blished in the same issue of the _Witness_:
"December 21st, 1894.
"T. Tait, Esq., Asst. General Manager, C. P. R.:
"DEAR SIR,--Your letter of December 6th has had the attention of
the Alliance Committee, which takes great pleasure in hearing of
the stand taken by your Company in various ways in behalf of
temperance, the wisdom of which will commend itself to all. When,
however, you say Mr. Smith was not dismissed for the reason
assigned in my letter to you, namely, his activity as a
temperance man, you deny what seems to be admitted in the whole
of the rest of your letter. This was, as the correspondence
shows, the only reason conveyed to Mr. Smith as the cause of his
dismissal. My letter did not allege, nor was it intended to
convey the impression, that the Company's action was due to its
objection to the principles held by Mr. Smith, but that it was
due to his activity in advocating those principles.
"You have at considerable length set forth that what the Company
objects to is, that an employee of the Company should actively
take sides on a question on which the community is divided, even
'although he do so only during the hours of the day when he is
not supposed to be in the active service of his employer,' and
you add that 'no official of our Company, one of whose duties is
to solicit and secure traffic for the Company, could take sides
on any of these questions at public meetings and lectures without
impairing his usefulness to the Company.' This is precisely the
position taken by Mr. Brady in his correspondence with Mr. Smith,
and it is against this position, to which the Company through you
pleads guilty, that we, in the name of the temperance people of
Canada, protest, implying as it does a condition of servitude to
the liquor interest on the part of a national institution
dependent upon the public patronage for support, which insults
all that is best in our public opinion, and insisting as it does
on a condition of ignoble slavery on the part of the employees of
the Company. You refer to the matter in which Mr. Smith was
regarded as over-active as a moot question.
"Whether men should be required to observe the law of the land,
or be punished for violating it, is, we submit, not a moot
q
|