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.
"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."