"I remain, dear sir, "Very respectfully yours, "J. H. CARSON, Secretary."

As stated by Mr. Carson, Mr. Tait's letter was forwarded to Mr. Smith, that he might reply to its accusations if he saw fit. Accordingly, he wrote to the Editor of the Witness as follows:

"SIR,—I desire, in replying to the complaints made against me in Mr. Tait's letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Dominion Alliance, to say that, so far as these complaints are concerned, this is the first time I have seen them, and I have never been asked by the Canadian Pacific Railway to offer any explanation, nor have I been given an opportunity to deny the correctness of the charges made against me.

"With regard to the letter of Mr. Stewart, of the Dominion Express Company, I have this to say: This complaint, in the first place, was only made three weeks after Mr. Brady had requested me to tender my resignation, for the specific reason given in his letter, so that it could not have had any connection with the real cause of my dismissal.

"When I was assaulted on July 8th, I wired Mr. Stewart that I was unable to work, and asked him if I should give the combination of the inside door of the safe to the man in charge. I received no reply. Mr. Stewart knew perfectly well that I was sick in bed, and that it was his duty to send a man to change the combination, which he did not do, after being wired of my disability. Now Mr. Stewart, after paying not the slightest attention to the notice of my illness, censures me for not notifying him when I went to the United States to identify the man who assaulted me. Regarding my carrying off the revolver, this is true; but, as the Company demanded the whole of my time off duty, as well as on, and as I was expected to resume work any day, I do not see why I should not be regarded as their property, and as much entitled to protection as any other until I was dismissed.

"Mr. Selby's statements are also misleading. It was months after he entered my office before I allowed him to have the combination of the safe (outside door), and this was with the knowledge and consent of Route Agent Bowen, or he would never have had even the combination of the outer door. Mr. Bowen checked up my office with Mr. Selby two or three times, and was satisfied. Mr. Selby's statement that the inner door of the safe was not used from October, 1893, to June, 1894, is not true, and cannot be substantiated, as he was away from my office for weeks during that time.

"As to my changing work with Mr. O'Regan, I did, and such things are quite customary with agents and operators, as well as Assistant Superintendents; and this custom prevails at the present time all along the line. I may add that there was a distinct understanding between Mr. Brady and myself that I could drive out or walk out whenever I saw fit, without communicating with him.

"Some explanation ought to be made concerning the manner in which these complaints from Mr. Selby and Mr. O'Regan were secured by Mr. Brady, when it was found necessary to produce before Mr. Tait other evidence against me. I have seen both Mr. Selby and Mr. O'Regan in company with a witness I took with me, and questioned them as to how they came to make such charges. I found that Mr. Brady had taken the fast express from Farnham, which does not stop at Sutton Junction; it, however, slowed up enough to allow him to jump off. He walked to the station and remained nearly three hours endeavoring to obtain incriminating evidence against me. Mr. Selby informed me he did not think his letters would come to light, as Mr. Brady told him it would be personal, and he thought as I was dismissed from the Company's service, the statements would not hurt me, and it might help him to a situation at some future time. He said the statements were first drawn from him by adroit questioning, and he was then asked to put them in writing.

"When Mr. Brady arrived at Sutton Junction, the night operator, O'Regan, was asleep, but he did not hesitate to call him up, and deprive him of two or three hours' rest, notwithstanding the fact that on the first of July, when he refused to allow the night operator, Ireland, to work for me so as to permit of my going to Montreal to attend the National Prohibition Convention, the reason he gave was that night operators required their days to rest to insure efficient service during the night. But in this case he breaks up the rest of a night operator in order to secure this statement from O'Regan.

"Mr. Tait says I was asleep when assaulted. This I do not deny, but he knows his operators all sleep more or less during the night, when they understand the position of their trains. Every railway man knows this. But why are these matters brought before the public now? Why was I not allowed a hearing by the officers of the Company? If a collision occurs on the line, or other serious things occur, the parties concerned are given a chance to clear themselves. If men get drunk and damage the Company's property, they are given a hearing, and in many cases they resume work. But all this was denied me. There must have been a reason for this; it must be because Mr. Tait really understood the whole matter thoroughly, as he says in his letter, 'This correspondence' (referring to these later charges) 'is insignificant,' and especially as he has said to a Witness reporter, and published in the Witness of July 11th: 'I have no proof that Mr. Smith has violated the confidence of the Company.' No, my serious offence was, as Mr. Tait states, 'the taking in public an active part on either side of such moot questions as I have referred to.'

"Mr. Tait also stated that this rule applies to questions of politics. Now, if the same rule applied to temperance as applies to politics, I would still be in my position as agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sutton Junction, for during the last general elections the Company would have allowed me to move heaven and earth, if possible, to elect their candidate, which we did through their wire pulling. I don't wonder people say the Canadian Pacific Railway runs the government, but they cannot run the Brome County Alliance or any of the other temperance organizations. I would like to ask Mr. Brady in connection with these charges, why he should add insult to injury by asserting that the temperance people could all 'go to h——l,' and he 'does not care a G—— d——' for them all, and why was I approached in an obscure way, and inducements made to me to resign my position as President of the Brome County Alliance, and give up lecturing on temperance, and retain my position as agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway? These are some facts that more clearly reveal the real cause for my dismissal, and the source from which opposition to me really came, namely, the liquor traffic, exerted through its emissaries.

"It should be borne in mind that every scrap of evidence against me, such as it is, has been trumped up, since my dismissal. Who before ever heard of a man being sentenced and executed and then the evidence of his guilt hunted up?

"W. W. SMITH. "Sutton, December 24th, 1894."

The feelings which then animated the temperance public of Canada concerning the conduct of the Canadian Pacific Railway may be seen from the following article in the Witness of December 28th:

"The meeting of representatives of the various provincial and Dominion temperance bodies, held yesterday afternoon in the Temple Building, was for the purpose of receiving reports from the executives of these grand bodies concerning the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in dismissing Mr. Smith for his activity in temperance work.

"The Secretary presented a very large number of resolutions adopted by these various executives, expressing their condemnation of the Company, and endorsing heartily the action of the Alliance, in seeking to have the injustice removed. The resolutions were from British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, as well as from Maritime Provinces—from far off Victoria, B. C., to Halifax, N. S.

"The communications indicate that the whole temperance community is thoroughly aroused, and intensely interested in this matter. The meeting adopted a strong resolution, which was referred to a committee of five, who were empowered to take such further action as they deem best to carry out the spirit of the resolutions presented to the meeting yesterday.

"The Secretary was instructed to inform Mr. Tait, Assistant General Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that this committee would confer with him in regard to this matter, if we should so desire. The committee will await Mr. Tait's reply before publishing the resolutions received or those adopted at yesterday's meeting."



CHAPTER VIII.

RESULTS OF THE ALLIANCE PROTEST.

In our last chapter was given a letter written by Mr. Carson on December 21st, and addressed to Mr. Tait. The reply to this was as follows:

"J. H. Carson, Esq., Secretary Quebec Provincial Branch of the Dominion Alliance, 162 St. James Street, Montreal:

"DEAR SIR,—I have acknowledged the receipt of your two communications of the 21st and 28th ult. As your letter of the 21st states that the Alliance does not allege that the reason for Mr. Smith's discharge by the Company was the nature of the principles held and advocated by him, and states that the sole objection of the Alliance to the action of the Company in this matter is the discharge of an employee from its service 'for his activity in advocating those principles,' I now desire to state briefly, and in such a way as I trust will prevent any possibility of being any longer misinterpreted, the views of the Company on that point.

"The Company does not object to its employees holding, practising and promoting temperance principles in such a manner as not to injuriously affect the Company's interests, but it does object seriously to any employee actively engaging in the advocacy and agitation of these or any other principles or views, no matter how respectable and proper in themselves, about which there is a well understood difference of opinion in the community, in such a manner as either to injuriously affect the Company's interests or to impair his usefulness as an employee, or to interfere with the proper performance of his duties to his employer, as to all of which it cannot be expected that any other than the Company should be the judge.

"There is a large portion of the population of this country who, rightly or wrongly, differ from and oppose the views which are promulgated and promoted by the Alliance, and which have been so vigorously and persistently advocated by Mr. Smith, the result being, as it was sure to be, that his usefulness as our agent was seriously impaired, owing to the Company having to bear to some extent the antagonism which logically perhaps ought to have been confined to him, though there was some ground for the public considering that the Company was taking a part in his advocacy, since in advertising public meetings to be addressed by himself, Mr. Smith described himself as 'W. W. Smith, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Temperance Lecturer.'

"In this connection I beg to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Smith did not confine his work of agitation, public lecturing, etc., to the County of Brome, or that section of the country in which the majority of the population had voted in favor of the prohibition of liquor, but that his operations extended beyond these limits. After the fullest investigation, and consideration of this whole matter, I feel constrained to say that the Company's course was, under the circumstances, not only justified, but, having regard to its business interests, unavoidable.

"In yours of the 21st ult., you refer again to the correspondence between Mr. Brady and Mr. Smith. Inasmuch as the Company has stated that the expressions complained of do not meet with its approval or express correctly its policy, I submit that it is now clearly improper and unfair to endeavor to make them appear as a reason for the continuation of the complaint against the Company.

"I note from your letter of the 28th ult., that a meeting is suggested between the officials of the Company and a committee representing the Alliance. I shall be glad, as I a long time ago offered to meet this committee, and as you have kindly left the appointment of the time and place of meeting with me, I suggest, if it is convenient to the committee, my office on Monday next, at eleven A. M.

"The delay in replying to your letters was due to the uncertainty of my movements and consequent difficulty in naming a time for the proposed meeting.

"Yours truly, "(Signed), THOS. TAIT, "Assistant General Manager."

According to the spirit of this letter, no man having an interest in any reform, or a desire to aid in any work for the good of his fellow-men, can conscientiously hold a position in the employ of this great Company, which is so influential in our beloved country. Must every self-supporting man be a slave?

Mr. Tait says, "After the fullest investigation, and consideration of this whole matter, I feel constrained to say that the Company's course was, under the circumstances, not only justifiable, but, having regard to its business interests, unavoidable."

Mr. Tait does not say "Mr. Brady's course," but "the Company's course," thus showing that Mr. Brady had not acted independently of his superior officers in dismissing Mr. Smith.

Mr. Tait also expresses the Company's disapproval of Mr. Brady's "expressions," while he, himself, makes statements which seem quite as objectionable as those of Mr. Brady. Moreover, as Mr. Tait sanctions the dismissal of an employee for active temperance work, and mentions in this letter no other cause as having led to Mr. Smith's discharge, we do not see why he should object to an Assistant Superintendent naming the same reason to an under official, whom he is dismissing from the Company's service.

The conference arranged between Mr. Tait and the representatives of the Alliance was held in the office of the former on January 7th, 1895. The meeting began at half-past eleven, and continued until nearly two o'clock, when, as no definite decision was reached, it was decided to adjourn until the following morning. The resolutions adopted by the various temperance bodies in Montreal, and elsewhere, were presented to Mr. Tait. The following circular, issued by the Quebec Provincial Branch of the Dominion Alliance, shows the result of the conference on January 8th.

"Dominion Alliance, "Quebec Provincial Branch, "MONTREAL, Jan. 30th, 1895.

"DEAR SIR,—On November 28th last, by circular letter, we called the attention of the executives of the various grand bodies of the temperance organizations of the Dominion to the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in dismissing from their employ the President of one of our county alliances, Mr. W. W. Smith. Enclosed in this circular was a copy of the correspondence which led up to the dismissal. In response to this circular, resolutions were received from every Province of the Dominion, as well as from the executives of Dominion organizations.

"These resolutions were very emphatic in their condemnation of the position taken by Assistant Superintendent Brady, in the published correspondence, to wit, that an employee 'must quit temperance work or quit the Company.'

"These resolutions were carefully considered at the conference of temperance representatives, held in this city on December 27th, and it was decided to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway to repudiate the position taken by Assistant Superintendent Brady, and that it take such action in regard to Mr. Brady, whose course has given so much offence to the temperance people, as will convince its employees and the public that its policy is not that represented by his act. It was also decided that before any further action be taken, the Canadian Pacific Railway should be notified that if it so desired, a deputation from this meeting would be prepared to meet the representatives of the Company in conference.

"The Company concurred in the suggestion, and as a result of two lengthy conferences, the following agreement was arrived at:

"'The Canadian Pacific Railway distinctly repudiate, as they have done from the commencement of the discussion, the expressions used by Assistant Superintendent Brady, when demanding Mr. Smith's resignation, which expressions have been taken exception to by the temperance people.

"'The Canadian Pacific Railway admit the right of employees to identify themselves with the temperance movement, and work for the same, provided such work is done outside official hours, always with due consideration to the interests of the Company. The committee accept such declaration as satisfactory.

"'The committee claims that the hasty and ill-advised language used in Assistant Superintendent Brady's correspondence, and otherwise, has caused grave dissatisfaction on the part of the temperance people of Canada. The committee disclaim any attempt to coerce or dictate to the Canadian Pacific in the management of the Company's affairs, but under the circumstances look to the Canadian Pacific Railway to place on record some substantial mark of their disapproval of the expressions of one of their staff, same having been the means of causing offence to a large portion of the community.

"'The Canadian Pacific Railway claims that, if for no other reason, Mr. Smith's discharge was justifiable on the ground of neglect of duty.'

"This was signed by Mr. Thomas Tait, Assistant General Manager, on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and by the following delegation as representing the temperance people of Canada: Major E. L. Bond, Mr. E. A. Dyer, M. P., Rev. A. M. Phillips, Mr. A. M. Featherston, Mr. S. J. Carter, and Mr. J. H. Carson.

"This agreement and the delegation's report was received and approved as satisfactory, by the executive of this provincial Alliance, and a committee appointed to communicate the result to the temperance bodies.

"It will thus be seen that the Company has entirely repudiated the offensive language used by Mr. Brady, and declares that it does not express the attitude of the Company towards the temperance cause.

"The Company also admits the right of its employees to engage in temperance work; and as regards Mr. Brady, it acknowledges that cause for dissatisfaction has existed, and promises that action will be taken to remove this cause.

"In placing these facts before you, we have to congratulate our friends throughout the Dominion upon the satisfactory conclusion of this matter, which has given us all so much anxious concern.

"Another cause for congratulation is the intense interest manifested in this case in every part of the Dominion. From Vancouver to Prince Edward Island have come expressions of hearty cooeperation, which have been exceedingly gratifying, clearly demonstrating the fact that there is a temperance force throughout the country which, if only concentrated, and directed unitedly against the legalized liquor traffic of our land, would be positively irresistible. In the present instance a vital principle of temperance reform was attacked and almost immediately the whole Dominion resounds with the protests of the temperance people, and forthwith the injustice is removed.

"With regard to Mr. Smith, we have this to add, that having since accepted the position of organizer and lecturer for the Independent Order of Good Templars of this Province, he had no desire to return to the Company's employ, preferring to devote himself entirely to the temperance work.

"On behalf of the executive,

"E. L. BOND, } "S. J. CARTER, } "A. M. FEATHERSTON, } Committee." "A. M. PHILLIPS, } "J. H. CARSON, }

It will be noticed that in this letter the committee congratulate their friends upon "the satisfactory conclusion of this matter." Also at a meeting of the Executive of the Alliance before the above circular was issued the following resolution was adopted:

"That this executive having heard the agreement and the report of the committee thereon, is satisfied with the same, and congratulate the temperance people of Canada on the result."

It is often well for us to look at the bright side, and this was what the Alliance Committee determined on doing, and there surely were some encouraging features connected with this case.

Nevertheless, as there are generally two sides which may be seen in such an affair, there were many of "the temperance people of Canada" who did not consider this conclusion satisfactory, and exchanged no congratulations, and it may do us no harm now to look briefly at some of the disappointing features in this settlement.

First, it is said, "that the Company has entirely repudiated the offensive language used by Mr. Brady, and declares that it does not express the attitude of the Company towards the temperance cause." Now, Mr. Tait had taken precisely this same position in his letters to the Alliance Secretary, previous to the meeting with the committee, and even in the minutes of the meeting, as above given, it is said, "The Canadian Pacific Railway distinctly repudiate—as they have done from the commencement of the discussion—the expressions used by Assistant Superintendent Brady." In view of this it would seem that not much was gained by the meeting on this point.

Secondly, we are told that "the Company also admits the right of its employees to engage in temperance work." It certainly was encouraging that this great Company should try to appear pleasing to the Alliance, and seemed to show that the Canadian Pacific Railway considered the temperance party a powerful factor in the land, but when we come to consider the manner in which the admission mentioned above was made, we can but see that it has a very doubtful side. The sentence in which the Company makes this announcement is as follows:

"The Canadian Pacific Railway admit the right of employees to identify themselves with the temperance movement, and work for the same, provided such work is done outside official hours, always with due consideration to the interests of the Company."

As we are not told that Mr. Tait, at the meeting, repudiated any of his own former statements, we will look at the above in the light of the following, from his letter of December 6th, to Mr. Carson:

"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," referring to matters about which the public disagree, "at public meetings and lectures without impairing its usefulness to the Company.... ..... 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."

The admission made to the Alliance seems to be robbed of most of its virtue by the above statements, and it would seem that even yet the employees of the Company may have but little liberty of conscience.

It is also said in the aforementioned circular that, "as regards Mr. Brady, the Company acknowledges that cause for dissatisfaction has existed, and promises that action will be taken to remove this cause."

This acknowledgment was certainly a good one, but we have no knowledge of the promise having been fulfilled. Mr. Brady has been moved from one division to another of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but as this change did not take place until long after this meeting was held, and then only in connection with many others among the officials and employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and as Mr. Brady still holds an honorable position in the Company's employ, we see no reason for supposing that this had any connection with the promise made to the committee.

Some of the temperance people feeling dissatisfied with the results of the Canadian Pacific Railway-Alliance Conference sent communications regarding it to the papers, but the press, from some cause, seemed very loath to publish these protests. However, the following, addressed to the Editor of the Witness, did find its way to the public, and may have expressed the opinions of many besides the writer:

"SIR,—That the temperance people of Canada were moved, as never before, by the dismissal of its Sutton Junction agent, Mr. W. W. Smith, by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, because he had rendered himself obnoxious to the lawbreakers of the County of Brome, who had tried but failed to kill him, there is no doubt, as may be clearly seen from your columns, to say nothing of the thousand hearts, which, like mine, said nothing, but felt no less all the while that by its action the Canadian Pacific Railway had placed a premium upon lawlessness and immorality at the expense of those whom I had been taught to regard as the 'salt of the earth.'

"The immediate consequence of this was that that line of railway was being shunned, and its services neglected by many of its old patrons, and by this loss its magnates were being taught a lesson, and put on the 'repentent stool,' and it seemed almost certain that never more would the Bradys, Taits, and Van Hornes of this Canadian made and pampered corporation forget that temperance people of Canada had both the will and the power to retaliate upon their persecutors. And that if another such dismissal was ever again attempted, they would 'more darkly sin,' and hide the 'cloven foot,' which was so openly shown by Brady and Tait.

"At this juncture of its affairs, and at the moment when a persistence in the agitation would probably have resulted in reparation of the wrong done to Mr. Smith, and an open repudiation of its immoral attitude, Mr. Tait managed to get a hold of some gentlemen, who like the seven Tooley Street tailors, who called themselves 'We, the people of England,' arrogated to themselves the right to speak for the temperance people of Canada, and he played them off on the 'Come into my parlor, said the spider to a fly,' and the upshot of the matter is the most disappointing and sickening, I think, I have ever seen.

"I do not know the names of any one of these men, so I cannot be accused of malice in holding up their conduct to the commiseration not to say contempt of the public. Though an intense prohibitionist I have never been able to appreciate the wisdom and nerve of some of our temperance people; yet, never before have I noticed anything that looked so like treachery to our cause.

"In your issue of the 8th inst. we have a large heading, 'Brady Repudiated,' and in the body of the article we see this temperance committee, if not openly repudiating Mr. Smith, allowing the Canadian Pacific Railway to defame his character, and to their very teeth justify his dismissal, and giving their consent to both.

"How artfully Mr. Tait changed the whole ground of complaint; and how simply the committee were hoodwinked and befooled will be seen, when I say that that which roused the temperance people was the truckling of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the liquor traffic, and its marked contempt for temperance men, its moral tyranny over its employees, and its wrongful dismissal of Mr. Smith, simply because his attitude on a moral question had exasperated the other side. But in the report which you give of the interview between this committee and Mr. Tait, all this is lost sight of, and the whole ground of complaint is made to rest on poor Brady, the 'scapegoat's' phraseology. 'The committee claimed that the ill-advised language used in Assistant Superintendent Brady's correspondence has caused great dissatisfaction on the part of the temperance people of Canada.'

"The committee would seem to have insisted on the punishment of Brady, while concurring with Tait in everything. The report says:

"'The Canadian-Pacific Railway acknowledges that cause for dissatisfaction has existed, claim the responsibility of dealing with, and will deal with the matter in such manner as they consider deserving in the premises.' If this is offered as a salve to the small, cowardly feelings which would like to see a subordinate punished for doing what he was told to do, I trust the Canadian Pacific Railway will disappoint the committee, and let their scapegoat go free. It would be both cruel and unfair that the blow should fall on Brady, the mean tool, and the bigger tyrants go free. This is so evidently seen in the fact that Tait practically insists on the same right to muzzle Canadian Pacific Railway employees that Brady did.

"JAMES FINDLAY. "Beachburg, P. Q."

Commenting on the above letter the Witness says:

"The question might be raised whether the committee appointed by the temperance conference had instructions to come to any agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway. They certainly were instructed to give the Company an opportunity to right the wrong it had done before proceeding to publish the finding of the conference. It was, therefore, natural for the Company's representative to ask the committee what would satisfy them, and it would seem to the committee unreasonable not to answer such a question. Mr. Findlay labors under a misconception if he thinks the committee were not independent, and determined to maintain the rights of temperance men. They were selected so as best to represent the interests of Mr. Smith as well as those of the principles at stake. The assurances they received were certainly about as complete as could well be looked for from a Company that was not prepared to acknowledge itself dictated to as to the management of its internal affairs. The Company was not asked to reinstate Mr. Smith, which would have been unpleasant for him. What it promised was that temperance men should be under no disability in its service, and though it reserved to itself the right to manage its own affairs, it acknowledged that cause for dissatisfaction existed, and undertook to deal with the matter. This, we submit, if followed up in accordance with the Company's policy, as stated in Mr. Tait's letters, is a very satisfactory position."

