ific Railway
Company, scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the
nation cannot afford to allow the despotic authority claimed by
the Company over these men. If it can demand the entire time of
their men on or off duty, may it not next demand the service of
the men at the ballot box? An issue has been raised by this
incident which demands the vigorous protest of the press of the
country."

The opinion of the _Witness_ itself may be learned from the following
article in the _Daily Witness_ of November 24th, 1894:

"We have received a number of letters from persons who have
determined to give the preference of their railway patronage
against the Canadian Pacific Railway, as a testimony against the
attitude of that Company towards the temperance reform, as
manifested in the dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith from his position
as station agent at Sutton Junction, for his active advocacy of
temperance and enforcement of prohibitory law. Is it right for us
to publish these letters, which are evidently only the beginning
of what is yet to come, for the feeling throughout the country is
very bitter in many quarters where this challenge to the
advocates of law and order has become known? The question amounts
to this: Is it right for persons who condemn the course of the
Company to punish it in this way, and is it right for them to
make a public question of it by publishing their action? The
reason given for the dismissal of Mr. Smith, as shown by the
correspondence which was recently made public in these columns,
was that he was making things uncomfortable for certain customers
of the Company who were importing liquor into Brome County. As
Brome is a prohibition county, those who import liquor for sale
within its bounds are outlaws. In Mr. Smith's painful experience
they are also assassins. As a matter of fact, according to Mr.
Smith's statement, no shipments of liquor passed through his
station, and he did not use his position as agent of the Company
to bring the lawbreakers to justice. Why both the Company and its
agents should not be ranged on the side of the law of the land,
and why the Company should so protect its share in an unlawful
business against any promoter of law and order, are questions not
raised. Commercial corporations do not pretend t