CHAPTER X.
THE DECISIONS OF ANOTHER TRIBUNAL.
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 a.s.sault 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 Montreal _Witness_ was quoted in _The Templar_ of March 22d:
"The sentence of one month in jail for each of the tavern keepers, who pleaded guilty to having procured an American idler to commit an atrocious a.s.sault upon Mr. Smith, the President of the Brome County Alliance, is probably as severe as can be looked for in a county where a jury dare not find men guilty. That the purpose was to commit murder, the fatal weapon provided proves.
The plea of guilty on the part of the prisoners is a plain condemnation of the jury in failing to bring in a verdict.
"The liquor men, for the sake of whose illicit trade the Canadian Pacific Railway Company dismissed Mr. Smith from its services, are self-convicted at least of the most dangerous and brutal ruffianism. Mr. Brady, who took the part of those customers of the Company against his own subordinate, Mr. Smith, remains the accredited authority of the Company in that section of the country. This is a fact which should be generally known."
Below is the view expressed by _The Templar_, itself, and also repeated by the _Witness_.
"The result of the trial of the conspirators to "do up" W. W.
Smith, President of the Brome County Branch of the Dominion Alliance, for his zeal in bringing to justice the men who would persist in maintaining an illicit liquor traffic contrary to the fully expressed judgment of the people, has been a confession of "guilty" by the accused, and the imposition a sentence of one month in jail at hard labor.
"The confession and the facts brought out in evidence reveal the liquor traffic in a most unenviable light.
"The plot was hatched in a barroom, a liquor seller hired a Marlboro, Ma.s.s., bartender to do the "job," and he was the guest of hotel keepers while he was spying out the land preparatory to his murderous a.s.sault. Never was a more cool, calculating and infamous deed wrought in this country. The wretch, Chatelle, acted under a sudden impulse to gratify an abnormal pa.s.sion, but these wretches planned weeks ahead to "do up" Smith, yet such cowards were they, they dared not strike the blow, but hired the Marlboro tool to do it for them. Jenne, Howarth and Wilson, you are arrant cowards, and your weakness is only exceeded by the devilishness of your malice!
"These are the men who say we cannot enforce prohibition, and undertake to make the law a dead letter. Men who will murder--no, they lack that courage, but will hire the slugger--if they are not permitted to carry out their work of death. Shall we make our laws to please, or to restrain and punish such men?
"Not the least ignominious feature of the trial was the failure of the jury to convict upon the clearest evidence. Their disagreement was rebuked by Judge Lynch, and later by the prisoners themselves pleading guilty. The murderous a.s.sault and the terrorizing of the jury furnish all the evidence that is requisite to justify the demand for prohibition."
The _Witness_ of March 16th contained the following, giving the opinions of certain local papers respecting the decisions of the court in this trial:
"The Huntingdon _Gleaner_, referring to the sentence of a month"s imprisonment pa.s.sed on the defendants in the Smith a.s.sault case, says: "This is a most inadequate punishment. Had Kelly put more force into the first blow he struck with his piece of lead pipe, Smith would a.s.suredly have been killed. The liquor men, who were the authors of the foul deed, should have been sent to the penitentiary."
"Referring to the disgraceful conduct of the jurors in disagreeing, despite Kelly"s confession, the Waterloo _Advertiser_ says: "The jury might, at least, have brought in the verdict of a Western jury that tried a man for a.s.sault with intent to kill. After being out two minutes the jury filed into court, and the foreman said: "May it please the court, we, the jury, find that the prisoner is not guilty of hitting with intent to kill, but simply to paralyze, and he done it." The trial has been an expensive one to the Crown, and its inglorious ending will hardly satisfy the public that the ends of justice have been served and the law vindicated.""
The following appeared as an editorial in the _Witness_ of March 27th:
"We have received many very strong expressions with regard to the failure of justice in the matter of the cold-blooded and cowardly attempt on the life of Mr. W. W. Smith, the President of the Brome County Alliance. A leading citizen of the district proposes a public demonstration to denounce the jury and judge for this failure. As for the judge, as we said at the time, we cannot see that he can be blamed much for the lightness of the sentence upon a verdict for only common a.s.sault. So far as can be gathered from the conduct of their representatives on the jury the people of the district have concluded to live in a condition of timid subjection to a band of a.s.sa.s.sins settled among them. And not only they, but the great national railway, which pa.s.ses through their district, felt called upon, on behalf of the same lawless crew, to heap abuse and obloquy upon, and finally to dismiss one of its own officers for busying himself with the enforcement of law against them. We should be greatly cheered to think that this jury which betrayed the public safety committed to it by law, was exceptional, and that the district could yet be roused to vindicate law and order."
In all these articles it is a.s.sumed that the reason of the jurymen not agreeing on a verdict of guilty was their personal fear of the liquor men. There is another possible aspect of the case which is not touched upon by these papers, viz., that the jurors may have been friends of the liquor party, and their disagreement may have been intended not to secure their own safety, but to shield the hotel keepers from such punishment as must follow a decision of guilty on the part of the jury.
We quote here some of the communications mentioned above, which were sent to the editor of the _Witness_ regarding the settlement of the a.s.sault case. The letter given below, signed "Justice," was written from Sweetsburg under date of March 12th, 1895:
"SIR,--The Smith a.s.sault case is concluded, but the people are not done talking about it, by any means; and for some time to come the privilege of free speech will be exercised on that case.
The judge in his charge to the jury on Thursday said: "No intelligent and right-minded jury can fail to bring in a verdict in accordance with the testimony." The evidence for the prosecution proved unmistakably the guilt of the prisoners, while the testimony for the defence was evidently manufactured for the occasion.
"The prisoners on Monday pleaded guilty to common a.s.sault. If Howarth, Jenne, Wilson and Kelly were guilty of anything, they were guilty of more than common a.s.sault, if ever there was a deliberate and well-planned scheme for "doing up" any person, that plan was made in this instance, and the nail was clinched when Howarth, at Richford, paid to Kelly the fifteen dollars earnest money, which was to be followed later by the hundred and fifty when the "job" was done. That "job!" Such a "job" as that!
An a.s.sa.s.sin hired for the purpose, by villains blacker-hearted than himself, to go in the middle of the night, armed with a murderous weapon, to attack a defenceless and sleeping man, to "do him up." What does that mean? Who is initiated into the mysteries of the language? Does it mean to disable him? or does it mean to kill him? Who is safe in the discharge of his duty and in the performance of the G.o.d-given work to which every Christian man is called?
"If the law protects a rumseller who has a license in his business of selling the liquid poison, should not that same law protect a man who, residing in a town where the Scott Act is in force, prosecutes liquor sellers who are dealing contrary to the laws? Let us have fair play! If the law is like a game of checkers, in which, not the best man, not the righteous cause wins, but the party wins who makes the most dexterous move, then the least we can ask is fair play.
"What have we seen in the courts during the past week? One man arrested for stealing a dollar"s worth of goods or so, and that man jailed for fifteen months. In contrast to this case, we see these men with their murderous schemes, deliberately planned, attempted and partially executed, we see these men condemned to one month"s imprisonment with hard labor! What a farce is the law! Is it any wonder that indignation is aroused in the hearts of the conscientious and G.o.d-fearing members of the community, and that men as they meet ask each other the question, "Why is this? Did the jury fear that they, too, might be exposed to a sudden attack of lead pipe?"
"If it is cowardly to shirk an issue on a point between right and wrong, then we certainly have moral cowards here, in the district of Bedford. However, there is this to comfort the heart of the right-minded citizen; punishment does not altogether consist in the number of days spent in jail, but the disgrace to which these men have been subjected can never be wiped out nor removed.
"The investigation of the case was thorough, and the crime proven unmistakably against those four men. It will undoubtedly prove a warning to others, and, we may say, to themselves also, in the future."
Another letter, written by a "Law-Abiding Canadian," and published in the _Witness_ of March 25th, is as follows:
"SIR,--Many have been surprised and disappointed at the silence that has prevailed in our newspapers since the verdict of the jury in the W. W. Smith attempt to murder or "do up" case.
Instead of a resolute onslaught of protests from the people through the press and by public bodies, all is comparatively quiet.
"What is the reason of this? Is it that they are paralyzed with surprise and horror for the time being? It surely must be so. If not, it is time we were asking where we are and what we are coming to. Sir, our ears are made to tingle, and our hearts are thrilled with horror, when we read of the wild lynchings by shooting, rope or burning, that have taken place in the United States. These dreadful things are reported from new States or in old ones, where race feeling runs high, and where justice, often handicapped by all the lawlessness and savage cruelty and ignorance of both a home and foreign element, fails for the time being, and we complacently say: "It is just like the United States. What an awful country it must be to live in!" Are we going back to such a state of things? Has it come to such a pa.s.s that law and justice are becoming a mockery? G.o.d forbid that it should ever come to this, but something must be done that not only our persons and property may be protected, but that our belief that we have and hold in this Canada of ours that British justice and fair play that is world-wide in its administration, and ever the same.
"There is no doubt that the brand of public opinion on these individuals for their self-confessed and clearly proven guilt, if they have any conscience left, will be terrible, and make them bury themselves away forever from the community and public that their acts have horrified. But the matter must not end here. A great wrong to an individual and society has been done, and the public may well ask who will it be next; and whose person or property is safe if such lawlessness is allowed to go unpunished.
Let the lawkeepers be heard from in a way that will make our lawmakers enquire into our jury system, and devise some way to prevent the miscarriage of justice and consequent grievous wrong done to individuals and the people."
The following from "One of the W. C. T. U.," appeared in the Home Department of the _Witness_ of March 23d:
"DEAR EDITOR HOME DEPARTMENT,--Though I enjoy reading the Home Department, I have never before written anything for it, as writing is not my forte, but I feel almost compelled to send this to express my indignation at the light sentence pa.s.sed on those three men in the Smith a.s.sault case. I think it perfectly outrageous that they should get off so easily. Such a crime, perpetrated in cold blood; even a man hired and brought from a distance to do the diabolical work! Ten years in the penitentiary for each of them would have been quite light enough. But to give them one month at hard labor, they might about as well have let them go free. If Mr. Smith had been killed I wonder if they would have got two months? It seems to me this is the way to encourage crime. How is it that for so much lighter crimes, so much heavier sentence is often p.r.o.nounced? Is it because the people are afraid of the liquor men? It seems like it.
"I am heartily thankful that the _Witness_ stands up so n.o.bly for truth and right. I know I will see a scathing article from the editor on this very subject. I hope it will do all the good he intends it to do.
"We may be sure of one thing, and that is the liquor men never did the cause of prohibition so much good before. Their brutality in this case will likely win many to our cause who would otherwise not have joined us."
The following protest, signed "A Lover of Right," was published in the _Witness_ of April 5th:
"SIR,--Would it not be feasible to have a public meeting in the matter of the gross miscarriage of justice in the case of the would-be murderer of Mr. W. W. Smith, of Sutton.
"Shameful as of late years the decisions of some juries and judges have been, never has a more shameful acquittal been known in this Canada of ours. One man gets six months for stealing an ash barrel, probably really ignorant that it was not anybody"s who chose to take it; another man "one month with hard labor,"
that man by his own confession a would-be murderer. But that such sentence should be allowed without public protest! Surely the soul of righteousness is dead in a people if it be so."
Now that the a.s.sault case was settled, in spite of its unsatisfactory termination, the temperance people found the expenses connected with it, which amounted altogether to more than $1,200, remaining for them to settle.
It was decided to ask the government at Quebec to a.s.sume these costs, or a share of them, and accordingly Mr. Carson, Secretary of the Provincial Alliance, wrote to the government requesting its help; but, no reply being received, arrangements were made for a delegation to wait upon the premier. This was done on April 24th, the Alliance representatives being Mr. R. C. Smith, Mr. S. J. Carter, Rev. J.
McKillican and Mr. J. H. Carson. The case was clearly stated, and the provincial government, of which all the members were present, was asked to bear a portion of the expenses. The delegation acknowledged that the proper course would have been to leave the matter in the hands of the attorney-general at first, yet, although this had not been done, as the temperance people, considering this affair of much more than individual interest, felt themselves morally bound to see that these expenses were paid, and not to leave all the burden upon the shoulders of Mr. Smith; and as, at a recent Provincial Alliance Convention, it had been decided that this was a matter which concerned the temperance people of the whole Province, the delegation asked in the name of the temperance people of Quebec that the government a.s.sume the expenses connected with the vindication of justice in this case.
Mr. Carter stated that, although he had no authority to say so, he thought if the government paid Mr. Carpenter"s bill, which amounted to about $800, the temperance people would consent to raise the remainder.
The attorney-general, Hon. Mr. Casgrain, said he thought this might be done, and without any further a.s.surances the Alliance representatives withdrew.
Later the government consented to pay $500 of the costs only, and the balance remained to be cancelled by the temperance public.
The a.s.sault case is now ended, and lies some time in the past, and in these hurrying times an event of a few seasons ago is usually soon gone out of thought and interest. Probably no such affair has ever happened in the Dominion, or at least in the Eastern townships, which has stirred the depths of so many hearts, and continued in interest for so long a time as this a.s.sault and the circ.u.mstances connected with it. And now shall we relegate these matters to a position among the dim memories of the almost forgotten past, and let them gradually slip away from our thoughts? Even in these times of changing and forgetting, there are events which, by a few, are not soon forgotten, and which leave a lasting influence for good or evil upon some hearts and lives. Shall it not be so in this case? Will not we long remember the dark plotting of Brome County"s lawless liquor sellers, the desperate attempts to carry out their evil plans and the partial success which attended their efforts, and shall not the memory bring fresh zeal and energy to every son and daughter of temperance in the land?
We find in this a.s.sault case a very marked example of some of the fruits of intemperance. We see here the evil thoughts, the loss of conscience, and the desperation that makes men shrink not from the darkest deed within their reach if by this they may further their own interests or gain revenge upon one who has opposed them. All these are the attendants and followers of strong drink in every clime.
From the history of these deeds of darkness in Brome County we may learn, also, the power possessed by the liquor party,--the dread influence that can prevail upon a great corporation to dismiss an employee who has previously been satisfactory, and that can frustrate the ends of justice, and obtain its will in a court of law.
From these facts let us take warning, and, with an increased knowledge of the terrible work of strong drink and the powerful influence of the party that supports it, a stronger sense of the great need of willing, earnest workers who will "battle for the right in the strength of the Lord," and a new realization of our own personal responsibility, let us work so faithfully for G.o.d and humanity against the powers of evil, that the grand result of these dark plots that were formed by outlawed liquor sellers in an illegal barroom shall be the adding of many fresh recruits to the ranks of those whom they wished to destroy.
And whenever we have an opportunity of defeating these enemies of good and taking from them some of their ill-used power, let us strive, lest the victory be theirs, to give a strong majority on the side of right.
In this way may the plans of Satan prove instruments in the hands of the Lord that shall work for his glory and the good of his creatures.