"With regard to the letter of Mr. Stewart, of the Dominion Express Company, I have this to say: This complaint, in the first place, was only made three weeks after Mr. Brady had requested me to tender my resignation, for the specific reason given in his letter, so that it could not have had any connection with the real cause of my dismissal.
"When I was assaulted on July 8th, I wired Mr. Stewart that I was unable to work, and asked him if I should give the combination of the inside door of the safe to the man in charge. I received no reply. Mr. Stewart knew perfectly well that I was sick in bed, and that it was his duty to send a man to change the combination, which he did not do, after being wired of my disability. Now Mr. Stewart, after paying not the slightest attention to the notice of my illness, censures me for not notifying him when I went to the United States to identify the man who assaulted me. Regarding my carrying off the revolver, this is true; but, as the Company demanded the whole of my time off duty, as well as on, and as I was expected to resume work any day, I do not see why I should not be regarded as their property, and as much entitled to protection as any other until I was dismissed.
"Mr. Selby's statements are also misleading. It was months after he entered my office before I allowed him to have the combination of the safe (outside door), and this was with the knowledge and consent of Route Agent Bowen, or he would never have had even the combination of the outer door. Mr. Bowen checked up my office with Mr. Selby two or three times, and was satisfied. Mr. Selby's statement that the inner door of the safe was not used from October, 1893, to June, 1894, is not true, and cannot be substantiated, as he was away from my office for weeks during that time.
"As to my changing work with Mr. O'Regan, I did, and such things are quite customary with agents and operators, as well as Assistant Superintendents; and this custom prevails at the present time all along the line. I may add that there was a distinct understanding between Mr. Brady and myself that I could drive out or walk out whenever I saw fit, without communicating with him.
"Some explanation ought to be made concerning the manner in which these complaints from Mr. Selby and Mr. O'Regan were secured by Mr. Brady, when it was found necessary to produce before Mr. Tait other evidence against me. I have seen both Mr. Selby and Mr. O'Regan in company with a witness I took with me, and questioned them as to how they came to make such charges. I found that Mr. Brady had taken the fast express from Farnham, which does not stop at Sutton Junction; it, however, slowed up enough to allow him to jump off. He walked to the station and remained nearly three hours endeavoring to obtain incriminating evidence against me. Mr. Selby informed me he did not think his letters would come to light, as Mr. Brady told him it would be personal, and he thought as I was dismissed from the Company's service, the statements would not hurt me, and it might help him to a situation at some future time. He said the statements were first drawn from him by adroit questioning, and he was then asked to put them in writing.
"When Mr. Brady arrived at Sutton Junction, the night operator, O'Regan, was asleep, but he did not hesitate to call him up, and deprive him of two or three hours' rest, notwithstanding the fact that on the first of July, when he refused to allow the night operator, Ireland, to work for me so as to permit of my going to Montreal to attend the National Prohibition Convention, the reason he gave was that night operators required their days to rest to insure efficient service during the night. But in this case he breaks up the rest of a night operator in order to secure this statement from O'Regan.
"Mr. Tait says I was asleep when assaulted. This I do not deny, but he knows his operators all sleep more or less during the night, when they understand the position of their trains. Every railway man knows this. But why are these matters brought before the public now? Why was I not allowed a hearing by the officers of the Company? If a collision occurs on the line, or other serious things occur, the parties concerned are given a chance to clear themselves. If men get drunk and damage the Company's property, they are given a hearing, and in many cases they resume work. But all this was denied me. There must have been a reason for this; it must be because Mr. Tait really understood the whole matter thoroughly, as he says in his letter, 'This correspondence' (referring to these later charges) 'is insignificant,' and especially as he has said to a Witness reporter, and published in the Witness of July 11th: 'I have no proof that Mr. Smith has violated the confidence of the Company.' No, my serious offence was, as Mr. Tait states, 'the taking in public an active part on either side of such moot questions as I have referred to.'
"Mr. Tait also stated that this rule applies to questions of politics. Now, if the same rule applied to temperance as applies to politics, I would still be in my position as agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Sutton Junction, for during the last general elections the Company would have allowed me to move heaven and earth, if possible, to elect their candidate, which we did through their wire pulling. I don't wonder people say the Canadian Pacific Railway runs the government, but they cannot run the Brome County Alliance or any of the other temperance organizations. I would like to ask Mr. Brady in connection with these charges, why he should add insult to injury by asserting that the temperance people could all 'go to h——l,' and he 'does not care a G—— d——' for them all, and why was I approached in an obscure way, and inducements made to me to resign my position as President of the Brome County Alliance, and give up lecturing on temperance, and retain my position as agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway? These are some facts that more clearly reveal the real cause for my dismissal, and the source from which opposition to me really came, namely, the liquor traffic, exerted through its emissaries.
"It should be borne in mind that every scrap of evidence against me, such as it is, has been trumped up, since my dismissal. Who before ever heard of a man being sentenced and executed and then the evidence of his guilt hunted up?
"W. W. Smith.
"Sutton, December 24th, 1894."