The Story of a Dark Plot Part 5

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., a.s.st. Supt., Farnham.

"DEAR SIR,--On account of circ.u.mstances 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 s.h.i.+ppers, 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, a.s.st. 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 a.s.sault 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 a.s.sault?

After reading these letters from the a.s.sistant 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 a.s.sault 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., a.s.st. 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 a.s.sumption 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 citizens.h.i.+p at its pleasure. It is not to be supposed that this power a.s.serted 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."

CHAPTER VI.

MORE BITS OF PUBLIC OPINION.

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 a.s.sault case previously, elicited much criticism from the public.

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

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 _The Templar_ of Hamilton, as quoted in the Montreal _Daily Witness_:

"The announcement that the Canadian Pacific Railway has rallied to the aid of the lawless and murderous 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.

"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 a.s.sailed, and barely escaped with his life. Detectives were employed, the a.s.sa.s.sin 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.