"That this executive having heard the agreement and the report of the committee thereon, is satisfied with the same, and congratulate the temperance people of Canada on the result."
It is often well for us to look at the bright side, and this was what the Alliance Committee determined on doing, and there surely were some encouraging features connected with this case.
Nevertheless, as there are generally two sides which may be seen in such an affair, there were many of "the temperance people of Canada" who did not consider this conclusion satisfactory, and exchanged no congratulations, and it may do us no harm now to look briefly at some of the disappointing features in this settlement.
First, it is said, "that the Company has entirely repudiated the offensive language used by Mr. Brady, and declares that it does not express the attitude of the Company towards the temperance cause." Now, Mr. Tait had taken precisely this same position in his letters to the Alliance Secretary, previous to the meeting with the committee, and even in the minutes of the meeting, as above given, it is said, "The Canadian Pacific Railway distinctly repudiate—as they have done from the commencement of the discussion—the expressions used by Assistant Superintendent Brady." In view of this it would seem that not much was gained by the meeting on this point.
Secondly, we are told that "the Company also admits the right of its employees to engage in temperance work." It certainly was encouraging that this great Company should try to appear pleasing to the Alliance, and seemed to show that the Canadian Pacific Railway considered the temperance party a powerful factor in the land, but when we come to consider the manner in which the admission mentioned above was made, we can but see that it has a very doubtful side. The sentence in which the Company makes this announcement is as follows:
"The Canadian Pacific Railway admit the right of employees to identify themselves with the temperance movement, and work for the same, provided such work is done outside official hours, always with due consideration to the interests of the Company."
As we are not told that Mr. Tait, at the meeting, repudiated any of his own former statements, we will look at the above in the light of the following, from his letter of December 6th, to Mr. Carson:
"As far as I am able to judge, no official of our Company, of whose duties one is to solicit and secure traffic for the Company, could take sides on any of these questions," referring to matters about which the public disagree, "at public meetings and lectures without impairing its usefulness to the Company.............. 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."
The admission made to the Alliance seems to be robbed of most of its virtue by the above statements, and it would seem that even yet the employees of the Company may have but little liberty of conscience.
It is also said in the aforementioned circular that, "as regards Mr. Brady, the Company acknowledges that cause for dissatisfaction has existed, and promises that action will be taken to remove this cause."