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

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

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

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

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

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

"7. The a.s.sistant General Manager comes out in a two-column letter explaining the att.i.tude and act of the C. P. R. The purport of that letter is that the man who antagonizes a considerable portion of the community is therefore ... less useful than he otherwise would be in any position (such, for instance, as a station agent) in the employ of a railway company, whose main object must be to increase the business, from every possible source, and who must be careful not to antagonize any portion of the community upon whose patronage, as a part of the general public, the success of the Company depends. In all this letter there is no distinction between the law-abiding and lawbreaking sections of the community. The logical inference of the whole letter is, the agent at Sutton antagonized the lawbreakers of Brome, and those who abetted their doings, and, therefore, the superintendent of the road was justified in dismissing him. But by that act the superintendent 'antagonizes'

a very large section of the community, stretching from Halifax to Vancouver, but he is sustained by the Company in his act.

'Consistency, thou art a jewel!' As a Canadian I have felt just pride in the C. P. R., I have advocated its claims against all other transcontinental routes, especially have I compared it with the Grand Trunk Railway, and advised my friends to patronize the former. Now, however, as a free and law-abiding citizen I must, on principle, change my method unless Mr. Tait, or some one else, can explain the act of the Company. If both employees interested in the Sutton matter had been dismissed, I could see that there was an honest effort on the part of the Company to do justly, but as it is I can only see underneath all this the intention of the Company to favor the lawbreakers of Brome and liquor interests generally at the expense of the temperance and Christian community. If my views are wrong, and anyone will do me the kindness to correct them, I shall owe him a debt of grat.i.tude; for I am exceedingly loath to believe such things of the management of our n.o.ble Canadian Pacific Railway. Until then, however, I must say that I shall not travel on one mile of the C.

P. R. when I can take another line. I am constantly on the road between Quebec and Toronto, with headquarters in Montreal. I take this stand not by choice nor caprice, but on the principles of a free citizen."

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

"Without giving names, let me state what I have learned directly affecting the moneyed interests of the C. P. R. Thinking of visiting a certain station on one of their lines I asked a friend who had just returned from it: 'What is the fare to that place?'

He replied, 'I don't know; I never buy a ticket; I can't say.'

When remonstrated with, he just said: 'I pay whatever is handy, sometimes more and sometimes less!' Another individual, in the habit of travelling in the same way, and boasting of his smartness, casually remarked: 'My trip this time was a failure, for Conductor ---- was on the train, and you know I could not work him.' It did me good to hear that, for the conductor in question is a well-known gospel and temperance worker, who labors as he has opportunity for the uplifting of fallen humanity. On this low plane then it would pay these companies to employ such conductors, and give them all the scope required outside their own business. Such employees save more to them than they will ever lose through the fidelity to principle of any Mr. Smith.

Sterling honesty of principle that such men manifest, instead of proving an objection, should merit the recognition if not the approval of the wisest directorate, and should denote their qualification rather than the reverse."

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

"Now, suppose the 'section' which Mr. Smith had antagonized had been the temperance people instead of the liquor element, what would gentlemen Brady and Tait have said then if the matter had been brought to their notice? Would they have dismissed Mr.

Smith? I trow not. They would in all likelihood have attributed the complaint to what they would mentally designate as a handful of cranks, and paid no attention to it. But when the liquor element complains, what then? Their complaint is attended to at once. Why? Because they are the most law-abiding and influential section of the community? No, but because they are just at the present time the most powerful section of the community. Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean that the temperance people of our land have not the balance of power in their own hands. They certainly have, but they do not make use of it, while the liquor element use what power they have for all it is worth. The C. P.

R., and all other such like corporations know full well this state of affairs, and as Mr. Tait says: 'Their objects do not extend beyond the promotion of their business,' and consequently they are ready at all times to cater to the commands of those who are making their power felt in the land, and to ignore almost entirely the wishes of those who have the power, but fear to use it. Mr. Editor, what are the temperance people doing? Are we sleeping on guard? It seems to me that we are. How many of us, after reading the two last issues of _The Templar_, will not deliberately step on board of a C. P. R. train, and pay our money to that corporation when in many cases we could just as conveniently transfer our patronage to some other road. What is our plain duty in the case? Is it not to show the Canadian Pacific Railway that we are a power in the land, and that we intend to plainly show that corporation that the rights of good citizenship are not to be trampled upon with impunity? The action of the C. P. R. in the Smith case should call vividly to our minds the action of the Grand Trunk a few years ago, when they discharged their agent at Richmond, Que., because he openly opposed the temperance people."

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

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

CHAPTER VII.

THE DOMINION ALLIANCE PROTEST.

We have been considering some of the opinions of the temperance and law-abiding public regarding the dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith.

However, the temperance people were not all content with simply discussing the matter, and blaming the C. P. R. for the action they had taken, nor even with transferring their patronage to another road.

The Alliance took steps to obtain an explanation of Mr. Brady's conduct and the policy which he had attributed to the C. P. R., and if possible to gain some reparation for an act which seemed to them unreasonable and unjust. It was stated in a former chapter that the secretary of the Quebec Provincial Branch had been instructed to enquire into the rumored attempt of the liquor men to secure Mr.

Smith's dismissal, and report the facts in the case at the next meeting of the Alliance. His conclusions after this enquiry are embodied in the following letter, dated October 9th, and addressed to "Thomas Tait, Esq., a.s.sistant 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 Sat.u.r.day 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 a.s.sistant 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 a.s.sistant 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 princ.i.p.al charge, the charge upon which his resignation was asked for by your a.s.sistant 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 a.s.sault 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 a.s.signed 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 t.i.tle 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 const.i.tution, 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 a.s.sume 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 cla.s.ses, 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 a.s.sured 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 a.s.sured 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.