Brian Carnell's Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
<html>
<h1>THE STORY OF A DARK PLOT;<br>
OR,<br>
TYRANNY ON THE FRONTIER.</h1>

<h5>By A. L. O. C.</h5>

<p class="p2 center">BOSTON:<br>
  THE WARREN PRESS,<br>
  160 WARREN STREET,<br>
  1903.</p>


<p class="p2">Entered according to Act of Parliament, in the year one thousand eight
hundred and ninety-eight, by <span class="smcap">W. W. Smith</span>, in the Office of the
Minister of Agriculture and Statistics at Ottawa.</p>

<a id="img001" name="img001"></a>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="https://brian.carnell.com/wiki/_media/etext:a:aloc-a-dark-plot-on-the-frontier-img001.jpg" width="400" height="501" alt="W. W. Smith" title="W. W. Smith">
</div>



<h2>PREFACE. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page003" name="page003"></a>(p. 003)</span></h2>



<p>For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon
line, line upon line; here a little and there a little.&mdash;(Isa. xxviii.
10.)</p>

<p>This is a divinely appointed rule to which we will do well if we take
heed, as it will save from many disappointments and discouragements.</p>

<p>The writer of "The Story of a Dark Plot" has no hope by this work of
revolutionizing society or even working any very marked reforms. Books
and essays on temperance topics are numerous, and this is but one
among many. However, it is hoped that this may prove one of the lines
and precepts that are of some service to the cause. There is always
need for those who are on the right side of any important question to
unfurl their banners and show their colors bravely, but just now, in
connection with the temperance movement in our Dominion, there is a
very special call for action presented by the Plebiscite.</p>

<p>We sometimes read on the pages of fiction exciting and blood-curdling
tales of deep laid plots for murder and other crimes, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page004" name="page004"></a>(p. 004)</span> but
just when our feelings are being aroused to the highest pitch, we
pause and comfort ourselves with the thought that after all this is
only imaginary.</p>

<p>Or perchance, we may read the truthful details of a more or less
successful attempt to end the life of a fellow being, but if we are
unacquainted with the persons concerned in the affair and the
circumstances which led to it, and especially if it happened some
distance from us, we feel but little interest in it.</p>

<p>Again we find in the records of the past that thousands have suffered
and many died in a really good cause,&mdash;the victims of depraved and
brutish persecutors who hated what was good. We cannot doubt the truth
of the statements nor the innocence of the sufferers, but we may be
tempted to complacently remark "the martyr age is past." But if we
look about us with unprejudiced eyes, we must see that the sufferers
for conscience sake are still not a few.</p>

<p>The details of the dark plot as given in these pages are all matters
of fact, and perhaps if all the particulars could be known, it might
seem blacker even than now. Moreover, it happened in an old and
progressive county of Eastern Canada, just across the border from New
England, and Mr. Smith had incurred the anger of his persecutors only
by trying to enforce law and order and working for the protection and
uplifting of his fellow-men.</p>

<p>In view of such facts, let the voters of our Dominion pause ere
<span class="pagenum"><a id="page005" name="page005"></a>(p. 005)</span> they give their sanction to a system which throws around the
makers and venders of alcoholic liquors the protection of the strong
arm of the law.</p>

<p>That this volume, by showing the liquor party in its true light, and
thus warning our countrymen of their position and danger, may be the
means of arousing some who, though temperance people at heart, are
sleeping on guard, and of adding a few to the ranks of active workers
for the cause of right, is the earnest prayer of</p>

<p class="left60 smcap">The Author.</p>





<h2>INTRODUCTION. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page007" name="page007"></a>(p. 007)</span></h2>


<p>The publication of this book has been with the approval of some of the
best thinkers on the temperance question, and we doubt not that its
<i>careful</i> perusal by all who read it will prove a stimulus in
connection with the cause of temperance, and if they are timid or
hesitating will cause them to become decisive in the noble work for
humanity. It is a well-known fact that the grand old County of Brome
is one of the banner counties in every thing which is helpful to the
cause of morality, and we hereby offer a fraternal hand to all our
co-workers in the Dominion, and pray God's blessing may rest on every
effort put forth that, whatever may be the private opinion they may
entertain respecting the course pursued by the government, in order to
ascertain the minds of the people on the prohibition question, they
<span class="pagenum"><a id="page008" name="page008"></a>(p. 008)</span> may not only pray right, but when the time presents itself
may vote right. Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of the
inhabitants of our county are true to prohibition principles, yet a
minority would not hesitate, if possible, to repeal the Scott Act, as
was evidenced in the dark plot which was enacted in our midst, but
which could not be carried out until a rough from another country was
hired to commit the murderous assault, which was made on Mr. W. W.
Smith, one of the most earnest temperance workers in the Province of
Quebec, President of the Brome County Alliance for five terms in
succession, and who is actively engaged in sustaining the Scott Act in
our county, and saving from the sad consequences of the traffic the
tempted and the fallen.</p>

<p class="left60">J. H. F.,<br>
  <span class="add2em smcap">Sutton.</span></p>


<h1>THE <span class="pagenum"><a id="page009" name="page009"></a>(p. 009)</span>

STORY OF A DARK PLOT;<br>

<span class="smcap">or</span>,<br>

<span class="smcap">Tyranny on the Frontier</span>.</h1>




<h3>CHAPTER I.</h3>

<h5>PREVIOUS EVENTS WHICH LED TO THE ASSAULT.</h5>


<p>There are few communities, however small, that have not been aroused
and stirred into action, by some uncommon event, or where opposing
parties have never rejoiced, and mourned over a triumph of one at the
other's expense, and often have men and women, unappreciated by the
many, bravely suffered for their fidelity to a good and beloved cause.
Thus the little County of Brome has been stirred to the depths of its
soul by the actions of contending parties, and especially by a
deliberate attempt to hinder the work and destroy the life of a
law-abiding citizen. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page010" name="page010"></a>(p. 010)</span> Mr. William W. Smith, the hero of this
dark plot, was a native of the county which had always been his home,
and had been during about fifteen years the Agent of the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company at Sutton Junction. During those years, he had
been a man of the world, fond of pleasure, and not objecting to a
social glass, and it is not surprising that, amid all the temptations
of railroad life, he had already felt the awful power of an appetite
for strong drink. But he was led to see his danger and to flee from
it, largely through the influence of his beloved companion, a faithful
Christian, who rests from her labor, and her works do follow her.
Breaking his bonds by the power of God, he became not only a
temperance man, but a Christian, and in his great joy and gratitude
for his own salvation was filled with a desire to warn and rescue
others, whose feet were treading the same slippery paths. He then
began holding Gospel Temperance Meetings, as he had opportunity in
many places mostly within the County of Brome. This county has long
held an honored position as being one of the leading temperance
counties in the Dominion of Canada, because during many years no
license to sell intoxicating liquor as a beverage has been granted
within its borders, and a temperance law known as the Scott <span class="pagenum"><a id="page011" name="page011"></a>(p. 011)</span>
Act had been in force for eight years previous to 1893, when the
second attempt was made by the liquor party to obtain its repeal. Like
the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the liquor sellers of the present
day are remarkable for their subtility, and many are the innocent
victims entangled in the meshes of the net woven by their deceptive
tongues; therefore, it need not seem strange that they should display
great power and influence, even in a so-called temperance community.
In the spring of 1893, the liquor party in Brome, having decided that
they had been troubled by an anti-license act quite long enough, sent
out their agents to various parts of the county with innocent looking
papers to which they wished to obtain signatures. They called upon all
the known supporters of their party, and also upon that doubtful class
of persons which sometimes proves to be among their best helpers,
although counted as temperance people. To this doubtful class they
carefully explained that the petition they bore did not ask for the
repeal of the Scott Act, but only requested that an election be held
for the purpose of bringing the matter before the people, and
determining their minds upon the subject. Therefore, they were told
the signing of this petition was in no way equivalent to voting
against the Scott Act, nor <span class="pagenum"><a id="page012" name="page012"></a>(p. 012)</span> would they be bound to vote
against that Act if an election was brought about. Many names were
appended to the petition, the desired election took place, and very
hard did the liquor men work to obtain a result that should favor
their cause.</p>

<p>However, not all the faithful work was on their side. A few temperance
speakers came from distant places, and held many interesting meetings
in different parts of the county, but perhaps the most efficient work
was done by people living in the county, who in many cases seemed to
possess greater influence than strangers could exert. Mr. J. W.
Alexander, at that time Principal of the Sutton Model School, added
more recruits to the ranks of earnest workers by organizing a number
of his pupils with a few other young people into a band which, under
the name of the "Young People's Temperance Crusaders," did good work
during the ensuing weeks. Older workers were admitted into the society
as honorary members, and the officers were chosen from among these.
One of the honorary members was Mr. W. W. Smith, who was also one of
the Committee appointed to accompany the younger members and aid them
in their meetings, and no one worked harder to retain the Scott Act
than he. He took an active part in nearly <span class="pagenum"><a id="page013" name="page013"></a>(p. 013)</span> every Crusade
meeting, and on evenings, when the Crusaders were not thus employed,
held other temperance meetings, thus occupying nearly every night
during three or four weeks in the heat of the campaign. Not content
with this, he worked and argued by day as well, and, associating his
work with prayer, did not cease from his efforts until, on June 16th,
1893, the polls were closed and the victory for God and the temperance
cause was won. The hotel-keepers and their confederates had gained
that for which their petition has asked, but plainly they were far
from satisfied with the result of the contest, and many were the
curses pronounced upon Mr. Smith as one of the most active opposers of
their cherished plans. Now the vote against them was greater than ever
before, yet they were not content to abide by the voice of the people
which they had seemed so anxious to obtain, but practiced the illegal
sale of alcoholic drinks until nearly, if not quite, every
hotel-keeper in the County of Brome was known to be boldly and
frequently breaking the law. A great cry of the liquor men while
attempting to repeal this law had been "The Scott Act is all right if
you would only enforce it; we don't want a law which is not carried
out," and it was now the wish of those who had sustained the Act to
prevent any further complaints <span class="pagenum"><a id="page014" name="page014"></a>(p. 014)</span> like this. Therefore, on the
evening of Feb. 26th, 1894, a public meeting was held in Sutton to
discuss the circumstances and form plans for work, and at the close a
society was organized to secure the enforcement of the Scott Act in
the township of Sutton. Mr. Smith, who had been instrumental in
bringing about this conference, was a member of the Executive
Committee of the Society.</p>

<p>One of the leading temperance organizations of Canada is that known as
the Dominion Alliance, which is divided and sub-divided into
provincial and county branches. When, on April 25, 1894, the Brome
County Branch of the Alliance held its annual meeting for the election
of officers, Mr. Smith was chosen its President for the ensuing year.
Here was field for increased usefulness, and he took up his work with
a zeal that soon won the disapproval both of the liquor party and a
certain class of so-called temperance people whose principal work for
the cause usually lies in criticism of the work of others.</p>

<p>Soon a public meeting of the Alliance was announced by the new
President to be held at Sutton, and a large number of people gathered
in the hall on the evening appointed. Many speakers addressed the
<span class="pagenum"><a id="page015" name="page015"></a>(p. 015)</span> audience, and told in no uncertain words that the law must be
enforced and offenders must be punished. It had not been deemed best
to prosecute the liquor sellers without first giving them a fair and
public warning, and therefore this meeting had been called; but now
that they were notified of the intentions of the temperance people, if
detected in dealing out the liquid poison, they had only themselves to
blame. True to these announcements, Mr. Smith and others proceeded at
once to obtain satisfactory evidence of the traffic in strong drink
which was known to be taking place in the various hotels. This was by
no means a slight task, for though the liquor sellers were not willing
to keep the law, they were entirely willing to preserve the appearance
of so doing, and very loath to sell liquor in the presence of a
stranger, while the testimony of their regular customers could not be
relied on. However, the task was done, and the evidence gathered was
sufficient to condemn nearly every hotel-keeper in the county to
imprisonment or a fine. On June 6th, these cases were considered in
the District court, at Sweetsburg, Quebec, and punishment was meted
out to the offenders. In some instances where the offences merited
imprisonment a fine was allowed instead, and this was accepted by the
Alliance President, who believed that <span class="pagenum"><a id="page016" name="page016"></a>(p. 016)</span> justice should be
tempered with mercy. This bit of leniency, however, was not taken into
account by the liquor sellers in considering his treatment of them.
They appeared to have altered their opinions as to the enforcement of
the law, and their anger waxed hot, while many, often ranked with the
temperance people, were in sympathy with them. Divisions occurred in
temperance societies, because some of the members had friends who were
made to suffer by the imposing of fines on the lawbreakers, and
members of secret brotherhoods, who felt it their duty to uphold their
brethren in good or evil, complained of the injustice of thus
depriving the hotel-keepers of the property they had earned; some even
declaring such transactions to be on a par with the meanest theft.
Meanwhile the liquor sellers and their allies, who had already by the
recent trials been shown to be a company of lawbreakers, seemed to be
forming plans of their own. Many dark whispers floated through the
county to the effect that W. W. Smith had better look out for his
personal safety, and some declared with an air of wisdom that they
would not like to be in his position, while a suspicious looking
stranger, said to be a horse buyer, was noticed by some to be
frequenting the hotels at Sutton and Abercorn, and attending the horse
races in the <span class="pagenum"><a id="page017" name="page017"></a>(p. 017)</span> vicinity. However, Mr. Smith had not the spirit
of fear, and believing, as he said, that "the Lord will take care of
his own," he continued as usual to go from place to place on errands
of temperance, or any other work which he felt claimed his attention.</p>





<h3>CHAPTER II. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page018" name="page018"></a>(p. 018)</span></h3>

<h5>THE MIDNIGHT ASSAULT.</h5>


<p>Thus matters went on until the night of July 7th, 1894, when Mr. Smith
drove out from his home and returned somewhat late. After caring for
his team he went into the station. It was afterwards told that some
young men had noticed a stranger at the depot that night, who had
appeared to be waiting for a train but had not gone away on any. After
the crowd at the station had dispersed, and the inmates of the
building had retired, as there was little night work to be done, Mr.
Smith went into his home in the station, where his brother's family
were then living with him, and having obtained a pillow for his head
went back to the waiting-room, where he lay down upon a settee and
dropped asleep.</p>

<p>An article published in the Montreal <i>Daily Witness</i> soon after this
so well describes some of the circumstances which cluster round the
events of that night at Sutton Junction that we give some parts of it
here. It says:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page019" name="page019"></a>(p. 019)</span> liquor selling ruffians will descend to any warfare
     however dastardly and mean when forced by law to a standstill.
     There is something in the sad business that degrades every one in
     it. This time it is liquor sellers in Brome County that are
     indicted. Mr. W. W. Smith, President of the Brome County Branch
     of the Dominion Alliance, is also the station agent at Sutton
     Junction for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. As president
     of the Alliance he represents the temperance element of course,
     and that is the element determined to carry out the law against
     liquor selling. Mr. Smith represents them in this. In doing so he
     is certain to make enemies. He has been assiduous in his duty,
     and has been threatened several times. These threats did not keep
     him from actively participating in efforts to secure the
     conviction recently of several lawbreaking liquor sellers in
     Brome, some of whom were convicted, and have had sentence
     suspended over them pending their good behavior. On Saturday
     night, Mr. Smith took the night operator's place, arranging that
     the latter should take his place on Sunday. After securing
     everything for the night, Mr. Smith lay down on the sofa, never
     dreaming that any evil was to come to him."</p>

<p>Instead of copying the account of the assault which follows the above,
we will describe the facts as nearly as possible as they have been
related by the victim himself.</p>

<a id="img002" name="img002"></a>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="https://brian.carnell.com/wiki/_media/etext:a:aloc-a-dark-plot-on-the-frontier-img002.jpg" width="500" height="353" alt="Station at Sutton Junction" title="Station at Sutton Junction">
</div>

<p>It <span class="pagenum"><a id="page020" name="page020"></a>(p. 020)</span> was between one and two o'clock on Sunday morning, July
8th, when Mr. Smith was attacked by the cowardly miscreant who has
thus made himself notorious. We say "cowardly," because when a large,
strong man who carries arms and is a professional fighter, as he
appears to have been, attacks a man who is weaponless and not more
than two-thirds his size by giving him a stunning blow upon the head
while he is asleep, there is clearly no evidence of heroism on the
part of the man who makes the assault. Yet this was what Mr. Smith's
brave assailant did!</p>

<p>After receiving the first blow, Mr. Smith felt a strange sensation as
though he were taking a long, happy journey, and he thinks he was
aroused by his assailant attempting to drag him from the settee. As a
train was going by before daylight, it is the opinion of many that his
intention may have been to leave his victim stunned upon the railway
track, that the locomotive might complete the frightful work which he
had begun. At least, he doubtless intended by some means to guard
himself from suspicion and leave Mr. Smith entirely unable ever to
identify him. When he saw that the object of his brutal attack was
arousing he struck him a second time, but this blow not having the
effect of the former one, Mr. Smith, who <span class="pagenum"><a id="page021" name="page021"></a>(p. 021)</span> was now fully
conscious, although he could not see clearly, grappled desperately
with his foe. He saw a long weapon of some sort waving fiercely above
his head, and now and then received a blow from it, while his
assailant was constantly dragging him nearer the door, and he
struggling to remain in the room fearing the villain might have
associates outside. Mr. Smith was all the time shouting "murder," as
loudly as possible, but, his mouth being filled with blood, he was
unable to make himself clearly heard, and his calls brought no
assistance. At length, being somewhat weakened by the blows he had
received, he was dragged outside in spite of his efforts to remain
within, but still no one came to the help of either himself or his
antagonist. The two men, still struggling desperately, passed on from
the upper to the lower platform without the station, and thence to the
railway track below, and finally back to the lower platform. Then Mr.
Smith got possession of the weapon which his assailant had been
wielding, and the last hope of his enemy seemed to vanish with the
loss of that, for, freeing himself from the grasp of the man whom he
had thought a few minutes before was entirely in his power, he
disappeared in the darkness, and fled up the track in such haste that
he did not even stop for his hat, which was found <span class="pagenum"><a id="page022" name="page022"></a>(p. 022)</span> by some
one upon the platform next morning. The weapon which he left in Mr.
Smith's possession proved to be a large piece of lead pipe well
battered and bruised, near one end of which was attached a short piece
of rope, apparently intended to be slipped around the wrist of the
user so that the weapon might be concealed up his sleeve.</p>

<p>Mr. Smith, having seen his enemy retreat, hastened to the part of the
house where his brother's family were sleeping, and thence to the
other part where a Mr. Ames and family lived, and aroused the inmates
of both apartments, who were very much surprised and alarmed at
thought of the frightful scene which had been enacted so close to the
apartments where they were calmly sleeping. However, there was one
brave man, a train hand, who was sleeping above the scene of the
assault, who declared that he had heard the blows when given, but did
not go down to learn the cause as he "did not want to mix up in it,"
and was afraid he might get hurt. There are far too many people who
display the same disposition when others within their reach are in
danger or in need of assistance. When the people of the house were
awakened it seemed already too late to capture the retreating
criminal, but Mr. Smith's injuries were attended to, and a message
sent at once by telephone to <span class="pagenum"><a id="page023" name="page023"></a>(p. 023)</span> Sutton for a physician. The
bruises proved to be very severe, and it seems to be a modern miracle
that life itself was spared.</p>

<p>The article from the <i>Witness</i>, part of which we quoted above, after
describing the assault, says:</p>

<p class="quote">
"A good deal of indignation is felt by the law-abiding people not
     only of Sutton Flats, but of the county, and it is hoped that
     every effort will be made to discover the perpetrator. The
     woollen cap and slung-shot should give a clever detective a good
     clue to work upon. Some time ago, at the public meeting called to
     discuss the liquor question, Mr. Dyer, M. P. for the county, said
     that the authorities had been twitted by the liquor men for not
     enforcing the Scott Act. That reproach might have been justified
     in a measure at least, as there was some doubt as to the opinion
     of the people in its favor. But in 1893 the liquor men had
     appealed&mdash;and perhaps it was well they did so&mdash;to the county, to
     decide whether that law should be enforced or not. The county had
     declared against the liquor men. Now the time had come when this
     majority should stand at the back of the officials, and all
     should endeavor to enforce the law. Mr. Dyer's remarks at the
     time were taken to represent the desire of the law-abiding people
     of Brome County. In carrying out this idea, Mr. Smith, they
     contend, was simply doing his duty, and it is expected that in
     doing it he had the majority of the people of the county with
     him."</p>

<p>This <span class="pagenum"><a id="page024" name="page024"></a>(p. 024)</span> brutal assault, made upon a law-abiding citizen by one
whom he had never injured in any way is a fair sample of the fruits of
intemperance wherever found. There are those who have seemed loath to
believe that Mr. Smith's strong temperance convictions and his
activity in carrying them out were the real causes which led to the
bitter hatred that inspired this fiendish act. They seem to think it
impossible that "respectable (?)" citizens of a temperance county
should attempt in such a reckless, lawless way to prevent opposition
to their traffic in strong drink. But what is there incredible in
this? When we consider that traffic in strong drink means a trade in
the souls of men, women and children, and in innocence, virtue and
hope; when we remember that the bartender daily takes from his
customers the price of food, clothes, health, respectability and all
that he has of real value in the world, and gives him in return
nothing but liquid ruin; when we know that the rumseller's business is
a sort of wholesale murder continually, inasmuch as by it millions of
lost souls are sent into eternity annually; in view of all these
facts, why should we be surprised when the liquor sellers of a
community plan together to rid themselves of one who has vigorously
opposed their dangerous work? It is only another form of the same
business.</p>

<p>The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page025" name="page025"></a>(p. 025)</span> disclosures following the assault upon Mr. Smith
convinced many people of the evils of the liquor traffic, and some who
had favored and pitied the hotel keepers when they had been fined for
lawbreaking now turned against them, feeling that they could no longer
uphold their deeds. Meantime, some of the hotel keepers of the
vicinity gave evidence of their guilt by disappearing from the
locality very soon after the assault took place.</p>

<p>The investigation of the affair was placed in the hands of S. H.
Carpenter, Superintendent of the Canadian Secret Service, and
detectives were at once set at work upon the case. Either Mr.
Carpenter or one of the men under his direction was constantly in the
vicinity, seeking to obtain clues by which to determine the guilty
party. One man, who lived near the mountain pass between Sutton and
Glen Sutton, declared that, early on the morning of July 8th, he had
seen two men pass his house driving very rapidly and going in the
direction of the latter village, one of the men having no hat, but
wearing a cloth around his head. Of course this story had an air of
significance inasmuch as the assailant of the previous night had left
his hat at Sutton Junction, but it did not prove to be of much
importance. It was soon settled in the minds of many that the
stranger <span class="pagenum"><a id="page026" name="page026"></a>(p. 026)</span> whom we have mentioned as having been frequenting
the hotels at Sutton and Abercorn had been the wielder of the lead
pipe on July 8th, but his name and whereabouts were not to be
obtained, as he had been sailing under false colors during his stay in
the country, and those who were initiated into the secrets of the
case, of course, kept silence.</p>

<p>At length, Mr. Smith received a letter from a woman in Vermont, who
had formerly been employed at one of the hotels in the vicinity of the
assault, and soon after he met this same woman at Sutton, and her
evidence was a great aid towards locating the assailant. She knew
nothing about the pretended Boston horse-buyer, who had apparently
forgotten the object of his northward journey and disappeared without
having purchased any of the Canadian steeds, but she remembered an
American having once stopped for a time at the hotel where she was
then working, and from the description given it seemed that he might
be the same man. The one whom she described she said came from
Marlboro, Mass., and thither a man was soon despatched in search. It
proved that the man to whom she had directed Mr. Smith was not the one
in question, but in searching for him the real perpetrator of the
crime was found, as he chanced to be <span class="pagenum"><a id="page027" name="page027"></a>(p. 027)</span> also a resident of
Marlboro, Mass. Having located his man, the gentleman in search
returned home, leaving in Marlboro a Canadian detective who should
keep watch of the man until Mr. Carpenter went there. However, when
Mr. Carpenter, who was accompanied by Mr. Smith, reached the place,
the man whom they sought had already been lost track of by the
detective, but after a few days Mr. Smith saw him in company with
several others, and at once identified him as being the man whom he
had seen in the vicinity of Sutton Junction previous to the assault,
and also as having the form and gait which he had noticed his
assailant to have when he had watched him fleeing from the scene of
his cowardly attack. Soon this man was captured at Hudson, Mass., a
place about five miles distant from Marlboro. He was arrested by Chief
of Police Skully of Hudson and Policeman Hater of Worcester, and taken
to Fitchburg. The name of this young man who had apparently come very
near being a murderer was Walter W. Kelly, and he had been a bartender
in Marlboro, which probably made him feel more sympathy for his
Canadian brethren when their liberty to sell intoxicants was
interfered with.</p>

<p>While at Fitchburg, Kelly was advised to yield himself <span class="pagenum"><a id="page028" name="page028"></a>(p. 028)</span> up
and go freely to Canada with Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Smith, because, he
was told, they were determined to have him at any cost, and, if he
made them the trouble and expense of extraditing him, he would only be
obliged to lie in jail a much longer time before his trial could take
place, whereas the sentence of punishment would doubtless be just as
severe in the one case as in the other.</p>

<p>Acting in the spirit of this advice he gave himself up into the hands
of Detective Carpenter and went with him to Montreal, where he
acknowledged his guilt, and also told that he had been hired to do the
deed by John Howarth, a young man who lived with the hotel keeper at
Abercorn, and that James Wilson, one of the hotel keepers at Sutton,
had driven the team which carried him to and from the Junction on the
night of the assault.</p>

<p>Mr. Smith, who had also accompanied Mr. Carpenter to Montreal, at once
returned home, and, having notified a number of his friends and
procured a constable from Knowlton, Que., went in company with several
others from Sutton to Abercorn, on Saturday night, August 25th, for
the purpose of arresting Howarth. On a Saturday night also, just seven
weeks previous, a smaller company of men had gone from Sutton in the
opposite direction, not to <span class="pagenum"><a id="page029" name="page029"></a>(p. 029)</span> arrest a guilty man, but to
assault an innocent man, not in the cause of right and justice, but of
wrong and injustice. But now it seemed that the tide had turned!</p>

<p>The little company of "friends of temperance" surrounded the Abercorn
hotel, and the constable, going to the door, called loudly to Mr.
Jenne, the proprietor, who was doubtless in the land of dreams. Mr.
Jenne, who appeared to be somewhat suspicious, was loath to open his
house at that unseemly hour, and demanded his visitor's name; but the
constable, giving a fictitious name, enquired for John Howarth, and
when that individual made his appearance, he was at once arrested in
the name of the Queen. Seeing the people outside, neither he nor Mr.
Jenne dared resist, and, being assured by the latter that he would
soon have him free again, Howarth accompanied the constable to the
jail at Sweetsburg, feeling, doubtless, much less pleased with his
future prospects than he had felt when planning by violence and
bloodshed to frighten the temperance people into submission or
silence, and leave himself and his congenial associates free to drink
and sell as much liquor as they chose. Thus Satan may sometimes appear
to his servants as a very good master when they serve him faithfully,
and accomplish his designs, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page030" name="page030"></a>(p. 030)</span> but when they fail to carry out
some of his cherished plans and find themselves in danger and trouble,
as a result of their zeal in his service, then he proves a very poor
sort of comforter. Better far to serve a Master who will not forsake
His followers in time of need!</p>

<p>A few days later an attempt was made to arrest James Wilson, who had
left the hotel at Sutton, and was thought to be staying at Glen
Sutton, his former home. This expedition is so fully described by an
article in the Montreal <i>Daily Star</i> that we quote from it here. The
two local guides mentioned in this report were W. W. Smith and his
brother, H. S. Smith. The account, dated August 31st, is as follows:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"A mysterious midnight expedition left Richford Station, Vermont,
     a little after twelve this morning, and disappeared in the gloomy
     shadow of Mount Sutton. The party was composed of Superintendent
     Silas H. Carpenter of the Canadian Secret Service, a <i>Star</i>
     reporter and two local guides. The object of the expedition was a
     search for James Wilson and M. L. Jenne, hotel keepers of Sutton
     and Abercorn, for whose arrests Carpenter held warrants. These
     men are accused of being the conspirators who organized, aided
     and abetted the arrangements for the attempted and nearly
     successful murder of W. W. Smith, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page031" name="page031"></a>(p. 031)</span> the President of the
     Brome County Temperance Alliance, who for some time has been like
     a thorn in the side of the Brome County hotel keepers, because,
     by insisting upon the enforcement of the law, to wit, the Scott
     Act, he spoiled their profitable liquor trade. The excellent
     means of communication in the counties of Missisquoi and Brome,
     by telephone and otherwise, necessitated the greatest care in
     keeping the purpose of the trip secret, especially because the
     entire county seems to be situated too dangerously near the
     American border line for officers of the law to take any chances,
     and, accordingly, the ground had to be reached from Sweetsburg in
     a round-about way. It was with grave apprehension that the
     officers of the court and the citizens of that town let our small
     party depart on what to them appeared a most dangerous errand; it
     seemed perfect folly to them that Detective Carpenter alone, with
     only a <i>Star</i> reporter, should thus attempt to 'beard the lions
     in their dens'&mdash;and on a very dark night, too!</p>

<p>"Why, they said, when the constable from Knowlton went to arrest
     Howarth, another of the alleged conspirators who lives in the
     same vicinity, last week, he surrounded the house with a cordon
     of twenty men. They said, besides, the Wilsons were known as a
     fighting family, who would never allow a member to be arrested
     easily. As to Jenne, no two men would be able to prevent him from
     slipping out of the house and escaping. As it turned out, Mr.
     Carpenter had, in a measure, a greater success than even he
     anticipated. Since the arrest of the man Kelly, who <span class="pagenum"><a id="page032" name="page032"></a>(p. 032)</span> was
     hired to do and perpetrated the act of assault, those who were
     interested in the plan of getting rid of Mr. Smith have evinced a
     really remarkable preference for the air across the line, and a
     score of residents of this vicinity more or less connected with
     Brome liquor interests have emigrated to the neighboring towns of
     the United States, hoping that they may not be extradited. Mr.
     Carpenter's little excursion cost a good many people beside
     himself their night's rest. The first house where Wilson was
     supposed to be was searched at about three this morning, and
     three other houses were subjected to a similar process within the
     next two hours. At the last place Wilson's parents, wife and sick
     child were found; but they pleaded utter ignorance of the head of
     the family's whereabouts. There is little doubt but that he is in
     hiding in the States. Jenne's hotel, at Abercorn, was visited
     about six, and he, too, was in the States. But Mr. Carpenter gave
     Jenne's son such convincing proofs that his father would be
     extradited anyhow, and that his staying away would only be
     considered an acknowledgment of guilt, that the old man was sent
     for and decided to come to Canada without trouble. It is known
     that the confession of Kelly, now under arrest, implicates,
     directly and indirectly, a dozen or so of well-known people
     around here. There is a promising prospect for penitentiary terms
     for several of them."</p>
</div>

<a id="img003" name="img003"></a>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="https://brian.carnell.com/wiki/_media/etext:a:aloc-a-dark-plot-on-the-frontier-img003.jpg" width="500" height="520" alt="Caricature" title="Caricature">
</div>

<p>In the above account is given evidence of both the guilt and cowardice
of these hotel keepers. When men <span class="pagenum"><a id="page033" name="page033"></a>(p. 033)</span> concoct plans of evil which
they dare not execute in person, and then hire a foreigner to carry
them out, it is not strange if they prove too cowardly to face justice
when their part in the crime has been made known. It is little wonder
if they seek a foreign clime, but more strange that they do not hide
for shame after their fear of punishment is lessened. Is it because
they find too many sympathizers at home?</p>

<p>Let those who doubt that this crime was undertaken because of the
temperance principles of its victim search the records of other
localities for parallel cases. Many earnest men and women have
suffered for the same cause. Satan never yields a foot of ground
anywhere without fighting vigorously to retain it, and no important
reform was ever inaugurated but it met with strong opposition from the
first.</p>

<p>The more important a reform also, that is to say, the more it is
opposed to the rule of the powers of darkness, the more bitter the
persecution is likely to be which meets it at every step. Witness the
fierce opposition to the spread of Christianity in the early centuries
and the persecution which has almost always followed its introduction
into a new, neglected region. The temperance reform has been no
exception in <span class="pagenum"><a id="page034" name="page034"></a>(p. 034)</span> this respect, and as a leading temperance
worker has said: "The martyr-roll of temperance is just as sacred as
that of any other reform that was ever inaugurated."</p>

<p>This same worker, Mr. J. C. Nichols, gives a sketch in this connection
which may be of interest to the readers of this narrative. It is of a
young man in New Orleans&mdash;a young man pure and earnest, such as the
world everywhere has need of. He was a zealous temperance worker, and
had met with considerable success in this work, which lay so near his
heart. One dark night, alone and unarmed, he was crossing a bridge
beyond which lay a clump of bushes. When he reached these bushes he
was confronted by six men with weapons who lay in ambush waiting for
him. They sprang out and shot him, and, not content with that, bruised
and battered his features beyond recognition. And then his noble
mother wrote to Miss Willard, President of the World's W. C. T. U.,
that she had yet two boys left, and she had rather they would die as
he had, fighting for the right, than that either of them should turn
aside to the right hand or the left.</p>

<p>These six men, attacking one defenceless temperance man, displayed the
same spirit of cowardice as their northern brethren show when they
hire a stranger to <span class="pagenum"><a id="page035" name="page035"></a>(p. 035)</span> do the work for them. They had greater
success attending their efforts, but probably there was no more hatred
or revenge in their hearts than was in the hearts of the Brome County
liquor sellers when they sent to Massachusetts for a prize fighter to
come north to injure and perhaps kill a Christian temperance worker.</p>

<p>Through the providence of God, the plans of these men do not always
succeed, and when they do the real victory is often for God and the
right rather than for them, because no right-thinking man or woman can
but oppose them and their business when they see such fruits of the
traffic. North or south, the nature and effects of intemperance are
ever the same.</p>




<h3>CHAPTER III. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page036" name="page036"></a>(p. 036)</span></h3>

<h5>THE AUTUMN COURT.</h5>


<p>The Autumn Court of the District of Bedford was opened at Sweetsburg,
Que., on Thursday, August 30th, 1894, and at this session the Sutton
Junction Assault Case was considered. The lawyers in charge of the
case were H. T. Duffy, on behalf of the Alliance, and E. Racicot, on
behalf of the accused hotel keepers. The court room was thronged each
day with eager listeners, and much interest was evinced both by the
temperance and anti-temperance people.</p>

<p>The following account of proceedings at court and other matters
relating to the assault case is from <i>The Templar</i>, a temperance
paper, published in Hamilton, Ont., and a large part of this
description was also published in the Montreal <i>Daily Witness</i>:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"The excitement in Brome County, Quebec, over the arrest of
     several prominent liquor sellers on the charge of conspiring to
     murder Mr. W. W. Smith, President of Brome County Temperance
     Alliance, increases <span class="pagenum"><a id="page037" name="page037"></a>(p. 037)</span> as the developments are becoming
     known to the public. According to the evidence, there remains no
     longer any question that Mr. Smith's devotion to Prohibition, and
     particularly his determined stand for the honest enforcement of
     the Scott Act, which is in force in that county, made him a
     shining mark for the vengeance of the men whose trade and profits
     were so seriously affected thereby. The confession of Walter
     Kelly, the assailant, that he was employed to 'do up' Mr. Smith
     because he was a man who gave the hotel keepers much trouble, and
     had to be thrashed, as well as the payment of money by Mr. Jenne,
     proves the animus of the assault, while the general evidence
     indicates a wide-spread conspiracy, embracing others than the
     accused, to cause the diabolical crime. The publicans of Brome,
     and, indeed, the liquor traffic as a whole, lie under the
     terrible suspicion of sympathy with this crime. It is not beyond
     the traffic. Its record is traced in blood as well as tears. <i>The
     Templar</i> is quite ready to believe that there are men in the
     business who would shrink with horror from the very thought of
     engaging in such a deed of blood, but the assault upon Mr. Smith,
     of Sutton, is the natural fruit of the damnable business, and
     those exceptions have not been wholly dominated by the genius of
     the traffic. What cares the liquor seller who suffers while he
     thrives? The excitement centres at Sweetsburg, where the court is
     engaged in hearing the evidence against James Wilson and M. L.
     Jenne, hotel keepers at Sutton and Abercorn, who are charged
     with <span class="pagenum"><a id="page038" name="page038"></a>(p. 038)</span> conspiring to murder Mr. Smith. The preliminary
     hearing began last Friday morning. People had come from all parts
     of the surrounding country, and several newspaper people from
     across the line, male and female, were on hand.</p>

<p>"The Magistrates occupying the bench were Messrs. C. H. Boright
     and G. F. Shufelt; Mr. H. T. Duffy was prosecuting attorney, with
     Hon. Mr. Baker as counsel. Sheriff Cotton was also present. The
     prisoner, John Howarth, was represented by Mr. E. Racicot, and
     was in court.</p>

<p>"Howarth is an American, and still a young man. He is closely
     shaven, and wears his hair cropped short. He came here about
     three years ago, with a stallion worth about $1000, in which he
     owns a half interest. The man who owns the other half still lives
     in the States, and by means of tedious litigation has been trying
     to get his share. This man at present lives with the Jennes, at
     their hotel at Abercorn. He is one of the principal figures in
     the case, because he, it is said, was the man to whom the entire
     management of the attempted murder was entrusted.</p>

<p>"Mr. Smith is a medium-sized man, with a heavy blonde mustache,
     and is a fluent talker, who evidently is very much in earnest in
     his temperance work. He seems to possess the lives of the
     proverbial cat; but many people here prophesy that they will not
     be of avail to him much longer&mdash;meaning thereby that the liquor
     men will yet be the death of him. This does not seem to worry him
     much, however.</p>

<p>"Kelly is a well built man, a little over medium height,
     <span class="pagenum"><a id="page039" name="page039"></a>(p. 039)</span> with dark brown hair, restless, dark eyes, and a small
     mustache, turned to a needle point at each end. It cost a great
     deal of time and trouble to locate him; once nabbed, he turned
     Queen's evidence.</p>

<p>"Mr. W. W. Smith was the first witness. His testimony consisted
     in a description of the assault as our readers are already
     familiar with it. He narrated how he had warned the hotel keepers
     against breaking the Scott Act, on pain of prosecution, and how,
     by interposing on their behalf, he had saved many of them from
     prison. He concluded his evidence with a description of Kelly's
     attempt to murder him. Every eye in the court room was fixed upon
     Walter Kelly, the man who committed the murderous assault, as he
     entered the witness box. It was generally known that he had
     turned Queen's evidence, and would tell a thrilling story. He
     took the situation very coolly, and after explaining that he had
     been a bartender in Marlboro, Mass., gave the following
     testimony:</p>

<p>"'Some time before the end of June last, I was shown a letter by
     a man named Flynn, which requested him to come or send a man to
     do a job, and it was stated that there was good money in it. The
     letter was written by a man named Howarth, who resides at
     Abercorn, P. Q., in the county of Brome. Neither Flynn nor myself
     paid much attention to this letter, as we did not understand the
     meaning of it. About the end of June, the same man showed me a
     second letter, which he had received from Howarth, also <span class="pagenum"><a id="page040" name="page040"></a>(p. 040)</span>
     requesting him to send a man on the next morning to do a job
     connected with the liquor business, and he asked me to go, as
     there was good money in it&mdash;about two hundred dollars&mdash;and I
     agreed to go over. He then instructed me to go to a man named
     Willard, whom Howarth had instructed to give me the money to pay
     my way, or give me a ticket. I went to Willard, and told him that
     I was going to Canada to do a job for some parties there; that
     Howarth had sent for me to call on him for the money to buy the
     ticket to go there, and that he would repay him. Willard gave me
     ten dollars, and I bought my ticket, and came on to Abercorn. I
     started towards the hotel there, when Howarth drove up,
     recognized me, and asked me to get into his wagon. He drove me to
     Jenne's hotel, and there introduced me to Mr. Jenne as a Mr.
     Stewart. While at the hotel, Howarth told me he had sent for me
     to thrash a fellow named Smith, who lived over at Sutton
     Junction. He said that he was a mean cuss who drank all his life,
     would drink whenever he got the chance, was all the time running
     after the women and, to cover up his deviltry, he goes round
     preaching temperance, and raising the devil with the hotel
     keepers. They wanted to chase him away and get him out of the
     business. Howarth went on to say that Smith, who is station
     master at Sutton Junction, was so mean that people cannot ship
     goods to that station without their being opened, looked over and
     their contents reported to the temperance people. They had, he
     added, reported Smith to the company, and <span class="pagenum"><a id="page041" name="page041"></a>(p. 041)</span> his discharge
     had been ordered. I asked Howarth what about the money for doing
     this job, and he answered, "Don't fear; everything is fixed, and
     you will be well taken care of." In the afternoon, Howarth took
     me to Sutton, and we called at Curley's hotel, and went from
     there to Lebeau's, where he introduced me to a man named Lebeau,
     who owns a race course, as a Mr. Stewart, a horse buyer from
     Boston. I then rode with Mr. Lebeau and drove his horse, staying
     round there until the evening, when I went back to Curley's
     hotel, and had supper. I did not pay for it, and was not asked to
     pay. I went to Sutton, purchased a ticket for Richford, where I
     met Howarth in the afternoon by agreement, received fifteen
     dollars from him and had a long conversation regarding the job I
     was to do, after which Howarth went back to Abercorn. I, however,
     remained over night at Richford, and next morning took the train
     for Sutton. I then went to Mr. Wilson's hotel, and remained there
     for two or three days. They asked me no questions in regard to my
     board bill, they did not seem to care whether my bills were paid
     or not, and they were never paid by me. I remained there until
     the horse race at Knowlton, to which I went with Mr. Wilson, and
     where I expected to meet Howarth with a team for me to use, but I
     did not find Howarth at Knowlton. I left Knowlton the same night,
     and rode back to Sutton, to Wilson's hotel, with a man whom I met
     at the races. A day or two following, I was supplied with the
     team, which was fed and cared for free of charge <span class="pagenum"><a id="page042" name="page042"></a>(p. 042)</span> at
     Curley's and Wilson's hotels. This team was supplied me for the
     purpose of driving to and from the Junction in order to meet
     Smith. The night I committed the assault on Mr. Smith my team was
     at Curley's hotel until 9 o'clock in the evening, when I ordered
     it to be harnessed. I then started for the Junction, and on the
     way I met a man a short distance out of the village, whose name I
     do not remember, but I would probably recognize him if I saw him
     again. I was supplied with a disguise of clothing, which was put
     into my buggy when the team was sent to me. I do not know who put
     it there, but Howarth gave me to understand that it would be
     there.</p>

<p>"'Some talk transpired between myself and the parties engaged in
     this matter as to what weapon I should used to beat Mr. Smith,
     when it was suggested, I think by Howarth, that a piece of lead
     pipe would be a good thing, and when I opened the bundle, I found
     a lead pipe in it. I saw that it was a piece of new pipe, and I
     battered it to give it an old appearance. There was also a new
     hat in the bundle. When this man got into my buggy, I drove to
     Sutton Junction, where I waited for Mr. Smith. After our arrival
     there, and until I had committed the assault on Mr. Smith, the
     man who drove with me from Sutton kept the team waiting for me
     about one hundred rods from the station. I saw Mr. Smith arrive
     at the depot about 10.30 <span class="smcap">P. M.</span>, and after putting the team up, he
     went into the station with four or five men. I watched Mr. Smith
     until all <span class="pagenum"><a id="page043" name="page043"></a>(p. 043)</span> the men had left, the last two going north on
     an engine, after which I saw Mr. Smith lie down on a settee.
     After some time I entered the room, where he was lying, and
     struck him over the head with the pipe, which was in my
     possession. His head moved on the pillow, and when he started to
     rise, I struck him again. We then clinched, and had quite a
     severe struggle during which I lost my hat and the lead pipe. I
     then freed myself from Mr. Smith, and disappeared, running to
     where the team was waiting for me. We drove direct to Sutton,
     where the fellow jumped off, and I kept on to Richford, where I
     left my team at the American hotel, telling them that it would be
     called for. On the way to Richford after having committed the
     assault, I called at Jenne's hotel, Howarth having told me that
     on my way back the money would be left with Jenne to pay me. When
     I arrived there I called to him, and after a few minutes he came,
     and I asked him if there was some money there for me, and he
     said, "Yes," and at the same time he went back and brought out
     fifty dollars, which he gave me. I asked him where the rest of
     the money was, and he said: "Only a part of it had been
     collected; give me your address, and we will collect it and send
     you a money order." This money order I have never received. At
     Richford I hired a team and drove to what I thought was about
     half way to St. Albans, where I stayed all day Sunday, and took
     the night express for Boston. The bay horse and open buggy, with
     yellow running gear, were furnished me by Howarth a <span class="pagenum"><a id="page044" name="page044"></a>(p. 044)</span> few
     days previous to the assault. The team was engaged by Jenne at
     the livery stable in the rear of the American House, Richford,
     and the young man who drove the team on the night of the assault
     was young Jim Wilson. He left me at Sutton, and I was instructed
     to leave the team at the Richford livery stable above mentioned,
     which I did, and the same livery man whom I asked for another
     team to drive me to St. Albans, or a part of the way, hitched up
     a team and sent a man with me whose name I do not know. When I
     drove up to his place that Sunday morning, I awoke him and said
     that I had brought back his horse which I had been using for the
     last few days, and I also told him that this party would settle
     for it, and he replied, "All right."'"</p>
</div>

<p>In this testimony of Kelly's we see the evidence of a preconcerted
plot in which many liquor men, both Canadian and American, must have
been initiated. It is an important fact also that the man entrusted
with the execution of their lawless plans was himself a bartender.
From the evil account of Mr. Smith's deeds, which Kelly says was given
to him on his arrival in Canada, it appears that the enemies of
temperance are not contented with taking the property of their
fellow-men as they often do in different ways, they are not even
satisfied with inflicting bodily injury and suffering upon those who
oppose <span class="pagenum"><a id="page045" name="page045"></a>(p. 045)</span> their ways, but they would blight their reputation,
and this, too, is no small injury, for in the words of Shakespeare:</p>

<p class="poem">
  "Who steals my purse, steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;<br>
  'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;<br>
  But he that filches from me my good name,<br>
  Robs me of that which not enriches him,<br>
  And makes me poor indeed."</p>

<p>The announcement also that the liquor men had reported their enemy to
the railway company, and that his discharge had been ordered, is
significant in the light of later events. The complaint made by them
to the company seems from the above to have been that Mr. Smith was
examining goods shipped into the county by way of Sutton Junction, and
this, we are assured, was a false report. However, it seems probable
that, if the hotel keepers had not been receiving illegal goods in
this way, they would not have been so suspicious. Another account of
Kelly's testimony was published in the Montreal <i>Daily Star</i>. Omitting
those parts which do not differ materially from the report in <i>The
Templar</i>, this report is as follows:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"The reason that Kelly did not get his hundred and fifty dollars
     for half murdering Mr. W. W. Smith, it appears, was 'that he did
     not half finish his job;' at <span class="pagenum"><a id="page046" name="page046"></a>(p. 046)</span> least that was the reason
     given in another letter of Howarth to his friend Mr. Flynn in the
     United States, who showed it to Kelly. It is left to the
     imagination as to what the result would have been if he had
     finished the job. Kelly's testimony occupied all the afternoon,
     and he stood the ordeal extremely well. Mr. Racicot tried to
     shake him, but in vain. He told his story in a straightforward
     manner, and it showed how easy it is even in our present
     civilized and advanced age to get rid of or punish people without
     running personal risk of bodily injury if you go the right way
     about it. The case is also a forcible reminder of the truism that
     the laborer is worthy of his hire, and that things done on the
     cheap are apt to turn out badly....</p>

<p>"That night he drove in the vicinity of a friend's home, where he
     was told that Smith was not at home. He went with the intention
     of seeing Mr. Smith. If he had met him he would have licked him
     then and there. He always stayed at the Wilson's, when he had
     nothing better to do, and they did not charge him anything. He
     was convinced that the Wilsons, though they did not say so, knew
     perfectly well what he was doing. Kelly met Smith once at the
     Sutton Junction station while he was on the train. The night of
     the attempted murder he asked Jim Wilson to drive him. Wilson
     must have know what Kelly was going to do, for the latter
     undressed while they were driving together, and put on the
     disguise, and Jim Wilson must have seen him put the lead pipe in
     his pocket. Wilson waited for him <span class="pagenum"><a id="page047" name="page047"></a>(p. 047)</span> with the rig, while
     the drama in Smith's station-house took place. Kelly then
     rehearsed the act himself, varying but little in the story from
     the version given by Mr. Smith. The remainder of the story
     finished....</p>

<p>"When he was half way to St. Albans he sent the Richford team
     home and hired another on the road. He took the train at St.
     Albans to Boston, and from there returned home to Marlboro. He
     met Howarth at Marlboro afterwards, and Howarth said that he
     would see about the money. He then spoke to Howarth's friend
     Flynn and the latter wrote. In reply he got back a letter from
     Howarth, in which the latter said: 'Kelly did not half do his
     job, and all the others are kicking at me.' At any rate, Kelly
     did not get his one hundred and fifty dollars. Mr. Racicot then
     took him in hand and tried very hard to tangle him up. He
     commenced by trying to break down the force of the evidence of
     the letters, which Kelly claims Howarth has written, and which
     Kelly claims he had seen. Of course he had to admit that he could
     not swear they were written by Howarth. Next, his efforts were
     directed to words trying to prove by Kelly's testimony that the
     assault was not a murderous one. Partly to protect himself,
     partly because he believed it the truth, Kelly then was compelled
     to testify that he was not asked and had not undertaken to kill
     Mr. Smith. He never told any one that he had, and did not intend
     to kill him or do him serious injury. The murderous-looking gas
     pipe club on exhibition on the Judge's Bench gave <span class="pagenum"><a id="page048" name="page048"></a>(p. 048)</span> this
     part of the testimony a rather sarcastic tinge. In continuing, he
     got Kelly to say he did not think he had hurt Smith seriously,
     but simply that he had fulfilled his contract. It came out that,
     while living in Marlboro, Kelly was a barkeeper, and was seen
     drinking with others in a hotel. There is apparently a good
     opportunity for missionary service of the sort Mr. Smith delights
     in in Vermont. He was asked to go into lengthy details as to how
     he was arrested, brought from the States by Mr. Carpenter and
     treated while in his custody, and said that he expected to take
     his chances on being sent to jail or penitentiary. When his
     testimony was finished a wrangle took place between opposing
     counsel as to whether or not prisoners should be admitted to
     bail. Mr. Duffy opposed in so far as Howarth was concerned,
     because he was an American, and because once at liberty he would
     approach the other conspirators and frustrate the ends of
     justice. Finally Howarth was remanded till Wednesday. Jenne was
     allowed out on nominal bail, and Kelly remanded to the custody of
     Mr. Carpenter. Some more arrests and some more verbal and very
     interesting documentary evidence is promised for Wednesday."</p>
</div>

<a id="img004" name="img004"></a>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="https://brian.carnell.com/wiki/_media/etext:a:aloc-a-dark-plot-on-the-frontier-img004.jpg" width="400" height="680" alt="Walter K. Kelly" title="Walter K. Kelly">
</div>


<p>The statement of Kelly that he did not intend to kill Mr. Smith, and
was not asked to do so, has a decided look of absurdity when viewed in
the light of the various circumstances surrounding the assault. If
<span class="pagenum"><a id="page049" name="page049"></a>(p. 049)</span> he simply intended to "lick" Mr. Smith, why did he attempt it
in such an unfair and cowardly way? Why did he, when the object of his
assault was asleep, attack him with a weapon which might cause death?
And why, having such an advantage over his victim, did he begin at
once to pound his head? This is a very dangerous way to administer a
whipping! Moreover, if the hotel keepers of the vicinity only wished
to have Mr. Smith pounded, it seems strange that not one of their
number was willing to undertake the task himself. Or, if not, why did
they not hire some ruffian who could be induced to give almost any man
a pounding for a smaller sum of money than that promised to Walter
Kelly, and, besides, might have supplied his own necessary outfit, and
save them the trouble and expense of providing board, team, weapon and
disguise of clothing.</p>

<p>Again, the liquor men should have known that such a course would not
be likely to help them very much, for any man who is sincerely in
earnest and seeks the prosperity of a good cause, will not be likely
to stop his work because of a slight pounding. There are many things
in this world not easy to understand or explain, and this affair seems
to be one of them, but, of course, it is a lawyer's business to work
for the interests of his clients, and prisoners <span class="pagenum"><a id="page050" name="page050"></a>(p. 050)</span> usually
consider it their privilege, when in the witness box, to work for
their own safety.</p>

<p>The testimony of Mr. Smith, which had been begun on Friday, and had
given place to Kelly's evidence when he arrived from Montreal, was
resumed on Wednesday, Sept. 5th, when the case was again considered in
court. The following report of Wednesday's proceedings was published
in the Montreal <i>Daily Witness</i>:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"The preliminary enquiry into the Sutton Junction attempted
     murder case was resumed this morning before Messrs. C. H. Boright
     and G. F. Shufelt, J. P.'s. The court room was crowded, and much
     interest was evinced in the progress of the case. Mr. W. W.
     Smith, continuing his evidence, described his struggle with
     Kelly. The first blow rendered him partially unconscious, and
     apparently was not repeated for two or three minutes. A second
     and third blow was given with the lead pipe, but, owing to his
     having clinched with Kelly, they did not have the effect of the
     first. During the struggle, both men got out on the station
     platform, and eventually rolled from the upper to the lower one,
     Smith all the time calling out 'murder,' and Kelly breaking loose
     ran away. He was positive that it was Kelly's intention to kill
     him, not merely to give him a beating.</p>

<p>"He recognized the lead pipe as the weapon Kelly used, and also
     the hat was the one he left behind in the station.</p>

<p>"He <span class="pagenum"><a id="page051" name="page051"></a>(p. 051)</span> went to Marlboro on August 25th, and identified
     Kelly, whom he saw drinking with three other men at the bar of
     the Central House.</p>

<p>"He travelled from Fitchburg to Montreal with Mr. Carpenter, and
     was present in the former's office, when Kelly acknowledged to
     having committed the assault.</p>

<p>"Two other witnesses testified to having seen Howarth and Kelly
     together at Sutton, on May 24th, where it was given out that the
     latter was from the United States, and was buying horses. It was
     also in evidence that Kelly was seen at Curley's hotel, Sutton,
     on the evening that the assault was committed."</p>
</div>

<p>After these witnesses were heard, the case was put over until Spring,
to be considered and decided by the Court of Queen's Bench, which was
to be held at Sweetsburg, in March, 1895. Kelly, Howarth and Jenne
were committed for trial at that time. Jenne was released on bail, and
application was made for bail to be granted for Howarth also. This was
refused by the magistrates, and Mr. Racicot then applied to the Judge,
being opposed in his application by Mr. Duffy, the lawyer for the
Alliance.</p>

<p>Judge Lynch carefully considered the matter in its social and legal
aspects.</p>

<p>He brought up several cases in the history of the country in which
application for bail had been refused, recited <span class="pagenum"><a id="page052" name="page052"></a>(p. 052)</span> the general
principles which had governed the various judges in making these
decisions, and concluded his remarks thus:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"It only remains for me now to apply these general principles,
     which have received the sanction of our highest courts, to the
     present case, and cannot better do so than by asking myself the
     questions which were submitted by Judge Power, as being the basis
     of his conclusions in the Maguire case.</p>

<p>"What is the nature of the crime charged against Howarth? Is it
     grave or trifling? It certainly is not trifling, it is one of the
     most serious known to our law, being nothing less than an
     accusation of an attempt to commit murder. 2d. What is the nature
     of the evidence offered by the prosecution, and the probability
     of a conviction? I prefer not to discuss or consider now the
     strength of the evidence which was adduced before the
     magistrates, to which alone I can look. It apparently presents a
     strong case, and if it is believed by the jury, and not rebutted
     by other evidence, it would, in all human probability, lead to a
     conviction. 3d. Is he liable to a severe punishment? Yes&mdash;to
     imprisonment for life. In face, therefore, of the answers which I
     am obliged to give to the foregoing questions, I cannot hesitate
     as to my duty in this matter. It is important in the public
     interest that Howarth should be present in court, and stand his
     trial on the charge preferred against him, and nothing can or
     should be allowed to interfere to prevent this from taking place.</p>

<p>"It <span class="pagenum"><a id="page053" name="page053"></a>(p. 053)</span> might possibly be otherwise were bail allowed, and I
     cannot take the responsibility of such an occurrence. The
     application is refused."</p>
</div>

<p>From these words of Judge Lynch we see clearly how very serious a
matter this assault case must have seemed to him at that time. After
this decision Kelly was again placed in custody of Mr. Carpenter, and
returned to Montreal, where he was kept in prison, while Howarth
passed the winter in Sweetsburg jail.</p>

<p>Meantime, some of the members of the liquor party took advantage of
the excitement which this assault had caused by trying to frighten
other temperance people. One man, Allen C. Armstrong, living in the
neighborhood of Sutton Junction, who had been an aid in the work of
locating Kelly, awoke one morning to find upon his doorsteps a
miniature coffin, which bore an ominous inscription, giving his name
and the record of his death (without date), and calling him a "Sutton
Junction detective." Also, anonymous letters were reported to have
been received by two men in the same vicinity, viz.: N. P. Emerson,
Vice-President of the Alliance for the township of Sutton, and J. C.
Draper, President of Brome County Agricultural Society, who was also a
member of the Alliance, bidding them beware lest they also suffer in
the same manner as Mr. Smith.</p>

<p>It <span class="pagenum"><a id="page054" name="page054"></a>(p. 054)</span> may have afforded a degree of satisfaction to a certain
class of people to thus add fuel to the fire already kindled by the
liquor men, but their cause will certainly never triumph through any
such acts as these, for there will always be some in the ranks of the
temperance party who will be willing to work the harder the fiercer
roll the flames of opposition.</p>




<h3>CHAPTER IV. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page055" name="page055"></a>(p. 055)</span></h3>

<h5>PROS AND CONS OF PUBLIC OPINION.</h5>


<p>As may be supposed this assault case became the subject of a great
deal of discussion and controversy, not only in the vicinity of its
occurrence, but also in places far distant, and among people who had
no personal knowledge of any of the parties especially concerned in
it. If the assault upon Mr. Smith had been committed for almost any
other reason than the one which really led to it, it would probably
have caused less intense feeling than it did. But an assault of such a
serious nature, made on account of a man's temperance principles and
practices, appealed to the public sense of right, and seemed the
signal for a war of pens and tongues between the opposing parties of
temperance and inebriety. Very few of the latter party proved brave
enough to have their opinions submitted to the press (or else the
press would not accept them), but doubtless those opinions were freely
expressed in private.</p>

<p>We purpose devoting this chapter to a few of the views of societies
and individuals respecting this affair, as <span class="pagenum"><a id="page056" name="page056"></a>(p. 056)</span> they were
published in the columns of certain newspapers. The following from
<i>The Templar</i> shows the feeling of the Alliance in a border county to
that in which the deed was committed, as expressed just before the
opening of court:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "The Missisquoi County Alliance, at a meeting held August 28th,
     passed the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted
     amid applause: '<i>Resolved</i>, That this County Alliance now
     assembled desires to record its deepest sympathy with Mr. W. W.
     Smith, President of the Brome County Alliance, in the recent
     outrage perpetrated upon him by the emissaries of the liquor
     traffic. We rejoice to know that there is a prospect of the
     speedy bringing to justice of the perpetrators of that assault.
     We also desire to record our high appreciation of the valued
     services to the cause of prohibition in this section by Mr.
     Smith, and trust that he may long be spared to continue his
     heroic efforts to free our country from the ravages of strong
     drink.'"</p>

<p>The following resolution was adopted by the executive of the Quebec
provincial branch of the Dominion Alliance, at a meeting held in the
parlors of the Y. M. C. A., in Montreal:</p>

<p class="quote">
"That this Alliance records its profound sympathy with Mr. W. W.
     Smith, President of the Brome County Alliance, in the recent
     murderous assault made <span class="pagenum"><a id="page057" name="page057"></a>(p. 057)</span> upon him, resulting from his
     earnest and successful efforts in the cause of law and order in
     the County of Brome, and this Alliance trusts that full justice
     will be meted out to the perpetrators of this atrocious crime."</p>

<p>The letter given below appeared in <i>The Knowlton News</i> of Oct. 12th,
1894, under the heading "A Few Words on the Other Side:"</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"To the Editor of <i>The News</i>:</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;In the discussion of a case which has and is now agitating
     this good County of Brome, that spirit of British fair play which
     has attained to the dignity of a proverb has been lost sight of
     to a marked degree. I refer to the alleged assault on Mr. W. W.
     Smith, at Sutton Junction, in July last. The Dominion Temperance
     Alliance and its friends are doing their best, by means of the
     press and otherwise, to poison the public mind in advance of the
     trial against the party who is charged with procuring the assault
     on Mr. Smith, and also against divers other persons in the county
     who are said to be his accessories, charging them with the
     commission of a grave crime without a scintilla of reputable
     evidence on which to base such a charge. This, I say, is not fair
     play, and those guilty of the unfairness need not find fault if
     lovers of justice refuse to follow them in their raid on men and
     characters, or by silence lend strength to the unwarranted
     assumption that each and <span class="pagenum"><a id="page058" name="page058"></a>(p. 058)</span> every one of those so
     flippantly accused are guilty from the word 'go,' and must be
     pilloried in public and private, and subjected to the shame and
     embarrassment arising from these attacks on their character, as
     law-abiding citizens and legal subjects of Her Majesty.</p>

<p>"There is a limit beyond which self-constituted conservers of
     public morals must not go; and good men should not be brutally
     attacked in public by agents of the Alliance on the strength of
     the admissions of a fellow, who, if he tells the truth, is one of
     the meanest rascals that ever cumbered the earth. I refer to the
     fellow Kelly, Mr. Smith's self-confessed assailant.</p>

<p>"I offer nothing in defence of lawbreakers, nor would I, if I
     could, do aught to mitigate in the least degree the punishment
     that may be meted out to the person who wantonly assaults a
     peaceable citizen, but candor and strict impartiality force me to
     refuse to accept as truth all the rubbish of tergiversation with
     which this agitated Smith case has been surrounded by the
     intemperate zeal of professed temperance men. I believe in
     temperance, and if those who knowingly violate the law against
     the sale of intoxicants are brought to judgment and punishment,
     they get but what they deserve, and all good men will applaud the
     vindication of the majesty of the law. But we are scripturally
     enjoined to be 'temperate in all things.' This applies as well to
     words as to the use of stimulants, and the grossly unfair attacks
     on men's characters by certain of the Alliance <span class="pagenum"><a id="page059" name="page059"></a>(p. 059)</span>
     emphasize the necessity for a strong curb on that unruly member,
     the tongue, which has brought many a good man and worthy cause
     into grave disrepute, and made them enemies where otherwise they
     might have had friends.</p>

<p>"This whole Smith business has a 'cheap John' flavor, which makes
     careful men view it askance. Who witnessed the assault on Smith?
     Nobody. He tells of being struck three times on the head with a
     piece of lead pipe, weighing some four pounds, and has in
     evidence the terrible weapon. Did his person bear evidence of the
     murderous assault? No. All who saw him in the early morning
     following the alleged assault were surprised that he bore no
     marks of the terrible struggle for life through which he claimed
     to have passed. Why, one blow from such a weapon as he exhibits
     would have crushed his head as if it were an egg shell, yet he
     claims to have sustained three blows, and is alive to tell of it!
     Shades of Ananias and of Munchausen!</p>

<p>"But it were useless to pursue the subject further.</p>

<p>"It is to that spirit of fair play so characteristically British,
     and to which we are proud heirs, that I would appeal. Everything
     is being said and done to prejudice the public against those who
     are accused of instigating Kelly to the assault on Smith; but,
     singular as it may seem, Kelly is patted on the back and called a
     good fellow. Why? Admitting the truth of Kelly's story, is he
     less guilty because he had confederates? A strange feature of the
     case is that <span class="pagenum"><a id="page060" name="page060"></a>(p. 060)</span> Kelly willingly came back to Canada, when
     extradition would have been about impossible.</p>

<p>"He was taken to Montreal instead of to Sweetsburg, and was there
     royally entertained instead of being put in close jail. While in
     Montreal he was interviewed,&mdash;and by whom?&mdash;the Crown prosecutor?
     No; but by Smith and his counsel, Mr. Duffy. Meantime, several
     so-called 'detectives' were scouring the country for evidence. Of
     what? They had Smith's assailant, and he had told his story.
     Those whom he charged as being instigators of his crime were
     attending to their business, and might have been apprehended
     within twenty-four hours after Kelly's arrest in the States. Then
     what were the detectives seeking?&mdash;what were they after? That
     $1000 reward was in sight, and this may have been the inducing
     cause of this prowling.</p>

<p>"It would seem to 'A man up a tree' that there are certain
     revenges to be completed&mdash;sundry old grudges to be satisfied, and
     the Crown is asked to assist in this questionable work. Those
     familiar with the matter say that in our broad Dominion there are
     no better conducted hotels than those to be found in the Eastern
     townships. They are well kept, and the travelling public is most
     hospitably entertained, well fed and comfortably lodged. A
     well-conducted hotel adds to the strength and business character
     of a village, and a faithful landlord is expected to furnish
     guests certain necessities, one of which may be liquor.</p>

<p>"And because he does this should he be reviled, and persecuted,
     and driven out of business? That liquor <span class="pagenum"><a id="page061" name="page061"></a>(p. 061)</span> is a great
     evil, no one can honestly deny, and being such, and being beyond
     the power of man to destroy, let us do the next best thing&mdash;curb
     and control the evil in the best manner possible.</p>

<p>"A dozen wrongs will never make a single right, and the wrongs
     that are being committed in this Smith case have appealed to one
     who believes in</p>

<p>"<i>Brome, Oct. 8th, '94.</i><br>
<span class="left60 smcap">Fair Play.</span>"</p>
</div>

<p>The following comments appeared in an editorial in the same paper:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "It is impossible to shut one's eyes to the ill-feeling that is
     growing throughout the County of Brome, and spreading itself over
     the district, as a result of what is known as the Smith assault
     case. Hitherto, only one side of the case has found an echo in
     the public press, but to-day we open our columns to a
     correspondent who expresses in moderate language the sentiments
     of those who think there is something to be said on the other
     side. We commend his letter to the attention of our readers
     without in any sense committing ourselves to the writer's
     conclusions. Everybody must feel sorry for the misfortunes of Mr.
     Smith, and if, as it is alleged by some, he has allowed his zeal
     to get the better of his discretion, he is not the first man who
     has been carried away by a superabundance of enthusiasm, or who
     has suffered therefor. Mr. Smith's friends will try to make a
     martyr of him. We doubt that they will succeed."</p>

<p>If, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page062" name="page062"></a>(p. 062)</span> as the Editor of <i>The News</i> seems to consider, "the
sentiments of those who think there is something to be said on the
other side" are expressed in the above letter in "moderate language,"
how must those views sound when expressed in the most forcible terms
of angry barroom parlance? Let us thank God that we are not compelled
to hear these opinions when thus declared, nor even to see them made
known through the press.</p>

<p>It is said in the above note that Mr. Smith's <i>friends</i> would try to
make a martyr of him, but it was doubtful if they would succeed. We
think the Editor of <i>The News</i> is mistaken in this, it was Mr. Smith's
<i>enemies</i> who appeared desirous of making a martyr of him, and they
very nearly succeeded; but, through the providence of God, he is still
in the ranks of temperance workers. We are told that "one with God, is
a majority," and more than one in Brome County are true to the right,
therefore, the liquor party with all their efforts are still in the
minority there. In the next issue of <i>The News</i>, dated Oct. 19th,
appeared the following replies to the above epistle from "the other
side:"</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"To the Editor of <i>The Knowlton News</i>:</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;In regard to the communication in your issue <span class="pagenum"><a id="page063" name="page063"></a>(p. 063)</span> of
     October 12th, over the signature of Fair Play, your correspondent
     says:</p>

<p>"'This whole Smith business has a "cheap John" flavor, which
     makes careful men view it askance. Who witnessed the assault on
     Smith? Nobody. Did his person bear evidence of murderous assault?
     No. All who saw him in the early morning following the alleged
     assault were surprised that he bore no marks of the terrible
     struggle for life through which he claims to have passed. Shades
     of Ananias and Munchausen!'</p>

<p>"Mr. Editor, here we have the substance calling upon the shadows.
     As one who visited Mr. Smith on the morning following the
     assault, I assert that Fair Play makes a direct departure from
     the truth. I challenge Fair Play to give the name of a single
     reputable individual who now will corroborate his assertion. Such
     a statement is in direct contradiction to the sworn testimony of
     our respected fellow-citizen, R. T. Macdonald, M. D. Mr. Smith
     was visited on the following morning by scores of people, and
     they saw upon his person the evidence of a violent and brutal
     assault. Many of the visitors expressed their determination to
     see fair play, and their willingness to subscribe, which they
     subsequently did, to a fund to bring the guilty party or parties
     to justice. Fair Play need not worry about the slandered
     characters of the hotel keepers of this county. Their characters
     are in their own keeping, just as the characters of merchants,
     mechanics and ministers are in <span class="pagenum"><a id="page064" name="page064"></a>(p. 064)</span> theirs. If the parties
     who are accused of complicity in this affair are innocent, they
     will have the opportunity of proving themselves so.</p>

<p>"And why should not your correspondent exercise that spirit of
     fair play, the lack of which he so much deplores in others, and
     not make the useless attempt to impeach Mr. Smith's veracity in
     the case of this assault. Such an attempt is both useless and
     senseless, for within an hour or two of the assault he was under
     the professional care of one of the most eminent and reputable
     physicians of the Province, who surely would at once have exposed
     any imposture.</p>

<p>"Even Fair Play would be willing to see an assaulter punished,
     but seems to have made a discovery which, singular to say, in
     nearly three months of intervening time no one has yet thought
     of, namely, that no assault was committed.</p>

<p>"The cheap John part of this affair is in Fair Play's letter, in
     which in one breath he professes to be a temperance man, and says
     a hotel keeper who violates the law and gets punished gets just
     what he deserves, and in the next breath tells us that liquor is
     a necessity, and asks why trouble the man who furnishes it.
     Surely, we see the hem of the cloak of hypocrisy. Fair Play
     should also give the public his name, so that people may judge
     for themselves the value of his peculiar and disinterested view
     of fair play; farther, some folks are already conjecturing who
     the author was, and it is not fair to let any one be under the
     imputation of a thing he did not do, and <span class="pagenum"><a id="page065" name="page065"></a>(p. 065)</span> surely no man
     need be afraid or ashamed to have his own views appear over his
     own name. He asks, Who saw the assault? and answers, Nobody. Who
     saw Hooper try to drown his wife? Nobody. And yet one of these
     so-called detectives was instrumental in landing him in prison,
     and people seem to think that he did get fair play.</p>

<p>"Fair Play says careful men view this askance. In this town,
     where naturally the keenest interest is taken in this affair,
     nearly or quite all of the representative men have condemned the
     assault in the most decisive manner.</p>

<p>"Now, Mr. Editor, let me say that among the great mass of the
     people of this vicinity, there is no desire to make out that Mr.
     Smith is either a hero or a martyr. It is a question of law and
     order on the one hand, and crime and violence on the other. The
     assault is admitted, and a conspiracy is alleged. No doubt there
     are landlords in this country who would not implicate themselves
     in any illegal proceedings against Mr. Smith nor sympathize with
     the same. Such men are suffering nothing, but it is doubtful if
     there is a person of ordinary capacity in this vicinity who does
     not believe that the assault was the outcome of a conspiracy, and
     men are not slow in expressing the wish that if we have such
     people living among us that they may be exposed in their true
     character and punished, whether they profess to be saints or
     sinners, and the people of this town would extend the same
     sympathy and offer the same assistance to the accused parties, if
     they had been the victims <span class="pagenum"><a id="page066" name="page066"></a>(p. 066)</span> of an assault and suspicion
     pointed to Smith and the Alliance as its instigators.</p>

<p><span class="left60 smcap">"Merit Longeway.</span><br>
  "<i>Sutton, October 15th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<a id="img005" name="img005"></a>
<div class="figcenter">
<img src="https://brian.carnell.com/wiki/_media/etext:a:aloc-a-dark-plot-on-the-frontier-img005.jpg" width="500" height="376" alt="Lead pipe, rope and hat" title="Lead pipe, rope and hat">
</div>

<div class="quote">
<p>"To the Editor of <i>The News</i>:</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;Permit me to reply to some of the statements of 'Fair
     Play' in your paper of October 12th. First, I should like to ask
     what is meant by poisoning the public mind?</p>

<p>"If Fair Play means enlisting the sympathies of the public on the
     side of the temperance party, all that is needed is a clear
     statement of the plain, unvarnished facts. There need be no
     'unwarranted assumption,' or charges without evidence, for
     members of the liquor party before that assault at Sutton
     Junction, and more especially since that time, have themselves
     acted in a way that has estranged some who have been their warm
     supporters, as they have procured the discharge of Mr. Smith from
     the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, whom he had
     served faithfully for fifteen years, and have also threatened the
     lives of other peaceable citizens, because they chanced to frown
     upon violence and lawbreaking.</p>

<p>"Furthermore, Fair Play declares that the Temperance Alliance and
     its friends, of which he plainly is not one, are charging divers
     persons in this county with the commission of a grave crime of
     which they have no reputable evidence. Thus does this very brave
     apostle of 'the other side' fearlessly assert, with <span class="pagenum"><a id="page067" name="page067"></a>(p. 067)</span> no
     proof for his statement, that all the various persons who have
     given evidence in this case in Mr. Smith's favor are
     disreputable, and their testimony of no value. Truly this is a
     bold statement, and it would seem that sometimes pens as well as
     tongues need 'curbing.' Although Fair Play declares that he
     'offers nothing in the defence of lawbreakers,' yet his entire
     epistle is plainly in defence of just that class of people, for
     it is written in behalf of the hotel keepers who have repeatedly
     broken the law, and were convicted of liquor selling in court,
     not long since.</p>

<p>"Again, this 'believer in fair play,' in speaking of Mr. Smith,
     says:</p>

<p>"'Did his person bear evidence of murderous assault? No, etc.'
     Either the writer of these words has very little regard for
     truth, or else he knows very little of the subject he is talking
     about. What is he going to do with the evidence of the skillful
     physician who attended Mr. Smith, and who upon his first visit
     dared not promise that he would ever recover? What is the opinion
     of those people who were awakened at dead of night by cries of
     murder, and who found Mr. Smith with the marks of the combat
     freshly upon him? Why is it that he has not yet fully recovered
     from the effects of this assault? And what reason has Fair Play
     for doubting the testimony of Mr. Smith himself, even if there
     were no other proof? He says, 'One blow from such a weapon as he
     exhibits would have crushed his head, as if it were an egg
     shell.' Perhaps he has forgotten that circumstances alter
     <span class="pagenum"><a id="page068" name="page068"></a>(p. 068)</span> cases, and the position of the victim, the courage of
     the assailant, and the direction of the blow might alter this
     case very much. It is little wonder that at this point he invokes
     the aid of the shades of Ananias and of Munchausen! He next
     states that while the public are being prejudiced against the
     liquor sellers of this county, 'Kelly is patted on the back, and
     called a good fellow.' Would Fair Play wish to be patted in the
     same way, being retained in a prison cell, knowing not what
     punishment may await him?</p>

<p>"We would repeat the question asked, 'What were the detectives
     seeking?' But we do not conclude, like Fair Play, that it was the
     $1000 reward they were working for, as no such reward was ever
     offered. The objects for which these detectives were really
     seeking were those men whom Kelly had accused, who, according to
     Fair Play, 'were attending to their business,' and perhaps they
     were, but if so, they must have had much business abroad. He next
     enlarges upon the merits of Eastern township hotels, and among
     other things says 'A faithful landlord is expected to furnish
     guests certain necessities, one of which may be liquor. And
     because he does this, should he be reviled, and prosecuted, and
     driven out of his business?' How does this compare with his
     former statement that he 'offers nothing in defence of
     lawbreakers,' and that 'all good men will applaud the vindication
     of the majesty of the law?'</p>

<p class="left60 smcap">"Truth."</p>
</div>

<p>In <span class="pagenum"><a id="page069" name="page069"></a>(p. 069)</span> the following number of <i>The News</i> appeared this note:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "We are in receipt of another letter from 'Fair Play,' but as
     personalities are indulged in, and as we are averse to entering
     upon a prolonged and bitter controversy, we are constrained to
     decline the publication of this communication."</p>

<p>In this we seem to see a hint of that spirit of harshness and
unfairness which so often characterizes the actions of the liquor
party, and which sometimes leads to just such deeds as this brutal
assault, which "Fair Play" would persuade the public had never
occurred.</p>




<h3>CHAPTER V. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page070" name="page070"></a>(p. 070)</span></h3>

<h5>THE ACTION OF THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO.</h5>


<p>It has already been stated that Mr. W. W. Smith had been for fifteen
years the agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Sutton
Junction. During two or three years previous to receiving this
appointment, he had also held other positions in their service. He had
long been a trusted and privileged employee of the Company, to whom he
had apparently given full satisfaction.</p>

<p>It will be remembered that Walter Kelly, in his evidence at
Sweetsburg, testified that Howarth had told him on his arrival in
Canada that the liquor men had "reported Smith to the Company, and his
discharge had been ordered." Mr. Smith soon had reason to believe,
also, that his temperance work was not pleasing to Assistant
Superintendent Brady, who had charge of that division of the Canadian
Pacific Railway in which Sutton Junction was situated. With this man
Mr. Smith had at one time been quite a favorite, but, after he had
united with the temperance workers, the friendship of Mr. Brady became
less apparent, and after the time of the assault his coolness grew
quite marked, and it soon became evident to <span class="pagenum"><a id="page071" name="page071"></a>(p. 071)</span> Mr. Smith,
although his friends were long loath to believe it, that the Assistant
Superintendent was anxious to get rid of him. The rumor spread abroad,
also, that the liquor men were trying to influence the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company so as to obtain Mr. Smith's dismissal from
their employ, and people of other places became anxious to learn the
truth of the matter, as is shown by the following article from the
Montreal <i>Daily Witness</i>:</p>

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

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

<p>"'It has been stated to us that Mr. Smith at times, in order to
     get convictions against men who broke the liquor laws, used the
     information which his position as station agent gave him to
     secure convictions. Of course, you understand none of our
     employees have <span class="pagenum"><a id="page072" name="page072"></a>(p. 072)</span> the right to use for their private ends
     information they get as employees of the road. I mean that if Mr.
     Smith prosecuted liquor men in his private capacity he was
     perfectly justified in doing so, but if in order to get
     convictions he had to use information which he could alone get as
     station agent, he has laid himself open to censure. I have no
     proof that Mr. Smith has violated the confidence of the Company.
     Mr. Brady, of Farnham, has gone to Sutton Junction, and is
     investigating the outrage, and he will let me know whether or not
     there is any foundation in the charge against Mr. Smith. If Mr.
     Smith is in the right you may rest assured the Company will take
     care of him.'</p>

<p>"'Are you trying to find the man who committed the assault?'</p>

<p>"'Yes, we have taken action in that direction, too.'</p>

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

<p>In this conversation the acknowledgment was plainly made by Mr. Tait
that the liquor men had made complaints to the Company concerning Mr.
Smith, so that, whether <span class="pagenum"><a id="page073" name="page073"></a>(p. 073)</span> their reports had any influence with
the Company or not, the fact remains without contradiction that these
enemies of temperance did make an effort to rob him of the favor of
his employers, and they doubtless intended by this means, to
accomplish just what was finally, by some means, brought about.</p>

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

<p>The only explanation which seems to suggest itself is that these hotel
keepers felt very angry because their trade in the souls of men had
been somewhat interfered with, and not content with the assault which
had been committed, could devise no better way of seeking further
revenge than by thus arousing the displeasure of the Company by which
Mr. Smith was <span class="pagenum"><a id="page074" name="page074"></a>(p. 074)</span> employed. It was no doubt another outcome of
the same spirit which had prompted that assault.</p>

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

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

<p class="quote">
     "Mr. S. J. Carter referred to the outrage committed upon the
     President of the Brome County Alliance. He had known Mr. Smith
     all his life, and spoke very highly of the good work Mr. Smith
     had done for temperance in the Eastern townships. He regretted
     that there had come rumors from Brome which would indicate that
     the liquor men were not satisfied with the assault upon Mr.
     Smith, but were endeavoring to secure his dismissal from the
     position of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sutton Junction. He
     wanted to know, and every temperance man <span class="pagenum"><a id="page075" name="page075"></a>(p. 075)</span> in Canada
     wanted to know, if the Canadian Pacific Railway were going to
     dismiss an officer of their Company at the behest of illegal
     liquor sellers of a Scott Act county? He, therefore, moved: 'That
     we have heard with pleasure through the press, that Mr. Tait,
     Assistant General Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway, has
     stated to the press that the Company was doing everything in its
     power to discover the guilty parties in the attempted murder of
     their agent at Sutton Junction, Mr. W. W. Smith. That recent
     reports have come from Brome County to the effect that officials
     of the Company are in league with the liquor men, and are
     assisting them to prevent, if possible, further annoyance by
     bringing pressure upon their agent, and that the Company has made
     no practical effort to bring the guilty parties in the recent
     assault case to justice. That we hereby instruct our secretary,
     Mr. Carson, to ascertain from the officials of the Company if
     such reports are true, and make a full report for the next
     meeting of this Alliance.' The resolution was adopted."</p>

<p>Somewhat later the following remarks appeared in the editorial
department of the <i>Witness</i>:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "The liquor men who tried to murder Mr. Smith, the President of
     the Brome County Alliance, by stunning him with a skull-cracker,
     and then leaving him on the track, failed in that cowardly and
     brutal attempt, but have escaped punishment at the hands of the
     authorities, who seem to be, as usual, perfectly helpless
     <span class="pagenum"><a id="page076" name="page076"></a>(p. 076)</span> in the matter. These same liquor men, who in Brome
     County are all outlaws, have the impudence to use all sorts of
     influence with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to get them
     to dismiss Mr. Smith, who is their agent at Sutton Junction. This
     is a fine state of things, and the county, which is a prohibition
     county, is watching to see what the Company will do. Here is a
     chance for capital to tyrannize at the behest of organized
     iniquity and lawlessness."</p>

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

<p class="quote">
     "The sequel to the lead pipe murderous assault upon Mr. W. W.
     Smith, President of the Brome County Alliance, occurred on
     Saturday last. It has been well known that the liquor men,
     baffled in their attempt to murder Mr. Smith, had, however, not
     abandoned their plan to ruin him and discourage other temperance
     workers in the county. Their scheme was known to the temperance
     people, but it was not thought possible that it would succeed. It
     was nothing more nor less than the securing of the dismissal of
     Mr. Smith from his position as agent of the Canadian Pacific
     Railway. It has, however, succeeded. Mr. Smith was notified on
     Saturday last of his dismissal from the Company's employ. Some
     astonishing revelations may be expected, as the temperance
     people <span class="pagenum"><a id="page077" name="page077"></a>(p. 077)</span> are intensely indignant that the Company should
     have yielded to the demands of the liquor party and removed from
     its service one who has been for years a trusted servant and a
     faithful officer."</p>

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

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

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"W. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page078" name="page078"></a>(p. 078)</span> W. Smith, Agent, Sutton Junction.</p>

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

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span> <span class="add2em smcap">F. P. Brady</span>, Asst. Supt.<br>
"<i>Farnham, June 11th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<p>Below are the letters enclosed in this communication from Mr. Brady,
and containing the complaints, or a part of them, which had been
received by him concerning the Sutton Junction agent. The first was
written by a wholesale liquor firm in Sherbrooke, P. Q., the second by
a brother of James Wilson who, Kelly <span class="pagenum"><a id="page079" name="page079"></a>(p. 079)</span> said, drove the team
for him on the night of the assault at Sutton Junction.</p>

<hr class="small">

<div class="quote">
<p>"F. P. Brady, West Farnham.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;We are having goods shipped by us to Sutton returned
     to us with the information that your agent at Sutton Junction
     watches all liquor shipments that go there, and then gives the
     information to temperance parties, who make complaints, and get
     the hotel men fined. We are in receipt of two letters to that
     effect this morning. We think you should take some action in the
     matter, as it will effectually stop all shipments to that county
     if it continues.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span> <span class="add2em smcap">Nutter &amp; French</span>.<br>
"<i>Sherbrooke, June 6th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<hr class="small">

<div class="quote">
<p>"Nutter &amp; French.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Gentlemen</span>,&mdash;I can't buy no more goods from you at
     Sherbrooke, for the agent at Sutton Junction, name W. W. Smith,
     is pawing over all goods and reporting, and he has been having
     men to inform of all the hotels in the county. Unless he is out
     of that job you won't do more business in Brome County.
<span class="add2em">Yours,</span> <span class="add2em smcap">B. L. Wilson</span>.</p>
<p>"<i>Glen Sutton, June 7th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>


<p>To <span class="pagenum"><a id="page080" name="page080"></a>(p. 080)</span> these accusations, Mr. Smith made the following reply:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"F. P. Brady, Esq., Asst. Supt., Farnham.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;Referring to enclosed, I deny charge made against me,
     fairly and squarely, and, further than that, I have looked back
     nearly two years and find no shipments of liquor for these
     parties in my transfer books. I have never used my position in
     any way as an agent for this Company to convict liquor sellers,
     and no man can substantiate such a statement.</p>

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

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span> <span class="add2em smcap">W. W. Smith</span>.<br>
"<i>Sutton Junction, June 13th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<hr class="small">

<p>This is certainly a very emphatic denial of the charges made against
him, and, coming from a trusted employee of fifteen years, it would
seem that it should have been quite satisfactory. However, Mr. Brady
appeared <span class="pagenum"><a id="page081" name="page081"></a>(p. 081)</span> to give more credence to the testimony of the
liquor men than to that of Mr. Smith, and to allow himself to be
influenced by later complaints which were made by them.</p>

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"W. W. Smith, Esq., Agent.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;As per my wire of this date, I cannot arrange to let
     you off on July 3d and 4th; I have no spare man at liberty. The
     assistant at Sutton should have all he can properly attend to
     during the night to necessitate his sleeping during the daytime.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours, etc.,</span><br>
  <span class="left60 smcap">"F. P. Brady</span>, Asst. Supt.<br>
  "<i>Farnham, July 2d, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<hr class="small">

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"W. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page082" name="page082"></a>(p. 082)</span> W. Smith, Esq., Agent, Sutton Junction.</p>

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

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

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span><br>
<span class="left60 smcap">"F. P. Brady.</span><br>
"<i>Farnham, July 9th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<p>This <span class="pagenum"><a id="page083" name="page083"></a>(p. 083)</span> letter is very emphatic, and if the spirit of it were
carried out in every case as faithfully as Mr. Brady endeavored to
carry it out in this case, the employees of the road would be a band
of slaves, and the Canadian Pacific Railway a sort of Canadian Siberia
with all its positions shunned by every self-respecting laborer. It is
well, indeed, for the Canadian Pacific Railway that all its officers
do not carry out these tyrannical rules with such precision as this,
yet it is plainly inferred by Mr. Brady's words that such rules had
been previously applied in the matter of politics.</p>

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

<p>Mr. Brady says: "You must do nothing whatever to antagonize the
interests of the Company, or to create feeling between the Company and
its patrons." This seems to be a very strange sentence in two
respects. First, how can temperance work "antagonize the interests of
the Company?" A railroad is always supported by a community, and must
depend entirely upon that community for its success, its wealth and
its very existence. The more wealthy and prosperous a people become,
the more will they patronize a railroad and contribute to its
maintenance and growth. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page084" name="page084"></a>(p. 084)</span> The community, moreover, is made up
of individuals, and its prosperity must depend upon the health,
enterprise, ability, success and moral character of the people who
compose it. Does not temperance tend to build up the virtues and
prosperity of individuals, and thus to increase the general prosperity
of the country and add to the success of all useful public
institutions?</p>

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

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"W. W. Smith, Esq., Sutton Junction.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;You may go on No. 11, Conductor will have pass for
     you.</p>

<p>"Sinclair <span class="pagenum"><a id="page085" name="page085"></a>(p. 085)</span> will be at Sutton Junction on No. 15 to-night
     to take charge during your absence. O'Regan must look after the
     business this <span class="smcap">P. M.</span></p>

<p><span class="left60 smcap">"F. P. Brady.</span><br>
"<i>Farnham, Aug. 20th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"W. W. Smith, Esq., Agent, Sutton Junction.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;I wrote you on July 9th with reference to what you
     must do if you remained in the employ of this Company. I am aware
     that last night you delivered a temperance lecture at Richford;
     this leads me to think that you propose to ignore entirely the
     wishes of this Company, and do as you see fit. If such is the
     case you will oblige me by sending me your resignation by the
     first train, and vacating the Company's premises at Sutton
     Junction at the <span class="pagenum"><a id="page086" name="page086"></a>(p. 086)</span> earliest possible moment so that they
     can be occupied by the new agent.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span><br>
<span class="left60 smcap">"F. P. Brady</span>, Asst. Supt.<br>
<i>Farnham, Sept. 4th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<hr class="small">

<p>Strange, indeed, that the Assistant Superintendent should have
supposed that an affair like this could always remain personal, and
never be subjected to the public gaze! Did he not know there was a
temperance community in Canada who would, at least, enquire into the
case of a persecuted brother? It is strange, also, that while other
roads at the present time are finding it very much to their advantage
to employ temperance men to the exclusion of others; while serious
accidents are frequently taking place on the different roads in which
scores of human beings perish through the recklessness of some
employee whose intellect is clouded by the action of strong drink; and
while some new roads in the beginning of their existence are adopting
very strict temperance rules; when even the Canadian Pacific Railway
has been obliged to dismiss or suspend some of its men for excessive
drinking; it is very <span class="pagenum"><a id="page087" name="page087"></a>(p. 087)</span> strange in view of all these facts that
an official of this great road should ask a station agent, because he
delivers a temperance lecture off duty, to "vacate the Company's
premises, so that they can be occupied by the new agent."</p>

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

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"F. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page088" name="page088"></a>(p. 088)</span> P. Brady, Esq., Asst. Supt., Farnham.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;On account of circumstances which I could not in any
     way control, I have been obliged to delay answering your letter
     of the 9th of July last. I regret very much to notice that you
     have had occasion to refer again to complaints made against me,
     which you say are numerous, and not only from shippers, but from
     the public generally. In a former letter to you I denied any just
     cause for complaint.</p>

<p>I have now been fifteen years or more in the service of the
     Company, and during that time I have endeavored to render, I
     trust, a faithful service. I have also received another letter
     from you, dated September 4th, asking me to send you my
     resignation by the first train, and ordering me to vacate the
     Company's premises at the earliest possible moment, so that they
     can be occupied by the new agent. I wish you would explain why
     you order me to resign, because I delivered a temperance lecture
     at Richford, as I have a leave of absence from the Company for
     the present, and supposed I had a right to lecture off duty on
     any occasion, time or place. You perhaps cannot realize how much
     I value my honor and reputation, as it is about the only thing
     that I have in the world to protect, and I must ask you to supply
     me with the names of those making complaints against me and the
     nature of their complaints, and as you also state the public
     generally have made complaints, I trust there should be no
     hesitancy on the part of the Company to supply me with the
     information asked <span class="pagenum"><a id="page089" name="page089"></a>(p. 089)</span> for, as you can readily see it is
     beyond the realm of privacy. Please reply.</p>

<p><span class="left60 smcap">"W. W. Smith.</span><br>
"<i>Sutton Junction, Sept. 7th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<p>This was Mr. Brady's reply:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"W. W. Smith, Esq., Sutton Junction, Que.</p>

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

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span> <span class="add2em smcap">F. P. Brady</span>, Asst. Supt.<br>
"<i>Farnham, Sept. 7th, 1894.</i>" Dictated.</p>
</div>

<p>It <span class="pagenum"><a id="page090" name="page090"></a>(p. 090)</span> appears from this letter that Mr. Brady wished his agent
to resume work immediately on his return with Mr. Carpenter and Kelly
from "New England," and did not expect him to help in the search for
other guilty parties in the assault case, or even to appear as a
witness in court.</p>

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

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

<p>Mr. Smith's next letter to Mr. Brady was as follows:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"F. P. Brady, Esq.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;Your letter of the 7th inst. to hand in reply to mine
     of that date, which does not cover the information asked for.
     Now, I would like to know upon what grounds you demand my
     resignation, viz.: because I addressed an audience in the United
     States or because complaints have been made against me as you say
     in your letters of June 11th and July 9th, as I wish to be in a
     position to answer to any charges made against me. I am very
     sorry you take the stand against me you do in regard to my
     temperance principles. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page091" name="page091"></a>(p. 091)</span> I understand perfectly well that
     I am no longer pleasant to your taste; but I expect fair
     treatment from the Company, and ask for nothing more. As far as
     my leave of absence is concerned, I have a telegram from you that
     I can be absent and Mr. Sinclair will take my place until I
     resume work again. No time is specified. Since I returned home, I
     have been busy looking up evidence against the parties who were
     instrumental in my assault on July 8th last. I intend to resume
     work again as soon as possible, I think about a week from Monday
     next, September 24th, unless advised by you that my services are
     no longer required.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span> <span class="add2em smcap">W. W. Smith</span>, Agent.<br>
"<i>Sutton Junction, Sept. 11th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<hr class="small">

<p>As no reply came Mr. Smith wrote again:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"F. P. Brady, Esq., Asst. Supt., Farnham.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;Will you please reply to my letter of the 11th inst.
     in regard to resuming work Monday next, September 24th. I am
     waiting anxiously to hear from you.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span> <span class="add2em smcap">W. W. Smith</span>.<br>
"<i>Sutton Junction, Sept. 19th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"F. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page092" name="page092"></a>(p. 092)</span> P. Brady, Esq., Farnham.</p>

<p>"I am ready to resume work this morning. Please reply.</p>

<p><span class="left60 smcap">W. W. Smith.</span><br>
"<i>Sutton Junction, Sept. 24th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<p>To this came the following reply:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"W. W. Smith, Sutton Junction.</p>

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

<p><span class="left60 smcap">"F. P. Brady.</span><br>
"<i>Farnham, Sept. 24th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

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

<p class="quote">
     "We are requested by the Brome County Alliance to publish the
     correspondence which preceded the dismissal of the President, Mr.
     W. W. Smith, from his position as station agent of the Canadian
     Pacific Railway at Sutton Junction. We have already pointed
     <span class="pagenum"><a id="page093" name="page093"></a>(p. 093)</span> out the extraordinary assumption of wage slavery, which
     is implied in this dismissal as accounted for by the official who
     did it. The claim made by Mr. Smith's employing officer, and
     practically indorsed by the Company in concurring in this
     dismissal, is that the Company owns its employees, soul and body,
     and that they can only fulfill their rights of citizenship at its
     pleasure. It is not to be supposed that this power asserted over
     the lives of its employees is going to be insisted on by the
     Company as against every thing they do, and that every man who
     takes part in a baseball match or a mock parliament will be
     dismissed. It is not to be supposed that the man who busies
     himself even in politics will be dismissed if he takes care that
     he does not do so on a side distasteful to the Company. The
     particular thing which is a capital offence with the Company,
     according to this correspondence, is to busy one's self with the
     enforcement of the laws of the land or advocate temperance in
     public. If temperance advocacy is going to be boycotted by the
     Canadian Pacific Railway in the interests of the illegal and
     murderous liquor business, there are ten thousand good customers
     of the road who will want to know the reason why. This should
     indeed be asked for in parliament."</p>





<h3>CHAPTER VI. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page094" name="page094"></a>(p. 094)</span></h3>

<h5>MORE BITS OF PUBLIC OPINION.</h5>


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

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

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"The announcement that the Canadian Pacific Railway has rallied
     to the aid of the lawless and murderous <span class="pagenum"><a id="page095" name="page095"></a>(p. 095)</span> liquor gang in
     Brome County, Quebec, is sufficiently suggestive and startling to
     demand attention. Its dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith, C. P. R.
     agent at Sutton Junction, and President of the Brome County
     branch of the Dominion Alliance, because of his activity in the
     discharge of his duties in the latter office, is one of the most
     foolish and anti-Canadian acts of that great corporation.</p>

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

<p>"Since the committal of the prisoners, Mr. Smith was dismissed by
     the C. P. R. Upon September 7th, he received a letter from the
     Assistant Superintendent in which occurred these words: 'You must
     either quit temperance work or quit the Company. It makes no
     difference whether you are on duty or off duty, so far as this
     Company is concerned. They demand the whole and entire time of
     their men, and they are going to have it.' .............. This
     subject is broader than Mr. Smith or any individual. It is the
     question of the right of the citizen to <span class="pagenum"><a id="page096" name="page096"></a>(p. 096)</span> enjoy and
     exercise the rights of a citizen while employed by such a
     corporation as the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is the old
     problem of slave or freeman. The Railway is undoubtedly entitled
     to the best service of its employees, while on duty; but, after
     hours, the citizens should be free to engage in those pleasures
     and pursuits which do not conflict with the welfare of society
     and the State, Mr. Smith should be free to participate in the
     agitation to drive the criminal liquor traffic out of the country
     without being called upon to suffer the loss of income. The man
     who braved the liquor party, and nearly sealed his devotion to
     the temperance reform with his life blood, was not the man to
     abandon his convictions at the command of a railway manager.</p>

