This book demolishes

great atom spy hoax

HE is a tweedy, rather languid
man with a pudgy face and a
quiet voice. He speaks with a
good deal of passion and energy
piled up behind his words.

He is friendly and has just a
touch of unworldly simplicity in
his manner.

He is an American journalist,
and in the U.S. they have been
growing journalists for years who
honor this much-abused and fre-
quently debased profession.

His name is William J. Reu-
ben, and it should rank. with
Mark Twain, John Reid, Lincoln
Steffens and a very few more who
have told the truth when it was
more fashionable to tell lies.

That is where it will rank when

the histories come to be written.

Yay may never have heard of
Bill Reuben. Yet you know his
work.

He was the reporter who dug
‘deep into a murder case in New
Jersey in 1948 — a case in which
six Negroes had been jailed. They
came to be known as the Trenton
Six — six innocent men con-

demned to death .

/

They would have hanged for
sure had not Bill Reuben arous-
ed the conscience of millions and
saved their lives.

He was the reporter who be-
came interested in 1951 in what
appeared to be nothing but the
latest in a longish series of in-
dictments of alleged “Communist
spies” in the United States.

_ Some of these “spies” had been
jailed after pleading guilty under
highly dubious circumstances.
Some had been released when it
became clear that the govern-
ment had no case against them.

All, however, had provided
what was required: screaming

. headlines, week in, week out,

while the Korean war was sold to
the American public.

Most people in the U.S. accept-
ed that latest “spy” case as the
simplest, most straightforward of
the lot.’ & ever a couple of peo-
ple looked guilty ... -

Bill Reuben did what a good
reporter should do: he ferreted,
refused to take No, checked and
rechecked, Then he did what a
sreat reporter does if he can: he
published his conclusions though

“he knew that the whole weight of

the legal machine, the press, and

‘a stampeded public opinion would

-be thrown against them.

He announced that in the case
of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg,
charged with conspiring to hand
atomic secrets to a foreign pow-
er, there was something curious-
ly amiss. ,

He announced that the govern-
ment’s ¢ase against the Rosen-
bergs did not stand five minutes
serious examination.

Obeying his conscience and
nothing else, he had launched,
single-handed, the most extra-
ordinary, the most widespread
and dramatic campaign for truth
and mercy in history.

Thanks to Bill Reuben one can
be sure that the day will come

when the Rosenbergs will be

fully and officially vindicated.
5 <3 5° 3 bos .

When a man of this stamp
writes on such matters, we should
iook closely at what he says. For
three years Bill Reuben has been
writing a book. Now it is pub-
lished. 6

It is one of those scrupulously

documented, enormously pains-
taking works of research and de-
duction which the Americans do
particularly well. Reuben has
called it The Atom Spy Hoax (it
is available here at the People’s

‘Cooperative Bookstore, 337 West

Pender, price $4.15).- It is a
fascinating and very frightening
book. /

Fascinating because it takes
the reader through every one of

the atom spy cases of the cold —

war era.

It takes us through the evidence
in these cases — or rather the
astonishing lack of it—and shows
us how the U.S. government tried
desperately and repeatedly to do

. two things: to create the impres-

sion that the Soviet Union could
only make atom bombs by steal-
ing the “secret” of them from
the U.S.; and to make “Commun-
ist” equal “spy.”

It is frightening, because the
US. government did succeed in
persuading tens of millions of
people of these two propositions.

And they succeeded despite the
fact that the cases they brought
to court were gimcrack, manifest-
ly rigged affairs which any com-
petent defense counsel could teat
to shreds.

The cases were torn to shreds.
But this had no effect on. semi-
hysterical juries, bigoted judges,
packed Superior Courts: or venal
editors whose headlines were
written with a total disregard for
the facts of the cases they pur-
ported to deal with.

This is a picture of wellnigh an
entire nation bamboozled in the
interests of arms manufacturers
and corrupt politicians.
~ It was the groundwork of Ko-
rea, massive rearmament, peace-
time military training, the seiz-
ure of overseas bases, interfer-
ence in every corner of the globe
—all those things that the Am-
erican people have traditionally
hated and rejected.

% xt %

_ i met Bill Reuben in New York
in 1952. He was collecting mate-
rial for this book. He asked me
what I thought. I told him he
would never be able to make his
case—the evidence was too diff-
used, too well covered up. I
thought it was a job for the his-
torians.

But the journalist is an his-
torian. Bill Reuben saw the need
to tell the truth about these
things now. I was wrong. He
was right. It is one of the most
important books of our time.

-DEREK KARTUN

Doreen Odling as

deat ee ira tat

Elizabeth Proctor, Alan Walsh as the minister and R. C.

Bent

Harris as the deputy ©

governor are shown in a scene from Arthur Miller’s The Crucible with which University of B.C. Alumni
Players took top honors in the B.C. Regional Drama Festival last week.

UBC Alumni Players carry off
honors in B.C. Drama Festival

FS year’s B.C. Regional Drama
Festival was held in York
Theatre here last week. Although
quality varied from two out-
standing plays to one unsuccess-
ful and one slickly empty pro-
duction, in general a high level
of artistry prevailed.

The Calvert Tropny and $100
for the “best presentation” went
to the UBC Players” Club Alumni
for its fine production of Arthur
Miller’s The Crucible. The group
also received the best actress
award, for Joanne Walker’s pro-
jection of Mary Warren, and
three honorable mentions.

The New Westminster Vaga-
bonds took second place with an-
other superb choice — George
Tabori’s Flight into Egypt. The
Vagabonds won awards: for the
best actor, Frank Cooter; best
supporting player, Reg. Bris-
4owe; best director, Gertrude
Dennis; and for the best visual
production, as well as three hon-
erable mentions.

Craig's Wife by George Kelly,
Vancouver Little Theatre As-

sociation’s submission, was men-'

‘tioned four times and Holiday
Theatre’s Beauty and the Beast
by the English playwright Nich-

pst year Vancouver Na-
tural History Society called
on the Canadian Post Office
to help solve the mystery of
the nesting grounds of the al-
most extinct whooping crane
by issuing a new seven-cent
air mail stamp depicting the
rare bird.

PO acts on proposal

The society, supported by
similar organizations in Al-
berta and Saskatchewan, sug-
gested that the stamp would
help to interest the public in
efforts to protect the whoop-
ing crane and bring in more
information about its habits.

The Pacific Tribune support-
ed the society’s campaign, pro-
posing that the stamp should
be issued as part of the an-
nual wildlife series initiated
in 1953. ,

Now the Post Office’is to is-
sue the stamp. A five-cent
stamp showing two whooping
cranes in flight, inspired by
the rare photograph shown
here, will be one of two stamps
issued during national Wild-
life Week, April 4-11. The
other, a 4cent stamp, will de-
pict a muskox.

olas Stuart Gray, twice. Neither
received an award.

One of the most instructive
aspects of the festival was Andre
Van Gyseghem’s sensitive adjudi-
cation. If his observations are
taken to heart by local drama
circles we can expect more valu-
able — and fewer vapid — pro-
ductions.

In his: summary, Van Gyseg-
ham, British actor-producer, urg-
ed drama groups “to choose as
good a play as you can,” what-
ever the category. He observed
that Vancouver Little Theatre
put a big obstacle in its way
by choosing such a “repetitive”
and “stodgy” play as Craig's
Wife, while Beauty and the
Beast was an unsuccessful pro-
duction. This left two plays
which were “very good indeed.”

Yet, Van Gysegham continued,
the festival was distinguished

by few of the technical faults so

frequently encountered else-
where. He characterized it as
being smooth, competent, and
careful, with “lots of good talent
and some good direction.”

50d % rome

Given on opening night when.
the smallest audience was to be |
expected, The Crucible drew by .

far the largest turnout. Even
with extra seating, scores were
turned away.

The play enjoyed similar suc-
cess-in its original staging in
January, when .two additional
performances had to be added
to the four scheduled.

The festival performance, also
under Dorothy Davies’ direction,
was technically superior to the
original production, without any.
loss of its dedicated honesty and
vigor. :

Set in Salem, Massachusetts,
during the 1692 witch trials, the
play describes the inquisitors,
perjured witnesses and pro-
fiteers, and the inevitable popu-
lar upsurge against them. The
terror created by the theocratic
power led to its own defeat —
just as the McCarthyites, whose
methods differ. in no important
aspect, are sowing the seeds of
their defeat.

Van Gysegham felt the choice
of play was “extraordinarily
good” and accompanied his
praise with a penetrating an-

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — MARCH 25, 1955 — PAGE ®

alysis. He awarded them the toP
honors of the festival.
$e be it

The positive aspect of Beauty
and the Beast lay in its being the
first children’s play to appear 1?
the regional festival since its 1
ception in 1932. For this Holiday
Theatre and Joy Coghill, the
director, deserve praise.

Unfortunately, the productio®
was unsuccessful. It was cate
lessly staged, with characteriZ2
tions, magic spectacles, and the
dramatic flow inadequately °
led. ;
Van Gysegham’s chief objec
tiéns were that the group had
“played skittles with the text,
departing from it at will,
that it “underestimated thé
capacity of children in playiDé
down to them.”

Flight into Egypt was a most
agreeable surprise, both for the
honesty of the play itself and ité
excellent treatment. It was #
close second to The Crucible 9?
all counts, winning four well de
served awards.

The story is a vivid analysis of
the problems with which a f
of Jewish refugees from Vient
is beset in its efforts to reach the
promised land of their imagin®
tion — the USA. ;

The conflict resolves itself #
gloriously unselfish acts by
the wife and the ailing husband
and their realization that the ¢*
pected happiness in the Unite
States is a mirage.

As Van Gyseghem observev:
Flight into Egypt is a “
searing comment on our times
. . . at times almost poetical,
which lifts it out of the ordinatY
despite occasional over-writing-

The production revealed car
ful analysis of the play’s soci!
criticism and sensitive characte™
ization, and a thoroughly co™
scientious endeavor to rea
the author’s interitions. i

Van Gyseghem said it was ?
great pity” that Vancouver Little
Theatre chose Craig’s Wife
its entry.

A typical example of empty
Hollywood drama, it explait
why Vancouver Little Theatre:
although one of the oldest, is 1!
nearly the best local dramatic
group, and why it is avoided
the most serious creative ;

N. E. STORY