"The meeting of representatives of the various provincial and Dominion temperance bodies, held yesterday afternoon in the Temple Building, was for the purpose of receiving reports from the executives of these grand bodies concerning the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in dismissing Mr. Smith for his activity in temperance work."The Secretary presented a very large number of resolutions adopted by these various executives, expressing their condemnation of the Company, and endorsing heartily the action of the Alliance, in seeking to have the injustice removed. The resolutions were from British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, as well as from Maritime Provinces—from far off Victoria, B. C., to Halifax, N. S."The communications indicate that the whole temperance community is thoroughly aroused, and intensely interested in this matter. The meeting adopted a strong resolution, which was referred to a committee of five, who were empowered to take such further action as they deem best to carry out the spirit of the resolutions presented to the meeting yesterday."TheSecretary was instructed to inform Mr. Tait, Assistant General Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that this committee would confer with him in regard to this matter, if we should so desire. The committee will await Mr. Tait's reply before publishing the resolutions received or those adopted at yesterday's meeting."
"The meeting of representatives of the various provincial and Dominion temperance bodies, held yesterday afternoon in the Temple Building, was for the purpose of receiving reports from the executives of these grand bodies concerning the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in dismissing Mr. Smith for his activity in temperance work.
"The Secretary presented a very large number of resolutions adopted by these various executives, expressing their condemnation of the Company, and endorsing heartily the action of the Alliance, in seeking to have the injustice removed. The resolutions were from British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, as well as from Maritime Provinces—from far off Victoria, B. C., to Halifax, N. S.
"The communications indicate that the whole temperance community is thoroughly aroused, and intensely interested in this matter. The meeting adopted a strong resolution, which was referred to a committee of five, who were empowered to take such further action as they deem best to carry out the spirit of the resolutions presented to the meeting yesterday.
"TheSecretary was instructed to inform Mr. Tait, Assistant General Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that this committee would confer with him in regard to this matter, if we should so desire. The committee will await Mr. Tait's reply before publishing the resolutions received or those adopted at yesterday's meeting."
In our last chapter was given a letter written by Mr. Carson on December 21st, and addressed to Mr. Tait. The reply to this was as follows:
"J. H. Carson, Esq., Secretary Quebec Provincial Branch of the Dominion Alliance, 162 St. James Street, Montreal:"Dear Sir,—I have acknowledged the receipt of your two communications of the 21st and 28th ult. As your letter of the 21st states that the Alliance does not allege that the reason for Mr. Smith's discharge by the Company was the nature of the principles held and advocated by him, and states that the sole objection of the Alliance to the action of the Company in this matter is the discharge of an employee from its service 'for his activity in advocating those principles,' I now desire to state briefly, and in such a way as I trust will prevent any possibility of being any longer misinterpreted, the views of the Company on that point."The Company does not object to its employees holding, practising and promoting temperance principles in such a manner as not to injuriously affect the Company's interests, but it does object seriously toany employee actively engaging in the advocacy and agitation of these or any other principles or views, no matter how respectable and proper in themselves, about which there is a well understood difference of opinion in the community, in such a manner as either to injuriously affect the Company's interests or to impair his usefulness as an employee, or to interfere with the proper performance of his duties to his employer, as to all of which it cannot be expected that any other than the Company should be the judge."There is a large portion of the population of this country who, rightly or wrongly, differ from and oppose the views which are promulgated and promoted by the Alliance, and which have been so vigorously and persistently advocated by Mr. Smith, the result being, as it was sure to be, that his usefulness as our agent was seriously impaired, owing to the Company having to bear to some extent the antagonism which logically perhaps ought to have been confined to him, though there was some ground for the public considering that the Company was taking a part in his advocacy, since in advertising public meetings to be addressed by himself, Mr. Smith described himself as 'W. W. Smith, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Temperance Lecturer.'"In this connection I beg to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Smith did not confine his work of agitation, public lecturing, etc., to the County of Brome, or that section of the country in which the majority of the population had voted in favor of the prohibition of liquor, but that his operations extended beyondthese limits. After the fullest investigation, and consideration of this whole matter, I feel constrained to say that the Company's course was, under the circumstances, not only justified, but, having regard to its business interests, unavoidable."In yours of the 21st ult., you refer again to the correspondence between Mr. Brady and Mr. Smith. Inasmuch as the Company has stated that the expressions complained of do not meet with its approval or express correctly its policy, I submit that it is now clearly improper and unfair to endeavor to make them appear as a reason for the continuation of the complaint against the Company."I note from your letter of the 28th ult., that a meeting is suggested between the officials of the Company and a committee representing the Alliance. I shall be glad, as I a long time ago offered to meet this committee, and as you have kindly left the appointment of the time and place of meeting with me, I suggest, if it is convenient to the committee, my office on Monday next, at eleven A. M."The delay in replying to your letters was due to the uncertainty of my movements and consequent difficulty in naming a time for the proposed meeting."Yours truly,"(Signed),Thos. Tait,"Assistant General Manager."
"J. H. Carson, Esq., Secretary Quebec Provincial Branch of the Dominion Alliance, 162 St. James Street, Montreal:
"Dear Sir,—I have acknowledged the receipt of your two communications of the 21st and 28th ult. As your letter of the 21st states that the Alliance does not allege that the reason for Mr. Smith's discharge by the Company was the nature of the principles held and advocated by him, and states that the sole objection of the Alliance to the action of the Company in this matter is the discharge of an employee from its service 'for his activity in advocating those principles,' I now desire to state briefly, and in such a way as I trust will prevent any possibility of being any longer misinterpreted, the views of the Company on that point.
"The Company does not object to its employees holding, practising and promoting temperance principles in such a manner as not to injuriously affect the Company's interests, but it does object seriously toany employee actively engaging in the advocacy and agitation of these or any other principles or views, no matter how respectable and proper in themselves, about which there is a well understood difference of opinion in the community, in such a manner as either to injuriously affect the Company's interests or to impair his usefulness as an employee, or to interfere with the proper performance of his duties to his employer, as to all of which it cannot be expected that any other than the Company should be the judge.
"There is a large portion of the population of this country who, rightly or wrongly, differ from and oppose the views which are promulgated and promoted by the Alliance, and which have been so vigorously and persistently advocated by Mr. Smith, the result being, as it was sure to be, that his usefulness as our agent was seriously impaired, owing to the Company having to bear to some extent the antagonism which logically perhaps ought to have been confined to him, though there was some ground for the public considering that the Company was taking a part in his advocacy, since in advertising public meetings to be addressed by himself, Mr. Smith described himself as 'W. W. Smith, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Temperance Lecturer.'
"In this connection I beg to draw your attention to the fact that Mr. Smith did not confine his work of agitation, public lecturing, etc., to the County of Brome, or that section of the country in which the majority of the population had voted in favor of the prohibition of liquor, but that his operations extended beyondthese limits. After the fullest investigation, and consideration of this whole matter, I feel constrained to say that the Company's course was, under the circumstances, not only justified, but, having regard to its business interests, unavoidable.
"In yours of the 21st ult., you refer again to the correspondence between Mr. Brady and Mr. Smith. Inasmuch as the Company has stated that the expressions complained of do not meet with its approval or express correctly its policy, I submit that it is now clearly improper and unfair to endeavor to make them appear as a reason for the continuation of the complaint against the Company.
"I note from your letter of the 28th ult., that a meeting is suggested between the officials of the Company and a committee representing the Alliance. I shall be glad, as I a long time ago offered to meet this committee, and as you have kindly left the appointment of the time and place of meeting with me, I suggest, if it is convenient to the committee, my office on Monday next, at eleven A. M.
"The delay in replying to your letters was due to the uncertainty of my movements and consequent difficulty in naming a time for the proposed meeting.
"Yours truly,"(Signed),Thos. Tait,"Assistant General Manager."
According to the spirit of this letter, no man having an interest in any reform, or a desire to aid in any work for the good of his fellow-men, can conscientiously holda position in the employ of this great Company, which is so influential in our beloved country. Must every self-supporting man be a slave?
Mr. Tait says, "After the fullest investigation, and consideration of this whole matter, I feel constrained to say that the Company's course was, under the circumstances, not only justifiable, but, having regard to its business interests, unavoidable."
Mr. Tait does not say "Mr. Brady's course," but "the Company's course," thus showing that Mr. Brady had not acted independently of his superior officers in dismissing Mr. Smith.
Mr. Tait also expresses the Company's disapproval of Mr. Brady's "expressions," while he, himself, makes statements which seem quite as objectionable as those of Mr. Brady. Moreover, as Mr. Tait sanctions the dismissal of an employee for active temperance work, and mentions in this letter no other cause as having led to Mr. Smith's discharge, we do not see why he should object to an Assistant Superintendent naming the same reason to an under official, whom he is dismissing from the Company's service.
The conference arranged between Mr. Tait and the representatives of the Alliance was held in the office of the former on January 7th, 1895. The meeting began at half-past eleven, and continued until nearly twoo'clock, when, as no definite decision was reached, it was decided to adjourn until the following morning. The resolutions adopted by the various temperance bodies in Montreal, and elsewhere, were presented to Mr. Tait. The following circular, issued by the Quebec Provincial Branch of the Dominion Alliance, shows the result of the conference on January 8th.
"Dominion Alliance,"Quebec Provincial Branch,"Montreal, Jan. 30th, 1895."Dear Sir,—On November 28th last, by circular letter, we called the attention of the executives of the various grand bodies of the temperance organizations of the Dominion to the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in dismissing from their employ the President of one of our county alliances, Mr. W. W. Smith. Enclosed in this circular was a copy of the correspondence which led up to the dismissal. In response to this circular, resolutions were received from every Province of the Dominion, as well as from the executives of Dominion organizations."These resolutions were very emphatic in their condemnation of the position taken by Assistant Superintendent Brady, in the published correspondence, to wit, that an employee 'must quit temperance work or quit the Company.'"These resolutions were carefully considered at the conference of temperance representatives, held in thiscity on December 27th, and it was decided to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway to repudiate the position taken by Assistant Superintendent Brady, and that it take such action in regard to Mr. Brady, whose course has given so much offence to the temperance people, as will convince its employees and the public that its policy is not that represented by his act. It was also decided that before any further action be taken, the Canadian Pacific Railway should be notified that if it so desired, a deputation from this meeting would be prepared to meet the representatives of the Company in conference."The Company concurred in the suggestion, and as a result of two lengthy conferences, the following agreement was arrived at:"'The Canadian Pacific Railway distinctly repudiate, as they have done from the commencement of the discussion, the expressions used by Assistant Superintendent Brady, when demanding Mr. Smith's resignation, which expressions have been taken exception to by the temperance people."'The Canadian Pacific Railway admit the right of employees to identify themselves with the temperance movement, and work for the same, provided such work is done outside official hours, always with due consideration to the interests of the Company. The committee accept such declaration as satisfactory."'The committee claims that the hasty and ill-advised language used in Assistant Superintendent Brady's correspondence, and otherwise, has caused grave dissatisfaction on the part of the temperance peopleof Canada. The committee disclaim any attempt to coerce or dictate to the Canadian Pacific in the management of the Company's affairs, but under the circumstances look to the Canadian Pacific Railway to place on record some substantial mark of their disapproval of the expressions of one of their staff, same having been the means of causing offence to a large portion of the community."'The Canadian Pacific Railway claims that, if for no other reason, Mr. Smith's discharge was justifiable on the ground of neglect of duty.'"This was signed by Mr. Thomas Tait, Assistant General Manager, on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and by the following delegation as representing the temperance people of Canada: Major E. L. Bond, Mr. E. A. Dyer, M. P., Rev. A. M. Phillips, Mr. A. M. Featherston, Mr. S. J. Carter, and Mr. J. H. Carson."This agreement and the delegation's report was received and approved as satisfactory, by the executive of this provincial Alliance, and a committee appointed to communicate the result to the temperance bodies."It will thus be seen that the Company has entirely repudiated the offensive language used by Mr. Brady, and declares that it does not express the attitude of the Company towards the temperance cause."The Company also admits the right of its employees to engage in temperance work; and as regards Mr. Brady, it acknowledges that cause for dissatisfaction has existed, and promises that action will be taken to remove this cause."Inplacing these facts before you, we have to congratulate our friends throughout the Dominion upon the satisfactory conclusion of this matter, which has given us all so much anxious concern."Another cause for congratulation is the intense interest manifested in this case in every part of the Dominion. From Vancouver to Prince Edward Island have come expressions of hearty coöperation, which have been exceedingly gratifying, clearly demonstrating the fact that there is a temperance force throughout the country which, if only concentrated, and directed unitedly against the legalized liquor traffic of our land, would be positively irresistible. In the present instance a vital principle of temperance reform was attacked and almost immediately the whole Dominion resounds with the protests of the temperance people, and forthwith the injustice is removed."With regard to Mr. Smith, we have this to add, that having since accepted the position of organizer and lecturer for the Independent Order of Good Templars of this Province, he had no desire to return to the Company's employ, preferring to devote himself entirely to the temperance work."On behalf of the executive,"E. L. Bond,}"S. J. Carter,}"A. M. Featherston, }Committee.""A. M. Phillips,}"J. H. Carson,}
"Dominion Alliance,"Quebec Provincial Branch,"Montreal, Jan. 30th, 1895.
"Dear Sir,—On November 28th last, by circular letter, we called the attention of the executives of the various grand bodies of the temperance organizations of the Dominion to the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in dismissing from their employ the President of one of our county alliances, Mr. W. W. Smith. Enclosed in this circular was a copy of the correspondence which led up to the dismissal. In response to this circular, resolutions were received from every Province of the Dominion, as well as from the executives of Dominion organizations.
"These resolutions were very emphatic in their condemnation of the position taken by Assistant Superintendent Brady, in the published correspondence, to wit, that an employee 'must quit temperance work or quit the Company.'
"These resolutions were carefully considered at the conference of temperance representatives, held in thiscity on December 27th, and it was decided to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway to repudiate the position taken by Assistant Superintendent Brady, and that it take such action in regard to Mr. Brady, whose course has given so much offence to the temperance people, as will convince its employees and the public that its policy is not that represented by his act. It was also decided that before any further action be taken, the Canadian Pacific Railway should be notified that if it so desired, a deputation from this meeting would be prepared to meet the representatives of the Company in conference.
"The Company concurred in the suggestion, and as a result of two lengthy conferences, the following agreement was arrived at:
"'The Canadian Pacific Railway distinctly repudiate, as they have done from the commencement of the discussion, the expressions used by Assistant Superintendent Brady, when demanding Mr. Smith's resignation, which expressions have been taken exception to by the temperance people.
"'The Canadian Pacific Railway admit the right of employees to identify themselves with the temperance movement, and work for the same, provided such work is done outside official hours, always with due consideration to the interests of the Company. The committee accept such declaration as satisfactory.
"'The committee claims that the hasty and ill-advised language used in Assistant Superintendent Brady's correspondence, and otherwise, has caused grave dissatisfaction on the part of the temperance peopleof Canada. The committee disclaim any attempt to coerce or dictate to the Canadian Pacific in the management of the Company's affairs, but under the circumstances look to the Canadian Pacific Railway to place on record some substantial mark of their disapproval of the expressions of one of their staff, same having been the means of causing offence to a large portion of the community.
"'The Canadian Pacific Railway claims that, if for no other reason, Mr. Smith's discharge was justifiable on the ground of neglect of duty.'
"This was signed by Mr. Thomas Tait, Assistant General Manager, on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and by the following delegation as representing the temperance people of Canada: Major E. L. Bond, Mr. E. A. Dyer, M. P., Rev. A. M. Phillips, Mr. A. M. Featherston, Mr. S. J. Carter, and Mr. J. H. Carson.
"This agreement and the delegation's report was received and approved as satisfactory, by the executive of this provincial Alliance, and a committee appointed to communicate the result to the temperance bodies.
"It will thus be seen that the Company has entirely repudiated the offensive language used by Mr. Brady, and declares that it does not express the attitude of the Company towards the temperance cause.
"The Company also admits the right of its employees to engage in temperance work; and as regards Mr. Brady, it acknowledges that cause for dissatisfaction has existed, and promises that action will be taken to remove this cause.
"Inplacing these facts before you, we have to congratulate our friends throughout the Dominion upon the satisfactory conclusion of this matter, which has given us all so much anxious concern.
"Another cause for congratulation is the intense interest manifested in this case in every part of the Dominion. From Vancouver to Prince Edward Island have come expressions of hearty coöperation, which have been exceedingly gratifying, clearly demonstrating the fact that there is a temperance force throughout the country which, if only concentrated, and directed unitedly against the legalized liquor traffic of our land, would be positively irresistible. In the present instance a vital principle of temperance reform was attacked and almost immediately the whole Dominion resounds with the protests of the temperance people, and forthwith the injustice is removed.
"With regard to Mr. Smith, we have this to add, that having since accepted the position of organizer and lecturer for the Independent Order of Good Templars of this Province, he had no desire to return to the Company's employ, preferring to devote himself entirely to the temperance work.
"On behalf of the executive,"E. L. Bond,}"S. J. Carter,}"A. M. Featherston, }Committee.""A. M. Phillips,}"J. H. Carson,}
Itwill be noticed that in this letter the committee congratulate their friends upon "the satisfactory conclusion of this matter." Also at a meeting of the Executive of the Alliance before the above circular was issued the following resolution was adopted:
"That this executive having heard the agreement and the report of the committee thereon, is satisfied with the same, and congratulate the temperance people of Canada on the result."
It is often well for us to look at the bright side, and this was what the Alliance Committee determined on doing, and there surely were some encouraging features connected with this case.
Nevertheless, as there are generally two sides which may be seen in such an affair, there were many of "the temperance people of Canada" who did not consider this conclusion satisfactory, and exchanged no congratulations, and it may do us no harm now to look briefly at some of the disappointing features in this settlement.
First, it is said, "that the Company has entirely repudiated the offensive language used by Mr. Brady, and declares that it does not express the attitude of the Company towards the temperance cause." Now, Mr. Tait had taken precisely this same position in hisletters to the Alliance Secretary, previous to the meeting with the committee, and even in the minutes of the meeting, as above given, it is said, "The Canadian Pacific Railway distinctly repudiate—as they have done from the commencement of the discussion—the expressions used by Assistant Superintendent Brady." In view of this it would seem that not much was gained by the meeting on this point.
Secondly, we are told that "the Company also admits the right of its employees to engage in temperance work." It certainly was encouraging that this great Company should try to appear pleasing to the Alliance, and seemed to show that the Canadian Pacific Railway considered the temperance party a powerful factor in the land, but when we come to consider the manner in which the admission mentioned above was made, we can but see that it has a very doubtful side. The sentence in which the Company makes this announcement is as follows:
"The Canadian Pacific Railway admit the right of employees to identify themselves with the temperance movement, and work for the same, provided such work is done outside official hours,always with due consideration to the interests of the Company."
As we are not told that Mr. Tait, at the meeting, repudiated any of his own former statements, we will lookat the above in the light of the following, from his letter of December 6th, to Mr. Carson:
"As far as I am able to judge, no official of our Company, of whose duties one is to solicit and secure traffic for the Company, could take sides on any of these questions," referring to matters about which the public disagree, "at public meetings and lectures without impairing its usefulness to the Company.............. The Company is carrying on the business of a railway company, and its objects do not extend beyond the promotion of that business. Its success depends upon the favor and patronage of the community at large, and if one of its officers or employees so conducts himself as to antagonize a section of the community, or even in a manner which is likely to bring about that result, the Company's interests are injuriously affected."
The admission made to the Alliance seems to be robbed of most of its virtue by the above statements, and it would seem that even yet the employees of the Company may have but little liberty of conscience.
It is also said in the aforementioned circular that, "as regards Mr. Brady, the Company acknowledges that cause for dissatisfaction has existed, and promises that action will be taken to remove this cause."
This acknowledgment was certainly a good one, but we have no knowledge of the promise having beenfulfilled. Mr. Brady has been moved from one division to another of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but as this change did not take place until long after this meeting was held, and then only in connection with many others among the officials and employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and as Mr. Brady still holds an honorable position in the Company's employ, we see no reason for supposing that this had any connection with the promise made to the committee.
Some of the temperance people feeling dissatisfied with the results of the Canadian Pacific Railway-Alliance Conference sent communications regarding it to the papers, but the press, from some cause, seemed very loath to publish these protests. However, the following, addressed to the Editor of theWitness, did find its way to the public, and may have expressed the opinions of many besides the writer:
"Sir,—That the temperance people of Canada were moved, as never before, by the dismissal of its Sutton Junction agent, Mr. W. W. Smith, by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, because he had rendered himself obnoxious to the lawbreakers of the County of Brome, who had tried but failed to kill him, there is no doubt, as may be clearly seen from your columns, to say nothing of the thousand hearts, which, like mine, said nothing, but felt no less all the whilethat by its action the Canadian Pacific Railway had placed a premium upon lawlessness and immorality at the expense of those whom I had been taught to regard as the 'salt of the earth.'"The immediate consequence of this was that that line of railway was being shunned, and its services neglected by many of its old patrons, and by this loss its magnates were being taught a lesson, and put on the 'repentent stool,' and it seemed almost certain that never more would the Bradys, Taits, and Van Hornes of this Canadian made and pampered corporation forget that temperance people of Canada had both the will and the power to retaliate upon their persecutors. And that if another such dismissal was ever again attempted, they would 'more darkly sin,' and hide the 'cloven foot,' which was so openly shown by Brady and Tait."At this juncture of its affairs, and at the moment when a persistence in the agitation would probably have resulted in reparation of the wrong done to Mr. Smith, and an open repudiation of its immoral attitude, Mr. Tait managed to get a hold of some gentlemen, who like the seven Tooley Street tailors, who called themselves 'We, the people of England,' arrogated to themselves the right to speak for the temperance people of Canada, and he played them off on the 'Come into my parlor, said the spider to a fly,' and the upshot of the matter is the most disappointing and sickening, I think, I have ever seen."I do not know the names of any one of these men, so I cannot be accused of malice in holding up their conductto the commiseration not to say contempt of the public. Though an intense prohibitionist I have never been able to appreciate the wisdom and nerve of some of our temperance people; yet, never before have I noticed anything that looked so like treachery to our cause."In your issue of the 8th inst. we have a large heading, 'Brady Repudiated,' and in the body of the article we see this temperance committee, if not openly repudiating Mr. Smith, allowing the Canadian Pacific Railway to defame his character, and to their very teeth justify his dismissal, and giving their consent to both."How artfully Mr. Tait changed the whole ground of complaint; and how simply the committee were hoodwinked and befooled will be seen, when I say that that which roused the temperance people was the truckling of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the liquor traffic, and its marked contempt for temperance men, its moral tyranny over its employees, and its wrongful dismissal of Mr. Smith, simply because his attitude on a moral question had exasperated the other side. But in the report which you give of the interview between this committee and Mr. Tait, all this is lost sight of, and the whole ground of complaint is made to rest on poor Brady, the 'scapegoat's' phraseology. 'The committee claimed that the ill-advised language used in Assistant Superintendent Brady's correspondence has caused great dissatisfaction on the part of the temperance people of Canada.'"Thecommittee would seem to have insisted on the punishment of Brady, while concurring with Tait in everything. The report says:"'The Canadian-Pacific Railway acknowledges that cause for dissatisfaction has existed, claim the responsibility of dealing with, and will deal with the matter in such manner as they consider deserving in the premises.' If this is offered as a salve to the small, cowardly feelings which would like to see a subordinate punished for doing what he was told to do, I trust the Canadian Pacific Railway will disappoint the committee, and let their scapegoat go free. It would be both cruel and unfair that the blow should fall on Brady, the mean tool, and the bigger tyrants go free. This is so evidently seen in the fact that Tait practically insists on the same right to muzzle Canadian Pacific Railway employees that Brady did."James Findlay."Beachburg, P. Q."
"Sir,—That the temperance people of Canada were moved, as never before, by the dismissal of its Sutton Junction agent, Mr. W. W. Smith, by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, because he had rendered himself obnoxious to the lawbreakers of the County of Brome, who had tried but failed to kill him, there is no doubt, as may be clearly seen from your columns, to say nothing of the thousand hearts, which, like mine, said nothing, but felt no less all the whilethat by its action the Canadian Pacific Railway had placed a premium upon lawlessness and immorality at the expense of those whom I had been taught to regard as the 'salt of the earth.'
"The immediate consequence of this was that that line of railway was being shunned, and its services neglected by many of its old patrons, and by this loss its magnates were being taught a lesson, and put on the 'repentent stool,' and it seemed almost certain that never more would the Bradys, Taits, and Van Hornes of this Canadian made and pampered corporation forget that temperance people of Canada had both the will and the power to retaliate upon their persecutors. And that if another such dismissal was ever again attempted, they would 'more darkly sin,' and hide the 'cloven foot,' which was so openly shown by Brady and Tait.
"At this juncture of its affairs, and at the moment when a persistence in the agitation would probably have resulted in reparation of the wrong done to Mr. Smith, and an open repudiation of its immoral attitude, Mr. Tait managed to get a hold of some gentlemen, who like the seven Tooley Street tailors, who called themselves 'We, the people of England,' arrogated to themselves the right to speak for the temperance people of Canada, and he played them off on the 'Come into my parlor, said the spider to a fly,' and the upshot of the matter is the most disappointing and sickening, I think, I have ever seen.