<p>"The course of the C. P. R., in dismissing Mr. Smith, has been
     warmly endorsed by the cowardly and murderous liquor gang in
     Brome, and is so open to the suspicion of being an attempt to
     coerce the conscience and abridge the liberties of the citizens
     to serve the liquor interests as to make it imperative that some
     member of the Commons, which has so largely subsidized that road,
     demand in the approaching session a public investigation. A whole
     army of men are in the service of the Canadian Pacific Railway
     Company, scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the
     nation cannot afford to allow the despotic authority claimed by
     the Company over these men. If it can demand the entire time of
     their men on or off duty, may it not next demand the service of
     the men at the ballot box? An issue has been raised <span class="pagenum"><a id="page097" name="page097"></a>(p. 097)</span> by
     this incident which demands the vigorous protest of the press of
     the country."</p>
</div>

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"We have received a number of letters from persons who have
     determined to give the preference of their railway patronage
     against the Canadian Pacific Railway, as a testimony against the
     attitude of that Company towards the temperance reform, as
     manifested in the dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith from his position
     as station agent at Sutton Junction, for his active advocacy of
     temperance and enforcement of prohibitory law. Is it right for us
     to publish these letters, which are evidently only the beginning
     of what is yet to come, for the feeling throughout the country is
     very bitter in many quarters where this challenge to the
     advocates of law and order has become known? The question amounts
     to this: Is it right for persons who condemn the course of the
     Company to punish it in this way, and is it right for them to
     make a public question of it by publishing their action? The
     reason given for the dismissal of Mr. Smith, as shown by the
     correspondence which was recently made public in these columns,
     was that he was making things uncomfortable for certain customers
     of the Company who were importing liquor into Brome County. As
     Brome is a prohibition county, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page098" name="page098"></a>(p. 098)</span> those who import liquor
     for sale within its bounds are outlaws. In Mr. Smith's painful
     experience they are also assassins. As a matter of fact,
     according to Mr. Smith's statement, no shipments of liquor passed
     through his station, and he did not use his position as agent of
     the Company to bring the lawbreakers to justice. Why both the
     Company and its agents should not be ranged on the side of the
     law of the land, and why the Company should so protect its share
     in an unlawful business against any promoter of law and order,
     are questions not raised. Commercial corporations do not pretend
     to have souls or conscience. Nobody expects them to have any, and
     consequently no one is angry when they show that they have not.
     Quite apart from all questions of morals, the money interests of
     the Company are those of the country, and the liquor business
     does not promote the business of the country. Moreover, it is in
     the interest of the railway, and eminently so of its customers,
     to have railway servants protected from drink, and the
     enforcement of the laws against liquor is the most direct way to
     protect them from drink. This is all by the way, however;
     Companies are not abstract reasoners.</p>

<p>"But there is that in this action of the Canadian Pacific Railway
     Company which the public are inclined to resent even at the hands
     of a Company. In the first place the Company declares that it so
     values the custom of the liquor men of Brome, that it can afford
     for their sake to boycott the advocates of temperance and the
     enforcers of law. A station agent, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page099" name="page099"></a>(p. 099)</span> or even a superior
     officer, might be long and notoriously a victim of these same
     liquor men, and still remain an officer of the Company, but if he
     becomes their active enemy, and the active friend of mankind, he
     is dismissed. This is and it is evidently accepted as being a
     challenge to all friends of law and order, who are in a position
     to make the Company suffer in its sensitive pockets, to show
     whether the custom of the friends of law cannot be made as
     powerful an engine for the defence of right as that of the
     enemies of law and order is for the defence of crime. This is
     what temperance men throughout the country seem to be turning
     over in their minds just now, and are likely to go on doing so,
     so long as the position taken by Mr. Brady towards Mr. Smith
     remains the approved action of the Company, and so long as one
     holding the intolerable views of Mr. Brady remains its approved
     agent.</p>

<p>"There is another aspect of the Company's action through Mr.
     Brady which is rankling in the minds of the wage-earning
     population. Mr. Brady told Mr. Smith that the Company wanted all
     his time, and was going to have it, and that whether on duty or
     off it would not allow him to give temperance lectures. It is not
     sufficient to answer that this is not the position of the
     Company; that its employees, as a rule, are allowed to go to what
     church they think best, to take part in Christian Endeavor, or
     football, or whatever they may prefer as the occupation of their
     leisure. The fact remains that the Company has, through Mr.
     Brady, announced its right to check a man, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page100" name="page100"></a>(p. 100)</span> if it
     chooses, in the exercise of his ordinary rights and duties as a
     citizen and as a Christian, and has, by sanctioning Mr. Smith's
     dismissal for temperance lecturing, formally approved Mr. Brady's
     attitude. The Company may summon to its defence any other reasons
     for Mr. Smith's dismissal that it chooses. It cannot alter the
     fact that the reason given in Mr. Brady's letters is the one
     which was given to him, and which was the real cause of his act.
     This claim of a soulless Company to own its employees, body and
     soul, is one of the most daring and intolerable enunciations of
     what is in the language of our day termed wage slavery that we
     have seen, and one for which the great public will probably call
     it to account. The Canadian Pacific Railway is a national
     institution, constructed at the public expense, and a ruling
     influence in the land, and its attitude towards the liquor
     question and the rights of employees is a matter of national
     interest, open to free discussion in the newspapers and in the
     parliament, and if there are citizens who, for the purpose of
     making it feel in its only sensitive spot how it has outraged
     public sentiment and done a public wrong, are willing to sink
     their private advantage and convenience in the public good, by
     going out of their way to patronize another road, we think it is
     nothing but right that the railway should be plainly seized of
     all the facts."</p>
</div>

<p>The comments of another Canadian paper, the Toronto Star, are thus
quoted in <i>The Templar</i>:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"It <span class="pagenum"><a id="page101" name="page101"></a>(p. 101)</span> is a most regrettable condition of affairs when a
     corporation like the Canadian Pacific will dismiss an employee
     because he is active in the cause of prohibition, yet that is the
     case of a Mr. Smith, who lost his position as agent at Sutton
     Junction, Quebec, because the liquor dealers whom he opposed had
     sufficient influence to secure his dismissal.</p>

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

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page102" name="page102"></a>(p. 102)</span> dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith from the services of
     the C. P. R., because he was obnoxious to illicit whiskey sellers
     in Brome County, has evoked strong expression of disapproval from
     not a few of the papers of the Dominion.</p>

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

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

<p>Not only the journals of the Canadian Interior, but those of the
Maritime Provinces as well, showed their interest in this affair,
which had so aroused the temperance people of Quebec and Ontario. The
following, published <span class="pagenum"><a id="page103" name="page103"></a>(p. 103)</span> in <i>The Templar</i>, is taken from <i>The
Intelligencer</i>, Fredericton, New Brunswick:</p>

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

<p>"But in spite of this, the Company, yielding to the clamorings of
     the rum gang, dismiss an officer against whom it has not been
     possible to make any charge of neglect, and not even to
     substantiate the complaints of those who were bent upon his
     dismissal. Mr. Smith's offense was that he was too good a citizen
     to suit the views of the outlaws who are engaged in the illicit
     rum-traffic. They sought to take his life, hiring one of their
     own brutal gang to commit the murder. The attempt was made, but
     failing to kill him, they renewed their efforts to have him
     dismissed. And in this they were more successful. It is scarcely
     possible that the outlawed rumsellers of Brome County had
     sufficient influence alone, to accomplish Mr. Smith's discharge.
     They were probably backed by the traffic in Montreal and
     elsewhere. And this goes to show that the traffic is one;
     <span class="pagenum"><a id="page104" name="page104"></a>(p. 104)</span> that distillers, brewers, wholesalers and saloon and
     hotel keepers are united; that licensed and illicit sellers make
     common cause, and that they use their awful power not only to
     defy all laws and regulations which hamper them, but are ready to
     rob of their means of livelihood, and their good name, and even
     to murder such men as they think stand in their way. These are
     things which might be expected of the traffic. But it is quite
     amazing that a great corporation like the C. P. R. should become
     its ally. Most employers would stand by an employee who had
     suffered at the hands of murderous ruffians, because of his
     sympathy with law enforcement, and the promotion of the moral
     welfare of his community. But the Assistant Superintendent of the
     C. P. R., under whom Mr. Smith worked, was not moved by such
     consideration, a mere sentimental consideration he would probably
     call it. He preferred to coöperate with the rum traffic&mdash;to
     become its tool.</p>

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

<p>"This case should not be allowed to fade out of the memory of the
     people. It asserts the right of <span class="pagenum"><a id="page105" name="page105"></a>(p. 105)</span> an employer, not only
     to the time of the employee, but to his conscience, his sense of
     the duties of good citizenship, and his self-respect. If
     permitted, unrebuked and uncorrected, it helps to establish the
     right of capital to do any unjust and tyrannical thing, either of
     its own will or at the dictation of the conscienceless rum
     traffic, or of other organized evil.</p>

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

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

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"A Canadian Railway Company has been guilty of a piece of mean
     persecution against one of its agents on account of his
     temperance activity. The station master at Sutton Junction, of
     the Canadian Pacific <span class="pagenum"><a id="page106" name="page106"></a>(p. 106)</span> Railway, in the Province of
     Quebec, was recently notified that he 'must quit temperance work,
     or quit the Company.' The letter further states the ground upon
     which this action is based. 'It makes no difference whether you
     are on duty or off duty, so far as this Company is concerned.
     They demand the whole and entire time of their men, and they are
     going to have it.' Short, sharp, peremptory this, but is also a
     high-handed proceeding&mdash;an infringement upon personal rights. It
     does not appear that this man had been derelict in duty to his
     employers, or that he took the time that belonged to them in
     promoting the cause of temperance. His only offence was that,
     while conscientious in daily work, he thought of others, and
     labored for their welfare in his spare moments. For that he
     incurred official reprobation, and was given the choice of
     quitting temperance work or the Company.</p>

<p>"The railway magnates claimed entire control over all his time,
     whether on duty or off duty, demanding in their tautological
     language, 'The whole and entire time' of their men, and bluffly
     adding that 'they are going to have it.' They would leave no room
     for doubt, parley or protest. Accordingly, nothing was left a man
     of conscience but to retire and seek employment where he could
     exercise a little personal liberty. It is no new thing for men to
     give up railway positions on conscientious grounds, when
     compelled to work on the Sabbath, but this is the first instance
     we have known where a Railway Company has forced a person out of
     its employ because of his temperance <span class="pagenum"><a id="page107" name="page107"></a>(p. 107)</span> principles. In our
     country, other things being equal, total abstainers are preferred
     by railway men. This Canadian Company is away behind the age."</p>
</div>

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

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

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"It <span class="pagenum"><a id="page108" name="page108"></a>(p. 108)</span> was also voted that the following resolution be
     placed on record, and a copy furnished to the press for
     publication:</p>

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

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

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

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

<p class="quote">"<span class="smcap">Prescott</span>, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page109" name="page109"></a>(p. 109)</span> Ont., Dec. 5th.&mdash;The forty-fifth session of
     the Grand Division of the Sons of Temperance was held here
     to-day. The question of the discharge of Mr. W. W. Smith, of
     Sutton Junction, by the Canadian Pacific Railway, for his loyalty
     to the temperance cause, was brought up, the following report of
     a special committee on the subject being unanimously adopted:
     <span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Mr. W. W. Smith of Sutton Junction, President of the
     Brome County Alliance, in the Province of Quebec, whose attempted
     assassination for his fidelity to law and order is a public fact,
     has been summarily dismissed from his position as agent of the
     Canadian Pacific Railway, for the express reason of his advocacy
     of the cause of temperance, this Grand Division desires to
     express the view that this action of the Railway Company is a
     distinct violation of the rights of citizenship, and deserves
     strong condemnation as being tyrannical and unjust in the
     extreme, and is calculated, if not redressed, to destroy public
     spirit and inflict deep injury to the civil rights of the
     people."</p>

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

<p>The following communication was sent to the <i>Witness</i> before the
publication of Mr. Brady's letters. Doubtless, the writer of this
article may, after reading those letters, have entertained some doubts
as to the infallibility of the opinions here expressed, but <span class="pagenum"><a id="page110" name="page110"></a>(p. 110)</span>
they show, at least, how impossible it seemed to some citizens that
such a corporation as the Canadian Pacific Railway could oppose
temperance activity on the part of its employees. The letter,
addressed to the Editor of the <i>Witness</i>, is as follows:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;In your issue of October 9th, a statement occurs which
     suggests the necessity of a word of caution. The following is the
     sentence: 'Some astonishing revelations may be expected, as the
     temperance people are intensely indignant that the Company should
     have yielded to the demands of the liquor party, and removed from
     its service one who has been for years a trusted servant and
     faithful officer.' From a personal acquaintance with several
     gentlemen who control the appointment of officials of this and
     similar grades of office in connection with the Canadian Pacific
     Railway, I wait an explanation of this act of executive power
     which will present it in an altogether different light from that
     in which it now appears. I cannot believe that officers of any
     Company, transacting business with, and dependent upon, the
     public, as the Canadian Pacific Railway is, would descend to an
     act as described in the case in hand. What the explanation will
     be, I will not conjecture, but I can easily conceive it is
     susceptible of an explanation which will remove all cause of
     censure from the Company. In more than one instance, I have known
     the officials of this Company to firmly support an employee in
     the maintenance of <span class="pagenum"><a id="page111" name="page111"></a>(p. 111)</span> moral principle, even at a financial
     loss to the Company. But, apart from all loyalty to right
     principle, on the part of the officiary of the Company, it is to
     me simply inconceivable that shrewd business men as these
     officials are known to be would be guilty of an act which from a
     purely business point of view would be a stupidly suicidal one.
     It taxes one's credulity to too great a degree to ask one to
     believe that, in view of the recent plebiscite taken in several
     Provinces, that any officer, possessed of mental qualifications
     sufficient to secure a position of power in the Company, would
     ally himself with a coterie of lawbreakers in a secluded village,
     and perpetrate an act which would be resented by thousands of
     business men and tens of thousands of the travelling public in
     our Dominion, and attach a stain to the name of the Company which
     would challenge contempt for years future. The facilities
     afforded by other competing lines at so many points in our
     Dominion for such as would resent an act of this character are
     too great to permit a Company that is hungering for freight and
     passenger traffic to yield to such inconsiderable and immoral
     influences as the liquor men of Sutton Junction and their
     sympathizers could command. The Company knows well how slight a
     matter often creates a prejudice for or against a railway which
     affects its dividends for years, and they know well also that
     when an act of this kind is actually done and unearthed, that it
     appeals to principles held as sacred by the public of our
     Dominion. They also know that, however the temperance <span class="pagenum"><a id="page112" name="page112"></a>(p. 112)</span>
     ballot holders may be divided in their political allegiances, in
     a matter of this kind, when no political ties bind them, they
     would be practically a unit in resenting an act not only
     tyrannical, but under the circumstances cowardly and immoral. One
     cannot believe that this shrewd Company of high-minded and acute
     business gentlemen would be guilty of the folly attributed to
     them. Their effort is in every way honorable to attract their own
     line, and it is past belief that they should play into the hands
     of the Grand Trunk and other competing lines in any such manner
     as the accusation, if proved, would mean. Give them time and
     opportunity for an explanation before any expression of
     indignation manifests itself, and especially before any hasty and
     inconsiderate act of discrimination against the Company is made."</p>

<p><span class="left60 smcap">Spectator.</span></p>
</div>

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;I read with much pleasure the letter from 'A Total
     Abstainer' in your issue of November 4th, and his purpose not to
     travel by the C. P. R. in future, when he has the privilege of
     another route. I <span class="pagenum"><a id="page113" name="page113"></a>(p. 113)</span> would like to assure him that he does
     not stand alone, that there are many others who feel just as
     strongly. It was only to-day that I learned of two persons who,
     at some inconvenience to themselves, took passage by the Grand
     Trunk Railway in preference to the Canadian Pacific Railway, on
     account of the way in which the Company has played so miserably
     into the hands of the liquor dealers; and I know of other
     travellers who are resolved to use the C. P. R. only when it
     cannot be avoided. I am informed that some of the temperance
     organizations to which he refers are not going to let the matter
     rest where it now is, but will manifest their indignation in
     their own way and time.</p>

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

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

<p><span class="left20 smcap">"Another Total Abstainer.</span>"</p>
</div>

<p>Another letter, published in the <i>Witness</i> of December 29th, and
signed "Disinterested," is given below. The allusion to the queries of
the Alliance and the replies <span class="pagenum"><a id="page114" name="page114"></a>(p. 114)</span> of the Assistant General
Manager will be more fully explained in the next chapter.</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"To the Editor of the <i>Witness</i>:</p>

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

<p>"1. There are lawbreakers in the county of Brome.</p>

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

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

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

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

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page115" name="page115"></a>(p. 115)</span> or otherwise on pain of being dismissed
     from my employ.'</p>