The reason of this latter statement is seen when we remember that "the Company's policy as stated in Mr. Tait's letters" was that when any officer or employee antagonized a part of the community on a question on which the public were divided, the Company would "protect its interests by his removal;" and Mr. Brady had certainly opposed and displeased a very large portion of the community. How this Assistant Superintendent was really dealt with, is shown by the following from a report of an executive meeting of the Provincial Alliance, on April 18th:

"The first business considered was the communication, from the Canadian Pacific Railway, forwarded to the executive from the general committee for action. This letter was in reply to the Secretary's request to know in what manner the Company had dealt with Mr. Brady, the Assistant Superintendent, whose action in connection with Mr. Smith's dismissal had been so offensive to the temperance people. The letter is addressed to Mr. Carson, the Secretary, and is as follows:

"'DEAR SIR,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st inst.

"'The Company has reproved and dealt with Mr. Brady as, under the circumstances, was considered deserving, and in such a manner as, it is trusted, will prevent any reasonable cause for further complaint.

"'Mr. Brady, while stating that he never intended the slightest disrespect towards the Dominion Alliance or disapproval of temperance principles, has acknowledged that he gave cause for dissatisfaction, and expressed regret for the same, and a determination to avoid a recurrence. Yours truly,

"'THOS. TAIT, "'Assistant General Manager.'"

A few days previous to this Executive meeting the above letter was presented at a meeting of the general committee of the Provincial Alliance, and "was not considered at all satisfactory."

However, the Executive Committee, without approving the letter, decided to publish it "for the information of the temperance public," probably accepting it as the best which could be hoped for under the circumstances.

But, although all was not satisfactory, there were, as we have said, some causes for gratitude in connection with this affair. The Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian liquor men had a chance to learn that among their opponents there was some zeal and spirit, and a desire to help one another, and this knowledge may make them more careful in the future as to how they oppose and arouse temperance sentiment. Such an agitation and interest as resulted from this dismissal, doubtless might decide some unsettled minds in favor of the temperance party. Also the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway in thus reproving Mr. Brady, and eliciting from him a promise to exercise greater caution in the future was probably as much as could be expected from a powerful corporation which is not willing to acknowledge itself in the wrong, and whose "objects do not extend beyond the promotion of its business," so long as the laws of our land permit liquor sellers to be licensed, and Prohibition is a thing talked of, but not experienced.

Not until national prohibition finds a place among Canadian laws, and is upheld by the Canadian government, will such bodies allow themselves to be dictated to by the temperance people.

The Scott Act is very good so far as it goes, but if the County of Brome, instead of having this Act, and standing, in this respect, almost alone in the Province, had possessed its share in a prohibition law which held sway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the outlawed liquor venders of the county would probably not have had such power with a great corporation as they displayed in this case. If the temperance people of Canada wish to have a powerful voice in such matters as this, or if they would have great institutions like the Canadian Pacific Railway conducted on principles of temperance and true freedom, let them work for prohibition, and send representatives to Parliament who will do the same. And just now, when they hold in their hands a key which may be the means of unlocking to us the gate of Prohibition for our country, let them use it to the best advantage, by giving a powerful majority for good when the Plebiscite vote is taken.



CHAPTER IX.

THE MARCH COURT.

As was stated in Chapter III. of this book, the prisoners, Kelly and Howarth, remained in jail, the former at Montreal, the latter at Sweetsburg, during the winter of 1894-95, awaiting trial at the Court of Queen's Bench.

This court opened at Sweetsburg on Friday, March 1st, 1895, but the Assault Case did not receive special consideration until the following week. Monday, March 4th, the Grand Jury reported a true bill against M. L. Jenne, Jas. Wilson and John Howarth for conspiracy, and against Walter Kelly for attempted murder.

On Tuesday morning the court room was crowded so that it was impossible to obtain even standing-room for all the eager listeners, and many were obliged to content themselves with the little that they could hear outside the doors. Thus was shown the great interest which the public felt in the result of this trial.

When the names of the accused were called, Mr. Racicot, counsel for the defence, asked in an eloquent speech that the prisoners be allowed to sit with their counsel instead of being made to stand for hours in the dock. Mr. Baker, Crown Prosecutor, opposed this request, and Hon. Judge Lynch ordered that the prisoners be put into the box.

The next thing in order was the empaneling of a petit jury. It appeared that many of the proposed jurymen were known supporters of the liquor party, and these were, of course, objected to by the lawyer for the Crown. In the words of The Templar, "It seemed as if Mr. Baker challenged all who were known to 'take a glass,' while Mr. Racicot challenged all known temperance people."

The afternoon session opened at one o'clock. The Crown Prosecutor made an eloquent speech to the jury, reviewing the evidence given at the preliminary trial. The following account of his address was given in the Witness:

"He said: 'It will be an evil day for Canada when men, becoming indignant that the machinery of the law is put in force against them, send to Marlboro or any other place for an assassin to "do up" those against whom their indignation is aroused.' Speaking of the combination of circumstances that led to the identification of Kelly, he said: 'There is a Providence in these things. There is an overruling power that is directed in the cause of right.' He said regarding the character of Kelly: 'The learned counsel for the defence will try to make you believe that Kelly's evidence should not be accepted. The witness, Kelly, is not one of my choosing; he is not chosen by any member of this court. He is of the prisoners' own choosing. They could not have procured the pastor of the first church of Marlboro, nor one of the deacons, to do their work, but they were compelled to take a man from behind the bar of a saloon, in a low street; one who would take a shilling for his work, and do the job as directed by them."

The first witness examined was Mr. W. W. Smith, whose evidence was similar to that previously given by him. He identified Kelly as the man who had committed the assault on July 8th. The following is a part of the cross-examination as reported in the Witness:

"'Do you know Peter McGettrick, of Richford?'

"'I do.'

"'Do you know Frank Brady?'

"I do.'

"'Did you tell them on the Sunday that they came to see you that you would take your oath that the man who assaulted you was Orin Wilson, a brother of Jas. Wilson?'

"'I did not.'

"'Did you tell Jane Fay, at church, that you did not know who assaulted you?'

"I did not.'"

From some of the above questions it would seem that Mr. Brady, not content with having dismissed Mr. Smith from the service of the Canadian Pacific Railway, was trying to aid his assailants to escape justice.

The next evidence given was that of Dr. McDonald, of Sutton, the physician who attended Mr. Smith after the assault. His testimony was given in the Witness, as follows:

"I know Mr. W. W. Smith. I was called to him professionally on July 8th. I found him in a dazed condition, with a bruise on the top of his head, four or five inches in length, swollen and contused. There was also evidence of another blow, not so long, more in the centre of the top of his head, and another blow still shorter and more to the right of the head, another on the side of the neck and shoulders, and one on the hip. All these bruises I considered serious. The appearance later was that of the discoloration consequent upon such bruises. The bruises were such as might have been inflicted by the weapon now in court. They could not have been inflicted by the fist. I saw Mr. Smith that morning, and on the night of the same day, on the following Monday morning, and again on Tuesday night. I then considered him sufficiently recovered to not require medical assistance further. I saw him afterward, but not professionally. Death has often resulted from less blows than these."

Daniel Smith, of Sutton, then gave evidence that he had seen Kelly at Sutton on various occasions, the last time being on the evening previous to the assault.

Charles C. Dyer, of the same place, also testified as to Kelly's identity. He said that he had seen him on the race track, at Sutton, in July, had heard him called a horse-buyer from Boston, and had received the impression that he had come there to look at a trotting horse which belonged to Mr. Lebeau, the owner of the track. He had not considered it anything strange that Howarth should be carrying him around the country to look at horses.

The next witness was Silas H. Carpenter, of Montreal, chief of the Canadian Secret Service. He said that he had been employed to investigate the assault case. He had been informed of a stranger who, after staying in the vicinity of Sutton for some time, had disappeared immediately after the assault, and decided that he was probably the guilty party. Had learned that a man answering to the description of this stranger was in Marlboro, Mass., and to this place was sent a neighbor of Mr. Smith's, who identified Kelly as a man whom he had seen in the neighborhood of Sutton Junction previous to the assault. The witness and Mr. Smith, after going before a justice of the peace, and obtaining papers for the arrest of their man, proceeded to Marlboro. At Fitchburg, Mass., a warrant was made out from the papers which they carried, and Kelly was arrested. He consented to go to Montreal without extradition, and there, in Mr. Carpenter's office, related voluntarily the story which he told at the preliminary investigation, and on this evidence the other prisoners were arrested.

Mr. Carpenter's testimony was the last on Tuesday.

Court opened again at ten o'clock on Wednesday morning. This was expected to be the last day of the trial, and a large crowd was present. Mr. J. F. Leonard, clerk of the court, was first sworn, and testified to the bad character of M. L. Jenne, who had been indicted on Sept. 11th, 1879, for assaulting an officer in the discharge of his duty. The jury had found him guilty of common assault. Mr. Leonard identified the prisoner Jenne as being the same man.

George N. Galer, a constable, confirmed this testimony, and said that he remembered having arrested Mr. Jenne at the time referred to.

The next witness was Walter Kelly. He described how the liquor men had obtained his services, and told the story of his arrival and stay in Canada, and the assault at Sutton Junction much the same as in his previous testimony.

He stated that once while he was stopping at Sutton it had been feared that his presence was exciting suspicion, and he had been sent to Cowansville for a day.

He also said that after the assault he had seen Howarth at Marlboro, and told him that he had done his work, but only received a part of the pay, and Howarth had promised to see that the remainder was sent him. A while after this Kelly had heard that detectives were in Marlboro looking for him, and Flynn, the barkeeper to whom Howarth had written at first, had advised him to go away for a few days while he (Flynn) should write to Howarth, and learn the facts of the case. He went away, and on his return saw a letter from Howarth which stated that Kelly had not hurt Smith at all, and they had been obliged to pay $30 for the use of the team which he had while in Sutton, and now the others were "kicking" and unwilling to pay any more. Kelly said he supposed from this letter that he had done nothing for which he could be arrested, and, therefore, after reading it, did not try to hide again.

After being arrested he was taken to Fitchburg, where, instead of wasting a month in jail while waiting for extradition, he waived his claim, and went with Mr. Carpenter, and had since remained in his office in the care of a constable. He had told his whole story voluntarily; Mr. Carpenter had offered him no inducements whatever. Kelly also stated that he had not been instructed to kill Mr. Smith, only to scare him, and give him a good "licking."

Wallace B. Locklin was next sworn. He said his residence was at Richford, Vt., where he was a notary public and attorney. He had been appointed to take evidence in Richford on this assault case. He knew Ford, who kept the livery stable at Richford, and had asked him to come to his office and give his evidence. Ford refused to come, and said, if subpoenaed, he would pay his fine.

The next witness was J. P. Willey, of Abercorn, formerly of St. Lawrence Co., N. Y. He was exceedingly unwilling to tell what he knew of the case, and it was only by dint of very close questioning that his evidence was obtained. He knew Jenne, the hotel keeper at Abercorn. Had held a conversation with him in the barroom of his hotel, when he asked Jenne how much he had been fined for selling liquor without a license. He replied that he had had to pay over $90, and witness remarked that it was no outsider's business if he sold liquor. Jenne said they could not do much with that man Smith; they could not carry their goods over the road. The remark had been made that Smith ought to be whipped or killed, or sent out of the country. Witness believed that he had first suggested this, and then Jenne had agreed with him, and asked him if he knew any one in his part of the country who could do such a job. He would not say that Jenne had asked for a man who would "kill" Mr. Smith. Witness remembered having mentioned this conversation to three men, and might have spoken of it to others.

Arthur Holmes, of Abercorn, sworn, said that he had heard of the assault on Mr. Smith. Had understood that Jenne was away when these prosecutions began. Said they had all supposed that Smith was the prosecutor in the liquor cases.

Albert E. Kimball, a hotel keeper of Knowlton, said he knew there were prosecutions for liquor selling. He was fined, so was Jenne, also Wilson of Sutton.

He was asked: "Do you know of any scheme to get even with Mr. Smith?" Mr. Racicot objected to this question. Mr. Kimball said it had been remarked in the barroom that Smith was a "mean cuss," and should be whipped. It was barroom talk.

This is a strong testimony, coming from a hotel keeper, as to the nature of barroom adjectives and compliments, especially when applied to temperance people.

Edward Martin, of Sutton, was the next witness. He was occasionally employed by Wilson, and looked after his business in his absence. Was sent for one day in August, and asked to look after the house, as Wilson was going away for a few days. He could not say how long he was gone.

Next Mrs. James Wilson, of Sutton, testified for the defence. Her maiden name was Etta Miltemore, and she had been married to James Wilson eight years previous to the trial. She said she had heard of the affair at Sutton Junction through Mr. Smith's brother, who drove up about six or seven o'clock on Sunday morning, and told that his brother had been assaulted the night before. On the Saturday previous she had been with her husband at Glen Sutton, and about noon he had complained of feeling bad. They drove to Sutton in the afternoon, and he was sick when they reached home. Her aunt, Mrs. Vance, was there, and also Henry Wilson and wife. They put Jim to bed, and doctored him, and he did not leave his room during the evening or night. As he seemed worse about half-past one, she called Henry Wilson and wife, who got up and remained up the rest of the night, but they did not call a doctor.

Mrs. Vance was the next witness. She said her maiden name was Annie Fay, and she was the wife of Beeman Vance. She was acquainted with James Wilson, and was aunt to his wife. She had gone on July 7th to call on Mrs. Wilson, and found that she and her husband were away, and Henry Wilson and wife were there.

James Wilson came home sick. Witness remained at his house until nearly nine o'clock, and when she left he was a little better, but still very sick.

She had known Mr. Smith for years. After the assault, she had one day met him at church, and congratulated him on his recovery, when he told her that he had no idea who committed the act. She said she had frequently seen James Wilson ill, and had practised as nurse.

Henry Wilson, following, said that he lived at Glen Sutton, and was brother to James Wilson. He remembered the day of the assault, and knew it was in the summer, but could not tell the month. He had gone to his father's on Saturday morning, and remained there until the afternoon of the next day. James and his wife were away when he reached their home, but returned Saturday afternoon. James was very sick. About eleven o'clock witness helped undress him and put him to bed, and about half-past one he was called up by Mrs. James Wilson. Next morning the news came that Smith had got a licking.

Mrs. Henry Wilson's testimony was a confirmation of her husband's, and was the last given on Wednesday.

More evidence was promised for the next day, and the court adjourned till the following morning at ten o'clock.

The first witness on Thursday was Peter McGettrick, Canadian Pacific Railway agent at Richford, Vt. He said he had been the Richford agent in July, when Mr. Smith, also, was agent at Sutton Junction. Witness knew Frank Brady and W. W. Smith. When he heard of the assault he informed Mr. Brady, and they went together to visit Mr. Smith, whom they found in bed suffering from the effects of his injuries. In conversation with them Mr. Smith told them that he did not know who had committed the deed, but from the appearance of the man thought it might have been James Wilson, one of the prisoners.

William Sears, of Sutton, a brother-in-law of Mr. Smith, testified that he had been sent for by the latter on Sunday morning after the assault, and went to him at once. Mr. Smith told him that he did not know who was his assailant, but it was a heavy man who walked with a peculiar gait. Witness was with Mr. Smith while Mr. Brady and Mr. McGettrick were there, but heard no conversation such as was related by the previous witness.

James E. Ireland, telegraph operator at Sutton, who was the next witness, said that he had been night operator on July 8th, and had received a telegram for Dr. McDonald, asking him to come to Sutton Junction immediately, as Mr. Smith had been assaulted. Another message had been sent to James H. Smith, telling of the affair, and requesting him to be on the watch. He could not produce the record of the dispatches, but told them as he remembered them.

James H. Smith, also of Sutton, a brother of W. W. Smith, was then sworn. He said he had been notified of the assault by telegram about two o'clock on the morning of July 8th. The message which he had received was as follows:

"W. W. Smith is badly hurt. Get Homer and others to watch the roads."

He went for the man mentioned, and then learned that Mr. Ireland had received a message asking that Wilson's hotel be watched. No light was seen in the house there, but L. L. Jenne was appointed to watch the place. Witness had seen Kelly four or five days before the assault driving a team which he supposed to be Wilson's. He had thought it strange, but could not say that he had felt any suspicion. He had supposed the team to be Wilson's because he had noticed the latter driving it at different times during the summer. He had seen James Wilson the night before the assault, walking on the street towards the post office, and Wilson had spoken to him. He had also seen Kelly at that time with a team.

Lewis L. Jenne, a clerk for the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sutton, testified that he knew the prisoners, and was distantly connected with one of them, M. L. Jenne, of Abercorn. He had been in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway for seven years. On the morning of July 8th, at about two o'clock, he was awakened by James H. Smith and another man, who told him what had happened. Witness had taken it as his work to watch Wilson's hotel, but saw no light or stir about the house. If any light had been there he must have seen it, as he had on many nights before and since.

During cross-examination he said that he had watched the hotel on the night in question, from a little after two o'clock until morning. A swift horse could go from Sutton Junction to Sutton in ten or fifteen minutes. Witness had not tried to enter Wilson's house, but had watched outside. He had heard that the Wilsons threatened Smith, and was quite sure he had heard it said that they were mixed up with this affair.

Walter Kelly, being then recalled, said that he had seen Wilson on Saturday night, July 7th, between seven and eight o'clock, near Curley's hotel, going towards the post office. He also stated that once he had driven Wilson's team on the road where James Smith claimed to have met him with it.

This completed the evidence in the case.

Mr. Racicot, counsel for defence, then addressed the jury, quoting all the points of law which might seem to have a bearing in favor of the prisoners, and making an eloquent plea which lasted one hour and twenty minutes.

Hon. G. B. Baker, Q. C, quoted the law on the other side, proving quite clearly that the prisoners were deserving of punishment. He laid great importance on the facts that Kelly's evidence had not been contradicted, and that, while Henry Wilson had told of getting up at half-past one, and lighting a lamp which he said had been left burning in the kitchen until morning, the witness Jenne had stated that he watched the house without seeing any light, as he must surely have done had there been one to see.

Judge Lynch followed with a very earnest address which lasted about forty-five minutes. He summed up the evidence in the case, and quoted the laws bearing on it, reminding the jurors of their great responsibility, and endeavoring to impress upon their minds the importance of a righteous judgment. His speech was not at all in favor of the accused.

The jury then retired, and forty-five minutes later, when the judge demanded their verdict, the sheriff reported that they did not agree, and there was no possibility of their doing so that night. This was announced to the waiting crowd, who had thronged the court room to hear the decision. Court then adjourned, and the jury were locked up for another night.

On Friday morning, March 8th, the jury were again summoned, and stated that they were still unable to agree upon a verdict. The judge appeared both surprised and disgusted. In dismissing them he said: "Gentlemen of the jury, while you have exercised the discretion which the law allows you, I must pronounce your decision most extraordinary. The public are indignant that in a case where evidence is so clear, there should be doubt or hesitation in the mind of any intelligent man who should be summoned on a jury."

Mr. Baker, Q. C., moved that a new jury be empanelled at once to proceed with another trial. Mr. Racicot seemed willing, but Justice Lynch postponed such proceedings until Monday, March 11th.

In the meantime, on Sunday, friends of the accused and of the liquor party in general were seen driving in the direction of Sweetsburg, and it was thought by some that a plan might be forming to secure easy terms for the prisoners.

On Monday morning many anxious people were awaiting the issue, and previous to the opening of court it was noticed that the crown prosecutor was absent, and soon the counsel for defence also disappeared. On their return, it is said, the latter wore a look of satisfaction, while the former's courage of last week seemed to have in some degree deserted him.

When the judge had taken his seat, Mr. Racicot stated that his clients were now willing to withdraw their former pleas of "not guilty," and acknowledge themselves "guilty of common assault."

Then the lawyer for the Crown, who had on Friday been so eager to proceed with a new trial at once, but who now seemed to fear that another jury would mean only a second disagreement, assented to this proposal; while the judge, who had given such a strong charge to the jury and appeared so much surprised at their failure to declare the prisoners guilty, now agreed, on behalf of the court, to withdraw the indictments for "attempt to murder," and accept the pleas, "guilty of common assault."

John Howarth, Marcus L. Jenne and James Wilson then pleaded "guilty of common assault," while Walter Kelly was indicted on a charge of "committing assault with intent to murder." However, he also pleaded "guilty of common assault," and the plea was accepted.

Then Mr. Racicot, not content with what had already been gained, asked for the leniency of the court towards the prisoners in giving sentence for the charges to which they had pleaded guilty, and the judge appointed to each of the four prisoners the light sentence of one month's imprisonment in common jail with hard labor, accompanying this sentence, however, by some very severe remarks as to the seriousness of their crime, and the disgrace it had brought upon themselves.

Thus ended this assault case, so far as its hearing at Sweetsburg was concerned, and the prisoners and their friends departed from the court room well pleased with its termination.



CHAPTER X.

THE DECISIONS OF ANOTHER TRIBUNAL.

The Court of Public Opinion is an important tribunal before which all such affairs as this we have been considering must come for decision, and its judgments are not always identical with those of the judges and juries in the courts of law. Therefore, it must not be supposed that the temperance public were at all satisfied with the termination of the assault case related in our last chapter. On the contrary, they were quite disappointed and indignant, although their opponents seemed very well pleased with the turn affairs had taken.

Some of the criticisms from temperance papers and people are here given. The following comment by the Montreal Witness was quoted in The Templar of March 22d:

"The sentence of one month in jail for each of the tavern keepers, who pleaded guilty to having procured an American idler to commit an atrocious assault upon Mr. Smith, the President of the Brome County Alliance, is probably as severe as can be looked for in a county where a jury dare not find men guilty. That the purpose was to commit murder, the fatal weapon provided proves. The plea of guilty on the part of the prisoners is a plain condemnation of the jury in failing to bring in a verdict.

"The liquor men, for the sake of whose illicit trade the Canadian Pacific Railway Company dismissed Mr. Smith from its services, are self-convicted at least of the most dangerous and brutal ruffianism. Mr. Brady, who took the part of those customers of the Company against his own subordinate, Mr. Smith, remains the accredited authority of the Company in that section of the country. This is a fact which should be generally known."

Below is the view expressed by The Templar, itself, and also repeated by the Witness.

"The result of the trial of the conspirators to 'do up' W. W. Smith, President of the Brome County Branch of the Dominion Alliance, for his zeal in bringing to justice the men who would persist in maintaining an illicit liquor traffic contrary to the fully expressed judgment of the people, has been a confession of 'guilty' by the accused, and the imposition a sentence of one month in jail at hard labor.

"The confession and the facts brought out in evidence reveal the liquor traffic in a most unenviable light.

"The plot was hatched in a barroom, a liquor seller hired a Marlboro, Mass., bartender to do the 'job,' and he was the guest of hotel keepers while he was spying out the land preparatory to his murderous assault. Never was a more cool, calculating and infamous deed wrought in this country. The wretch, Chatelle, acted under a sudden impulse to gratify an abnormal passion, but these wretches planned weeks ahead to 'do up' Smith, yet such cowards were they, they dared not strike the blow, but hired the Marlboro tool to do it for them. Jenne, Howarth and Wilson, you are arrant cowards, and your weakness is only exceeded by the devilishness of your malice!

"These are the men who say we cannot enforce prohibition, and undertake to make the law a dead letter. Men who will murder—no, they lack that courage, but will hire the slugger—if they are not permitted to carry out their work of death. Shall we make our laws to please, or to restrain and punish such men?

"Not the least ignominious feature of the trial was the failure of the jury to convict upon the clearest evidence. Their disagreement was rebuked by Judge Lynch, and later by the prisoners themselves pleading guilty. The murderous assault and the terrorizing of the jury furnish all the evidence that is requisite to justify the demand for prohibition."

The Witness of March 16th contained the following, giving the opinions of certain local papers respecting the decisions of the court in this trial:

"The Huntingdon Gleaner, referring to the sentence of a month's imprisonment passed on the defendants in the Smith assault case, says: 'This is a most inadequate punishment. Had Kelly put more force into the first blow he struck with his piece of lead pipe, Smith would assuredly have been killed. The liquor men, who were the authors of the foul deed, should have been sent to the penitentiary.'

"Referring to the disgraceful conduct of the jurors in disagreeing, despite Kelly's confession, the Waterloo Advertiser says: 'The jury might, at least, have brought in the verdict of a Western jury that tried a man for assault with intent to kill. After being out two minutes the jury filed into court, and the foreman said: "May it please the court, we, the jury, find that the prisoner is not guilty of hitting with intent to kill, but simply to paralyze, and he done it." The trial has been an expensive one to the Crown, and its inglorious ending will hardly satisfy the public that the ends of justice have been served and the law vindicated.'"

The following appeared as an editorial in the Witness of March 27th:

"We have received many very strong expressions with regard to the failure of justice in the matter of the cold-blooded and cowardly attempt on the life of Mr. W. W. Smith, the President of the Brome County Alliance. A leading citizen of the district proposes a public demonstration to denounce the jury and judge for this failure. As for the judge, as we said at the time, we cannot see that he can be blamed much for the lightness of the sentence upon a verdict for only common assault. So far as can be gathered from the conduct of their representatives on the jury the people of the district have concluded to live in a condition of timid subjection to a band of assassins settled among them. And not only they, but the great national railway, which passes through their district, felt called upon, on behalf of the same lawless crew, to heap abuse and obloquy upon, and finally to dismiss one of its own officers for busying himself with the enforcement of law against them. We should be greatly cheered to think that this jury which betrayed the public safety committed to it by law, was exceptional, and that the district could yet be roused to vindicate law and order."

In all these articles it is assumed that the reason of the jurymen not agreeing on a verdict of guilty was their personal fear of the liquor men. There is another possible aspect of the case which is not touched upon by these papers, viz., that the jurors may have been friends of the liquor party, and their disagreement may have been intended not to secure their own safety, but to shield the hotel keepers from such punishment as must follow a decision of guilty on the part of the jury.

We quote here some of the communications mentioned above, which were sent to the editor of the Witness regarding the settlement of the assault case. The letter given below, signed "Justice," was written from Sweetsburg under date of March 12th, 1895:

"SIR,—The Smith assault case is concluded, but the people are not done talking about it, by any means; and for some time to come the privilege of free speech will be exercised on that case. The judge in his charge to the jury on Thursday said: 'No intelligent and right-minded jury can fail to bring in a verdict in accordance with the testimony.' The evidence for the prosecution proved unmistakably the guilt of the prisoners, while the testimony for the defence was evidently manufactured for the occasion.

"The prisoners on Monday pleaded guilty to common assault. If Howarth, Jenne, Wilson and Kelly were guilty of anything, they were guilty of more than common assault, if ever there was a deliberate and well-planned scheme for 'doing up' any person, that plan was made in this instance, and the nail was clinched when Howarth, at Richford, paid to Kelly the fifteen dollars earnest money, which was to be followed later by the hundred and fifty when the 'job' was done. That 'job!' Such a 'job' as that! An assassin hired for the purpose, by villains blacker-hearted than himself, to go in the middle of the night, armed with a murderous weapon, to attack a defenceless and sleeping man, to 'do him up.' What does that mean? Who is initiated into the mysteries of the language? Does it mean to disable him? or does it mean to kill him? Who is safe in the discharge of his duty and in the performance of the God-given work to which every Christian man is called?

"If the law protects a rumseller who has a license in his business of selling the liquid poison, should not that same law protect a man who, residing in a town where the Scott Act is in force, prosecutes liquor sellers who are dealing contrary to the laws? Let us have fair play! If the law is like a game of checkers, in which, not the best man, not the righteous cause wins, but the party wins who makes the most dexterous move, then the least we can ask is fair play.

"What have we seen in the courts during the past week? One man arrested for stealing a dollar's worth of goods or so, and that man jailed for fifteen months. In contrast to this case, we see these men with their murderous schemes, deliberately planned, attempted and partially executed, we see these men condemned to one month's imprisonment with hard labor! What a farce is the law! Is it any wonder that indignation is aroused in the hearts of the conscientious and God-fearing members of the community, and that men as they meet ask each other the question, 'Why is this? Did the jury fear that they, too, might be exposed to a sudden attack of lead pipe?'

"If it is cowardly to shirk an issue on a point between right and wrong, then we certainly have moral cowards here, in the district of Bedford. However, there is this to comfort the heart of the right-minded citizen; punishment does not altogether consist in the number of days spent in jail, but the disgrace to which these men have been subjected can never be wiped out nor removed.

"The investigation of the case was thorough, and the crime proven unmistakably against those four men. It will undoubtedly prove a warning to others, and, we may say, to themselves also, in the future."

Another letter, written by a "Law-Abiding Canadian," and published in the Witness of March 25th, is as follows:

"SIR,—Many have been surprised and disappointed at the silence that has prevailed in our newspapers since the verdict of the jury in the W. W. Smith attempt to murder or 'do up' case. Instead of a resolute onslaught of protests from the people through the press and by public bodies, all is comparatively quiet.

"What is the reason of this? Is it that they are paralyzed with surprise and horror for the time being? It surely must be so. If not, it is time we were asking where we are and what we are coming to. Sir, our ears are made to tingle, and our hearts are thrilled with horror, when we read of the wild lynchings by shooting, rope or burning, that have taken place in the United States. These dreadful things are reported from new States or in old ones, where race feeling runs high, and where justice, often handicapped by all the lawlessness and savage cruelty and ignorance of both a home and foreign element, fails for the time being, and we complacently say: 'It is just like the United States. What an awful country it must be to live in!' Are we going back to such a state of things? Has it come to such a pass that law and justice are becoming a mockery? God forbid that it should ever come to this, but something must be done that not only our persons and property may be protected, but that our belief that we have and hold in this Canada of ours that British justice and fair play that is world-wide in its administration, and ever the same.

"There is no doubt that the brand of public opinion on these individuals for their self-confessed and clearly proven guilt, if they have any conscience left, will be terrible, and make them bury themselves away forever from the community and public that their acts have horrified. But the matter must not end here. A great wrong to an individual and society has been done, and the public may well ask who will it be next; and whose person or property is safe if such lawlessness is allowed to go unpunished. Let the lawkeepers be heard from in a way that will make our lawmakers enquire into our jury system, and devise some way to prevent the miscarriage of justice and consequent grievous wrong done to individuals and the people."

The following from "One of the W. C. T. U.," appeared in the Home Department of the Witness of March 23d:

"DEAR EDITOR HOME DEPARTMENT,—Though I enjoy reading the Home Department, I have never before written anything for it, as writing is not my forte, but I feel almost compelled to send this to express my indignation at the light sentence passed on those three men in the Smith assault case. I think it perfectly outrageous that they should get off so easily. Such a crime, perpetrated in cold blood; even a man hired and brought from a distance to do the diabolical work! Ten years in the penitentiary for each of them would have been quite light enough. But to give them one month at hard labor, they might about as well have let them go free. If Mr. Smith had been killed I wonder if they would have got two months? It seems to me this is the way to encourage crime. How is it that for so much lighter crimes, so much heavier sentence is often pronounced? Is it because the people are afraid of the liquor men? It seems like it.

"I am heartily thankful that the Witness stands up so nobly for truth and right. I know I will see a scathing article from the editor on this very subject. I hope it will do all the good he intends it to do.

"We may be sure of one thing, and that is the liquor men never did the cause of prohibition so much good before. Their brutality in this case will likely win many to our cause who would otherwise not have joined us."

The following protest, signed "A Lover of Right," was published in the Witness of April 5th:

"SIR,—Would it not be feasible to have a public meeting in the matter of the gross miscarriage of justice in the case of the would-be murderer of Mr. W. W. Smith, of Sutton.

"Shameful as of late years the decisions of some juries and judges have been, never has a more shameful acquittal been known in this Canada of ours. One man gets six months for stealing an ash barrel, probably really ignorant that it was not anybody's who chose to take it; another man 'one month with hard labor,' that man by his own confession a would-be murderer. But that such sentence should be allowed without public protest! Surely the soul of righteousness is dead in a people if it be so."

Now that the assault case was settled, in spite of its unsatisfactory termination, the temperance people found the expenses connected with it, which amounted altogether to more than $1,200, remaining for them to settle.

It was decided to ask the government at Quebec to assume these costs, or a share of them, and accordingly Mr. Carson, Secretary of the Provincial Alliance, wrote to the government requesting its help; but, no reply being received, arrangements were made for a delegation to wait upon the premier. This was done on April 24th, the Alliance representatives being Mr. R. C. Smith, Mr. S. J. Carter, Rev. J. McKillican and Mr. J. H. Carson. The case was clearly stated, and the provincial government, of which all the members were present, was asked to bear a portion of the expenses. The delegation acknowledged that the proper course would have been to leave the matter in the hands of the attorney-general at first, yet, although this had not been done, as the temperance people, considering this affair of much more than individual interest, felt themselves morally bound to see that these expenses were paid, and not to leave all the burden upon the shoulders of Mr. Smith; and as, at a recent Provincial Alliance Convention, it had been decided that this was a matter which concerned the temperance people of the whole Province, the delegation asked in the name of the temperance people of Quebec that the government assume the expenses connected with the vindication of justice in this case. Mr. Carter stated that, although he had no authority to say so, he thought if the government paid Mr. Carpenter's bill, which amounted to about $800, the temperance people would consent to raise the remainder.

The attorney-general, Hon. Mr. Casgrain, said he thought this might be done, and without any further assurances the Alliance representatives withdrew.

Later the government consented to pay $500 of the costs only, and the balance remained to be cancelled by the temperance public.

The assault case is now ended, and lies some time in the past, and in these hurrying times an event of a few seasons ago is usually soon gone out of thought and interest. Probably no such affair has ever happened in the Dominion, or at least in the Eastern townships, which has stirred the depths of so many hearts, and continued in interest for so long a time as this assault and the circumstances connected with it. And now shall we relegate these matters to a position among the dim memories of the almost forgotten past, and let them gradually slip away from our thoughts? Even in these times of changing and forgetting, there are events which, by a few, are not soon forgotten, and which leave a lasting influence for good or evil upon some hearts and lives. Shall it not be so in this case? Will not we long remember the dark plotting of Brome County's lawless liquor sellers, the desperate attempts to carry out their evil plans and the partial success which attended their efforts, and shall not the memory bring fresh zeal and energy to every son and daughter of temperance in the land?

We find in this assault case a very marked example of some of the fruits of intemperance. We see here the evil thoughts, the loss of conscience, and the desperation that makes men shrink not from the darkest deed within their reach if by this they may further their own interests or gain revenge upon one who has opposed them. All these are the attendants and followers of strong drink in every clime.

From the history of these deeds of darkness in Brome County we may learn, also, the power possessed by the liquor party,—the dread influence that can prevail upon a great corporation to dismiss an employee who has previously been satisfactory, and that can frustrate the ends of justice, and obtain its will in a court of law.

From these facts let us take warning, and, with an increased knowledge of the terrible work of strong drink and the powerful influence of the party that supports it, a stronger sense of the great need of willing, earnest workers who will "battle for the right in the strength of the Lord," and a new realization of our own personal responsibility, let us work so faithfully for God and humanity against the powers of evil, that the grand result of these dark plots that were formed by outlawed liquor sellers in an illegal barroom shall be the adding of many fresh recruits to the ranks of those whom they wished to destroy. And whenever we have an opportunity of defeating these enemies of good and taking from them some of their ill-used power, let us strive, lest the victory be theirs, to give a strong majority on the side of right.

In this way may the plans of Satan prove instruments in the hands of the Lord that shall work for his glory and the good of his creatures.

* * * * *

It may be well to add here a few words by way of explanation, as mention is several times made in this book of the future taking of a Dominion Plebiscite. At time of writing it was supposed that this book would be in print long before the vote was taken, but for various reasons its publication has been delayed. On September 29th, 1898, the question of the liquor traffic was submitted to the people of Canada, and a considerable majority was given for Prohibition. Quebec, alone, of all the Provinces, failed to declare against the traffic, but even here there are some bright spots, prominent among which is the county where this Dark Plot was enacted, which gave a majority for Prohibition of 529. As this is considerably more than that formerly given for the Scott Act, it is evident that the liquor men of Brome are not gaining ground by dark plots or any other means.

By this Plebiscite, the prohibitionists of Canada have been given a privilege never enjoyed by any other nation, and they have used it well, but now the work is just begun. Let them not rest content until the end for which they have voted is realized, and then the cooeperation of temperance people will be needed if the law is to be well enforced.

There is still much we all must do if we would see our country freed from the curse of strong drink, and let prohibitionists take courage from the victory already achieved, and with renewed zeal press the battle to the gates.