s I know, none of the suggestions made were
followed.

"It is not, however, as I have said, necessary to go into these
details in order to support the conclusion that Mr. Smith's
usefulness as agent for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is
over. The Company is carrying on the business of a railway
company, and its objects do not extend beyond the promotion of
that business. Its success depends upon the favor and patronage
of the community at large, and if one of its officers or
employees so conducts himself as to antagonize a section of the
community, or even in a manner which is likely to bring about
that result, the Company's interests are injuriously affected,
and the Company will naturally do, what every business man would
do, namely, protect its interests by his removal.

"Yours truly, THOS. TAIT,
"Assistant General Manager.
"_Montreal, Dec. 6th, 1894._"

It will be noticed that in this letter Mr. Tait, referring to the acts
of officials, "who are every day insisting on the practice of
temperance," says: "But this is done in respect of matters which are
entirely within their jurisdiction as officers of the Company." The
implication plainly is that, while officers of the Canadian Pacific
Railway have a right to insist upon sobriety among the employees of
the Company, they have not a right to engage in any other form of
temperance work. That all Mr. Smith's work for the cause was within
his jurisdiction as an officer of the Alliance, and a free citizen is
not taken into consideration, and it appears that no employee of the
Canadian Pacific Railway is supposed to have a right to accept any
offices or perform any duties outside the Company's services.

Mr. Tait does not condemn the position taken by his Assistant
Superintendent, on the contrary he very plainly takes the same
position himself, and simply disapproves of some of Mr. Brady's
expressions. This reminds us of what is told of some parents who are
said to punish their children, not for evil doing but for getting
found out. If Mr. Brady had concealed the motive for his act so as to
prevent any complaints from the public, the Company, according to Mr.
Tait's letter, would have had no objection to the dismissal of an
employee simply for temperance activity.

To the above letter Mr. Carson made the following reply, which was
pu