<p>"7. The Assistant General Manager comes out in a two-column
     letter explaining the attitude and act of the C. P. R. The
     purport of that letter is that the man who antagonizes a
     considerable portion of the community is therefore ... less
     useful than he otherwise would be in any position (such, for
     instance, as a station agent) in the employ of a railway company,
     whose main object must be to increase the business, from every
     possible source, and who must be careful not to antagonize any
     portion of the community upon whose patronage, as a part of the
     general public, the success of the Company depends. In all this
     letter there is no distinction between the law-abiding and
     lawbreaking sections of the community. The logical inference of
     the whole letter is, the agent at Sutton antagonized the
     lawbreakers of Brome, and those who abetted their doings, and,
     therefore, the superintendent of the road was justified in
     dismissing him. But by that act the superintendent 'antagonizes'
     a very large section of the community, stretching from Halifax to
     Vancouver, but he is sustained by the Company in his act.
     'Consistency, thou art a jewel!' As a Canadian I have felt just
     pride in the C. P. R., I have advocated its claims against all
     other transcontinental routes, especially have I compared it with
     the Grand Trunk Railway, and advised my friends to patronize the
     former. Now, however, as a free and law-abiding citizen I must,
     on principle, change my method unless Mr. Tait, or some one else,
     can explain the <span class="pagenum"><a id="page116" name="page116"></a>(p. 116)</span> act of the Company. If both employees
     interested in the Sutton matter had been dismissed, I could see
     that there was an honest effort on the part of the Company to do
     justly, but as it is I can only see underneath all this the
     intention of the Company to favor the lawbreakers of Brome and
     liquor interests generally at the expense of the temperance and
     Christian community. If my views are wrong, and anyone will do me
     the kindness to correct them, I shall owe him a debt of
     gratitude; for I am exceedingly loath to believe such things of
     the management of our noble Canadian Pacific Railway. Until then,
     however, I must say that I shall not travel on one mile of the C.
     P. R. when I can take another line. I am constantly on the road
     between Quebec and Toronto, with headquarters in Montreal. I take
     this stand not by choice nor caprice, but on the principles of a
     free citizen."</p>
</div>

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

<p class="quote">
     "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!' <span class="pagenum"><a id="page117" name="page117"></a>(p. 117)</span> 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 &mdash;&mdash; 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."</p>

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

<p class="quote">
     "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, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page118" name="page118"></a>(p. 118)</span> 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 <i>The
     Templar</i>, 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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page119" name="page119"></a>(p. 119)</span> of the Grand Trunk a few years
     ago, when they discharged their agent at Richmond, Que., because
     he openly opposed the temperance people."</p>

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

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





<h3>CHAPTER VII. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page120" name="page120"></a>(p. 120)</span></h3>

<h5>THE DOMINION ALLIANCE PROTEST.</h5>


<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page121" name="page121"></a>(p. 121)</span> Tait, Esq., Assistant General Manager, Canadian
Pacific Railway":</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page122" name="page122"></a>(p. 122)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page123" name="page123"></a>(p. 123)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"I am, dear sir, respectfully yours,</span><br>
<span class="left60">"J. H. Carson, Sec'y."</span></p>
</div>

<p>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:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "<span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, 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:
     <i>Resolved</i>, That this Alliance will stand by Brome County
     Alliance in any action it may take under <span class="pagenum"><a id="page124" name="page124"></a>(p. 124)</span> the advice of
     our solicitors to vindicate the reputation of Mr. Smith."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>On December 22d, the following appeared among the <i>Witness</i>
editorials:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page125" name="page125"></a>(p. 125)</span> 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."</p>

<p>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:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"J. H. Carson, Esq.,<br>
<span class="add2em">"Secretary Dominion Alliance, Montreal.</span></p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page126" name="page126"></a>(p. 126)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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:</p>

<p>"<i>'Use of Liquor.</i>&mdash;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
     <span class="pagenum"><a id="page127" name="page127"></a>(p. 127)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page128" name="page128"></a>(p. 128)</span> 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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page129" name="page129"></a>(p. 129)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page130" name="page130"></a>(p. 130)</span>
     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:</p>

<p>"'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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page131" name="page131"></a>(p. 131)</span>
     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.</p>

<p>"'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.</p>

<p>"'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.'</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page132" name="page132"></a>(p. 132)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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
     <span class="pagenum"><a id="page133" name="page133"></a>(p. 133)</span> of, and, so far as I know, none of the suggestions made
     were followed.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span> <span class="add2em smcap">Thos. Tait</span>,<br>
<span class="left60">"Assistant General Manager.</span><br>
"<i>Montreal, Dec. 6th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<p>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. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page134" name="page134"></a>(p. 134)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<div class="quote">
<p><span class="left60">"December 21st, 1894.</span><br>
"T. Tait, Esq., Asst. General Manager, C. P. R.:</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;Your letter of December 6th has had the attention of
     the Alliance Committee, which takes <span class="pagenum"><a id="page135" name="page135"></a>(p. 135)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page136" name="page136"></a>(p. 136)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"Your <span class="pagenum"><a id="page137" name="page137"></a>(p. 137)</span> offer to meet our committee and discuss the
     question was rendered nugatory by the dismissal of Mr. Smith.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page138" name="page138"></a>(p. 138)</span> 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.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"I remain, dear sir,</span><br>
<span class="left20">"Very respectfully yours,</span><br>
<span class="left60 smcap">"J. H. Carson</span>, Secretary."</p>
</div>

<p>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 <i>Witness</i> as follows:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"When I was assaulted on July 8th, I wired Mr. Stewart <span class="pagenum"><a id="page139" name="page139"></a>(p. 139)</span>
     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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"As to my changing work with Mr. O'Regan, I did, and such things
     are quite customary with agents and <span class="pagenum"><a id="page140" name="page140"></a>(p. 140)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page141" name="page141"></a>(p. 141)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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 <i>Witness</i>
     reporter, and published in the <i>Witness</i> 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.'</p>

<p>"Mr. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page142" name="page142"></a>(p. 142)</span> 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&mdash;&mdash;l,' and he 'does not care a G&mdash;&mdash; d&mdash;&mdash;' 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.</p>

<p>"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?</p>

<p><span class="left60 smcap">"W. W. Smith.</span><br>
"<i>Sutton, December 24th, 1894.</i>"</p>
</div>

<p>
The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page143" name="page143"></a>(p. 143)</span> 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 <i>Witness</i> of December 28th:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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&mdash;from far off Victoria, B. C., to Halifax, N. S.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page144" name="page144"></a>(p. 144)</span> 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."</p>
</div>





<h3>CHAPTER VIII. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page145" name="page145"></a>(p. 145)</span></h3>

<h5>RESULTS OF THE ALLIANCE PROTEST.</h5>


<p>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:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"J. H. Carson, Esq., Secretary Quebec Provincial Branch of the
     Dominion Alliance, 162 St. James Street, Montreal:</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page146" name="page146"></a>(p. 146)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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.'</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page147" name="page147"></a>(p. 147)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"Yours truly,</span><br>
<span class="left20">"(Signed),</span> <span class="add2em smcap">Thos. Tait</span>,<br>
<span class="left30">"Assistant General Manager."</span></p>
</div>

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page148" name="page148"></a>(p. 148)</span> 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?</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page149" name="page149"></a>(p. 149)</span> 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.</p>

<div class="quote">
<p class="left60"><span class="add2em">"Dominion Alliance,</span><br>
     "Quebec Provincial Branch,<br>
     "<span class="smcap">Montreal</span>, Jan. 30th, 1895.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;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.</p>

<p>"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.'</p>

<p>"These resolutions were carefully considered at the conference of
     temperance representatives, held in this <span class="pagenum"><a id="page150" name="page150"></a>(p. 150)</span> 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.</p>

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

<p>"'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.</p>

<p>"'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.</p>

<p>"'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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page151" name="page151"></a>(p. 151)</span> 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.</p>

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

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"In <span class="pagenum"><a id="page152" name="page152"></a>(p. 152)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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
     coöperation, 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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p><span class="add2em">"On behalf of the executive,</span><br>
<span class="left20 smcap">"E. L. Bond</span>, <span class="add4em"> }</span><br>
<span class="left20 smcap">"S. J. Carter</span>,<span class="add3em">&nbsp; }</span><br>
<span class="left20 smcap">"A. M. Featherston</span>,&nbsp; } <i>Committee</i>."<br>
<span class="left20 smcap">"A. M. Phillips</span>, <span class="add2em">&nbsp; }</span><br>
<span class="left20 smcap">"J. H. Carson</span>,<span class="add3em">&nbsp; }</span></p>
</div>

<p>It <span class="pagenum"><a id="page153" name="page153"></a>(p. 153)</span> 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:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page154" name="page154"></a>(p. 154)</span>
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&mdash;<i>as they
have done from the commencement of the discussion</i>&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "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,
     <i>always with due consideration to the interests of the Company</i>."</p>

<p>As we are not told that Mr. Tait, at the meeting, repudiated any of
his own former statements, we will look <span class="pagenum"><a id="page155" name="page155"></a>(p. 155)</span> at the above in the
light of the following, from his letter of December 6th, to Mr.
Carson:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>This acknowledgment was certainly a good one, but we have no knowledge
of the promise having been <span class="pagenum"><a id="page156" name="page156"></a>(p. 156)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Witness</i>, did find its way to the
public, and may have expressed the opinions of many besides the
writer:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page157" name="page157"></a>(p. 157)</span> 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.'</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"I do not know the names of any one of these men, so I cannot be
     accused of malice in holding up their conduct <span class="pagenum"><a id="page158" name="page158"></a>(p. 158)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.'</p>

<p>"The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page159" name="page159"></a>(p. 159)</span> committee would seem to have insisted on the
     punishment of Brady, while concurring with Tait in everything.
     The report says:</p>

<p>"'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.</p>

<p><span class="left60 smcap">"James Findlay.</span><br>
"<i>Beachburg, P. Q.</i>"</p>
</div>

<p>Commenting on the above letter the <i>Witness</i> says:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page160" name="page160"></a>(p. 160)</span> 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."</p>

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page161" name="page161"></a>(p. 161)</span> by the
following from a report of an executive meeting of the Provincial
Alliance, on April 18th:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"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:</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">'Dear Sir</span>,&mdash;I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
     the 1st inst.</p>

<p>"'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.</p>

<p>"'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.
<span class="add2em">Yours truly,</span><br>
<span class="left60 smcap">"'Thos. Tait</span>,<br>
<span class="left30">"'Assistant General Manager.'"</span></p>
</div>

<p>A few days previous to this Executive meeting the above letter was
presented at a meeting of the general committee <span class="pagenum"><a id="page162" name="page162"></a>(p. 162)</span> of the
Provincial Alliance, and "was not considered at all satisfactory."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page163" name="page163"></a>(p. 163)</span> and Prohibition is a thing talked of, but not
experienced.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>




<h3>CHAPTER IX. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page164" name="page164"></a>(p. 164)</span></h3>

<h5>THE MARCH COURT.</h5>


<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>When <span class="pagenum"><a id="page165" name="page165"></a>(p. 165)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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 <i>The Templar</i>, "It seemed as if Mr.
Baker challenged all who were known to 'take a glass,' while Mr.
Racicot challenged all known temperance people."</p>

<p>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 <i>Witness</i>:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page166" name="page166"></a>(p. 166)</span>
     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."</p>

<p>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 <i>Witness</i>:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"'Do you know Peter McGettrick, of Richford?'</p>

<p>"'I do.'</p>

<p>"'Do you know Frank Brady?'</p>

<p>"I do.'</p>

<p>"'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?'</p>

<p>"'I <span class="pagenum"><a id="page167" name="page167"></a>(p. 167)</span> did not.'</p>

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

<p>"I did not.'"</p>
</div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <i>Witness</i>, as follows:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "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
     <span class="pagenum"><a id="page168" name="page168"></a>(p. 168)</span> 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page169" name="page169"></a>(p. 169)</span> 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.</p>

<p>Mr. Carpenter's testimony was the last on Tuesday.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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

<p>The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page170" name="page170"></a>(p. 170)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page171" name="page171"></a>(p. 171)</span> therefore, after reading it, did not try
to hide again.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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 subp&oelig;naed, he would pay his fine.</p>

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page172" name="page172"></a>(p. 172)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>He was asked: "Do you know of any scheme to get even with Mr. Smith?"
Mr. Racicot objected to <span class="pagenum"><a id="page173" name="page173"></a>(p. 173)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page174" name="page174"></a>(p. 174)</span>
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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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
<span class="pagenum"><a id="page175" name="page175"></a>(p. 175)</span> 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.</p>

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

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>William <span class="pagenum"><a id="page176" name="page176"></a>(p. 176)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "W. W. Smith is badly hurt. Get Homer and others to watch the
     roads."</p>

<p>He <span class="pagenum"><a id="page177" name="page177"></a>(p. 177)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>During <span class="pagenum"><a id="page178" name="page178"></a>(p. 178)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>This completed the evidence in the case.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page179" name="page179"></a>(p. 179)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page180" name="page180"></a>(p. 180)</span> 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>Then <span class="pagenum"><a id="page181" name="page181"></a>(p. 181)</span> 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Thus <span class="pagenum"><a id="page182" name="page182"></a>(p. 182)</span> 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.</p>




<h3>CHAPTER X. <span class="pagenum"><a id="page183" name="page183"></a>(p. 183)</span></h3>

<h5>THE DECISIONS OF ANOTHER TRIBUNAL.</h5>


<p>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.</p>

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"The sentence of one month in jail for each of the tavern
     keepers, who pleaded guilty to having procured an <span class="pagenum"><a id="page184" name="page184"></a>(p. 184)</span>
     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.</p>

<p>"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."</p>
</div>

<p>Below is the view expressed by <i>The Templar</i>, itself, and also
repeated by the <i>Witness</i>.</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"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.</p>

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

<p>"The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page185" name="page185"></a>(p. 185)</span> 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!</p>

<p>"These are the men who say we cannot enforce prohibition, and
     undertake to make the law a dead letter. Men who will murder&mdash;no,
     they lack that courage, but will hire the slugger&mdash;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?</p>

<p>"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."</p>
</div>

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page186" name="page186"></a>(p. 186)</span> Huntingdon <i>Gleaner</i>, 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.'</p>

<p>"Referring to the disgraceful conduct of the jurors in
     disagreeing, despite Kelly's confession, the Waterloo
     <i>Advertiser</i> 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.'"</p>
</div>

<p>The following appeared as an editorial in the <i>Witness</i> of March 27th:</p>

<p class="quote">
     "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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page187" name="page187"></a>(p. 187)</span> 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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>We <span class="pagenum"><a id="page188" name="page188"></a>(p. 188)</span> quote here some of the communications mentioned above,
which were sent to the editor of the <i>Witness</i> regarding the
settlement of the assault case. The letter given below, signed
"Justice," was written from Sweetsburg under date of March 12th, 1895:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page189" name="page189"></a>(p. 189)</span> 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?</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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?'</p>

<p>"If <span class="pagenum"><a id="page190" name="page190"></a>(p. 190)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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."</p>
</div>

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

<div class="quote">
<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page191" name="page191"></a>(p. 191)</span> 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.</p>

<p>"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."</p>
</div>

<p>The <span class="pagenum"><a id="page192" name="page192"></a>(p. 192)</span> following from "One of the W. C. T. U.," appeared in the
Home Department of the <i>Witness</i> of March 23d:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Editor Home Department</span>,&mdash;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.</p>

<p>"I am heartily thankful that the <i>Witness</i> 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.</p>

<p>"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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page193" name="page193"></a>(p. 193)</span> win many to our cause who
     would otherwise not have joined us."</p>
</div>

<p>The following protest, signed "A Lover of Right," was published in the
<i>Witness</i> of April 5th:</p>

<div class="quote">
<p>"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>,&mdash;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.</p>

<p>"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."</p>
</div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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, <span class="pagenum"><a id="page194" name="page194"></a>(p. 194)</span> 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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page195" name="page195"></a>(p. 195)</span> temperance people would consent to raise the
remainder.</p>

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

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

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page196" name="page196"></a>(p. 196)</span> 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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>From the history of these deeds of darkness in Brome County we may
learn, also, the power possessed by the liquor party,&mdash;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.</p>

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page197" name="page197"></a>(p. 197)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<hr class="small">

<p>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 <span class="pagenum"><a id="page198" name="page198"></a>(p. 198)</span> 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.</p>

<p>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
coöperation of temperance people will be needed if the law is to be
well enforced.</p>

<p>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.</p>
</html>