are many persons in every community who hold the employer
answerable for the public advocacy of the views of the persons in
his employment, even when disconnected with the business of the
employer. This ought not to be the case, but as undeniably it is
the case, it follows that the usefulness of an employee is with
certainty diminished, and perhaps destroyed, when he gives much
of his attention and some of his time to advocating his personal
views at public meetings, lectures, etc., upon either side of any
question upon which the public is divided in the way I have
before mentioned, and this, 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. 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 at public meetings and lectures without impairing his
usefulness to the Company. Taken by themselves, and without
regard to the circumstances, some of the expressions in Mr.
Brady's letters to Mr. Smith are capable of misinterpretation,
and, as I have stated to you on several occasions, do not meet
with the Company's approval, as they do not express correctly its
policy on the subject. There is no doubt, however, in our mind,
as I have already assured you, that throughout this unfortunate
affair Mr. Brady was only intent on protecting the Company's
interests by preventing unnecessary hostility, and at the outset
on saving Mr. Smith himself from trouble.

"I have already shown you correspondence from different persons
containing statements concerning Mr. Smith, which, if true,
indicate the impossibility of any person being able to give
thorough and efficient service to any railway company, whilst he
publicly advocates views on either side of any question such as I
have referred to, upon which the public is divided. But the
matters referred to in that correspondence are insignificant
compared with the taking in public an active part on either side
of such moot questions as I have referred to. The conclusion that
Mr. Smith's usefulness was gone, does not depend on the truth or
untruth of them; it was therefore not necessary or proper to
discuss them further with Mr. S