of fifteen years' service is an indication that as a railroad man he has done his duty. As regards the principal charge, the charge upon which his resignation was asked for by your Assistant Superintendent in the letter referred to above in the following words: 'I was in hopes you would relieve the strain by gracefully tendering your resignation,' the specific complaint made being that he had on the evening of September 3d, delivered a temperance lecture. To this charge he pleads guilty, and now suffers the consequences, viz., dismissal and pecuniary loss.

"This Alliance, as representing the temperance people of this Province, protests in the most emphatic manner against this act of obvious injustice to one of our number; an act which we have every reason to believe to be the result of a concerted plan to use your Company to injure and if possible render nugatory the temperance work of the people of Brome County, who, for very many years, have been endeavoring to uphold and enforce the law of the land, which declares that no intoxicating liquor shall be sold within the bounds of that county.

"In this effort, they did not expect to have the powerful influence of your Company turned against them, and, therefore, feel keenly and with intense regret this action in regard to Mr. Smith, the President of the Brome County Alliance! You will readily understand that we cannot allow this matter to drop, and, therefore, have taken steps to bring the whole matter before another tribunal.

"I am, dear sir, respectfully yours, "J. H. Carson, Sec'y."

On October 16th, a meeting of the executive of the Quebec Provincial Alliance was held in Montreal, for the purpose of considering affairs relating to this dismissal. Mr. Carson reported the correspondence which he had had with Mr. Tait, and the Executive, having unanimously approved Mr. Carson's letters, adopted the following resolution:

"WHEREAS, Mr. W. W. Smith, the President of the Brome County Alliance, has been dismissed from his position as agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and whereas we have reason to believe that his dismissal has been brought about because of his temperance activity, and not because of dereliction of duty: Resolved, That this Alliance will stand by Brome County Alliance in any action it may take under the advice of our solicitors to vindicate the reputation of Mr. Smith."

At this meeting also, a committee was appointed to whom the correspondence in the hands of the secretary should be referred for whatever action they might deem best.

On October 26th, a meeting of the Brome County Alliance was held at which the dismissal was also considered. Some members of the Provincial Alliance from Montreal were present at this meeting.

On December 22d, the following appeared among the Witness editorials:

"The dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith, the Canadian Pacific station agent at Sutton Junction, for law and order work in a prohibition county, and specifically for delivering a temperance lecture, is still a live subject. The Dominion Alliance, as whose officer Mr. Smith committed the offences for which he suffers, naturally protested to the Company, and appealed to the public against this assault on the liberties of their workers. The Company, we understand, thinks it only fair that its reply to the Alliance's protest should be published as widely as that protest was, and this we think entirely reasonable, whatever may be said of the merits of that reply, which does not seem to us to make the matter any better. After being duly presented to a meeting of the Alliance committee, and then referred to Mr. Smith, against whom it raises new charges, it is now with the consent of all parties published, and it will be forwarded to all the temperance organizations for their information. It occupies a good deal of room, but will be read with extreme interest as showing just how a money corporation looks on the liberties of its servants."

The reply referred to in this article as being that made by the C. P. R. to the letter of Mr. Carson, which we quoted above, is as follows:

"J. H. Carson, Esq., "Secretary Dominion Alliance, Montreal.

"DEAR SIR,—Your letter of November 9th reached me in due course. I have been somewhat disinclined for several reasons to take part in any further correspondence on the subject, but upon further reflection I have decided to point out to you in writing, as I have already, on two or three occasions, done verbally, that the termination of Mr. Smith's engagement with this Company did not take place by the reasons assigned by you in that letter. You say, 'We have come to the conclusion that the paramount reason for Mr. Smith's dismissal is his activity as a temperance man.' Whether intentionally or unintentionally, this language is framed so as to convey the meaning that the Company objected to the principles (namely, temperance principles) which were advocated by Mr. Smith. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Mr. Smith had been as much occupied in abusing temperance principles as he was in advocating them, the objection would have been not only as great, but greater. It must be manifest to every business man in the community that every railway company, and, indeed, every other business organization employing large numbers of workmen, is most emphatically in favor of temperance; so much so that in the case of our Company I feel convinced that its influence in favor of temperance and the prevention of the improper use of intoxicating liquors is ten thousand times more than that of Mr. Smith or any other individual, in fact, it is probably one of the most powerful factors in that direction in Canada.

"Our Company has for many years past done what is not often done by property owners. We have declined to sell our lands at different stations along our line, except under conditions which prevents the sale of intoxicating liquors on the premises, and which have the effect of depriving the buyer of his title to the property in case that stipulation is broken. In addition, we have had for many years past, amongst the rules and regulations governing all our employees, the following rule:

"'Use of Liquor.—The continued or excessive periodical use of malt or alcoholic liquors should be abstained from by every one engaged in operating the road, not only on account of the great risks to life and property incurred by entrusting them to the oversight of those whose intellects may be dulled at times when most care is needed, but also, and especially, because habitual drinking has a very bad effect upon the constitution, which is a serious matter to men so liable to injury as railway employees always are. It so lessens the recuperative powers of the body that simple wounds are followed by the most serious and dangerous complications. Fractures unite slowly, if at all, and wounds of a grave nature, such as those requiring the loss of a limb, are almost sure to end fatally. No employee can afford to take such risks, and the Railway Company cannot assume such responsibilities.' This rule has, in fact, been revised within the last few months, and couched in more prohibitory language, and will shortly be issued to the employees in that form. Along our line there are thousands of its officials who are every day insisting on the practice of temperance. They deal with the engagement of subordinates and the conduct and efficiency of persons in our employment in such a way as to show that temperance is indispensable to the efficiency of our employees, to the conduct of the Company's business, and to the success and promotion of the workmen themselves, but this is done in respect of matters which are entirely within their jurisdiction as officers of the Company.

"There are, unfortunately, many questions upon which the public hold different opinions so strongly that they are virtually divided into opposing classes, and it is impossible for any one prominently and publicly to advocate either side of any of these questions, without immediately raising a strong feeling of opposition in a considerable portion of the community, who take the opposite side. These questions are of different kinds, religious, political, social, racial, etc.; and it must be apparent that no matter how well founded any person's views may be on any of these questions, if he devotes himself energetically to the promulgation and advocacy of his views at public meetings, lectures, etc., he will without fail antagonize a considerable section of the community. It is, therefore, apparent to every business man that any person who adopts this course at once renders himself less useful than he would otherwise be in any position (such, for instance, as a station agent) in the employment of a Railway Company, whose main object must be to increase its business from every possible source, and who must be careful not to antagonize any portion of the community upon whose patronage, as part of the general public, the success of the Company depends. Illogically, and perhaps unfortunately, there are many persons in every community who hold the employer answerable for the public advocacy of the views of the persons in his employment, even when disconnected with the business of the employer. This ought not to be the case, but as undeniably it is the case, it follows that the usefulness of an employee is with certainty diminished, and perhaps destroyed, when he gives much of his attention and some of his time to advocating his personal views at public meetings, lectures, etc., upon either side of any question upon which the public is divided in the way I have before mentioned, and this, although he do so only during the hours of the day when he is not supposed to be in the active service of his employer. As far as I am able to judge, no official of our Company, of whose duties one is to solicit and secure traffic for the Company, could take sides on any of these questions at public meetings and lectures without impairing his usefulness to the Company. Taken by themselves, and without regard to the circumstances, some of the expressions in Mr. Brady's letters to Mr. Smith are capable of misinterpretation, and, as I have stated to you on several occasions, do not meet with the Company's approval, as they do not express correctly its policy on the subject. There is no doubt, however, in our mind, as I have already assured you, that throughout this unfortunate affair Mr. Brady was only intent on protecting the Company's interests by preventing unnecessary hostility, and at the outset on saving Mr. Smith himself from trouble.

"I have already shown you correspondence from different persons containing statements concerning Mr. Smith, which, if true, indicate the impossibility of any person being able to give thorough and efficient service to any railway company, whilst he publicly advocates views on either side of any question such as I have referred to, upon which the public is divided. But the matters referred to in that correspondence are insignificant compared with the taking in public an active part on either side of such moot questions as I have referred to. The conclusion that Mr. Smith's usefulness was gone, does not depend on the truth or untruth of them; it was therefore not necessary or proper to discuss them further with Mr. Smith upon the theory that they were material to the question whether he should continue or not in the Company's service. As, however, in your letter you refer to the complaints covered by that correspondence as having the 'appearance of an effort to find a reason to explain the one given for Mr. Smith's dismissal,' and as you have returned this correspondence to me, it may not be out of place for me to refresh your memory as to some of the points covered by it. Mr. Stewart, the Superintendent of the Dominion Express Company, wrote Mr. Brady, from Montreal, on September 29th as follows:

