"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;' atleast 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...."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 himwith 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...."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 gavethis 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."
"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;' atleast 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....
"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 himwith 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....
"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 gavethis 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."
Walter K. Kelly
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. Ifhe 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.
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 prisonersusually consider it their privilege, when in the witness box, to work for their own safety.
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 MontrealDaily Witness:
"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."He recognized the lead pipe as the weapon Kelly used, and also the hat was the one he left behind in the station."Hewent to Marlboro on August 25th, and identified Kelly, whom he saw drinking with three other men at the bar of the Central House."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."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."
"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.
"He recognized the lead pipe as the weapon Kelly used, and also the hat was the one he left behind in the station.
"Hewent to Marlboro on August 25th, and identified Kelly, whom he saw drinking with three other men at the bar of the Central House.
"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.
"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."
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.
Judge Lynch carefully considered the matter in its social and legal aspects.
He brought up several cases in the history of the country in which application for bail had been refused, recitedthe general principles which had governed the various judges in making these decisions, and concluded his remarks thus:
"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."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—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."Itmight possibly be otherwise were bail allowed, and I cannot take the responsibility of such an occurrence. The application is refused."
"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.
"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—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.
"Itmight possibly be otherwise were bail allowed, and I cannot take the responsibility of such an occurrence. The application is refused."
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.
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.
Itmay 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.
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.
We purpose devoting this chapter to a few of the views of societies and individuals respecting this affair, asthey were published in the columns of certain newspapers. The following fromThe Templarshows 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:
"The Missisquoi County Alliance, at a meeting held August 28th, passed the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted amid applause: 'Resolved, 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.'"
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:
"That this Alliance records its profound sympathy with Mr. W. W. Smith, President of the Brome County Alliance, in the recent murderous assault madeupon 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."
The letter given below appeared inThe Knowlton Newsof Oct. 12th, 1894, under the heading "A Few Words on the Other Side:"
"To the Editor ofThe News:"Sir,—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 andevery 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."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."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 Allianceemphasize 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."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!"But it were useless to pursue the subject further."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 thatKelly willingly came back to Canada, when extradition would have been about impossible."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,—and by whom?—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?—what were they after? That $1000 reward was in sight, and this may have been the inducing cause of this prowling."It would seem to 'A man up a tree' that there are certain revenges to be completed—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."And because he does this should he be reviled, and persecuted, and driven out of business? That liquoris 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—curb and control the evil in the best manner possible."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"Brome, Oct. 8th, '94.Fair Play."
"To the Editor ofThe News:
"Sir,—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 andevery 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.
"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.
"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 Allianceemphasize 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.
"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!
"But it were useless to pursue the subject further.
"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 thatKelly willingly came back to Canada, when extradition would have been about impossible.
"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,—and by whom?—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?—what were they after? That $1000 reward was in sight, and this may have been the inducing cause of this prowling.
"It would seem to 'A man up a tree' that there are certain revenges to be completed—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.
"And because he does this should he be reviled, and persecuted, and driven out of business? That liquoris 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—curb and control the evil in the best manner possible.
"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
"Brome, Oct. 8th, '94.Fair Play."
The following comments appeared in an editorial in the same paper:
"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."
If,as the Editor ofThe Newsseems 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.
It is said in the above note that Mr. Smith'sfriendswould try to make a martyr of him, but it was doubtful if they would succeed. We think the Editor ofThe Newsis mistaken in this, it was Mr. Smith'senemieswho 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 ofThe News, dated Oct. 19th, appeared the following replies to the above epistle from "the other side:"
"To the Editor ofThe Knowlton News:"Sir,—In regard to the communication in your issueof October 12th, over the signature of Fair Play, your correspondent says:"'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!'"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 intheirs. If the parties who are accused of complicity in this affair are innocent, they will have the opportunity of proving themselves so."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."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."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, andsurely 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."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."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 victimsof an assault and suspicion pointed to Smith and the Alliance as its instigators."Merit Longeway."Sutton, October 15th, 1894."
"To the Editor ofThe Knowlton News:
"Sir,—In regard to the communication in your issueof October 12th, over the signature of Fair Play, your correspondent says:
"'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!'
"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 intheirs. If the parties who are accused of complicity in this affair are innocent, they will have the opportunity of proving themselves so.
"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.
"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.
"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, andsurely 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.
"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.
"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 victimsof an assault and suspicion pointed to Smith and the Alliance as its instigators.
"Merit Longeway."Sutton, October 15th, 1894."
Lead pipe, rope and hat
"To the Editor ofThe News:"Sir,—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?"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."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, withno 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."Again, this 'believer in fair play,' in speaking of Mr. Smith, says:"'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 altercases, 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?"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?'"Truth."
"To the Editor ofThe News:
"Sir,—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?
"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.
"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, withno 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.
"Again, this 'believer in fair play,' in speaking of Mr. Smith, says:
"'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 altercases, 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?
"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?'
"Truth."
Inthe following number ofThe Newsappeared this note:
"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."
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.
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 toMr. 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 MontrealDaily 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, aWitnessreporter, 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 havethe 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.'"
"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, aWitnessreporter, 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 havethe 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, whethertheir 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 wasemployed. 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 theWitness, 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 theDaily Witnessof 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 manin 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 theWitness:
"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 helplessin 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 theWitnessof 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 peopleare 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 theWitness.
It was also afterwards published inThe Templarand 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: