"I do not know the names of any one of these men, so I cannot be accused of malice in holding up their conduct to 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 att.i.tude 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 a.s.sistant Superintendent Brady"s correspondence has caused great dissatisfaction on the part of the temperance people of Canada."
"The committee 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 the _Witness_ says:
"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 the committee 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 a.s.surances 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 a.s.sistant Superintendent was really dealt with, is shown by 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 a.s.sistant 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 circ.u.mstances, 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, ""a.s.sistant General Manager.""
A few days previous to this Executive meeting the above letter was presented at a meeting of the general committee of 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 circ.u.mstances.
But, although all was not satisfactory, there were, as we have said, some causes for grat.i.tude 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 inst.i.tutions 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.
CHAPTER IX.
THE MARCH COURT.
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 a.s.sault 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.
When the 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 pet.i.t 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 of _The Templar_, "It seemed as if Mr.
Baker challenged all who were known to "take a gla.s.s," 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 the _Witness_:
"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 a.s.sa.s.sin to "do up" those against whom their indignation is aroused." Speaking of the combination of circ.u.mstances that led to the identification 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 a.s.sault on July 8th. The following is a part of the cross-examination as reported in the _Witness_:
""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 a.s.saulted you was Orin Wilson, a brother of Jas. Wilson?"
""I did not."
""Did you tell Jane Fay, at church, that you did not know who a.s.saulted 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 a.s.sailants to escape justice.
The next evidence given was that of Dr. McDonald, of Sutton, the physician who attended Mr. Smith after the a.s.sault. His testimony was given in the _Witness_, 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 following Monday morning, and again on Tuesday night. I then considered him sufficiently recovered to not require medical a.s.sistance 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 a.s.sault.
Charles C. Dyer, of the same place, also testified as to Kelly"s ident.i.ty. 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.