"'And this Alliance is of the opinion that if the Canadian Pacific Railway management seriously desires to retain the sympathy and support of the best element in the community in building up their business as public carriers, they will, at the earliest possible moment, do full justice to their late agent, Mr. Smith.'" The following, also published in the _Witness_, is from a report of the meeting of a temperance society in one of the sister Provinces: "PRESCOTT, Ont., Dec. 5th.--The forty-fifth session of the Grand Division of the Sons of Temperance was held here to-day. The question of the discharge of Mr. W. W. Smith, of Sutton Junction, by the Canadian Pacific Railway, for his loyalty to the temperance cause, was brought up, the following report of a special committee on the subject being unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. W. W. Smith of Sutton Junction, President of the Brome County Alliance, in the Province of Quebec, whose attempted assassination for his fidelity to law and order is a public fact, has been summarily dismissed from his position as agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway, for the express reason of his advocacy of the cause of temperance, this Grand Division desires to express the view that this action of the Railway Company is a distinct violation of the rights of citizenship, and deserves strong condemnation as being tyrannical and unjust in the extreme, and is calculated, if not redressed, to destroy public spirit and inflict deep injury to the civil rights of the people." We will now look at some of the opinions of individuals, as expressed in letters sent by them to the temperance papers. The following communication was sent to the _Witness_ before the publication of Mr. Brady's letters. Doubtless, the writer of this article may, after reading those letters, have entertained some doubts as to the infallibility of the opinions here expressed, but they show, at least, how impossible it seemed to some citizens that such a corporation as the Canadian Pacific Railway could oppose temperance activity on the part of its employees. The letter, addressed to the Editor of the _Witness_, is as follows: