le, are allowed to go to what
church they think best, to take part in Christian Endeavor, or
football, or whatever they may prefer as the occupation of their
leisure. The fact remains that the Company has, through Mr.
Brady, announced its right to check a man, if it chooses, in the
exercise of his ordinary rights and duties as a citizen and as a
Christian, and has, by sanctioning Mr. Smith's dismissal for
temperance lecturing, formally approved Mr. Brady's attitude. The
Company may summon to its defence any other reasons for Mr.
Smith's dismissal that it chooses. It cannot alter the fact that
the reason given in Mr. Brady's letters is the one which was
given to him, and which was the real cause of his act. This claim
of a soulless Company to own its employees, body and soul, is one
of the most daring and intolerable enunciations of what is in the
language of our day termed wage slavery that we have seen, and
one for which the great public will probably call it to account.
The Canadian Pacific Railway is a national institution,
constructed at the public expense, and a ruling influence in the
land, and its attitude towards the liquor question and the rights
of employees is a matter of national interest, open to free
discussion in the newspapers and in the parliament, and if there
are citizens who, for the purpose of making it feel in its only
sensitive spot how it has outraged public sentiment and done a
public wrong, are willing to sink their private advantage and
convenience in the public good, by going out of their way to
patronize another road, we think it is nothing but right that the
railway should be plainly seized of all the facts."

The comments of another Canadian paper, the Toronto Star, are thus
quoted in _The Templar_:

"It is a most regrettable condition of affairs when a corporation
like the Canadian Pacific will dismiss an employee because he is
active in the cause of prohibition, yet that is the case of a Mr.
Smith, who lost his position as agent at Sutton Junction, Quebec,
because the liquor dealers whom he opposed had sufficient
influence to secure his dismissal.

"No charge of neglect of duty could be made against Mr. Smith,
and the only justification the Company offered was the plea that
the agent should give his whole time to