Chapter V

THE ACTION OF THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO.

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.

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 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 _Daily Witness_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"_Farnham, June 11th, 1894._"

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

"F. P. Brady, West Farnham.

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

"Yours truly, NUTTER & FRENCH.

"_Sherbrooke, June 6th, 1894._"

"Nutter & French.

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

"_Glen Sutton, June 7th, 1894._"

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

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

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

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

"Yours truly, W. W. SMITH.

"_Sutton Junction, June 13th, 1894._"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"F. P. BRADY.
"_Farnham, Aug. 20th, 1894._"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"W. W. SMITH.

"_Sutton Junction, Sept. 7th, 1894._"

This was Mr. Brady's reply:

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

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

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

"_Farnham, Sept. 7th, 1894._" Dictated.

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

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

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

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

"F. P. Brady, Esq.

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

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

"_Sutton Junction, Sept. 11th, 1894._"

As no reply came Mr. Smith wrote again:

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

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

"Yours truly, W. W. SMITH.

"_Sutton Junction, Sept. 19th, 1894._"

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

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

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

W. W. SMITH.
"_Sutton Junction, Sept. 24th, 1894._"

To this came the following reply:

"W. W. Smith, Sutton Junction.

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

"F. P. BRADY.
"_Farnham, Sept. 24th, 1894._"

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

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