hat this Alliance will stand by Brome County
Alliance in any action it may take under the advice of our
solicitors to vindicate the reputation of Mr. Smith."

At this meeting also, a committee was appointed to whom the
correspondence in the hands of the secretary should be referred for
whatever action they might deem best.

On October 26th, a meeting of the Brome County Alliance was held at
which the dismissal was also considered. Some members of the
Provincial Alliance from Montreal were present at this meeting.

On December 22d, the following appeared among the _Witness_
editorials:

"The dismissal of Mr. W. W. Smith, the Canadian Pacific station
agent at Sutton Junction, for law and order work in a prohibition
county, and specifically for delivering a temperance lecture, is
still a live subject. The Dominion Alliance, as whose officer Mr.
Smith committed the offences for which he suffers, naturally
protested to the Company, and appealed to the public against this
assault on the liberties of their workers. The Company, we
understand, thinks it only fair that its reply to the Alliance's
protest should be published as widely as that protest was, and
this we think entirely reasonable, whatever may be said of the
merits of that reply, which does not seem to us to make the
matter any better. After being duly presented to a meeting of
the Alliance committee, and then referred to Mr. Smith, against
whom it raises new charges, it is now with the consent of all
parties published, and it will be forwarded to all the temperance
organizations for their information. It occupies a good deal of
room, but will be read with extreme interest as showing just how
a money corporation looks on the liberties of its servants."

The reply referred to in this article as being that made by the C. P.
R. to the letter of Mr. Carson, which we quoted above, is as follows:

"J. H. Carson, Esq.,
"Secretary Dominion Alliance, Montreal.

"DEAR SIR,--Your letter of November 9th reached me in due course.
I have been somewhat disinclined for several reasons to take part
in any further correspondence on the subject, but upon further
reflection I have decided to point out to you in writing, as I
have already, on two or three occasions, done verbally, that the
termination of Mr. Smith's engagement with this