"'Route Agent Bowen informs me that when visiting Sutton Junction this week, he found F. G. Sinclair in charge of the station, and doing the work in Mr. Smith's name. Mr. Smith had gone away without giving us notice. He did not give the new agent the combination of the safe, and carried away our revolver for his protection, instead of leaving it at the station to protect our property. Mr. Bowen succeeded in finding Smith, and getting the revolver, and also had the combination of the safe changed and given to the new agent. I may say that Mr. Smith had given the relieving agent the combination of the outside door of the safe only, which left us without any better protection than an ordinary fire-proof safe, and we sometimes have very large amounts of money to carry over night. This is just about in keeping with all Mr. Smith's work. Unless we can be assured of better protection at Sutton Junction, we will have to make different arrangements in regard to handling our money for the Northern division, by transferring the fire and burglar proof safe at Sutton Junction to Fosters, and make the money transfer at that point instead of at Sutton Junction.

"'Of course, it will be absolutely necessary to transfer some money at the Junction at all times, but bank packages, etc., will have to be sent by the other route for our protection.

"'Route Agent Bowen reports the present agent is attending carefully to our business. If the old agent will be re-appointed I would be glad of a few days' notice so we can make different arrangements in the interest of this Company.'

"You will remember from the correspondence that Mr. O. C. Selby wrote to Mr. Brady that he had the combination of the outside door of the safe, and that the combination of the inside door, which should also have been used, was not used from the time Mr. Selby started work (October, 1893) until June last; that Mr. Smith was often absent from the office during the day, frequently remaining there only half an hour.

"You will remember also that Mr. J. O'Regan, the operator at Sutton Junction, stated in writing that he had at the request of Mr. Smith, who desired to absent himself from duty, worked in the latter's place on the afternoon and evening previous to the assault, and that on several occasions he had been left in charge of the station during Mr. Smith's absence. In this connection you will remember that I informed you that on the occasion first referred to, and that on some, if not all, of the previous occasions, Mr. Smith had absented himself from duty without permission. I believe that it was admitted by Mr. Smith himself, at the trial, that when he was assaulted he was asleep, although at that time he should have been on duty as operator.

"You will also recollect that Mr. Smith, having applied through Detective Carpenter to Mr. Brady for leave of absence to go to New Marlboro, Mass., for the purpose of identifying one of his assailants, and having obtained such leave of absence, and a pass to Newport and return, remained absent from duty for ten days after his return from New Marlboro, without communicating with Mr. Brady, and that it was while he was so absent without leave that he delivered a temperance lecture at Richford.

"It is not customary with this Company to discuss with persons not directly interested the reasons for discharging, punishing, rewarding or otherwise dealing with its men, but you will recollect that in this case an exception was made, and that I offered you every facility, including free transportation over our line, if you would, by visiting localities in which Messrs. Smith and Brady were known, satisfy yourself as to the propriety of Mr. Smith's discharge, and it will also be within your memory that I offered to arrange a meeting between yourself and Mr. Brady, or, if it was desired, to meet your committee myself to discuss the matter. None of these offers was taken advantage of, and, so far as I know, none of the suggestions made were followed.

"It is not, however, as I have said, necessary to go into these details in order to support the conclusion that Mr. Smith's usefulness as agent for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is over. The Company is carrying on the business of a railway company, and its objects do not extend beyond the promotion of that business. Its success depends upon the favor and patronage of the community at large, and if one of its officers or employees so conducts himself as to antagonize a section of the community, or even in a manner which is likely to bring about that result, the Company's interests are injuriously affected, and the Company will naturally do, what every business man would do, namely, protect its interests by his removal.

"Yours truly, THOS. TAIT, "Assistant General Manager. "Montreal, Dec. 6th, 1894."

It will be noticed that in this letter Mr. Tait, referring to the acts of officials, "who are every day insisting on the practice of temperance," says: "But this is done in respect of matters which are entirely within their jurisdiction as officers of the Company." The implication plainly is that, while officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway have a right to insist upon sobriety among the employees of the Company, they have not a right to engage in any other form of temperance work. That all Mr. Smith's work for the cause was within his jurisdiction as an officer of the Alliance, and a free citizen is not taken into consideration, and it appears that no employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway is supposed to have a right to accept any offices or perform any duties outside the Company's services.

Mr. Tait does not condemn the position taken by his Assistant Superintendent, on the contrary he very plainly takes the same position himself, and simply disapproves of some of Mr. Brady's expressions. This reminds us of what is told of some parents who are said to punish their children, not for evil doing but for getting found out. If Mr. Brady had concealed the motive for his act so as to prevent any complaints from the public, the Company, according to Mr. Tait's letter, would have had no objection to the dismissal of an employee simply for temperance activity.

To the above letter Mr. Carson made the following reply, which was published in the same issue of the Witness:

"December 21st, 1894. "T. Tait, Esq., Asst. General Manager, C. P. R.:

"DEAR SIR,—Your letter of December 6th has had the attention of the Alliance Committee, which takes great pleasure in hearing of the stand taken by your Company in various ways in behalf of temperance, the wisdom of which will commend itself to all. When, however, you say Mr. Smith was not dismissed for the reason assigned in my letter to you, namely, his activity as a temperance man, you deny what seems to be admitted in the whole of the rest of your letter. This was, as the correspondence shows, the only reason conveyed to Mr. Smith as the cause of his dismissal. My letter did not allege, nor was it intended to convey the impression, that the Company's action was due to its objection to the principles held by Mr. Smith, but that it was due to his activity in advocating those principles.

"You have at considerable length set forth that what the Company objects to is, that an employee of the Company should actively take sides on a question on which the community is divided, even 'although he do so only during the hours of the day when he is not supposed to be in the active service of his employer,' and you add that 'no official of our Company, one of whose duties is to solicit and secure traffic for the Company, could take sides on any of these questions at public meetings and lectures without impairing his usefulness to the Company.' This is precisely the position taken by Mr. Brady in his correspondence with Mr. Smith, and it is against this position, to which the Company through you pleads guilty, that we, in the name of the temperance people of Canada, protest, implying as it does a condition of servitude to the liquor interest on the part of a national institution dependent upon the public patronage for support, which insults all that is best in our public opinion, and insisting as it does on a condition of ignoble slavery on the part of the employees of the Company. You refer to the matter in which Mr. Smith was regarded as over-active as a moot question.

"Whether men should be required to observe the law of the land, or be punished for violating it, is, we submit, not a moot question. On the contrary, we hold it the duty of every loyal citizen to uphold law, and render such assistance as lies in his power to secure its enforcement.

"With regard to the later charges against Mr. Smith, parenthetically enumerated in your letter, you say they are insignificant, and that, therefore, 'it was not necessary or proper to discuss them further with Mr. Smith.' If so, we may also be excused from discussing them. We have given Mr. Smith communication of your letter, that he may reply to these if he sees best.

"Referring to your kind offer of free transportation over your line, to visit the localities in which Messrs. Smith and Brady were known, and satisfy myself as to the propriety of Mr. Smith's discharge, I might say that I did visit those localities without accepting the offer of free transportation, which accounts for your not knowing of my visit to Brome County. As the result of that visit I was still better informed as to the operation of the occult influence which had brought about Mr. Smith's dismissal.

"Your offer to meet our committee and discuss the question was rendered nugatory by the dismissal of Mr. Smith.

"In the management of your Company it is not our part to interfere, but when an employee of your Company is dismissed, as alleged by the Assistant Superintendent, and now confirmed by yourself, for publicly advocating those principles which this Alliance is organized to promote, and for promoting the observance of the laws of his country, it is right for us to express to you the protest of a very large portion of the people of Canada, and their indignation at seeing one of their number thus suffer for conscience sake. It is, of course, for the Company to judge how best to promote its own business, but when so large a portion of the public as those who support temperance laws and seeks their enforcement is openly snubbed in the interests, and it would seem at the instance, of illicit and murderous dealers in a contraband article, from the transport of which your Company seeks profit, we may fairly ask the question whether the Company is acting even the part of worldly wisdom. Your declaration that if one of the Company's officers or employees so conducts himself as to antagonize a section of the community, or even in a manner which is likely to bring about that result, the Company's interests are injuriously affected, and the Company will naturally do what every business man would do, namely, 'protect its interests by his removal,' is definite and distinct, and seems to apply to the definite attitude assumed towards the advocates of temperance by your Assistant Superintendent. His conduct is certain to be remembered with resentment all over Canada, so long as his continuance in office and the endorsement of his act are the index of the policy of your Company.