"I do not know the names of any one of these men, so I cannot be accused of malice in holding up their conductto the commiseration not to say contempt of the public. Though an intense prohibitionist I have never been able to appreciate the wisdom and nerve of some of our temperance people; yet, never before have I noticed anything that looked so like treachery to our cause.
"In your issue of the 8th inst. we have a large heading, 'Brady Repudiated,' and in the body of the article we see this temperance committee, if not openly repudiating Mr. Smith, allowing the Canadian Pacific Railway to defame his character, and to their very teeth justify his dismissal, and giving their consent to both.
"How artfully Mr. Tait changed the whole ground of complaint; and how simply the committee were hoodwinked and befooled will be seen, when I say that that which roused the temperance people was the truckling of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the liquor traffic, and its marked contempt for temperance men, its moral tyranny over its employees, and its wrongful dismissal of Mr. Smith, simply because his attitude on a moral question had exasperated the other side. But in the report which you give of the interview between this committee and Mr. Tait, all this is lost sight of, and the whole ground of complaint is made to rest on poor Brady, the 'scapegoat's' phraseology. 'The committee claimed that the ill-advised language used in Assistant Superintendent Brady's correspondence has caused great dissatisfaction on the part of the temperance people of Canada.'
"Thecommittee would seem to have insisted on the punishment of Brady, while concurring with Tait in everything. The report says:
"'The Canadian-Pacific Railway acknowledges that cause for dissatisfaction has existed, claim the responsibility of dealing with, and will deal with the matter in such manner as they consider deserving in the premises.' If this is offered as a salve to the small, cowardly feelings which would like to see a subordinate punished for doing what he was told to do, I trust the Canadian Pacific Railway will disappoint the committee, and let their scapegoat go free. It would be both cruel and unfair that the blow should fall on Brady, the mean tool, and the bigger tyrants go free. This is so evidently seen in the fact that Tait practically insists on the same right to muzzle Canadian Pacific Railway employees that Brady did.
"James Findlay."Beachburg, P. Q."
Commenting on the above letter theWitnesssays:
"The question might be raised whether the committee appointed by the temperance conference had instructions to come to any agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway. They certainly were instructed to give the Company an opportunity to right the wrong it had done before proceeding to publish the finding of the conference. It was, therefore, natural for the Company's representative to ask the committee what would satisfy them, and it would seem to thecommittee unreasonable not to answer such a question. Mr. Findlay labors under a misconception if he thinks the committee were not independent, and determined to maintain the rights of temperance men. They were selected so as best to represent the interests of Mr. Smith as well as those of the principles at stake. The assurances they received were certainly about as complete as could well be looked for from a Company that was not prepared to acknowledge itself dictated to as to the management of its internal affairs. The Company was not asked to reinstate Mr. Smith, which would have been unpleasant for him. What it promised was that temperance men should be under no disability in its service, and though it reserved to itself the right to manage its own affairs, it acknowledged that cause for dissatisfaction existed, and undertook to deal with the matter. This, we submit, if followed up in accordance with the Company's policy, as stated in Mr. Tait's letters, is a very satisfactory position."
The reason of this latter statement is seen when we remember that "the Company's policy as stated in Mr. Tait's letters" was that when any officer or employee antagonized a part of the community on a question on which the public were divided, the Company would "protect its interests by his removal;" and Mr. Brady had certainly opposed and displeased a very large portion of the community. How this Assistant Superintendent was really dealt with, is shownby the following from a report of an executive meeting of the Provincial Alliance, on April 18th:
"The first business considered was the communication, from the Canadian Pacific Railway, forwarded to the executive from the general committee for action. This letter was in reply to the Secretary's request to know in what manner the Company had dealt with Mr. Brady, the Assistant Superintendent, whose action in connection with Mr. Smith's dismissal had been so offensive to the temperance people. The letter is addressed to Mr. Carson, the Secretary, and is as follows:"'Dear Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st inst."'The Company has reproved and dealt with Mr. Brady as, under the circumstances, was considered deserving, and in such a manner as, it is trusted, will prevent any reasonable cause for further complaint."'Mr. Brady, while stating that he never intended the slightest disrespect towards the Dominion Alliance or disapproval of temperance principles, has acknowledged that he gave cause for dissatisfaction, and expressed regret for the same, and a determination to avoid a recurrence.Yours truly,"'Thos. Tait,"'Assistant General Manager.'"
"The first business considered was the communication, from the Canadian Pacific Railway, forwarded to the executive from the general committee for action. This letter was in reply to the Secretary's request to know in what manner the Company had dealt with Mr. Brady, the Assistant Superintendent, whose action in connection with Mr. Smith's dismissal had been so offensive to the temperance people. The letter is addressed to Mr. Carson, the Secretary, and is as follows:
"'Dear Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st inst.
"'The Company has reproved and dealt with Mr. Brady as, under the circumstances, was considered deserving, and in such a manner as, it is trusted, will prevent any reasonable cause for further complaint.
"'Mr. Brady, while stating that he never intended the slightest disrespect towards the Dominion Alliance or disapproval of temperance principles, has acknowledged that he gave cause for dissatisfaction, and expressed regret for the same, and a determination to avoid a recurrence.Yours truly,"'Thos. Tait,"'Assistant General Manager.'"
A few days previous to this Executive meeting the above letter was presented at a meeting of the general committeeof the Provincial Alliance, and "was not considered at all satisfactory."
However, the Executive Committee, without approving the letter, decided to publish it "for the information of the temperance public," probably accepting it as the best which could be hoped for under the circumstances.
But, although all was not satisfactory, there were, as we have said, some causes for gratitude in connection with this affair. The Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian liquor men had a chance to learn that among their opponents there was some zeal and spirit, and a desire to help one another, and this knowledge may make them more careful in the future as to how they oppose and arouse temperance sentiment. Such an agitation and interest as resulted from this dismissal, doubtless might decide some unsettled minds in favor of the temperance party. Also the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway in thus reproving Mr. Brady, and eliciting from him a promise to exercise greater caution in the future was probably as much as could be expected from a powerful corporation which is not willing to acknowledge itself in the wrong, and whose "objects do not extend beyond the promotion of its business," so long as the laws of our land permit liquor sellers to be licensed,and Prohibition is a thing talked of, but not experienced.
Not until national prohibition finds a place among Canadian laws, and is upheld by the Canadian government, will such bodies allow themselves to be dictated to by the temperance people.
The Scott Act is very good so far as it goes, but if the County of Brome, instead of having this Act, and standing, in this respect, almost alone in the Province, had possessed its share in a prohibition law which held sway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the outlawed liquor venders of the county would probably not have had such power with a great corporation as they displayed in this case. If the temperance people of Canada wish to have a powerful voice in such matters as this, or if they would have great institutions like the Canadian Pacific Railway conducted on principles of temperance and true freedom, let them work for prohibition, and send representatives to Parliament who will do the same. And just now, when they hold in their hands a key which may be the means of unlocking to us the gate of Prohibition for our country, let them use it to the best advantage, by giving a powerful majority for good when the Plebiscite vote is taken.
As was stated in Chapter III. of this book, the prisoners, Kelly and Howarth, remained in jail, the former at Montreal, the latter at Sweetsburg, during the winter of 1894-95, awaiting trial at the Court of Queen's Bench.
This court opened at Sweetsburg on Friday, March 1st, 1895, but the Assault Case did not receive special consideration until the following week. Monday, March 4th, the Grand Jury reported a true bill against M. L. Jenne, Jas. Wilson and John Howarth for conspiracy, and against Walter Kelly for attempted murder.
On Tuesday morning the court room was crowded so that it was impossible to obtain even standing-room for all the eager listeners, and many were obliged to content themselves with the little that they could hear outside the doors. Thus was shown the great interest which the public felt in the result of this trial.
Whenthe names of the accused were called, Mr. Racicot, counsel for the defence, asked in an eloquent speech that the prisoners be allowed to sit with their counsel instead of being made to stand for hours in the dock. Mr. Baker, Crown Prosecutor, opposed this request, and Hon. Judge Lynch ordered that the prisoners be put into the box.
The next thing in order was the empaneling of a petit jury. It appeared that many of the proposed jurymen were known supporters of the liquor party, and these were, of course, objected to by the lawyer for the Crown. In the words ofThe Templar, "It seemed as if Mr. Baker challenged all who were known to 'take a glass,' while Mr. Racicot challenged all known temperance people."
The afternoon session opened at one o'clock. The Crown Prosecutor made an eloquent speech to the jury, reviewing the evidence given at the preliminary trial. The following account of his address was given in theWitness:
"He said: 'It will be an evil day for Canada when men, becoming indignant that the machinery of the law is put in force against them, send to Marlboro or any other place for an assassin to "do up" those against whom their indignation is aroused.' Speaking of the combination of circumstances that led to theidentification of Kelly, he said: 'There is a Providence in these things. There is an overruling power that is directed in the cause of right.' He said regarding the character of Kelly: 'The learned counsel for the defence will try to make you believe that Kelly's evidence should not be accepted. The witness, Kelly, is not one of my choosing; he is not chosen by any member of this court. He is of the prisoners' own choosing. They could not have procured the pastor of the first church of Marlboro, nor one of the deacons, to do their work, but they were compelled to take a man from behind the bar of a saloon, in a low street; one who would take a shilling for his work, and do the job as directed by them."
The first witness examined was Mr. W. W. Smith, whose evidence was similar to that previously given by him. He identified Kelly as the man who had committed the assault on July 8th. The following is a part of the cross-examination as reported in theWitness:
"'Do you know Peter McGettrick, of Richford?'"'I do.'"'Do you know Frank Brady?'"I do.'"'Did you tell them on the Sunday that they came to see you that you would take your oath that the man who assaulted you was Orin Wilson, a brother of Jas. Wilson?'"'Idid not.'"'Did you tell Jane Fay, at church, that you did not know who assaulted you?'"I did not.'"
"'Do you know Peter McGettrick, of Richford?'
"'I do.'
"'Do you know Frank Brady?'
"I do.'
"'Did you tell them on the Sunday that they came to see you that you would take your oath that the man who assaulted you was Orin Wilson, a brother of Jas. Wilson?'
"'Idid not.'
"'Did you tell Jane Fay, at church, that you did not know who assaulted you?'
"I did not.'"
From some of the above questions it would seem that Mr. Brady, not content with having dismissed Mr. Smith from the service of the Canadian Pacific Railway, was trying to aid his assailants to escape justice.
The next evidence given was that of Dr. McDonald, of Sutton, the physician who attended Mr. Smith after the assault. His testimony was given in theWitness, as follows:
"I know Mr. W. W. Smith. I was called to him professionally on July 8th. I found him in a dazed condition, with a bruise on the top of his head, four or five inches in length, swollen and contused. There was also evidence of another blow, not so long, more in the centre of the top of his head, and another blow still shorter and more to the right of the head, another on the side of the neck and shoulders, and one on the hip. All these bruises I considered serious. The appearance later was that of the discoloration consequent upon such bruises. The bruises were such as might have been inflicted by the weapon now in court. They could not have been inflicted by the fist. I saw Mr. Smith that morning, and on the night of the same day, on the followingMonday morning, and again on Tuesday night. I then considered him sufficiently recovered to not require medical assistance further. I saw him afterward, but not professionally. Death has often resulted from less blows than these."
Daniel Smith, of Sutton, then gave evidence that he had seen Kelly at Sutton on various occasions, the last time being on the evening previous to the assault.
Charles C. Dyer, of the same place, also testified as to Kelly's identity. He said that he had seen him on the race track, at Sutton, in July, had heard him called a horse-buyer from Boston, and had received the impression that he had come there to look at a trotting horse which belonged to Mr. Lebeau, the owner of the track. He had not considered it anything strange that Howarth should be carrying him around the country to look at horses.
The next witness was Silas H. Carpenter, of Montreal, chief of the Canadian Secret Service. He said that he had been employed to investigate the assault case. He had been informed of a stranger who, after staying in the vicinity of Sutton for some time, had disappeared immediately after the assault, and decided that he was probably the guilty party. Had learned that a man answering to the description of this stranger was in Marlboro, Mass., and to this placewas sent a neighbor of Mr. Smith's, who identified Kelly as a man whom he had seen in the neighborhood of Sutton Junction previous to the assault. The witness and Mr. Smith, after going before a justice of the peace, and obtaining papers for the arrest of their man, proceeded to Marlboro. At Fitchburg, Mass., a warrant was made out from the papers which they carried, and Kelly was arrested. He consented to go to Montreal without extradition, and there, in Mr. Carpenter's office, related voluntarily the story which he told at the preliminary investigation, and on this evidence the other prisoners were arrested.
Mr. Carpenter's testimony was the last on Tuesday.
Court opened again at ten o'clock on Wednesday morning. This was expected to be the last day of the trial, and a large crowd was present. Mr. J. F. Leonard, clerk of the court, was first sworn, and testified to the bad character of M. L. Jenne, who had been indicted on Sept. 11th, 1879, for assaulting an officer in the discharge of his duty. The jury had found him guilty of common assault. Mr. Leonard identified the prisoner Jenne as being the same man.
George N. Galer, a constable, confirmed this testimony, and said that he remembered having arrested Mr. Jenne at the time referred to.
Thenext witness was Walter Kelly. He described how the liquor men had obtained his services, and told the story of his arrival and stay in Canada, and the assault at Sutton Junction much the same as in his previous testimony.
He stated that once while he was stopping at Sutton it had been feared that his presence was exciting suspicion, and he had been sent to Cowansville for a day.
He also said that after the assault he had seen Howarth at Marlboro, and told him that he had done his work, but only received a part of the pay, and Howarth had promised to see that the remainder was sent him. A while after this Kelly had heard that detectives were in Marlboro looking for him, and Flynn, the barkeeper to whom Howarth had written at first, had advised him to go away for a few days while he (Flynn) should write to Howarth, and learn the facts of the case. He went away, and on his return saw a letter from Howarth which stated that Kelly had not hurt Smith at all, and they had been obliged to pay $30 for the use of the team which he had while in Sutton, and now the others were "kicking" and unwilling to pay any more. Kelly said he supposed from this letter that he had done nothing for which he could be arrested, and,therefore, after reading it, did not try to hide again.
After being arrested he was taken to Fitchburg, where, instead of wasting a month in jail while waiting for extradition, he waived his claim, and went with Mr. Carpenter, and had since remained in his office in the care of a constable. He had told his whole story voluntarily; Mr. Carpenter had offered him no inducements whatever. Kelly also stated that he had not been instructed to kill Mr. Smith, only to scare him, and give him a good "licking."
Wallace B. Locklin was next sworn. He said his residence was at Richford, Vt., where he was a notary public and attorney. He had been appointed to take evidence in Richford on this assault case. He knew Ford, who kept the livery stable at Richford, and had asked him to come to his office and give his evidence. Ford refused to come, and said, if subpœnaed, he would pay his fine.
The next witness was J. P. Willey, of Abercorn, formerly of St. Lawrence Co., N. Y. He was exceedingly unwilling to tell what he knew of the case, and it was only by dint of very close questioning that his evidence was obtained. He knew Jenne, the hotel keeper at Abercorn. Had held a conversation with him in the barroom of his hotel, when he asked Jennehow much he had been fined for selling liquor without a license. He replied that he had had to pay over $90, and witness remarked that it was no outsider's business if he sold liquor. Jenne said they could not do much with that man Smith; they could not carry their goods over the road. The remark had been made that Smith ought to be whipped or killed, or sent out of the country. Witness believed that he had first suggested this, and then Jenne had agreed with him, and asked him if he knew any one in his part of the country who could do such a job. He would not say that Jenne had asked for a man who would "kill" Mr. Smith. Witness remembered having mentioned this conversation to three men, and might have spoken of it to others.
Arthur Holmes, of Abercorn, sworn, said that he had heard of the assault on Mr. Smith. Had understood that Jenne was away when these prosecutions began. Said they had all supposed that Smith was the prosecutor in the liquor cases.
Albert E. Kimball, a hotel keeper of Knowlton, said he knew there were prosecutions for liquor selling. He was fined, so was Jenne, also Wilson of Sutton.
He was asked: "Do you know of any scheme to get even with Mr. Smith?" Mr. Racicot objected tothis question. Mr. Kimball said it had been remarked in the barroom that Smith was a "mean cuss," and should be whipped. It was barroom talk.
This is a strong testimony, coming from a hotel keeper, as to the nature of barroom adjectives and compliments, especially when applied to temperance people.
Edward Martin, of Sutton, was the next witness. He was occasionally employed by Wilson, and looked after his business in his absence. Was sent for one day in August, and asked to look after the house, as Wilson was going away for a few days. He could not say how long he was gone.
Next Mrs. James Wilson, of Sutton, testified for the defence. Her maiden name was Etta Miltemore, and she had been married to James Wilson eight years previous to the trial. She said she had heard of the affair at Sutton Junction through Mr. Smith's brother, who drove up about six or seven o'clock on Sunday morning, and told that his brother had been assaulted the night before. On the Saturday previous she had been with her husband at Glen Sutton, and about noon he had complained of feeling bad. They drove to Sutton in the afternoon, and he was sick when they reached home. Her aunt, Mrs. Vance,was there, and also Henry Wilson and wife. They put Jim to bed, and doctored him, and he did not leave his room during the evening or night. As he seemed worse about half-past one, she called Henry Wilson and wife, who got up and remained up the rest of the night, but they did not call a doctor.
Mrs. Vance was the next witness. She said her maiden name was Annie Fay, and she was the wife of Beeman Vance. She was acquainted with James Wilson, and was aunt to his wife. She had gone on July 7th to call on Mrs. Wilson, and found that she and her husband were away, and Henry Wilson and wife were there.
James Wilson came home sick. Witness remained at his house until nearly nine o'clock, and when she left he was a little better, but still very sick.
She had known Mr. Smith for years. After the assault, she had one day met him at church, and congratulated him on his recovery, when he told her that he had no idea who committed the act. She said she had frequently seen James Wilson ill, and had practised as nurse.
Henry Wilson, following, said that he lived at Glen Sutton, and was brother to James Wilson. He remembered the day of the assault, and knew it was in the summer, but could not tell the month. He had goneto his father's on Saturday morning, and remained there until the afternoon of the next day. James and his wife were away when he reached their home, but returned Saturday afternoon. James was very sick. About eleven o'clock witness helped undress him and put him to bed, and about half-past one he was called up by Mrs. James Wilson. Next morning the news came that Smith had got a licking.
Mrs. Henry Wilson's testimony was a confirmation of her husband's, and was the last given on Wednesday.
More evidence was promised for the next day, and the court adjourned till the following morning at ten o'clock.
The first witness on Thursday was Peter McGettrick, Canadian Pacific Railway agent at Richford, Vt. He said he had been the Richford agent in July, when Mr. Smith, also, was agent at Sutton Junction. Witness knew Frank Brady and W. W. Smith. When he heard of the assault he informed Mr. Brady, and they went together to visit Mr. Smith, whom they found in bed suffering from the effects of his injuries. In conversation with them Mr. Smith told them that he did not know who had committed the deed, but from the appearance of the man thought it might have been James Wilson, one of the prisoners.
WilliamSears, of Sutton, a brother-in-law of Mr. Smith, testified that he had been sent for by the latter on Sunday morning after the assault, and went to him at once. Mr. Smith told him that he did not know who was his assailant, but it was a heavy man who walked with a peculiar gait. Witness was with Mr. Smith while Mr. Brady and Mr. McGettrick were there, but heard no conversation such as was related by the previous witness.
James E. Ireland, telegraph operator at Sutton, who was the next witness, said that he had been night operator on July 8th, and had received a telegram for Dr. McDonald, asking him to come to Sutton Junction immediately, as Mr. Smith had been assaulted. Another message had been sent to James H. Smith, telling of the affair, and requesting him to be on the watch. He could not produce the record of the dispatches, but told them as he remembered them.
James H. Smith, also of Sutton, a brother of W. W. Smith, was then sworn. He said he had been notified of the assault by telegram about two o'clock on the morning of July 8th. The message which he had received was as follows:
"W. W. Smith is badly hurt. Get Homer and others to watch the roads."
Hewent for the man mentioned, and then learned that Mr. Ireland had received a message asking that Wilson's hotel be watched. No light was seen in the house there, but L. L. Jenne was appointed to watch the place. Witness had seen Kelly four or five days before the assault driving a team which he supposed to be Wilson's. He had thought it strange, but could not say that he had felt any suspicion. He had supposed the team to be Wilson's because he had noticed the latter driving it at different times during the summer. He had seen James Wilson the night before the assault, walking on the street towards the post office, and Wilson had spoken to him. He had also seen Kelly at that time with a team.
Lewis L. Jenne, a clerk for the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sutton, testified that he knew the prisoners, and was distantly connected with one of them, M. L. Jenne, of Abercorn. He had been in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway for seven years. On the morning of July 8th, at about two o'clock, he was awakened by James H. Smith and another man, who told him what had happened. Witness had taken it as his work to watch Wilson's hotel, but saw no light or stir about the house. If any light had been there he must have seen it, as he had on many nights before and since.
Duringcross-examination he said that he had watched the hotel on the night in question, from a little after two o'clock until morning. A swift horse could go from Sutton Junction to Sutton in ten or fifteen minutes. Witness had not tried to enter Wilson's house, but had watched outside. He had heard that the Wilsons threatened Smith, and was quite sure he had heard it said that they were mixed up with this affair.
Walter Kelly, being then recalled, said that he had seen Wilson on Saturday night, July 7th, between seven and eight o'clock, near Curley's hotel, going towards the post office. He also stated that once he had driven Wilson's team on the road where James Smith claimed to have met him with it.
This completed the evidence in the case.
Mr. Racicot, counsel for defence, then addressed the jury, quoting all the points of law which might seem to have a bearing in favor of the prisoners, and making an eloquent plea which lasted one hour and twenty minutes.
Hon. G. B. Baker, Q. C, quoted the law on the other side, proving quite clearly that the prisoners were deserving of punishment. He laid great importance on the facts that Kelly's evidence had not been contradicted, and that, while Henry Wilson had toldof getting up at half-past one, and lighting a lamp which he said had been left burning in the kitchen until morning, the witness Jenne had stated that he watched the house without seeing any light, as he must surely have done had there been one to see.
Judge Lynch followed with a very earnest address which lasted about forty-five minutes. He summed up the evidence in the case, and quoted the laws bearing on it, reminding the jurors of their great responsibility, and endeavoring to impress upon their minds the importance of a righteous judgment. His speech was not at all in favor of the accused.
The jury then retired, and forty-five minutes later, when the judge demanded their verdict, the sheriff reported that they did not agree, and there was no possibility of their doing so that night. This was announced to the waiting crowd, who had thronged the court room to hear the decision. Court then adjourned, and the jury were locked up for another night.
On Friday morning, March 8th, the jury were again summoned, and stated that they were still unable to agree upon a verdict. The judge appeared both surprised and disgusted. In dismissing them he said: "Gentlemen of the jury, while you have exercised the discretion which the law allows you, I mustpronounce your decision most extraordinary. The public are indignant that in a case where evidence is so clear, there should be doubt or hesitation in the mind of any intelligent man who should be summoned on a jury."
Mr. Baker, Q. C., moved that a new jury be empanelled at once to proceed with another trial. Mr. Racicot seemed willing, but Justice Lynch postponed such proceedings until Monday, March 11th.
In the meantime, on Sunday, friends of the accused and of the liquor party in general were seen driving in the direction of Sweetsburg, and it was thought by some that a plan might be forming to secure easy terms for the prisoners.
On Monday morning many anxious people were awaiting the issue, and previous to the opening of court it was noticed that the crown prosecutor was absent, and soon the counsel for defence also disappeared. On their return, it is said, the latter wore a look of satisfaction, while the former's courage of last week seemed to have in some degree deserted him.
When the judge had taken his seat, Mr. Racicot stated that his clients were now willing to withdraw their former pleas of "not guilty," and acknowledge themselves "guilty of common assault."
Thenthe lawyer for the Crown, who had on Friday been so eager to proceed with a new trial at once, but who now seemed to fear that another jury would mean only a second disagreement, assented to this proposal; while the judge, who had given such a strong charge to the jury and appeared so much surprised at their failure to declare the prisoners guilty, now agreed, on behalf of the court, to withdraw the indictments for "attempt to murder," and accept the pleas, "guilty of common assault."
John Howarth, Marcus L. Jenne and James Wilson then pleaded "guilty of common assault," while Walter Kelly was indicted on a charge of "committing assault with intent to murder." However, he also pleaded "guilty of common assault," and the plea was accepted.
Then Mr. Racicot, not content with what had already been gained, asked for the leniency of the court towards the prisoners in giving sentence for the charges to which they had pleaded guilty, and the judge appointed to each of the four prisoners the light sentence of one month's imprisonment in common jail with hard labor, accompanying this sentence, however, by some very severe remarks as to the seriousness of their crime, and the disgrace it had brought upon themselves.
Thusended this assault case, so far as its hearing at Sweetsburg was concerned, and the prisoners and their friends departed from the court room well pleased with its termination.
The Court of Public Opinion is an important tribunal before which all such affairs as this we have been considering must come for decision, and its judgments are not always identical with those of the judges and juries in the courts of law. Therefore, it must not be supposed that the temperance public were at all satisfied with the termination of the assault case related in our last chapter. On the contrary, they were quite disappointed and indignant, although their opponents seemed very well pleased with the turn affairs had taken.
Some of the criticisms from temperance papers and people are here given. The following comment by the MontrealWitnesswas quoted inThe Templarof March 22d: